David Whitehouse: Data, Deflection And The Pause 

Posted: February 13, 2017 by oldbrew in data, opinion, pause, Temperature

The arguments stirred up by the NOAA’s ‘pausegate’ whistleblower rumble on. A UK Met Office expert asserted ‘the slowdown hasn’t gone away’. This one could run and run.

David Rose’s splendid and significant article in last week’s Mail on Sunday certainly caused a stir. The initial reaction, mostly distractions, have been easily dealt with by David Rose in this week’s installment.

One of the points raised concerned a paper submitted to the Journal of Climate by Huang et al. It is about the new ERSSTv5 sea surface temperature dataset.

It is an interesting paper that claims that ERSSTv5 shows a lower rate of warming than the previous ERSSTv4 which was used by the now famous Karl et al paper in 2015 which claimed that — contrary to the IPCC — there had been no slowdown in the rate of temperature increase in the past 15 years or so – the so-called Pause.

One persistent activist said the paper was stolen and it was unethical to comment on it. In reality the preprint was obtained from a public webpage, anyone could have downloaded it. It has been in circulation for weeks.

The Huang paper and its inconvenient conclusion prompted the Carbon Brief website to publish an article early Friday afternoon by Prof Peter Thorne of Maynooth University. Clearly, and unwisely, it was designed to forestall anything David Rose might say about discrepancies in ocean temperature data. It was a naïve move showing inexperience with ‘media management.’

Carbon Brief’s contributor said that the paper’s authors did not give permission for the yet to be published data to be distributed. But it doesn’t matter. By placing it on a public website they had. Also Carbon Brief or its advisors know that no such restrictions apply to journalists.

Some journalists have a relationship with some journals to respect short-term pre-publication embargoes, but it is voluntary and not applicable with the journal in question. Where would journalism be if every time a reporter was told ‘you can’t publish this,’ they acquiesced?

The author said because of the potential headlines he wanted to set the record straight. Because the Huang paper and its data was still undergoing peer-review he said he would only discuss it in the barest detail, only he didn’t. He went into much detail about many of the most important points of Huang et al.

But he went even further than that. He actually published the HRSSTv5 dataset. It doesn’t matter that it was in graphical form – there it was on Carbon Brief who had given to the world data that was under peer review! The article on Carbon Brief is published under a CC license encouraging reproduction. There could be no copyright issues now.

Within minutes of the posting by Carbon Brief it was noted that their ERSSTv5 graph was not the same as in the Huang paper. Because of this there followed a series of twitter exchanges. I will spare the names and embarrassment. You can go look at them if you like. Below is the Huang data.

The GWPF report continues here.
– – –
Background – report (2013) by Dr Whitehouse: The global warming standstill – The Global Warming Policy Foundation

Met Office vs NOAA – 13/02/17

  1. oldbrew says:

    Jo Nova: Pause-deniers finally get busted by mainstream media

    It’s been a rotten week for Pause denial

  2. Paul Vaughan says:

    v5 is more corrupted than v4, not less. Both v5 and v4 must be retracted and v3b2 reinstated.

  3. Paul Vaughan says:

    Watch to see if KNMI Climate Explorer sweeps v3b2 under the rug. That’s why the rush to get v5 out. It’s all happening just like I told you it would 2 years ago — everything going exactly according to plan.

  4. Paul Vaughan says:

    What is the appropriate response? I’m not sure. What can be done about corruption on this scale? Not much.

  5. oldbrew says:

    Send in the swamp drainers 😎

    Right on cue…
    NOAA Is Hiring Outside Experts To Review ‘Pause-Busting’ Global Warming Study

    Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2017/02/13/noaa-is-hiring-outside-experts-to-review-pause-busting-global-warming-study/

  6. Paul Vaughan says:

    Everyone has been ignoring the biggest problem for 2 years, so it won’t get addressed. It’s not corrected in v5. What does that do to trust that was already destroyed? The amount of time and effort it takes to get these people to correct themselves is extraordinary. There has to be a better way. They do not care about being reasonable. They cannot be corrected by reason.

  7. BoyfromTottenham says:

    Is Noble Cause Corruption a crime? If not it should be. Please cc this to POTUS for me.

  8. Brett Keane says:

    Change this data Karl, at your peril: https://www.whaleoil.co.nz/2017/02/guest-post-men-science-visited-shores/
    h/t Slater@whaleoil

  9. oldbrew says:

    Jo Nova: Help failing sad climate scientists deal with their dark moods

    What happens when your world view is wrong and you can’t deal with reality?

    Climate change: Scientists sad, frustrated as extreme weather becomes the new norm

  10. oldbrew says:

    Committee Probes Allegations of Politicization of NOAA Study
    Feb 14, 2017 Press Release

    WASHINGTON – U.S. House Science, Space, and Technology Committee Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas) today sent a letter to National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Acting Administrator Benjamin Friedman requesting information on the Karl study following reports the study ignored NOAA standards, was rushed to publication, and was not free from political bias.
    – – –
    ‘Today’s letter requests documents and communications related to the release of the Karl study, the datasets used in the Karl study, concerns raised about datasets used in the Karl study, and the scientific integrity of the study. The committee also requested a briefing on the independent experts NOAA is engaging with to review this matter.’