NOAA Fiddles With Climate Data To Erase The 15-Year Global Warming ‘Hiatus’

A blanket of northern snow and lake-effect snow from the Great Lakes and clouds behind an Arctic cold front are seen in an image from NOAA's GOES-East satellite taken January 7, 2015. REUTERS/NASA/NOAA GOES Project/Handout via Reuter. 
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration scientists have found a solution to the 15-year “pause” in global warming: They “adjusted” the hiatus in warming out of the temperature record.
New climate data by NOAA scientists doubles the warming trend since the late 1990s by adjusting pre-hiatus temperatures downward and inflating temperatures in more recent years.
“Newly corrected and updated global surface temperature data from NOAA’s [National Centers for Environmental Information] do not support the notion of a global warming ‘hiatus,'” wrote NOAA scientists in their study presenting newly adjusted climate data.
To increase the rate in warming, NOAA scientists put more weight on certain ocean buoy arrays, adjusted ship-based temperature readings upward, and slightly raised land-based temperatures as well. Scientists said adjusted ship-based temperature data “had the largest impact on trends for the 2000-2014 time period, accounting for 0.030°C of the 0.064°C trend difference.” They added that the “buoy offset correction contributed 0.014°C… to the difference, and the additional weight given to the buoys because of their greater accuracy contributed 0.012°C.”
NOAA says for the years 1998 to 2012, the “new analysis exhibits more than twice as much warming as the old analysis at the global scale,” at 0.086 degrees Celsius per decade compared to 0.039 degrees per decade.
“This is clearly attributable to the new [Sea Surface Temperature] analysis, which itself has much higher trends,” scientists noted in their study. “In contrast, trends in the new [land surface temperature] analysis are only slightly higher.”

Global surface temperature data shows a lack of statistically significant warming over the last 15 years — a development that has baffled climate scientists. Dozens of explanations have been offered to explain the hiatus in warming, but those theories may be rendered moot by NOAA’s new study.
NOAA’s study, however, notes the overall warming trend since 1880 has not been significantly changed. What’s increased is the warming trend in recent decades.
“Our new analysis now shows the trend over the period 1950-1999, a time widely agreed as having significant anthropogenic global warming, is 0.113 [degrees Celsius per decade], which is virtually indistinguishable with the trend over the period 2000-2014″ of 0.116 degrees per decade, according to the study.
The U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s “statement of two years ago — that the global surface temperature has shown a much smaller increasing linear trend over the past 15 years than over the past 30 to 60 years’ — is no longer valid,” the study claims.
But that’s not all NOAA did to increase the warming trend in recent decades. Climate expert Bob Tisdale and meteorologist Anthony Watts noted that to “manufacture warming during the hiatus, NOAA adjusted the pre-hiatus data downward.”
“If we subtract the [old] data from the [new] data… we can see that that is exactly what NOAA did,” Tisdale and Watts wrote on the science blog Watts Up With That.
“It’s the same story all over again; the adjustments go towards cooling the past and thus increasing the slope of temperature rise,” Tisdale and Watts added. “Their intent and methods are so obvious they’re laughable.”

NOAA’s updated data was also criticized by climate scientists with the libertarian Cato Institute. Scientists Richard Lindzen, Patrick Michaels and Chip Knappenberger argue the adjustments made by NOAA were “guaranteed to put a warming trend in recent data.”
Cato scientists also argued that NOAA’s new data is an outlier compared to other global temperature records, which overwhelmingly show a hiatus in warming.

It “would seem more logical to seriously question the [NOAA] result in light of the fact that, compared to those bulk temperatures, it is an outlier, showing a recent warming trend that is not in these other global records,” the three scientists wrote.
“Adjusting good data upwards to match bad data seems questionable, and the fact that the buoy network becomes increasingly dense in the last two decades means that this adjustment must put a warming trend in the data,” wrote Michaels, Knappenberger and Lindzen, who is a top climatologist from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Scientists and climate experts skeptical of man-made global warming have become increasingly critical of temperature adjustments made by government climate agencies like NASA and NOAA. Skeptics charge that agencies like NOAA have been tampering with past temperatures to make the warming trend look much more severe than is shown in the raw data.
“It is important to recognize that the central issue of human-caused climate change is not a question of whether it is warming or not, but rather a question of how much,” they wrote. “And to this relevant question, the answer has been, and remains, that the warming is taking place at a much slower rate than is being projected.”
Georgia Tech climate scientist Judith Curry also chimed in, arguing 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.”
“Nevertheless, the NOAA team finds a substantial increase in the ocean surface temperature anomaly trend since 1998,” she wrote. “This short paper in Science is not adequate to explain and explore the very large changes that have been made to the NOAA data set. The global surface temperature datasets are clearly a moving target. So while I’m sure this latest analysis from NOAA will be regarded as politically useful for the Obama administration, I don’t regard it as a particularly useful contribution to our scientific understanding of what is going on.”[source]

GLOBAL WARMING UPDATE: WINTER MAY BE COLDEST IN 1000 YEARS

BRITAIN’S winter is the coldest since 1683 and close to being the chilliest in nearly 1,000 years.

Latest figures reveal that the average temperature since December 1 has been a perishing -1C.

That makes it the second coldest since records began in 1659.

The chilliest on record was 1683/84, when the average was -1.17C and the River Thames froze over for two months.

But with January and February to come, experts believe we could suffer the most freezing cold winter in the last 1,000 years.

The Met Office’s Charlie Powell said: “It’s rare to have cold this prolonged, with temperatures falling incredibly low.

“Temperatures will be down again by Sunday, with nights below freezing and daytimes below average at 3C to 5C. Our outlook forecast to January 26 shows temperatures 2C or 3C below average, frost and ice likely and the highest chance of snow or sleet over the northern half of the UK.”

Although official weather records only go back to 1659, weather experts said the centuries from 1100 to 1500, dubbed the “Medieval warm period”, would not have produced winters as cold as today.

So 2011 could end up being the coldest winter of the last millennium.

Brian Gaze, of The Weather Outlook, said: “It’s very unusual to have a sub-zero month.” (source)

Only The Brainwashed Say Global Warming Is Settled Science or How Obama Forced Cap And Trade On A Beleagured Nation

Republican lawmakers, coming off a loss Friday in their attempt to block passage of a massive climate bill, have seized on a global warming memo they say was suppressed by the Obama administration.

The memo, drafted by two environmental economists, is highly critical of the science behind an Environmental Protection Agency memo that found carbon dioxide to be a greenhouse gas.

Sen. James M. Inhofe of Oklahoma, the ranking Republican on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, and Sen. John Barrasso, Wyoming Republican, said the memo shows that the EPA did not have accurate information when it completed its finding.

"Over the last few days, however, we have learned that a senior EPA official suppressed a detailed, rigorous account of the most up-to-date science of climate change," Mr. Inhofe and Mr. Barrasso wrote in a letter to EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson on Tuesday. "This account, written by two agency employees, raises serious questions about the process behind, and the substance of, the Agency's proposed finding that greenhouse gases endanger public health and welfare."

An EPA spokeswoman noted that the memo's author, Alan Carlin, is an economist, not a climate scientist, and denied the claims of suppression.

"Claims that this individual's opinions were not considered or studied are entirely false," EPA spokeswoman Adora Andy said Tuesday.

"The document he submitted was reviewed by his peers and agency scientists, and information from that report was submitted by his manager to those responsible for developing the proposed endangerment finding. In fact, some ideas from that document are included and addressed in the endangerment finding," Ms. Andy said.

The EPA found in its so-called "endangerment finding" determined that carbon dioxide is one of six gases that contribute to global warming. The move, spurred by a 2007 Supreme Court decision, was lauded by liberals and chastened broadly by conservative groups.

Mr. Carlin, according to his Web site, has worked for close to four decades as an economist at the EPA.

Mr. Carlin's boss, Al McGartland, director of the National Center for Environmental Economics, wrote in a series of e-mails between March 12 and March 17 that he would not forward the critique to the EPA office in charge of writing the final endangerment finding.

"I don't want you to spend any additional EPA time on climate change. No papers, no research etc., at least until we see what EPA is going to do with Climate," Mr. McGartland wrote in a May 17 e-mail.

The Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), a conservative think tank, pushed the memo and the e-mails this week and, on Tuesday, sent the EPA a formal request that it release the report.

"EPA sits on this report for over three months, and then only allows it to be made public on the author's personal Web site," CEI General Counsel Sam Kazman said. "The fact that we have to formally re-file it with the agency indicates how unreal this situation is."

Global warming skeptics publicizing the memo this week have said the Obama administration is guilty the same thing that it had accused the Bush White House of: placing ideology ahead of science.

But liberal watchdog groups have said the memo repeats false claims made by global warming skeptic Patrick Michaels and have noted that much of the report was drawn from blogs and reports that had not been peer-reviewed.

House lawmakers narrowly passed a contentious climate change bill Friday, after heavy lobbying from the Obama White House and Speaker Nancy Pelosi, California Democrat. The bill, which supporters say will help curb global warming, now moves to the Senate. [source]

When More Ice=Global Warming

What you're looking at is a comparison between satellite pictures of Antarctica and all of the ice that resides there (in grey). The top two pictures are from 1979, when we first started collecting satellite images of polar caps in this fashion.

Don't be surprised if the grey areas in the top two photos look exactly the same as the two in the bottom pics, which were taken in November of 2008. In fact, there is 4.4% greater ice now than there was 30 years ago. (source)

What?

But I thought that mankind and George Bush were melting the polar caps!!! I thought Al Gore told us that we were only a few years away from global catastrophe, involving sea levels rising to unsustainable levels, polar bears going extinct, and marine life being boiled alive thanks to the way US citizens use 25% of the world's resources!

The reasons we use one quarter of the world's resources are simple:
1) We pay for them
2) The nations which have them can't use them as well as the US, and need our money for them
3) Supporting the world's poor takes that much energy

Every paycheck we make in the US has a portion extracted in order to give to developing nations to the tune of 15 billion dollars a year. That isn't even including the money we pay to the UN (we are only 1/190th of the UN's total membership, yet we pay 1/4 of their monstrous budget), and all other multinational organizations who tell us that we are gluttons while holding out their hand for more dollars.

The reason we are using this much energy is because we work harder and longer than any other nation. We get up every day, on time, and show up for work; we don't take siestas, or repeated days off without explanation; when we loose one job, we take on two until we find the one that pays the same; we don't sit on our asses, complaining that the rice field is flooded, therefore we can't do anything else.

To hear the Al Gore's of the world tell it, we Americans are all joyriding every day in Jalopys which get about 4 miles to the gallon. In Al's eyes, conditioned to seeing life through the prism of his Watergate Hotel in his formative years, gasoline consumption means only one thing: cruising in limosines, yachts, or jets.

He's never driven an old work van every day for a living. He's never been a small businessman who can't afford to just run out and buy a brand new vehicle. For Al, getting behind the wheel is an an impulsive act of exuberance, excess, and greed. He thinks he's latched onto "an inconvenient truth" simply because that's the way he was raised.

As the data pours in, finding that the natural cycle of global warming is ebbing, we see that even the US Senate Committee On Environment And Public Works has grown a spine, and is publishing undeniable facts that refute the main thesis of Al Gore and his rabble. The latest report dealing with AGW (anthropogenic [human-caused] global-warming), is here.

What the rabid Gore crowd like to do, I've noticed, is to try to shut down the conversation by ad-hominem attacks, ranging from "you're just too stupid to understand science", to "you're just too greedy to admit the truth because you're accepting money from the polluters".

That's great. They remind me of my 4 yr-old niece when you tell her that she can't have something: "You just hate me."

"The amount of scientists we have who agree on AGW is incontrovertable", they have been telling us, lately. Unfortunately for Al Gore and his kool-aid drinkers, only 52 scientists signed their names to the highly-respected United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and former Vice President Al Gore.

52?

And we're all just supposed to follow this lemming called Gore over...52 scientists?

Twelve times that number of scientists came forward to sign the report from the Senate (linked a few lines above), all ready to sign their names as dissenters of Al Gore's team of scientists who claim AGW. Here are just a few comments from the report:

•“I am a skeptic.... Global warming has become a new religion.” — Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever. •“Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp.... Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact.” — Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch UN IPCC committee.

•“The quantity of CO2 we produce is insignificant in terms of the natural circulation between air, water and soil.... I am doing a detailed assessment of the UN IPCC reports and the Summaries for Policy Makers, identifying the way in which the Summaries have distorted the science.” — South African Nuclear Physicist and Chemical Engineer Dr. Philip Lloyd, a UN IPCC co-coordinating lead author who has authored over 150 refereed publications.

•“Many [scientists] are now searching for a way to back out quietly (from promoting warming fears), without having their professional careers ruined.” — Atmospheric physicist James A. Peden, formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh.

•“All those urging action to curb global warming need to take off the blinkers and give some thought to what we should do if we are facing global cooling instead.” — Geophysicist Dr. Phil Chapman, an astronautical engineer and former NASA astronaut, served as staff physicist at MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology).

•“Creating an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide is a dangerous nonsense.... The present alarm on climate change is an instrument of social control, a pretext for major businesses and political battle. It became an ideology, which is concerning.” — Environmental Scientist Professor Delgado Domingos of Portugal, the founder of the Numerical Weather Forecast group, has more than 150 published articles.

•“Earth has cooled since 1998 in defiance of the predictions by the UN-IPCC.... The global temperature for 2007 was the coldest in a decade and the coldest of the millennium ... which is why ‘global warming’ is now called ‘climate change.’” — Climatologist Dr. Richard Keen of the Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences at the University of Colorado.

•“I have yet to see credible proof of carbon dioxide driving climate change, yet alone man-made CO2 driving it. The atmospheric hot-spot is missing and the ice core data refute this. When will we collectively awake from this deceptive delusion?” — Dr. G LeBlanc Smith, a retired Principal Research Scientist with Australia’s CSIRO.•“Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly.... As a scientist I remain skeptical.... The main basis of the claim that man’s release of greenhouse gases is the cause of the warming is based almost entirely upon climate models. We all know the frailty of models concerning the air-surface system.” — Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology, and formerly of NASA, who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.”

•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.

•“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.

Besides these international scientists, more than 31,000 American scientists have signed onto the Global Warming Petition Project, a petition that urges “the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.”