Slowdown in Global Warming is Apparently a Mirage (only after you "fix" the data)

Liescience via Yahoo ^ | 1/15/14 | Ilissa Ocko

[qam1]

While the planet's surface temperatures over the past century have risen to unprecedented levels, records have shown a slowdown in the pace of warming over the past 15 years.

Scientists have proposed several theories of natural climate variability and heat redistribution that may have contributed to the slowdown to varying degrees. A new study, however, suggests that the slowdown itself may be a mirage — the result of temperature records that have considerably underestimated the pace of warming since 1997.

The global coverage of temperature measurements is incomplete, and that can cause biases in temperature records — research datasets deal with those data gaps differently.

Kevin Cowtan of the University of York and Robert Way of the University of Ottawa have developed a new method for reconstructing temperatures in poorly sampled regions, such as over the poles and parts of Africa. The researchers validated their technique by applying it in regions with sufficient data coverage, and received significantly better results than previous algorithms for extracting temperature data from research observations.

Accounting for data that was omitted in the standard HadCrut4 surface temperature dataset — one of the most prominent temperature datasets — the scientists found that the recent warming trend is two and a half times greater than what the original data suggests.....

[qam1]

It's funny they call us deniers, when it has been the skeptics that have pointed out for years that the temps have paused and they have been denying it

1st it was "It's weather not Climate", that stopped working

2nd came Global Warming is hiding in the deep ocean. That didn't work and is just plain silly (Heat doesn't sink dummies)

3rd, so now they just adjust the data to show warming again

[a fool in paradise]

Is this “after” they fixed their erroneous hockey stick?

[Izzy Dunne]

But...but...but... I thought the science was “settled” ...

[onedoug]

...and plug in at least 30 random and changing variables. Not a good way to do mathematics.

I’d consider a witch doctor’s take first.

[Izzy Dunne]

Inserting previously omitted Arctic data into the HadCrut4 dataset yielded a considerable increase in the global surface temperature trend.

I deal in scientific data measurement all the time, although on a local scale. If I took verified measured data, and then added some guestimated data which changed the character of the overall picture, I'd be strung up by the thumbs.

If my thermometers read 80, 82, and 85 degrees, I would be foolish to insert a 90-degree reading into the mix based on a hunch that "it's always warmer in there".

But, then, I don't work for the alarmist industry.

[SampleMan]

The global coverage of temperature measurements is incomplete, and that can cause biases in temperature...

But that doesn't affect the recorded data that they are relying on in any way.

[CitizenUSA]

Well then, I guess we’re all doomed...

The left should embrace global warming. They’re always talking about jobs. Forced to relocate a billion people from the coasts further inland? Just think of all the jobs!

[Sacajaweau]

It is absolutely impossible to compute the temperature of the earth using historical data and projecting future temperatures based on inferred results, from inferred data in an inferred time period.

The idea that man can do it shows the arrogance of man.

[boop]

"developed a new method for reconstructing temperatures in poorly sampled regions, such as over the poles and parts of Africa."

What the? If these areas weren't counted in the first place, adding them later would, yeah, skew the data.

[qam1]

And the sad part is the HadCrut4 dataset is basically the HadCrut3 dataset that was adjusted by the Climategate people to “hide the decline”.

They made the HadCrut4 dataset in 2012 the same way, by adding warmer Artic Temperature guessitmates.

So these guys just added even more & more guessitmates on top of the Climatgaters.

It’s funny how they always add the Arctic where they claim it is warming, but never add the Antarctic which is cooling.

[PATRIOT1876]

So the “Climate Change Experts” got out their crayons and scribbled all over Science as a toddler would do to the living room wall in order to make their hideous fantasy world seem true....

[PATRIOT1876]

*But...but...but... I thought the science was “settled” ...*

It is!

According to Algore and the 1200 “scientists” at the UN who made up a rather unconvincing study about 10 years ago.
Man-bear-pig and the rest of the Socialist Warmists tell you to ignore the founder of the Weather Channel and 31,000 Scientists that say man-made global warming is a scam. Those 31,000 Scientists are “fringe lunatics”. The Grant money taking Socialist and Carbon Credit Profiteers are the ones to listen too. Trust the politicians, they NEVER lie....

[DManA]

Risen to UNPRECIDENTED levels = laughable lie.

[justa-hairyape]

They got better results ? How do you know that when you do not know if the planet was warming, staying stationary or cooling ?

[Moltke]

While the planet's surface temperatures over the past century have risen to unprecedented levels

Any article that starts out with an obvious falsehood can be summarily rejected in whole.

[RossA]

Note that they give no absolute numbers; they just claim 2.5 times increase. Since the measured rise in global temperature over the last 17 years is essentially 0, well, their 2.5 times adjustment is still 0.

[NewHampshireDuo]

I sure don’t see any depression of shore property values. You’d think you’d be able to purchase coastal property for a pittance given that it’s going to be underwater in the near future.

[jpsb]

Satellite data is the only non biased, hard data that covers the entire globe. Sadly satellites just do what they are told to do; report temperatures without “hiding the decline”. Satellite data show less warming then the “adjusted” ground station data. Get back to me when this “model” matches satellite data.

[USFRIENDINVICTORIA]

I completely agree with almost everything you wrote. One small correction -- sometimes warmer water does sink. Water is a unique molecule. Its density increases as temperature decreases (like other liquids); until it gets down to 4*C, when density starts to decrease, as temperature decreases further (unlike all other liquids). That's why ice floats, and it's why deep lakes don't freeze to the bottom.

If the surface water in a deep lake is (say) 1*C, and you add heat, the warmer water will circulate toward the bottom (where the water will be at 4*C. This keeps up, until temperatures get above 4*C. At warmer temperatures, the top layer of the lake warms up, while the bottom stays at 4*C for a lot longer. (Every swimmer knows this.)

I'm not saying there's anything to the notion that the oceans have been hiding all the heat. We were told these models were perfect -- why are we only now discovering that they didn't take the oceans into account properly?

[mesoman7]

“the result of temperature records that have considerably underestimated the pace of warming since 1997”

OK, I get it now. If the numbers support your “theory”...GOOD DATA. If they don't...BAD DATA.

A pathetic bunch of losers. They are an embarassment to my field.