A SUNDAY MORNING BOMBSHELL
UPDATE: “Being retired sure is liberating.” – John Bates. Read: https://judithcurry.com/2017/02/04/climate-scientists-versus-climate-data/#more-22794
According to a just published article by the Online Mail of the UK here, a “high-level whistleblower” has disclosed that America’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) “breached its own rules on scientific integrity” and “duped” world leaders with manipulated global warming data.
The result of the manipulated data was to exaggerate the computed global warming. The aim was to make “the maximum possible impact on world leaders including Barack Obama and David Cameron at the UN climate conference in Paris in 2015,” the Sunday Online Mail writes.
Manipulated data and the breaching of scientific rule have long been an accusation made against the NOAA in the climate science community, especially in the wake of the 2009 leaked Climategate e-mails, which showed scientists colluding to manipulate climate data and to unethically suppress scientific dissent. The ensuing whitewash was equally controversial.
The latest revelation, according to Online Mail, comes from “impeccable” NOAA scientist Dr. John Bates, who has shown “irrefutable evidence” that an NOAA paper showing accelerating global warming was rushed to be published just before the Paris Conference in 2015, and was “based on misleading, ‘unverified’ data“. The paper became to be known as the “Pausebuster” and was central in spurring the 2015 Paris Treaty.
Central African data made up entirely
On another matter, the NOAA has just come under massive fire as climate science skeptic Tony Heller presented at his realclimatescience blog strong evidence that the government agency manipulated December 2016 data in order to make it “red hot” in Central Africa, “with record heat“. However, the problem is that there are no measurement stations whatsoever located in the vast region, and so the NOAA simply made up and filled in the hot data.
Heller notes that full-surface temperature measurement by satellites in fact show that “the NOAA’s record hot regions in Africa were actually close to normal“.
Figure above: The heated data that the NOAA reported to the public.
NOAA data actually recorded by thermometer (Source of above charts: realclimatescience.com.
Heller, a prolific critic of climate science, commented that the NOAA “reported” map (first chart) above “is fake” and that the “NOAA has almost no temperature data from Africa, and none from central Africa. They simply made up the record temperatures.”
Concerning the just challenged NOAA’s 2015 ‘Pausebuster’ paper, the Online Mail writes that it is based on “two new temperature sets of data“, both of which were “flawed.” The Online Mail adds that the paper used “unreliable methods which overstated the speed of warming” and that “revised data will show both lower temperatures and a slower rate in the recent warming trend“.
What is worse about the paper is that the data used to produce its results weren’t archived and made available, which violated NOAA rules and proper scientific methodology. The Online Mails adds:
Before he retired last year, he continued to raise the issue internally. Then came the final bombshell. Dr Bates said: ‘I learned that the computer used to process the software had suffered a complete failure.’ The reason for the failure is unknown, but it means the Pausebuster paper can never be replicated or verified by other scientists.“
Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk/.
PS: Comments denying the scandal without substantiation will be promptly deleted.
118 responses to “Heat’s On At NOAA As “High Level Whistle Blower” Exposes Data Fraud, “Scientific Integrity Breaches”!”
Avery convenient computer failure. An amazing coincidence in fact.
Yeah, I thought the very same. Fake the data and cover the trail. Fire the NOAA directors! Drain. The. Swamp!
Its very odd. I know when we are working on an important research project, the code, the data and any major step are all back to external drives and onto off-site storage.
Original data is kept on a read only raid server as well as on dvd’s help in at a couple of different location.
There is absolutely NO EXCUSE for someone who is meant to be a scientist to have everything on one computer and absolutely no backup.
Didn’t any of the other writer of the paper have backup copies of the software, data or anything.
Or maybe they never even looked at the software or data and just put their names on the paper to make it look important.?
Something very stinky fishy !!
Exact same modus operandi used by Michael Mann with his MBH98 hockey stick paper. Steve McIntyre can tell you all about it.
Without observational records, without data and without validated methods of processing the data, THERE IS NO SCIENCE. All that is left is belief without foundation.
What have the reviews of the ‘pausebuster’ paper to say on the matter. They as much as is shameful government agency must be called to account.
NOAA’s bullsh#t come out sticking of rotten fish.
Every pathetic Accounts System must have its programs (current and past versions) and data backed-up to external drives and onto off-site storage (at least 6 miles away).
Otherwise, you go out of business.
I guess these bozos have never heard of Dropbox, One Drive, Google Drive, Turtle SPV etc etc
Did they think they were working with a children’s homework or something.????
Zeke Hausfather has a paper confirming the NOAA result by comparison without combining the data:
Getting warmer, but not as much as claimed in 2015 paper.
“Getting warmer, but not as much as claimed in 2015 paper.”
yes, but this is a direct effect of the method of his approach. The 2015 paper gets the bigger effect by combining different datasets. The different datasets do not give the exactly same effect, because part of the warming shown comes from a combination of the sets.
SOD: Just answer one question. Is the K15 paper reproducible?
From Jonathan Jones to Richard Betts:
Without the original data and methods to verify and validate all papers that cite, or purport to confirm the original paper are suspect (that includes Zeke Hausfather’s), as the original paper can no longer be part of a scientific body of work.
Without verifiable data and validated methodology the paper is without meaning scientifically — it is just a story, a fiction.
If the data showed the pause never existed without using the data in question here, why wasn’t a paper written long before this one? The fact they used a 90% threshold instead of 95% (normal benchmark) suggests they tried to ramp up the narrative. How many field goals would be good if you widen the goal posts a couple of meters? This is trash science. Let’s hope many more of the honest government scientists come forward. Time to clean the top off the agencies. I really hope that FOIA implicates the Obama-Holdren-connections to what has happened. I eagerly await comments by McIn, McK, Curry, Pielk and other respected scientists. The feign measurement to 0.01 and 0.001C and then use a 90% threshold is outlandish.
Can you answer this Sod?
““So we move from ERSSTV2 to ERSSTV3 in 2009 and they adjusted the SST trend up by 0.3C. In V3 to V3b in 2012, adjustments of another 0.1C, The ERSSTV3b to ERSSTV4 in 2015 another +0.12C. That is 0.52C all together over just 6 years. And we don’t even really know what happened to the data in 2016 because noone knows where it comes from (some ships, ICOADs, where is the raw data).
How come none of that ever shows up in your charts Nick?”
Gotta remember, Zeke is in the forefront of the AGW scam.
Take anything he says or calculates with a grain of salt.
He is clever as data corruption.
[…] NoTricksZone: Heat’s On At NOAA As “High Level Whistle Blower” Exposes Data Fraud, “Scientific Integrity B… […]
Isn’t the NOAA data of the stations freely available on the internet? There are a few station in the region of Africa that is indicated in the images.
P.S.: Why would a serious whistleblower report a scandal like this to Daily Mail?
“Why would a serious whistleblower report a scandal like this to Daily Mail?”
Where did Edward Snowden blow his whistle? Yeah, I know, he’s not a hero to the left anymore, so you may have purposely forgot his name.
I don’t know … to boulevard magazines? As much as i hate discrediting a story because of its source, but there are certain newspapers (and their online outlets) that have always trafficed in imaginary stories.
But let’s assume NOAA is faking it’s temperature measurements and so does everyone else on this planet. Don’t you think the then fake warming trend would be fairly obvious if someone on this planet would measure the actual temperatures? Do you trust satellites?
Why was +0.2 C of artificial warmth added to the 1998-2016 trend, SebastianH?
It’s warmed by about 0.3 or 0.4 C since 1979 according to satellites, with nearly all that warmth accumulating with the step-change from the early- to late-’90s, as shown here:
The 2015-’16 warmth was caused by a Super El Nino, with 2016 in a statistical tie with 1998 as the warmest year in the satellite record.
Why does nobody talk about the warming trend between 2008 and 2011? 0.6 C in just 3 years? http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/mean:1/from:2008/to:2011/plot/rss/from:2008/to:2011/trend
This (http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/mean:12) doesn’t look like no warming since 1998 …
Why does nobody talk about the -0.6 C cooling trend within the last year? What caused that cooling, SebastianH? CO2?
I’ll ask again, since you’ve ignored it (again): Why was +0.2 C of artificial warmth added to the 1998-2016 trend, SebastianH? Why not actually answer the question this time?
Try not to show your idiocy too much seb.
cherry picking a low an a high point is moronic stupidity, even for you.
The full effect of the 1998 El Nino (NOT linked by CO₂ in any way)ended at the start of 2001.
With this KNOWLEDGE (sorry seb, beyond your ken)you can calculate the trend between EL Ninos.
This is the really funny one. 🙂
Trends since the end of then 1998 El Nino to start of 2015 El Nino
“I don’t know”.
As well-informed as ever.
The ‘Pausebuster’ paper did not use ordinary temperature data but a ‘special’ dataset. See the Online Mail for more info.
Gotta remember, seb is a troll, NOT a scientist of any sort.
He has zero comprehension of the scientific method.
He would not comprehend what “not reproducible” means respect to the scientific method.
i suspect you know this posting by a fellow skeptic of yours: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/04/skeptical-arguments-that-dont-hold-water/
Got that paper yet, Seb
You know, the one that proves that CO₂ causes warming in a convective atmosphere ??????
or are you still flapping about like a landed mullet !
Roy is a “lukewarmer”, great with satellite data extraction, not so good with atmospheric knowledge.
He apparently sent it to WaPo and they wouldn’t run it.
Yes, and because it is, dedicated people have computed that all the adjustments to the raw data cool the past and warm the present — so as to look like the anthropogenic CO2 emissions trend. This is verifiable here:
And i’ll once again reply with a link where they describe the reason for adjusting old data: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/faq/temperature-monitoring.php
Here is the FTP server which lists all adjustments:
Here is a list of country codes used by NOAA:
Here are some stations in France:
Some in the U.S.:
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/v3/products/stnplots/4/42500150909.gif (is that the one with the massacre?)
As you can see the adjustments are different for different stations and consistent with explanations on the FAQ site.
SebastianH, once historical temperatures are recorded (raw data), it is not the least bit acceptable to go ahead and change the raw data. That’s exactly what NOAA has done…to comply with climate models that stipulate CO2 emissions are the predominant cause of temperature. Why else would one have ALL THE ADJUSTMENTS POINT IN ONE SINGLE DIRECTION: COOL THE PAST AND WARM THE PRESENT? If the adjustments balanced out, it wouldn’t be as suspicious. But when the adjustment always go in the exact same direction, as shown here…
…then anyone who is not a true believer (i.e., anyone who is the least bit skeptical) will question the reliability of the data.
Why do you think the adjustments to the USHCN raw data only point in one direction, SebastianH? We already know that the overseers make up their own “data”. They’ve been caught saying as much in the ClimateGate e-mails.
I’ve already looked at links like you’ve provided above. What’s to stop NOAA from changing data that do not align with their biases?
Why did NOAA/NASA add 0.2 C of fake warming to the 1998-2016 trend, SebastianH?
lol. There must be special place where AGW trolls can got to, someone has searched endlessly for station data that was actually adjusted downwards.
Seen the same stations shown elsewhere.. 😉
The large proportion of sites are “adjusted to make sure there is a warming trend. End of story.
Kenneth, so you wouldn’t adjust past datapoints if the method of measuring the temperature changed at some point? As NOAA states in the fact many stations were previously recording the temperature in the afternoon and over the decades moved to recording in the morning. This results in a cooling bias in later measurements, so you have adjust old data downwards. It’s the other way around with ocean temperatures (adjusted upwards for past measurements).
AndyG55, you have the list of stations … work through it.
SebastianH, why does every single datapoint follow the same pattern: cool the past and warm the present so as to artificially make the temperature trend look more and more like the anthropogenic CO2 trend?
It’s not random. If it were, it wouldn’t look like this:
NOAA/NASA has removed -0.45 C from the 1880 to 1950 warming trend since the late 1980s. They’ve made the -0.3 C cooling from 1940 to 1970 disappear. They’ve added 0.2 C of fake warming to the 1998-2016 trend relative to satellites. According to you, I should just accept that these “adjustments” — that all follow the same tendentious pattern — are completely legitimate…even though we know from their internal e-mails that they manipulate data (hide the post-1960s decline, remove the “1940s blip”, our SH sea temperatures are “mostly made up”, etc.).
I’ll ask you again: Why did NOAA/NASA add 0.2 C of fake warming to the 1998-2016 trend?
Seb , I’m not employed to troll sites like you obviously are.
I have done so in the past, and the large majority of sites cool the past, warm the present to CREATE/FABRICATE trends that don’t exist in the real data.
Run off and have a look yourself..
…without the blinkered cheery-picking. (as if)
And I repeat: how would you adjust data if you had temperature measurements from warmer afternoons in the past and then cooler morning measurements? It doesn’t make sense to use the raw data unadjusted.
And what do you get when your stations do something like that?
Exactly the resulting adjustment chart you linked to:
So you’re suggesting that the thousands of adjustments that have all had the effect of making the past colder and the present warmer to the point that +0.5 C of warming for 1880-1950 has disappeared, -0.3 C of cooling for 1940-1970 has disappeared, an additional +0.2 C of fake warming has been added to the 1998-2016 trend…is all legitimately derived from changing warmer afternoons to morning measurements?
SebastianH, during the 1920-1950 period, sea levels rose at rates of up to 4 mm/yr and glaciers melted at a far faster pace than they have in recent decades. Recent decades have yet to match that sea level rise/glacier melt pace, as illustrated in this graph:
And yet according to NOAA/NASA’s adjusted graph here, there was essentially no warming (<0.05 C) between 1880 and 1950. Can you explain how it is that glaciers melted at that accelerated pace without any net warming between 1880 and 1950 -- especially when it was "settled" science that there had been "nearly 1.0 C" of warming from 1880 to 1940 in the NH as of the early 1980s (before it was eliminated)?
And then explain why NOAA/NASA removed nearly 0.5 C of global warming from that 1880 to 1950 trend, and 0.3 C of cooling from the 1940 to 1970 trend. I'm supposed to just believe that all of that data tampering was due to daytime vs. morning adjustments? Do you really think I'm that gullible?
I've asked you this before: Do you consider yourself a skeptic? Because you're operating here like this is some sort of a faith exercise, believing in anything and everything as long as it aligns with your presuppositions. Do you really think you're convincing us of anything? Do you really think we have not read this playbook of yours before?
Why is the NOAA trend 0.2 C greater than the satellite trend from 1998-2016, SebastianH? How many more times must I ask you this before you finally answer?
Seb proves he knows zero about min-max temperature readings.
Well done Seb,.. keep proving your ignorance.
Its funny 🙂
TH has proven that TOBs actually makes very little difference.
It certainly looks this way. Do i complain that NOAA adjusted their SST data in the other direction and declare it as some kind of skeptic conspiracy?
P.S.: I wouldn’t be here if I weren’t a bit skeptical. I learned a lot about hardcore skepticism here and on other denial websites. Those sketics claim the other 99% percent live in a fake science world and only they have grasped what is really going on. Almost identical to conspiracy theorists …
The removal of the 0.6 C of warming from the 1880-1940 trend (and 0.5 C from the 1880-1950 trend), the removal of the 0.3 C cooling trend from 1940-1970, and the additional 0.2 C of warming for the 1998-2016 trend that “appeared” after the publication of the Karl et al. (2015) paper now known to be irreproducible because the raw data has been “lost”…have all occurred because of errors with daytime vs. morning temps that have now been faithfully corrected by scientists who have no political interest whatsoever in removing the pause…or removing the inconvenient cooling or warming that occurred at the wrong times during the last 165 years. That’s what you’re asking me to believe. Sorry. I don’t believe NOAA or NASA are unbiased purveyors of temperature “truth”.
I do not appreciate having someone like you — who has admittedly made false statements and incorrigibly refused to answer questions that undermine his position — characterize me or those who remain skeptical that CO2 variations drive changes in ocean heat…as equivalent to those who deny that the Holocaust occurred. I am an ardent humanitarian and civil rights advocate, and I resent your referral to me or those who may agree with my current positions on climate science as “deniers.” You are not welcome to call me that or to in any way imply that I should be lumped in with those who are Holocaust deniers.
Since you apparently believe you possess the scientific truth on these matters, please answer this question (which I have asked you about 15 times and you continue to ignore in your own avoidance/denial):
If the CO2 concentration above a body of water is reduced by -0.00001, by how much with that body of water cool? What are the physical measurements that you have derived from the “basic physics” that support your beliefs (CO2 concentrations heat or cool water when varied up or down in volumes of parts per million)? Please support your “basic physics” answer with a citation from a peer-reviewed scientific paper.
Of course, you can’t. And yet you are the one who characterizes us as in “denial” of “basic physics.” Share with us the “basic physics” of your beliefs about CO2 heating water, SebastianH. We’ll wait.
Only one person living with FAKE science and religion is YOU, seb
You cannot even provide ON SINGLE scientific paper proving the most basic argument of you baseless religious belief.
Its SAD that you are SO, SO GULLIBLE as to base you AGW religion on ABSOLUTELY NOTHING>
You have zero science,
You DENY basic atmospheric physics, because you have ZERO clue what any of it is about.
You have displayed an apparent total ignorance of basically everything to do with climate or weather.
Get you barista certificate quick smart, seb, you can’t live off your AGW scam grant forever, you are way too incompetent to do that.
Your funders must be looking at your mindless unsupported rhetoric and wondering why the heck they are paying you.
Kenneth, wtf? How did the Holocaust appear in this conversation? We are talking about denial of basic principles.
Why would water behave any different? It emits and absorbs radiation like everything else. The “basic physics” that describe the exchange are called laws. If you know of a combination of materials where the S-B-law doesn’t apply, the science community will happily here about it.
About the total amount of surface temperature change caused by an increase/decrease of CO2 concentration: you are asking this question because you know how difficult it is to answer it (many more variables then just CO2 concentration involved). There is positive as well as negative feedback, etc. But this doesn’t change the fact that heat is also exchanged by radiation and the application of the S-B-law. Do you really want me to present a paper that proves the S-B-law? Because your repeated questioning indicates you think it somehow doesn’t apply here …
AndyG55, i’ll repeat my previous link: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/04/skeptical-arguments-that-dont-hold-water/
Referring to people who do not agree with you as “deniers” of the scientific “truth” that CO2 causes heat changes in water when varied by 0.000001 (when that “truth” hasn’t ever even been observed let alone moved beyond the hypothetical) is offensive to those of us who understand that the word “denier” is used to shame and marginalize, as it is often used in the context of those who deny the Holocaust ever occurred. Don’t pretend you’ve never heard of this before, as that would be yet another example of your dishonesty.
Uh, because as even RealClimate and SkepticalScience acknowledge, the “heat” trapped by CO2 (IR) does not penetrate into water. I’ll ask again, since you seem to believe it is scientific “truth” and “basic physics” that we here are “denying” here:
If the CO2 concentration above a body of water was lowered by 0.00001, by how much would that water body cool? What are the physical measurements, SebastianH? Since this is “basic physics” and “scientific truth” (that you accuse us of denying), surely you should be able to answer such a basic, fundamental question. You know you can’t because yours is not scientific “truth,” nor is it “basic physics.” Your “basic physics” and scientific “truth” is actually no more than models. Hypotheticals. If you don’t think it is, provide the physical measurements and stop the name-calling.
You poor little worthless troll
Got that paper yet ??
Until then, you can’t even support the very basis of your worthless religion.
Roy Spencer. Brilliant at microwave sensing…
but still stuck in the old “lukewarm” understanding of the atmosphere.
That is many years ahead of your troglodyte comprehension though, seb.
Enlighten us with your understanding of the atmosphere. Why is the surface as warm as it is? And please don’t waste your and my time with explaining the gravito-thermal effect. Thank you.
“Enlighten us with your understanding of the atmosphere.”
Who is the “us” I would be enlightening? If it’s you, and only you (as I suspect), I don’t find such an exercise even remotely worth my time given your history.
If the CO2 concentration above a body of water was lowered by 0.00001, by how much would that water body cool? What are the physical measurements, SebastianH? Since this is “basic physics” and “scientific truth” (that you accuse us of denying), surely you should be able to answer such a basic, fundamental question.
CERES linked closely to UAH..
NO CO₂ warming or blocking signal in outgoing longwave radiative..
Who woulda guessed, hey sebtroll
“And please don’t waste your and my time with explaining the gravito-thermal effect.”
Sorry that you don’t have the brain capacity to comprehend it… so you just DENY it.
Your WILFUL IGNORANCE is NOT my problem.
One paper… or a barista certificate…
Which is it you are going to provide, seb ?
I am familiar with the term Holocaust denial/denier, I am just baffled that you came up with it. Doesn’t make sense in this context. The denial on this kind of websites is more like denying 1+1 is 2 …
Why would heat trapped by CO2 and other GHGs need to penetrate and heat the water below the surface? This is not how the effect works. It just reduces the net emission of the surface. The laws of thermodynamics would be violated if the surface wouldn’t become hotter to be able to emit enough radiation. Are you just denying that CO2 has this effect or are you denying the existence of a greenhouse effect in general? If it’s the later one, how does the surface manage to radiate so little energy without cooling?
About the water temperature:
Let the surface temperature of the ocean be 14°C. In a vacuum the surface would emit and absorb ~366 W/m² (0.95 emissivity), correct? But we have an atmosphere that radiates only around 236 W/m² into space so something must be responsible for this 130 W/m² difference. Oh we forgot conduction, convection and evaporation (CCE) which further increases the heat loss of the surface and increase the difference. Let’s assume the total difference to be 300 W/m². This results in a net emission of the surface of 66 W/m² leaving 170 W/m² for CCE.
According to climate scientists the forcing of CO2 increases by some amount X on every doubling of the concentration. To avoid logarithms we assume a linear correlation (+-10 ppm of 400 ppm is only a +- 2.5% change). If CO2 at a concentration of 400 ppm causes y% of those 300 W/m² greenhouse effect then an increase of 10 ppm equals an increase by y% of 7.5 W/m².
A 7.5 W/m² increase of the greenhouse effect without any kind of positive or negative feedback would require the surface to emit at 373.5 W/m² with a temperature of 15.41°C to not violate the laws of thermodynamics. So the maximum increase (CO2 causing 100% of the GHE) would be 1.41°C. The maximum decrease would be 1.53°C.
How could it be called “denial” of scientific “truth” if the “truth” you believe in has never been observed to have occurred in an experiment, and instead it is based entirely on models? At no time has it ever been observed that raising or lowering CO2 concentrations by + or – 0.000001 over a body of water causes that water to warm or cool. It’s assumed to be true, and yet you have no physical measurements to support your case. All you have is analogies, name-calling, and models.
Even the blogs run by the paradigm’s monoliths (Michael Mann, Gavin Schmidt, William Connollley, Eric Steig, John Cook, etc.) agree that we have no “real world” scientific experiment that verifies CO2 variations heat or cool water. Consequently, they have to assume that clouds function like CO2 within the greenhouse effect in their modeling, even though it is simultaneously acknowledged that the range of cloud forcing is many times larger (100 W m-2) than the forcing associated with doubling CO2 to 600 ppm (4 W m-2).
Why do you believe that CO2 concentrations modulate the ocean heat content when CO2 has never even been observed to do so in a scientific experiment…let alone in an experiment using a tub of water and modulated CO2 concentration in a greenhouse?
Not in the slightest. Everything you just wrote does not in any way answer the most fundamental question: How much cooling does lowering the CO2 concentration over a body of water by -10 ppm cause? What are the physical measurements from an actual experiment, with actual observations? Why not just admit that you have absolutely no idea…because there has never been an experiment that demonstrates lowering CO2 over a body of water causes cooling. It’s all models. And assumptions. And hypotheticals. And yet you have the audacity to characterize its truth to 1+1=2.
Can you explain why there was a pause in the greenhouse effect (0 W m-2) from 1992 to 2014 despite CO2 emissions rates rising by 65% during those 23 years? If CO2 has been the dominant control on the climate, why did it exert no net influence on the greenhouse effect — which paused — during those years? Here’s the paper that postulates this:
AndyG55, temperature correlates with long wave flux? Big surprise there.
The please share you knowledge, how would such an effect work in reality? And how does your proposal of CO2 emitting at TOA to cool Earth fit into this theory?
seb. please share a paper showing empirically that CO causes warming in a convective atmosphere.
That is the main basis for your withering AGW religion, and you have proven that you are TOTALLY UNABLE to provide such a paper.
No wonder your AGW religion is DYING.
oh dear, more data that makes a FARCE of the CO₂ warming fallacy
Since ‘net LW’ goes out of the surface, meaning it’s an energy loss, then the more negative its value, the greater the loss, and so the more efficiently the surface manages to rid itself of heat via thermal radiation.
As can well be observed from the diagram in Fig.1 above, the mean radiant heat loss of the global surface of the Earth has INCREASED substantially and robustly – by about 1.5 W/m2 – over the last 15 years; that’s 0.1 W/m2 per year on average.
In other words, there is absolutely no positive Qoutrad contribution to the global surface and bulk ocean energy budget to be spotted in the 21st century. Rather, the IR contribution is decidedly negative!
Outbound surface radiation TOTALLY DESTROYS the AGW fallacy !!
Just for fun, let’s see what measured surface longwave back-radiation had done while CO₂ has increased this century.
OH DEARY ME. !! Poor seb. !
NOTHING shows any CO₂ signal..
in fact JUST THE OPPOSITE !!!
Seb… so sad, so DUMB. !!
on one hand you acknowledge the existence of a greenhouse effect (something that reduces the radiative heat transfer from the surface to the atmosphere/space), but you deny that the effect works for water surfaces, because it never has been measured?
You also seem to have the opinion that the laws of physics (S-B-law which describes radiative heat transfer) somehow do not apply here. Why?
I showed you how to calculate the influence a small CO2 concentration change has. I also commented on the pause of greenhouse effect, just look at the second graph in your link. It should be fairly obvious that the increased greenhouse effect did not vanish in your proposed pause, it just didn’t increase further. Didn’t someone here claim there are negative feedbacks?
I get that you don’t want CO2 to play a role (changing any variable makes it the dominant driver of change if everything else stays the same), but it does. It absorbs a measurable percentage of the IR spectrum and it’s not saturated yet. Water vapor is obviously the bigger player here, but has its concentration/effect changed in the past years?
AndyG55, please provide evidence that a molecule in the atmosphere can’t radiate back to the surface because convection (a super slow process) moves it upwards. If all warm molecules escape the surface with this “lightspeed convection”, why are there still so many molecules near the surface (pressure/density gradient)? And where does the energy finally go? The surfaces radiates over 300 W/m², convection adds 100+ W/m² and yet the top of the atmosphere only emits around 236 W/m²?
About the missing heat:
It’s never been observed. It’s never been measured. It’s never been subjected to a controlled experiment. So therefore it can only be assumed to be true…because the models say so. But yet you think that if someone questions this assumption, you are fully justified in calling him a denier of “truth”.
A modeled phenomenon that has never been observed (CO2 concentration variations dominating as the source of reducing/increasing the net heat content of oceans when decreased/increased by 0.000001) is not “the laws of physics”. And considering the fact that the paleoclimate evidence does not in any way support the position that CO2 concentrations are the dominant regulator of net ocean heat changes (ocean heat changes by multiple degrees without any significant changes in atmospheric CO2), the available observed evidence undermines the model. If you don’t think it does, explain, for example, why ocean heat content in the Pacific plummeted by -0.9 C after the Medieval Warm Period while CO2 concentrations were slowly rising. Of course, you’ll ignore this question (as usual).
What you did was “show” that you can repeat what others believe might perhaps maybe happen…according to models. And then you effectively called me a “denier” if I didn’t agree that your modeled calculations are the “laws of physics.”
It’s not my “proposed pause,” it’s the hiatus of the greenhouse effect’s influence on temperatures as posited by scientists in a paper published in Nature. And if you acknowledge that the greenhouse effect “didn’t increase further” between 1992-2014, what caused the temperature increase? Answer this question instead of avoiding it like you usually do.
Why are you claiming that “everything else stays the same” as CO2 changes when it is well known that cloud cover does not stay the same, but are instead highly dynamic, and that even tiny variations in clouds dominate both changes in SW and LW (the GHE) in determining changes in the radiation budget? Your whole conceptualization of planetary heat changes is predicated on the curious notion that “everything else stays the same”, and only CO2 changes. You know this isn’t remotely the case. So why do you believe this to be true anyway?
How many experiments have to take place before you accept a physics law to accurately describe reality? Do you feel the same about f = m * a? Does it matter to you if something is accelerated over a body of water or if you accelerate water itself? Do you expect a different result than with other materials?
The fact that multiple variables influence a system and some of them in a big way doesn’t change that each variable has an effect. Global warming increases the average temperatures. The temperatures between day and night usually have a wide range compared to that small change … yet the increase … on average.
If the heat content of the Pacific really decreased by 0.9 C in medieval times then it was obviously caused by something else. The climate is not solely relying on CO2 content, any other variable could have changed. Less solar insolation, less water vapor, etc …
Math? Flat acceleration still causes an increase in velocity. That’s not an adequate analogy (eventually the temperatures would stop increasing until radiative balance is achieved), but close enough …
Because everything else stays the same over longer periods or its effects are well known.
@SebastianH 5. February 2017 at 4:13 PM
“Isn’t the NOAA data of the stations freely available on the internet? There are a few station in the region of Africa that is indicated in the images.”
Yes but the what NOAA appears to have done is misrepresentation.
The special ‘pausebuster’ paper relied on ‘special’ data (a hybrid of SST and ‘experimental’ land temperatures) is apparently lost (so is now unverifiable), and the method — you guessed it — is lost so can not be checked. Apparently a catastrophic computer failure lost both data and method. No back-up no archive.
Therefore the original ‘pausebuster’ paper is not science, at best it’s a nonsense, a fiction, and must be retracted.
From the Online Mail article linked above —
This is worse than a Hollywood sci-fi conspiracy movie, it certainly is not science.
The actual expose by Bates himself is published at Judith Curry’s Climate Etc. And Bates is likely the whistleblower Rep Lamar Smith referenced when his issued his investigative subpoena to NOAA at the time concerning Karl’s paper. NOAA committed contempt of congress by ignoring it. With Trump in the WH, Smith now has the leverage to clean NOAA up. The legal repercussions have yet to begin.
[…] Fonte: https://notrickszone.com […]
The comments here are generally beside the real point: The mere fact that top level scientists could change the data (based on an alternate, questionable set of data) at this late date–especially after 18 years of a lack of warming that climate scientists denied all that time, only accepting it shortly before changing the data to “erase” it–and have their changes immediately implemented by NOAA, by itself plainly demonstrates fraudulent intent. All the rest is merely icing on that cake.
And Bates’s assertion–that the ship’s data newly applied by Karl et al. is “bad” data replacing “good” data–was brought out by any number of blogs at the time, in 2015. I linked to one, MasterResource, in this post:
“It Is Fraud, Not Climate Science At All”
Bob Tisdale, I recall, also did at least one or two posts on the Karl et al. “pausebuster” paper. So it was already dismantled scientist critics, at the time it was published.
Anyone, like “sod”, who defends Karl et al., and NOAA, is just engaging in misdirection (“blowing smoke”, in the vernacular) from the primary–and absolutely fundamental–point I made above: You can’t change the data after the fact–in this case, years, even decades after the fact–to fit the theory by erasing data definitely contrary to it, much less to install ruinous and ineffective governmental regulations.
You people are arguing in an insane asylum, with the inmates of that asylum.
I would really ask people to read the full piece over on the Curry site:
It is a little too much for an evening and parts of it are also outside my field of expertise and outside anything that can be known by anyone not directly involved in the writing of the paper. So we might have to wait for a couple of NOAA replies.
But big parts of the mail online article are simply false.
“6. ‘They had good data from buoys. And they threw it out […]’
v4 actually makes preferential use of buoys over ships (they are weighted almost 7 times in favour) as documented in the ERSSTv4 paper. The assertion that buoy data were thrown away as made in the article is demonstrably incorrect.”
The only mainstream paper to pick this up so far was the guradian, which wrote a piece taking it apart with real evidence. So i fear it is mostly over already.
This must be soooo frustrating for StevenGoddard. He has exposed their fraudulent data to fresh air for years and has been derided by the likes of Anthony Watts for doing so. None of this scandal is new to him.
Now Meier at RSS has started corrupting his satellite data. We are at the point where the only reliable global temperatures are with UAH and Roy Spencer, Brasswell and Cristie. If we can rely on the NCEP ‘real time’ temperature we have just 2 temperature records in the world that are not tampered with.
So you believe in other conspiracy theories? Let’s talk about ozone depletion in the 80s/90s.
Still waiting for that paper, seb, you useless brain-washed twerp.
The greenhouse effect can be directly measured and has been measured multiple times. I provided you with multiple links to the results.
Please provide the physical measurements for the heating of water bodies by varying airborne CO2 concentrations by volumes of parts per million (0.000001). Answer this question, SebastianH:
If the CO2 above a body of water were decreased by -0.00001 (-10 ppm), by how much would that body of water cool? Since this can be directly measured, please provide the results. And cite your sources.
Then why can’t you provide a paper.
Just do it.. or DON’T.
It really is PATHETIC how you keep avoiding to support the most basic idea of you meaningless religion.
Only found a map display CO2 levels for October 2014:
Compare it and the water vapor map (https://neo.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/servlet/RenderData?si=1657813&cs=rgb&format=JPEG&width=3600&height=1800) with the outgoing longwave map (https://neo.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/servlet/RenderData?si=1607736&cs=rgb&format=JPEG&width=1440&height=720)
Here is the net radiation view for October 2014 (solar insolation minus outgoing longwave): https://neo.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/servlet/RenderData?si=1607754&cs=rgb&format=JPEG&width=1440&height=720
You can watch different months here: https://neo.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/dataset_index.php
Greenhouse gases block outgoing longwave radiation which leads to warming of the surface. Here is a map of sea surface temperature in October 2014: https://neo.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/servlet/RenderData?si=1693971&cs=rgb&format=JPEG&width=3600&height=1800
The surface of the ocean warms and cools similar to land surface. The emissivity of the oceans is as close to 1 as is the emissivity of land.
You are very, very simple, simple seb,
There is NO WARMING in either satellite record apart from El Nino step events.
There is NO CO₂ WARMING SIGNAL in the whole of both satellite records.
NONE WHAT SO EVER.
They have pretended to measure some back-radiation from CO₂, but because there is NO CO₂ BASED WARMING, CO₂ cannot have caused any warming.
END OF STORY !
End of the baseless AGW religion.
See what you are doing here? Even when faced with overhelming “evidence” and enough data you still claim everyone pretends and lies about science/math/physics. You are the troll 😉
You have presented ZERO evidence that CO₂ causes warming in a convective atmosphere..
NONE, NADA… ZIPPO
You have shown you have ZERO knowledge of science/maths/physics.. a failed Arts major is my guess.
There is only one base-feeding troll here..
And that is YOU, seb.
RUN and HIDE or produce that one paper to rule them all..
or forever be a meaningless AGW SUCKO-phant.
Where’s that single paper, seb.
Run and Hide, Dodge, avoid.. whatever.
or actually PRODUCE A PAPER with evidence that CO₂ causes warming in a convective atmosphere.
Gunna be pretty hard since there is NO CO₂ WARMING in the satellite temperature data.
Would you finally explain what you think convection fundamentally changes? Do you think that a greenhouse effect would only work without convection?
Last time i asked, you explained the energy budget of Earth with gravity being responsible for a warm surface. Is that still your opinion? How does the surface stay warm with convection using up almost 2/3 of the incoming solar radiation? Is there some magic that reduces the amount of longwave radiation the surface emits to around 60 W/m²?
“Greenhouse gases block outgoing longwave radiation”
Radiation out is linked to atmospheric temperature, always has been, always will be.
NO blocking of anything.
You are either a LIAR or moronically UNINFORMED..
I suspect about 50:50
What REALLY happens is that RADIATIVE gases such as CO₂ provide just another conduit for atmospheric COOLING.
Another conduit to convey energy from the surface to the upper atmosphere.
You should try to comprehend this simple pdf from a guy that works with CO₂ lasers for a business (not tax-payer funding).
It is written in very basic format so AGW stooges like you might be able to understand. maybe…perhaps… nah, not going to happen !!!
Maybe if you read it often enough you will comprehend…not holding any hopes though.!!
Poor seb.. still the diversionary TROLL tactic.
either produce a paper that proves CO₂ produce warming in a convective atmosphere…
just stop all the BULLSHIT !!!
Only H₂O has any affect in the lower atmosphere.
C₂O is purely radiative cooling from the TOA
This has been MEASURED.
Either you can produce your seminal AGW supporting paper…
…. Or YOU CAN’T
Its up to your incompetence.
FFS…. STOP RUNNING and HIDING and EVADING.
You are looking like a chicken with it head chopped off, but with less intelligence.
obvious typo…. C₂O -> CO₂
“greenhouse effect would only work without convection”
Greenhouses block CO₂, you ignorant moron.
The atmosphere actively ENCOURAGES convection, that is how it regulates itself.
NO CO₂ WARMING in the satellite data.
NO paper showing CO₂ causes warming in a convective atmosphere.
You really have ABOLUTELY NOTHING to back up the basis of the AGW scam/religion, do you, you poor ignorant git !!!
darn…. second line was meant to be..
Greenhouses BLOCK CONVECTION, ….
You really believe what you are writing, do you?
You fail to explain where the majority of the IR radiation from the surface ends up. It certainly isn’t radiated into space. And then there is convection, conduction and evaporation. The surface is losing more energy than it absorbs. I guess you’d say something like: S-B-law doesn’t apply here, the surface is radiating just 60 W/m² into the atmosphere/space. And why is that the case? Because there is a radiation exchange between everything that has a temperature …
It such a basic principal that I can’t imagine what must happen to someone with an education to somehow imagine the world doesn’t work like that. You have evidence of radiation exchanges in your life … everyday.
As for CO2: your link says CO2 absorbs the radiation in the first 10 meters and nothing (at those wavelengths) gets through that layer. How is it then possible that the top layer CO2 is radiating anything into space? Heat transport by convection and when the warm CO2 molecule reaches a certain height the radiation can finally escape into space?
I’ll ask once again: demonstrate that convection changes the law of radiation transfers and I’ll shut up.
You poor non-comprehending, non-thinking, INADEQUATE, little brain-dead troll.
Got that paper yet.??
Oh look CERES OLR trends with UAH.
NO CO₂ warming or blocking.
Who woulda guessed, hey sebtroll, you dopey git
What about it? The ozone hole isn’t any different than it was in the 1980s, and we have no idea to what extent ozone fluctuated prior to the 1980s, meaning our assumptions are not based on a reliably long-term context.
Hess et al., 2015
[A] large portion of the measured change [ozone] is not due to changes in [anthropogenic] emissions, but can be traced to changes in large-scale modes of ozone variability. This emphasizes the difficulty in the attribution of ozone changes, and the importance of natural variability in understanding the trends and variability of ozone.
Ozone hole was only really “discovered” in 1985
They knew NOTHING of the causes.
Seems its has NATURAL VARIABILITY.. who woulda guessed, hey.
“The discovery of the annual depletion of ozone above the Antarctic was first announced in a paper by Joe Farman, Brian Gardiner and Jonathan Shanklin which appeared in Nature in May 1985.”
Actually Andy, it was known way back in the late 1950’s,when Mr. Dobson measured very low levels of 03. It wasn’t called “ozone hole” then because they were good scientists,who didn’t promote hyperbolic propaganda.
Typical of a troll
they don’t look really different but a translation ..are you sure both graphs have the same reference pediod?
be careful… streisand effect…
That graph is totally false:
Nick Stokes has taken in apart in the Curry comments.
Will anybody here get angry with David Rose for this ugly trick?
Nick stoke has taken anyone apart except in own mind, and those of his boot-lickers.
Nick Stokes HASN’T taken anyone apart… etc.
i don’t care who says what adn who is clever or not …i simply stated the graph are similar to me but a translation… let s assume nooa guys are bad and want to trick the temperatures…they failed… so demonstration of badness must ne somewhere else.
Sod, why does Nick Stokes avoid answering Bill Illis’s comment about Nicks misleading chart, he posted at WUWT,which he repeats at Curry’s site?
Here is what Bill Wrote:
” Bill Illis
February 5, 2017 at 7:05 am
So we move from ERSSTV2 to ERSSTV3 in 2009 and they adjusted the SST trend up by 0.3C. In V3 to V3b in 2012, adjustments of another 0.1C, The ERSSTV3b to ERSSTV4 in 2015 another +0.12C. That is 0.52C all together over just 6 years. And we don’t even really know what happened to the data in 2016 because noone knows where it comes from (some ships, ICOADs, where is the raw data).
How come none of that ever shows up in your charts Nick?”
Nick Stokes,is afraid of Bill Illis,who is waaaay better informed.
Interesting. Warmunists: This is a lie because it’s in the Daily Mail!
Reminds me of: The DNC leak is a lie because Russians!!!!
Warmunists always try to distract. If truth were on their side they wouldn’t need to. But, it ain’t.
BTW: WHY haven’t you warmunists not demanded that the DNC leaks first get published in one of your peer-review journals?
Makes information control so much easier.
Warmunism: A heap of lies.
Interesting perception of reality. It is normally the conservative right (which desribes most of the climate skeptics) that looks down on media outlets declaring them to be propaganda channels. Except when a story fits their agenda …
I just asked for confirmation by any reputable news service. Otherwise it is just another tabloid story.
You are pathetic,Sebastian, who keeps ignoring Kenneth and Andy numerous requests for evidence.
Evidence for what?
Hardcore skeptics have a very weird perception of reality: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/04/skeptical-arguments-that-dont-hold-water/
Again, nothing except the opinion of a known lukewarmer.
A Great mathematician for extracting data from satellite data (which, as you know, shows absolutely NOCO₂ WARMING)
But not an atmospheric physicist, and with limited knowledge of atmospheric processes.
You have been shown that empirical data indicates that CO₂ does NOT re-emit below about 11km, ONLY in the stratosphere to COOL the atmosphere.
You have been shown that lower atmosphere radiation is purely from H₂O.
You have been shown that there is absolutely ZERO CO₂ warming signature in either satellite data.
WHY, oh WHY do you continue to DENY SCIENCE?
Are you being PAID to DENY SCIENCE ???????
If so, by who???
Are you being paid to deny physics?
Poor seb.. is that the best you can do.
You have shown you have absolutely ZERO comprehension of physics.
Insignificant , as always.
Have you got your barista certificate yet, seb
You are going to need it once your employer finds how woefully you support the AGW religion.
Sebastian, you keep posting Dr. Spenser’s link,which is a reaction to a small group of people pushing the ZERO Greenhouse effect argument.
It doesn’t apply to skeptics here at all since,it is well known that CO2 absorbs a small amount of OUTGOING IR,around 6-8% of it. What skeptics are telling YOU here is that there is no measurable AGW signal in the Satellite data,which is where the AGW is supposed to be found in. Surface and Ocean temperature has negligible to do with CO2 absorbing the measured small amounts of outgoing IR.
It has negligible to do with the AGW conjecture,which is an ATMOSPHERE based conjecture on the supposed Feedback Loop, to then promote a run away warming trend. The idea that increased amount of atmospheric CO2 will block/slow down the outgoing IR,thus warming up the air.It doesn’t since as the world warms up,the rate of energy leaving the system INCREASES.
Here is a nice easy to understand post,that explains what warmists completely ignore,that is fatal to their absurd AGW idea:
The Science of why the Theory of Global Warming is Incorrect!
“If the Earth were to warm by 1.1 °C, the amount of energy lost would be almost 4 W/m2 greater than what it lost in 1984. If the Earth were to warm by 3.0 °C which is what is predicted by a doubling of CO2, then the amount of energy lost would be > 10 W/m2 the energy loss that existed in 1984.
The science of this is very clear. The rate at which the Earth loses energy will increase at more than twice the rate that the theoretical CO2 forcing is capable of causing warming to take place. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere cannot stop the Earth from losing more energy if it warms up. The reasons behind this are the wavelengths of energy that are transmitted by the Earth, but it can simply be shown by looking at the energy loss increase that has taken place over the past 25 years.”
Now go answer Andy and Kenneth’s questions….., if you can……
“The idea that increased amount of atmospheric CO₂ will block/slow down the outgoing IR”
But it doesn’t, as clearly shown by CERES data graphed with UAH.
OLR is more a function of atmospheric temperature with some slight smoothing at peaks and troughs.
There is no sign of CO₂ is blocking anywhere.
End of story.
Another distraction away from the subject that NOAA has released a paper for political purposes, and it was not science.
SebastianH what is NOAA’s remit? Do you not understand that the ‘pausebuster’ paper and the leaked emails show in no uncertain terms that some staff at NOAA are political advocates pretending to be scientists.
It is time to drain the swamp!
Here is the evidence that people are asking for. Look at the new data over the full time (black line):
The changes are tiny, but it did only take a tiny change (and now some warmer years) to wipe out the “pause”.
Also look at the lower graph. Adjustments do NOT only increase the warming. Unadjusted data is showing MORE warming, not less!
PS: here is an interesting graph, showing error ranges. Big surprise to sceptics: we know less about data from the far past than about data today. Must be a miracle or some evil scientists faking stuff!
Your first graphs look like the adjustments that have been made to the sea surface temperatures. The land-only temperatures are adjusted in the other direction (the past is now less warm than it used to be). The reason is a gradual move from measuring in the afternoon to measuring in the morning in the late 20th century.
roflmao… Of course that do, you moron twit
NOAA/GISS is a monumental farce, based on FABRICATION and MAL-ADJUSTMENT.
roflmao.. Jones.. one of the PAID instigators of the AGW scam.. but can’t even operate an Excel spreadsheet.
And you post a farcical graph of the temps that RELY on the FRAUDULENT GHCN, plus BEST which is a non-profit run by a ABSOLUTELY RABID AGW apostle in Muller’s daughter, and received half a million start-up from “Somewhere’
You have GOT TO BE JOKING !!!!!!
Just found this graph.
NOAA/Star3.0 satellites are an almost EXACT match for UAH v6
[…] Robust Evidence NOAA Temperature Data Hopelessly Corrupted By Warming Bias, Manipulation. Blog – Jennifer Marohasy. Homogenised temperatures, and planning for bushfires – On Line Opinion – 1/9/2016. Temperatures Trends, Southeast Australia from 1887 – Part A – Jennifer Marohasy. Rutherglen – Jennifer Marohasy. Homogenization of temperature data makes Capetown South Africa have a warmer climate record. NASA’s Gavin Schmidt Says He Can’t Be Held Responsible For The Fraudulent Data He Publishes. Heat’s On At NOAA As “High Level Whistle Blower” Exposes Data Fraud, “Scientific Integrity B…”! […]
[…] 3) https://judithcurry.com/2017/02/04/climate-scientists-versus-climate-data/ 4) https://notrickszone.com/2017/02/05/heats-on-at-noaa-as-high-level-whistle-blower-exposes-data-fraud-… 5) […]
It is very difficult for non-experts to judge all these claims and counter-claims. It is like one of those “he said, she said” court cases. However, an at least superficially plausible argument has been made that the discrepancy revealed in the Daily Mail article is due to different base levels being used in the NOAA and UK Met Office graphs of temperature against time. The details are available at:
It would be helpful if someone with the relevant expertise could constructively (or indeed destructively) criticize this rebuttal.
Nick Stokes did this already in the comments of the Judith Curry post that you find as a link at the top of this topic.
here is his graph with the same baseline.
The daily mail article is garbage. And it is very dishonest to not admit that.
people here are ignoring this part because it is embarrasing to them.