NOAA Whistleblower reveals ‘Pausebuster’ scandal

Posted: February 5, 2017 by Andrew in atmosphere, climate, Dataset, Politics
img_1251

Credit:NOAA

David Rose in the Mail on Sunday reports that John J Bates has revealed a host of questionable practices committed by NOAA scientists as they rushed through the ‘Pausebuster’ paper.

The Mail on Sunday today reveals astonishing evidence that the organisation that is the world’s leading source of climate data rushed to publish a landmark paper that exaggerated global warming and was timed to influence the historic Paris Agreement on climate change.
A high-level whistleblower has told this newspaper that America’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) breached its own rules on scientific integrity when it published the sensational but flawed report, aimed at making the maximum possible impact on world leaders including Barack Obama and David Cameron at the UN climate conference in Paris in 2015.
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.
But the whistleblower, Dr John Bates, a top NOAA scientist with an impeccable reputation, has shown The Mail on Sunday irrefutable evidence that the paper was based on misleading, ‘unverified’ data.
It was never subjected to NOAA’s rigorous internal evaluation process – which Dr Bates devised.
His vehement objections to the publication of the faulty data were overridden by his NOAA superiors in what he describes as a ‘blatant attempt to intensify the impact’ of what became known as the Pausebuster paper.
His disclosures are likely to stiffen President Trump’s determination to enact his pledges to reverse his predecessor’s ‘green’ policies, and to withdraw from the Paris deal – so triggering an intense political row.

In an exclusive interview, Dr Bates accused the lead author of the paper, Thomas Karl, who was until last year director of the NOAA section that produces climate data – the National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) – of ‘insisting on decisions and scientific choices that maximised warming and minimised documentation… in an effort to discredit the notion of a global warming pause, rushed so that he could time publication to influence national and international deliberations on climate policy’.
Dr Bates was one of two Principal Scientists at NCEI, based in Asheville, North Carolina.

Official delegations from America, Britain and the EU were strongly influenced by the flawed NOAA study as they hammered out the Paris Agreement – and committed advanced nations to sweeping reductions in their use of fossil fuel and to spending £80 billion every year on new, climate-related aid projects.
The scandal has disturbing echoes of the ‘Climategate’ affair which broke shortly before the UN climate summit in 2009, when the leak of thousands of emails between climate scientists suggested they had manipulated and hidden data. Some were British experts at the influential Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia.

Data published by NOAA, the world’s top climate data agency, claimed global warming was worse than previously thought. The information was published to coincide with the Paris climate change conference in 2015, where world leaders agreed that…

$100bn be given every year in extra ‘climate-related’ aid to the developing world by rich nations

2 degrees C be set as the limit for maximum temperature rise above pre-industrial times

40% of CO2 emissions would be cut across the EU by 2030

£320bn… what the UK’s pledges will cost our economy by 2030

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.
Dr Bates retired from NOAA at the end of last year after a 40-year career in meteorology and climate science. As recently as 2014, the Obama administration awarded him a special gold medal for his work in setting new, supposedly binding standards ‘to produce and preserve climate data records’.
Yet when it came to the paper timed to influence the Paris conference, Dr Bates said, these standards were flagrantly ignored.
The paper was published in June 2015 by the journal Science. Entitled ‘Possible artifacts of data biases in the recent global surface warming hiatus’, the document said the widely reported ‘pause’ or ‘slowdown’ was a myth.
Less than two years earlier, a blockbuster report from the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which drew on the work of hundreds of scientists around the world, had found ‘a much smaller increasing trend over the past 15 years 1998-2012 than over the past 30 to 60 years’. Explaining the pause became a key issue for climate science. It was seized on by global warming sceptics, because the level of CO2 in the atmosphere had continued to rise.

Some scientists argued that the existence of the pause meant the world’s climate is less sensitive to greenhouse gases than previously thought, so that future warming would be slower. One of them, Professor Judith Curry, then head of climate science at the Georgia Institute of Technology, said it suggested that computer models used to project future warming were ‘running too hot’.
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’.
The impact was huge and lasting. On publication day, the BBC said the pause in global warming was ‘an illusion caused by inaccurate data’.
One American magazine described the paper as a ‘science bomb’ dropped on sceptics.
Its impact could be seen in this newspaper last month when, writing to launch his Ladybird book about climate change, Prince Charles stated baldly: ‘There isn’t a pause… it is hard to reject the facts on the basis of the evidence.’
Data changed to make the sea appear warmer
The sea dataset used by Thomas Karl and his colleagues – known as Extended Reconstructed Sea Surface Temperatures version 4, or ERSSTv4, tripled the warming trend over the sea during the years 2000 to 2014 from just 0.036C per decade – as stated in version 3 – to 0.099C per decade. Individual measurements in some parts of the globe had increased by about 0.1C and this resulted in the dramatic increase of the overall global trend published by the Pausebuster paper. But Dr Bates said this increase in temperatures was achieved by dubious means. Its key error was an upwards ‘adjustment’ of readings from fixed and floating buoys, which are generally reliable, to bring them into line with readings from a much more doubtful source – water taken in by ships. This, Dr Bates explained, has long been known to be questionable: ships are themselves sources of heat, readings will vary from ship to ship, and the depth of water intake will vary according to how heavily a ship is laden – so affecting temperature readings.
Dr Bates said: ‘They had good data from buoys. And they threw it out and “corrected” it by using the bad data from ships. You never change good data to agree with bad, but that’s what they did – so as to make it look as if the sea was warmer.’
ERSSTv4 ‘adjusted’ buoy readings up by 0.12C. It also ignored data from satellites that measure the temperature of the lower atmosphere, which are also considered reliable. Dr Bates said he gave the paper’s co-authors ‘a hard time’ about this, ‘and they never really justified what they were doing.’
Now, some of those same authors have produced the pending, revised new version of the sea dataset – ERSSTv5. A draft of a document that explains the methods used to generate version 5, and which has been seen by this newspaper, indicates the new version will reverse the flaws in version 4, changing the buoy adjustments and including some satellite data and measurements from a special high-tech floating buoy network known as Argo. As a result, it is certain to show reductions in both absolute temperatures and recent global warming.
The second dataset used by the Pausebuster paper was a new version of NOAA’s land records, known as the Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN), an analysis over time of temperature readings from about 4,000 weather stations spread across the globe.

This new version found past temperatures had been cooler than previously thought, and recent ones higher – so that the warming trend looked steeper. For the period 2000 to 2014, the paper increased the rate of warming on land from 0.15C to 0.164C per decade.
In the weeks after the Pausebuster paper was published, Dr Bates conducted a one-man investigation into this. His findings were extraordinary. Not only had Mr Karl and his colleagues failed to follow any of the formal procedures required to approve and archive their data, they had used a ‘highly experimental early run’ of a programme that tried to combine two previously separate sets of records.
This had undergone the critical process known as ‘pairwise homogeneity adjustment’, a method of spotting ‘rogue’ readings from individual weather stations by comparing them with others nearby.
However, this process requires extensive, careful checking which was only just beginning, so that the data was not ready for operational use. Now, more than two years after the Pausebuster paper was submitted to Science, the new version of GHCN is still undergoing testing.
Moreover, the GHCN software was afflicted by serious bugs. They caused it to become so ‘unstable’ that every time the raw temperature readings were run through the computer, it gave different results. The new, bug-free version of GHCN has still not been approved and issued. It is, Dr Bates said, ‘significantly different’ from that used by Mr Karl and his co-authors.
Dr Bates revealed that the failure to archive and make available fully documented data not only violated NOAA rules, but also those set down by Science. 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.
The flawed conclusions of the Pausebuster paper were widely discussed by delegates at the Paris climate change conference. Mr Karl had a longstanding relationship with President Obama’s chief science adviser, John Holdren, giving him a hotline to the White House.

Mr Holdren was also a strong advocate of robust measures to curb emissions. Britain’s then Prime Minister David Cameron claimed at the conference that ‘97 per cent of scientists say climate change is urgent and man-made and must be addressed’ and called for ‘a binding legal mechanism’ to ensure the world got no more than 2C warmer than in pre-industrial times.
President Obama stressed his Clean Power Plan at the conference, which mandates American power stations to make big emissions cuts.
President Trump has since pledged he will scrap it, and to withdraw from the Paris Agreement.
Whatever takes its place, said Dr Bates, ‘there needs to be a fundamental change to the way NOAA deals with data so that people can check and validate scientific results. I’m hoping that this will be a wake-up call to the climate science community – a signal that we have to put in place processes to make sure this kind of crap doesn’t happen again.
‘I want to address the systemic problems. I don’t care whether modifications to the datasets make temperatures go up or down. But I want the observations to speak for themselves, and for that, there needs to be a new emphasis that ethical standards must be maintained.’
He said he decided to speak out after seeing reports in papers including the Washington Post and Forbes magazine claiming that scientists feared the Trump administration would fail to maintain and preserve NOAA’s climate records.
Dr Bates said: ‘How ironic it is that there is now this idea that Trump is going to trash climate data, when key decisions were earlier taken by someone whose responsibility it was to maintain its integrity – and failed.’
NOAA not only failed, but it effectively mounted a cover-up when challenged over its data. After the paper was published, the US House of Representatives Science Committee launched an inquiry into its Pausebuster claims. NOAA refused to comply with subpoenas demanding internal emails from the committee chairman, the Texas Republican Lamar Smith, and falsely claimed that no one had raised concerns about the paper internally.
Last night Mr Smith thanked Dr Bates ‘for courageously stepping forward to tell the truth about NOAA’s senior officials playing fast and loose with the data in order to meet a politically predetermined conclusion’. He added: ‘The Karl study used flawed data, was rushed to publication in an effort to support the President’s climate change agenda, and ignored NOAA’s own standards for scientific study.’
Professor Curry, now the president of the Climate Forecast Applications Network, said last night: ‘Large adjustments to the raw data, and substantial changes in successive dataset versions, imply substantial uncertainties.’
It was time, she said, that politicians and policymakers took these uncertainties on board.
Last night Mr Karl admitted the data had not been archived when the paper was published. Asked why he had not waited, he said: ‘John Bates is talking about a formal process that takes a long time.’ He denied he was rushing to get the paper out in time for Paris, saying: ‘There was no discussion about Paris.’
They played fast and loose with the figures
He also admitted that the final, approved and ‘operational’ edition of the GHCN land data would be ‘different’ from that used in the paper’.
As for the ERSSTv4 sea dataset, he claimed it was other records – such as the UK Met Office’s – which were wrong, because they understated global warming and were ‘biased too low’. Jeremy Berg, Science’s editor-in-chief, said: ‘Dr Bates raises some serious concerns. After the results of any appropriate investigations… we will consider our options.’ He said that ‘could include retracting that paper’.NOAA declined to comment.

It’s not the first time we’ve exposed dodgy climate data, which is why we’ve dubbed it: Climate Gate 2

Dr John Bates’s disclosures about the manipulation of data behind the ‘Pausebuster’ paper is the biggest scientific scandal since ‘Climategate’ in 2009 when, as this paper reported, thousands of leaked emails revealed scientists were trying to block access to data, and using a ‘trick’ to conceal embarrassing flaws in their claims about global warming.
Both scandals suggest a lack of transparency and, according to Dr Bates, a failure to observe proper ethical standards.
Because of NOAA ’s failure to ‘archive’ data used in the paper, its results can never be verified.
Like Climategate, this scandal is likely to reverberate around the world, and reignite some of science’s most hotly contested debates.
Blowing up the graph show is disappears in 1961 artfully hidden behind the other colours
The reason? Because this is what it shows after 1961, a dramatic decline in global temperatures
Flawed: How the MoS exposed ‘climategate’ in 2009. Left, blowing up the graph show is disappears in 1961 artfully hidden behind the other colours. Right, the reason? Because this is what it shows after 1961, a dramatic decline in global temperatures
Has there been an unexpected pause in global warming? If so, is the world less sensitive to carbon dioxide than climate computer models suggest?
And does this mean that truly dangerous global warming is less imminent, and that politicians’ repeated calls for immediate ‘urgent action’ to curb emissions are exaggerated?

Judith Curry has also blogged on the same story.

End of the beginning?

 

Comments
  1. BoyfromTottenham says:

    Surely Trump will react to this. I’m looking forward to seeing how…

  2. Paul Vaughan says:

    ERSSTv4 should have been retracted (and v3b2 reinstated) instantly upon release. WE HAVE KNOWN THIS FOR YEARS.

  3. Paul Vaughan says:

    Retract v4. Reinstate v3b2. Save bandwidth for correcting the major fault without breaking stability keys in the ignition.

  4. […] Source: NOAA Whistleblower reveals ‘Pausebuster’ scandal | Tallbloke’s Talkshop […]

  5. oldbrew says:

    ‘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.’

    Computer software isn’t normally machine-dependent to a single machine, only to one of the same type or one using the same (or compatible) operating system. But if the raw data has ‘disappeared’ it wouldn’t matter whether the original machine had failed anyway :/
    – – –
    John Bates – in his own words…

    Climate scientists versus climate data
    Posted on February 4, 2017
    by John Bates

    A look behind the curtain at NOAA’s climate data center.

    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.
    http://judithcurry.com/2017/02/04/climate-scientists-versus-climate-data/

    Dr Bates comments:
    So, in every aspect of the preparation and release of the datasets leading into K15, we find Tom Karl’s thumb on the scale pushing for, and often insisting on, decisions that maximize warming and minimize documentation.
    – – –
    Judith Curry writes:
    I will have another post on this topic in a few days.

    Being retired sure is liberating . . .

  6. richardscourtney says:

    Dear Tallbloke:

    With reference to the article by Bates, I write to report that at
    https://judithcurry.com/2017/02/04/climate-scientists-versus-climate-data/#comment-836656
    I have provided the following post on the blog of Judith Curry.

    “Steven Mosher:

    You touch on – but evade – an important issue when you write,
    “There are no established, globally accepted, universal “engineering standards”.

    There is no possibility of such “standards” because
    (a) there is no “established, globally accepted, universal” definition of global temperature
    and
    (b) if there were such an agreed definition then there is no possibility of an independent calibration standard for it.

    Indeed, each team that provides global and hemispheric temperature data sets alters the definition it uses almost every month and, therefore, changes its data for past global temperatures almost every month; see e.g. http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/giss/hansen-giss-1940-1980.gif

    All supposed “data” for global temperature is rendered scientifically invalid by the lack of an agreed definition of the parameter and the impossibility of any calibration standard for it. Simply, estimates of global temperature are pure pseudoscience with less credibility than phrenology.

    Richard

    Richard Courtney
    richardscourtney@aol.com

  7. AlecM says:

    I won’t bore readers with my endless claims of data and science fraud. I can now leave that to others as they retire! My advantage is that I was retired 13 years ago because I was creating a viable CCS technology, a serious threat to the windmill Mafia. They bought our company and closed it down.

    PS Japan is to build 43 new supercritical coal power stations. Australia is also building new such stations. The Japanese scientist who has led its CO2 research has come to the same conclusions as me, but has made a couple of key mistakes. CO2 climate sensitivity is near zero More later…….

  8. markstoval says:

    I am surprised at Dr. Bates.

    I would have guessed that there was not one single honest human in that government organization, and yet there is an example of an honest man fighting for truth. No kidding, I am surprised.

  9. colliemum says:

    I’ve written an article ( more like a polite rant …) on this issue here:
    http://www.ukipdaily.com/scammers-and-fraudsters/
    with a big fat H/T to this blog and Rog.
    🙂

  10. scute1133 says:

    Just a note on BBC bias:

    You sent the notification email of this blog post to me at 00:29 UTC this morning, 5th Feb. So this story has been in the public domain since at least that time.

    As of 12:45 UTC there was no mention of it at all on the BBC News website, not the main page nor the Science and Environment page nor the US-tailored page. Zilch.

    Let’s see how long this goes on for. Trump will probably force the BBC’s hand when he mentions it.

  11. Bitter&twisted says:

    This “bombshell” should not come as a surprise.
    Firstly we know that most climate “psientists” are second rate and/or crooks.
    Secondly these so-called temperature databases are hopelessly compromised by the repeated “adjustments” of the corrupt psientists.
    Thirdly Dr Bates waited until he was safely retired before “spilling the beans”

    The whole of climate “science” needs a Trump enema to flush out the rottenness.

  12. oldbrew says:

    B & T says ‘The whole of climate “science” needs a Trump enema to flush out the rottenness.’

    Aka ‘Drain the swamp’ 😎

    [credit:A.F.Branco]
    http://comicallyincorrect.com/2016/11/11/drain-baby-drain/

  13. wolsten says:

    If Trump were to prosecute this fraud it’s fairly certain that the Democratic Party and supporters would be up in arms, calling it a blatant attack on scientice and scientists. Also, pretty certain the BBC would report it as such.
    #sadbuttrue

  14. NOAAgate is really taking off this time!! I gave up listing all the blogs covering this. It’s very much climategate – it went viral in the blogs and then the mainstream media were dragged kicking and screaming along and finally had to run with it.

  15. oldbrew says:

    Roger Pielke senior has weighed in:

    ‘Actually, my issues transcend personality. The problem, in this case, is the abuse of power (Tom Karl, Tom Peterson, Peter Thorne) to defend their surface temperature data, rather than to engage in constructive scientific discussion. The post by John Bates exposes their behavior.’

    http://judithcurry.com/2017/02/04/climate-scientists-versus-climate-data/#comment-836758

  16. co2islife says:

    This issue only gets worse and worse. Once people start looking behind every claim of the alarmists this whole fraud comes crashing down.
    Climate “Science” on Trial; The Consensus is more Con and NonSense than Science
    https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2017/01/29/climate-science-on-trial-the-consensus-is-more-con-and-nonsense-than-science/
    Climate “Science” on Trial; Data Chiropractioners “Adjust” Data
    https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2017/01/29/climate-science-on-trial-data-chiropractioners-manipulate-data/
    Just How Much Does 1 Degree C Cost?
    https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2017/01/25/just-how-much-does-1-degree-c-cost/

  17. Ron Clutz says:

    It should also be noted the calculation of global temperature anomalies is biased toward warming in the higher latitudes, especially in the North. Clive Best has done a service deconstructing this and supporting his analysis with Soctese’s work.

    http://rclutz.wordpress.com/2017/02/02/fact-future-climate-will-be-flatter-not-hotter/

  18. Ron Clutz says:

    Correction: I meant Christopher Scotese.

  19. Stephen Richards says:

    AlecM says:
    February 5, 2017 at 10:51 am

    I’m more with Alec. We have known about the unreliability of surface stations for a long long time. WUWT team have spent years exposing this error. That’s the thing, you see. It has been known for years but no one at NOAA NASA would engage in discussion, express the uncertainty or publish fully their data.

    How anyone falls for the global temperature crap I have no idea. My hope is that Trump survives assassination by all the vested interests long enough to bring the criminals to justice.

  20. Paul Vaughan says:

    Stephen Richards suggested:
    “WUWT team have spent years exposing this error.”

    Not once did they ever report the major problems with v4.

  21. Paul Vaughan says:

    Quoting SM here? Taste couldn’t be worse.

  22. […]  NOAA Whistleblower reveals ‘Pausebuster’ scandal 2) Climate scientists versus climate data 3)  Former NOAA Scientist Confirms Colleagues […]

  23. oldbrew says:

    According to reports, NOAA has now decided to replace the sea temperature dataset just 18 months after it was issued, because it used “unreliable methods which overstated the speed of warming.”
    – – –
    Although scientists are held up as models of independent thinkers and unbiased seekers of truth, the reality is that they depend on funding even more than other professions, and will study what they are paid to study.

    The Obama administration, which persistently denied that a climate debate even existed, channeled billions of federal dollars into programs and studies that supported its claims, while silencing contrary opinions.

    http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/02/05/whistle-blower-global-warming-data-manipulated-paris-conference/

    So ‘the pause’ which was admitted by the IPCC is vindicated.

  24. oldbrew says:

    Feb 5, 2017 Press Release
    WASHINGTON – U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Science, Space, and Technology members today responded to reports about the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) 2015 climate change study (“the Karl study”). According to Dr. John Bates, the recently retired principal scientist at NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center, the Karl study was used “to discredit the notion of a global warming hiatus and rush to time the publication of the paper to influence national and international deliberations on climate policy.”

    Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas): “I thank Dr. John Bates for courageously stepping forward to tell the truth about NOAA’s senior officials playing fast and loose with the data in order to meet a politically predetermined conclusion.”

    http://science.house.gov/news/press-releases/former-noaa-scientist-confirms-colleagues-manipulated-climate-records

  25. A C Osborn says:

    Paul Vaughan says: February 6, 2017 at 4:31 am

    “Quoting SM here? Taste couldn’t be worse.”

    Typical, blame the messenger and not the message.
    How about from the horses mouth, as shown by
    oldbrew says: February 5, 2017 at 9:43 am

    https://judithcurry.com/2017/02/04/climate-scientists-versus-climate-data/#comment-836656

  26. oldbrew says:

    DELINGPOLE: NOAA Scandal Gives Trump The Perfect Excuse To Drain The Climate Swamp

    Trump is now in the perfect position to demand that climate-related scientific bodies in receipt of government funding (ie all of them) make their code and data available to the public. This will mean that the truth about all the data manipulations at NASA and NOAA will finally be exposed to the world – making it impossible for global warming propagandists to use the Appeal to Authority “But the experts at NOAA and NASA say…” Any time soon, now, those fake experts at NASA and NOAA will be out of a job, replaced by honest scientists who actually cleave to the scientific method.

    This will be a particularly delicious irony for all those honest sceptics who, over the last few decades, have been branded “anti-science” for questioning the global warming “consensus.”

    http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/02/06/delingpole-noaa-scandal-gives-trump-the-perfect-excuse-to-drain-the-climate-swamp/

    Unless he’s too busy doing other things.

  27. Paul Vaughan says:

    A C Osborn suggested:
    “Typical, blame the messenger and not the message.”

    SM, WE, LS, and a few others should have been banned from climate discussion for life in 2011.

  28. Paul Vaughan says:

    WUWT deliberately weakened their criticism of v4 to make it appear that there were no major criticisms of v4.

  29. oldbrew says:

    Let’s see what this brings:

    ‘Now, some of those same authors have produced the pending, revised new version of the sea dataset – ERSSTv5. A draft of a document that explains the methods used to generate version 5, and which has been seen by this newspaper, indicates the new version will reverse the flaws in version 4, changing the buoy adjustments and including some satellite data and measurements from a special high-tech floating buoy network known as Argo. As a result, it is certain to show reductions in both absolute temperatures and recent global warming.’

    Presumably ship buckets or whatever are now out of fashion?

    NOAA’s 2015 ‘trick’:
    NOAA also added new adjustments for changes in ship measurement techniques, as ships transitioned from buckets to engine intake valves. These changes are by far the largest factors responsible for changing global temperatures in the past 17 years compared to temperatures found in the prior NOAA record.

    http://berkeleyearth.org/whither-the-pause-noaa-report-shows-no-recent-slowdown-in-warming/

  30. oldbrew says:

    ‘End of the beginning?’

    Yes, JC writes: ‘We can look forward to more revelations from John Bates, including documentation, plus more detailed responses to some of the issues raised above.’ [i.e. in Andrew’s latest link – see comment above].

    Also from JC: ‘with the surface temperature data set we are in the realm of regulatory science, which has a very different playbook from academic, ‘normal’ science. While regulatory science is most often referred to in context of food and pharmaceutical sciences, it is also relevant to environmental regulations as well. The procedures developed by John Bates are absolutely essential for certifying these datasets, as well as their uncertainties, for a regulatory environment.’
    – – –
    My own comment: Sadly in recent times some leading politicians have been happy to ignore or suppress uncertainties that didn’t suit their plans.

  31. catweazle666 says:

    “Presumably ship buckets or whatever are now out of fashion?”

    Ship’s engine cooling water inlet temperature data is acquired from the engine room cooling inlet temperature gauges by the engineers at their convenience.

    There is no standard for either the location of the inlets with regard especially to depth below the surface, the position in the pipework of the measuring instruments or the time of day the reading is taken.

    The instruments themselves are of industrial quality, their limit of error in °C per DIN EN 13190 is ±2 deg C. or ±4 deg. C for a class 2 instrument, as can be seen here: DS_IN0007_GB_1334.pdf . After installation is exceptionally unlikely that they are ever checked for calibration.

    It is not clear how such readings can be compared with the readings from buoy instruments specified to a limit of error of tenths or even hundreds of a degree C. or why they are considered to have any value whatsoever for the purposes to which they are put, which is to produce trends apparently precise to 0.001 deg. C upon which spending of literally trillions of £/$/whatever are decided.

    But hey, this is climate “science” we’re discussing so why would a little thing like that matter?

  32. oldbrew says:

    ‘It is not clear how such readings can be compared with the readings from buoy instruments specified to a limit of error of tenths or even hundreds of a degree C.’

    An understatement if ever there was one by catweazle there 😎
    This is the world we live in, like it or not.

  33. oldbrew says:

    NOAA To ‘Review’ Allegations That Scientists Manipulated Global Warming Research

    Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2017/02/06/noaa-to-review-allegations-that-scientists-manipulated-global-warming-research/

    Self-review has its limitations 😉

  34. Paul Vaughan says:

    I predicted long ago that they’d go v5 to avoid retracting v4. Their thinking’s transparent.

  35. Paul Vaughan says:

    v5 will be worse than v4 and WUWT will judge it on decoy factors rather than important factors, just as with v4. It’s incremental creep. With each new version they incrementally snake this way and then that way.

    Someone watching a part of the snake might even think it’s going the right way. The end goal remains the same: Obscure solar-terrestrial relations. Slow walk the record in steps towards the destination of zero recognition. They hate SCD. They want it hidden. They’ll use a decoy to fool the naive. They’ll have part of the snake doing something that will hypnotize. Recent temperatures go down or something like that so people will applaud and not notice what else they did that’s orders of magnitude more important.

    As I said long ago they only needed to go 2 steps from v3b2. v4 was step 1. v5 is the FINAL step.

    WUWT will support the deception. That’s a sure bet. The US has lost all credibility in how this has been handled. Doesn’t matter whether left or right. The retraction should have been done 2 years ago AT THE LATEST. It wasn’t. It wouldn’t even matter whether left or right. The corruption was so egregious and transparent that integrity demanded a fix no matter whether left or right. It became clear that correction had to come from OUTSIDE US because US is drowning in the intensity of its infighting.

    All anyone ever had to do here was put aside left and right and act with integrity …and we observe that no one in the US did that …so people from outside are doing it. Help from the friendly neighbors.

    Probably kills the thrill for gamblers in the stands but it’s a sure bet. My advice is get serious neighbors. Stop promoting fake issues with v4 and focus on the real ones. Gamblers won’t respect leaders that don’t lie to them kind of thing. It’s like people have forgotten that it’s actually possible to win without cheating when you have a perfect hand.

  36. oldbrew says:

    ‘The new, bug-free version of GHCN has still not been approved and issued.’

    Even if/when it’s ‘bug-free’ that doesn’t prove it’s the ‘correct’ software, only that it doesn’t do unexpected things, or fail to do what it was expected to do.

    ‘Bug-free’ is a misnomer anyway in computing – the more realistic target is ‘no known bugs’.

  37. Paul Vaughan says:

    Just looked at this false advertising:
    https://judithcurry.com/2017/02/06/response-to-critiques-climate-scientists-versus-climate-data/

    They’re pursuing the same strategy as last time around: throwing up flurries of decoys to totally confuse the issue, NEVER raising any of the big issues.

    The big issues with v4 remain thoroughly swept under a rug in ALL US-based climate blog discussion — doesn’t matter whether left or right.

    The commonality is that whether left propaganda or right propaganda the MAJOR issues with v4 ARE HIDDEN in American discussion.

    Like always it’s creepy. Trust is long gone. Stable leadership from outside the US remains the only viable option in the context of audaciously persistent US ignorance and/or deception.

    US infighting is so intense it’s like they assume the truth is strictly untenable persuasively and the only option is to throw flurries of distortion. People are so exhausted from and consumed by the intensity of the infighting that it’s not even clear if there exists anyone sufficiently untangled to even begin thinking clearly for 1 moment. Integrity is nowhere is sight.

    It would be interesting to see what would happen if the US blog dark agents were banned for life. All along that has been the simplest, easiest avenue by which to expedite correction of the American climate discussion. Persistent evasion of the efficient avenue is bluntly informative. NO desire exists in the US to actually correct the problems. The problems ARE THE DESIGN. Distortion has been deemed the only viable tactic in the wild savage jungle of US infighting.

    Fortunately we can count on Russia, China, and the UK to pursue stability corrections with help from Australia, Canada, India, The Philippines, France, and others. The Sun will outshine the paid dark agents of US climate blogs. There are only about 6 people causing all the trouble.

  38. Paul Vaughan says:

    The simple, efficient way to correct US climate discussion is to ban leadership based on major fault.

  39. Terry says:

    This part at the end of the article is very typo-confused.

    Left, blowing up the graph show is disappears in 1961 artfully hidden behind the other colours. Right, the reason? Because this is what it shows after 1961, a dramatic decline in global temperatures
    Has there been

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s