Klimasvindlen udstillet!

The report claimed that the 'pause' or 'slowdown' in global warming in the period since 1998 – revealed by UN scientists in 2013 – never existed, and that world temperatures had been rising faster than scientists expected. Launched by NOAA with a public relations fanfare, it was splashed across the world's media, and cited repeatedly by politicians and policy makers.

However, the Pausebuster paper said while the rate of global warming from 1950 to 1999 was 0.113C per decade, the rate from 2000 to 2014 was actually higher, at 0.116C per decade. The IPCC's claim about the pause, it concluded, 'was no longer valid'.

Klima-sagen har overlevet de mest ufattelige skandaler indtil videre, så selv om dette ser slemt ud for dem, mon ikke de på en eller anden måde kan gå på vandet forbi dette som tidligere ?

Emeritussen skrev:
Daily Mail udstiller i dag hvordan de videnskabeligt uredelige skræmmeprofeter lykkedes med at påvirke verdens ledere før topmødet i Paris i slutningen af 2015.
Kilde

Roy Spencer
(oversat)
Som andre har påpeget, så vær opmærksom på at folk som ham (og mig) har en tendens til først at tale ud efter fratrædelse/pension fra statens tjeneste. Ellers er det karriere selvmord.

Emeritussen skrev:
John, det er ikke sikkert at det er Jakobs engelskkundskaber der gør ham blank, men nok nærmere hans religiøse tilgang til hans fanatisme.
Sad But True.
SUK!

kfl skrev:
Så vidt jeg kan se er der brugt følgende kilde til denne post:

Exposed: How world leaders were duped into investing billions over manipulated global warming data

The report claimed that the 'pause' or 'slowdown' in global warming in the period since 1998 – revealed by UN scientists in 2013 – never existed, and that world temperatures had been rising faster than scientists expected. Launched by NOAA with a public relations fanfare, it was splashed across the world's media, and cited repeatedly by politicians and policy makers.

However, the Pausebuster paper said while the rate of global warming from 1950 to 1999 was 0.113C per decade, the rate from 2000 to 2014 was actually higher, at 0.116C per decade. The IPCC's claim about the pause, it concluded, 'was no longer valid'.

Frank skriver:

Klima-sagen har overlevet de mest ufattelige skandaler indtil videre, så selv om dette ser slemt ud for dem, mon ikke de på en eller anden måde kan gå på vandet forbi dette som tidligere ?

Hvad er det der ser slemt ud ?

NOAA's 2015 'Pausebuster' paper was based on two new temperature sets of data – one containing measurements of temperatures at the planet's surface on land, the other at the surface of the seas.

Both datasets were flawed. This newspaper has learnt that 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 revised data will show both 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'.

The paper relied on a preliminary, 'alpha' version of the data which was never approved or verified.

A final, approved version has still not been issued. 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 greatest changes in the new NOAA surface temperature analysis is to the ocean temperatures since 1998. This 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.

In my opinion, the gold standard dataset for global ocean surface temperatures is the UK dataset, HadSST3. A review of the uncertainties is given in this paper by John Kennedy http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadsst3/uncertainty.html. Note, the UK group has dealt with the same issues raised by the NOAA team. I personally see no reason to the use the NOAA ERSST dataset, I do not see any evidence that the NOAA group has done anywhere near as careful a job as the UK group in processing the ocean temperatures.

I am also unconvinced by NOAA's gap filling in the Arctic, and in my opinion this introduces substantial error into their analysis. I addressed the issue of gap filling in the Arctic in this recent publication: Curry JA, 2014: Climate science: Uncertain temperature trends. Nature Geoscience, 7, 83-84.

My bottom line assessment is this. I think that uncertainties in global surface temperature anomalies is substantially understated. The surface temperature data sets that I have confidence in are the UK group and also Berkeley Earth. 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

Last week, a paper out of NOAA concluded that contrary to the popular myth, there's been no pause in global warming. The study made headlines across the world, including widely-read Guardian stories by John Abraham and Karl Mathiesen. In fact, there may have been information overload associated with the paper, but the key points are relatively straightforward and important.

In an article on the Climate Etc. blog, John Bates, who retired last year as principal scientist of the National Climatic Data Center, accused the lead author of the 2015 NOAA "pausebuster" report of trying to "discredit" the hiatus through "flagrant manipulation of scientific integrity guidelines and scientific publication standards."

Verbiage used by David Rose is not the key issue here. The issue is the substantial adjustment of the buoy temperatures to match the erroneous ship values, and neglect of data from the Argo buoys.

"The issue here is not an issue of tampering with data," Bates said. [...] [There has been] "no data tampering, no data changing, nothing malicious" involved with his colleagues' study. "It's not trumped up data in any way shape or form," he said.

Rather, Bates claimed Karl and his group hadn't followed NOAA protocol in "the way data was handled, documented and stored, raising issues of transparency and availability," the AP reported, adding that Bates thought the study was rushed "to influence the December 2015 climate treaty negotiations in Paris."

In the following sections, I provide the details of how Mr. Karl failed to disclose critical information to NOAA, Science Magazine, and Chairman Smith regarding the datasets used in K15. I have extensive documentation that provides independent verification of the story below. I also provide my suggestions for how we might keep such a flagrant manipulation of scientific integrity guidelines and scientific publication standards from happening in the future. Finally, I provide some links to examples of what well documented CDRs look like that readers might contrast and compare with what Mr. Karl has provided...

Så hvad gør han under en inquiry ? ?

det er desværre heller ikke overraskende, at Judith Curry gladeligt ofrer flere af de ret få tilbageværende rester af sin troværdighed på at vedblive med at forsøge at insinuere et eller andet med fusk, som Bates ellers selv tager afstand fra.

The issue here is not an issue of tampering with data, but rather really of timing of a release of a paper that had not properly disclosed everything it was

Og der er nu efterfølgende talrige andre studier og datasæt, der i lighed med Karl. st al. alle viser, at der ikke har været noget statistisk tegn på en pause i opvarmningen siden 1998, så alene af den grund er der meget lidt, der tyder på, at der er noget som helst at komme efter, hvad det rent videnskabelige angår.

Det forstår jeg ikke noget af. Curry lægger spalter til whistleblower Bates' Kritik af NOAA. Hvor insinuerer Curry noget med fusk, som Bates "ellers selv tager afstand fra"?

Det har noget med de valg forskerne tog i udvælgelsen af data og dokumentation af deres arbejde i en tid, hvor det har alverdens politikeres allerhøjeste bevågenhed. Det er selvfølgelig slemt nok, hvorfor Bates selvfølgelig skal have stor tak for, at han valgte at fortælle om det.
[...]
I øvrigt er det da et dødsygt forsvar for Karl, at fordi andre datasæt ligner Karls, så er der nok ikke noget at komme efter i Karls brug af data. Det er et forsvar som har - no offense - lighedspunkter med Franks "stiching"-angreb på GISS.

Kosmos skrev:
Her er, hvad Bates bla. skrev:

In the following sections, I provide the details of how Mr. Karl failed to disclose critical information to NOAA, Science Magazine, and Chairman Smith regarding the datasets used in K15. I have extensive documentation that provides independent verification of the story below. I also provide my suggestions for how we might keep such a flagrant manipulation of scientific integrity guidelines and scientific publication standards from happening in the future. Finally, I provide some links to examples of what well documented CDRs look like that readers might contrast and compare with what Mr. Karl has provided...

- skal vi lige ta' det igen?: "...how we might keep such a flagrant manipulation of scientific integrity guidelines and scientific publication standards from happening in the future"
- ret klar sprogbrug, ikk' oss'?

Formentligt noget stor 'klump' at få ind under gulvtæppet, selv for CBH et al.!?

Men nej: Hvis ikke Bates har endnu uoptrukne kaniner i sin hat, så er dette her et ganske lille og ret betydningsløst bump af en størrelse, der godt kan få lov at ligge ret ubemærket på gulvet, og som allerede er på vej i sin mor igen.

Temperaturstigning iflg. satellitmålinger: UAH og RSS gennemn. 0,30C
Stigning iflg. landbaserede målinger:HadCRUT4 og GISS 0,70C

Det havde nok umiddelbart været lidt nemmere at finde en mand som John J Bates troværdig og respekt værdig, hvis han enten havde løst problemet internt i firmaet eller havde blæst i fløjten, da han fik kendskab til, at dårligt verificeret materiale ville blive udgivet

...I finally decided to document what I had found using the climate data record maturity matrix approach. I did this and sent my concerns to the NCEI Science Council in early February 2016 and asked to be added to the agenda of an upcoming meeting. I was asked to turn my concerns into a more general presentation on requirements for publishing and archiving. Some on the Science Council, particularly the younger scientists, indicated they had not known of the Science requirement to archive data and were not aware of the open data movement. They promised to begin an archive request for the K15 datasets that were not archived; however I have not been able to confirm they have been archived. I later learned that the computer used to process the software had suffered a complete failure, leading to a tongue-in-cheek joke by some who had worked on it that the failure was deliberate to ensure the result could never be replicated

The Science paper [Karl et al.s "pause-buster-artikel", CBH] would have been fine had it simply had a disclaimer at the bottom saying that it was citing research, not operational, data for its land-surface temperatures, Bates says.

But Mike Tanner, director of NOAA's Center for Weather and Climate at NCEI, says there's no NOAA policy that requires such a disclosure. "There's nothing. That doesn't exist," he says.

"I later learned that the computer used to process the software had suffered a complete failure, leading to a tongue-in-cheek joke by some who had worked on it that the failure was deliberate to ensure the result could never be replicated"