King Harald V of Norway concluded his state visit to Washington and Alaska on Wednesday in Anchorage by stressing his message of concern over warming in the Arctic.

“Research and accurate data is essential in our struggle,” he said at a luncheon meeting of the Alaska World Affairs Council. “Without it, we will never understand the complexity of our region.”

He shared a quote from the polar explorer Roald Amundsen, who observed that most of what people call luck is a matter of preparation. The king urged the audience to promote learning as much about the Arctic climate as possible.

“Let no stone be left unturned,” he said. “Be well prepared and you will have good luck.”

Several other speakers at the luncheon addressed reports of shrinking Arctic Ocean ice, including Robert Papp, the U.S. State Department’s special representative for the Arctic. Change in the Arctic “presents a change in the history of the world,” he said. “Shipping routes for the world will change. It has the potential for leading to prosperity for our people.”

source; http://www.adn.com/article/20150527/king-norway-urges-alaskans-prepare-arctic-warming

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jun 5^th, 2015 at 1:06pm:

“Research and accurate data is essential in our struggle,”

Not the multiple adjusted data.

A new article in Science "Possible artifacts of data biases in the recent global surface warming hiatus", Karl et al, says the the buoys are the most accurate for sea level temperatures.

It then goes on to say that their is a discrepancy between shipborne data collection and the buoys of 0.12C. They then add this adjustment from a less accurate source to the more accurate source. With a p value of 0.1, and say that that is statistically significant.

They also cite Kennedy et al. (2011).

(quote from Hirahari et al. 2014 p. 61)

That quote refers to a paper by Kennedy et al. (2011 Table 5)[5] which reports a mean bias of +0.12 C. However, Kennedy et al. also note that the estimate is very uncertain: it is 0.12C , +/- 1.7C'

So you are actually making a more accurate measurement, less accurate.

On to 2015 the "hottest year evah".

lee wrote on Jun 5^th, 2015 at 3:11pm:

Not the multiple adjusted data.

Like the shonky graphs that Ajax cuts and pastes. Such faith in Bob Tisdale. I hear that he's decided to retire again - only the second time in 15 years.


Quote:

I’m Retiring from Full-Time Climate Change Blogging Posted on January 3, 2014      by Bob Tisdale THIS IS A STICKY POST.  NEW POSTS WILL APPEAR BELOW IT. # # # As many of you are aware, I’m a pensioner, a retiree…or had been.  Sales of my ebooks and the occasional tip/donation (many thanks to all who have donated over the years) have helped to pay the bills, but they haven’t covered them. So I’ve been forced to find another source of income.

It was probably a nice little earner spouting lies like he did. You see that Lee?  There is hope for you yet. If a retired car salesman can do it, so can you.

Who said anything about Bob Tisdale? You seem paranoid. Take a Bex and lie down.

But from your post -

' Sales of my ebooks and the occasional tip/donation (many thanks to all who have donated over the years) have helped to pay the bills, but they haven’t covered them.'

So it seems he wasn't paid well for his 'lies'. You'll have to come up with another ad hom.

lee wrote on Jun 5^th, 2015 at 6:37pm:

Who said anything about Bob Tisdale? You seem paranoid. Take a Bex and lie down. But from your post - ' Sales of my ebooks and the occasional tip/donation (many thanks to all who have donated over the years) have helped to pay the bills, but they haven’t covered them.' So it seems he wasn't paid well for his 'lies'. You'll have to come up with another ad hom.

He was the bringer of the shonky graphs (multiple adjusted data). Anthony Watts loved them.

Any views on the peer reviewed paper in Science? I mean this is from NOAA/NCDC/NCEi, the bastion of AGW.

Talk about multiple adjusted data.

lee wrote on Jun 5^th, 2015 at 7:02pm:

Any views on the peer reviewed paper in Science? I mean this is from NOAA/NCDC/NCEi, the bastion of AGW. Talk about multiple adjusted data.

Have you read the paper? It seems to confirm what I've been trying to tell you and Ajax. There is no evidence of a slow down in global warming.

---

Did you read the top post they've added .12C +/- 1.7C to the buoy data. Because it differed from the ship data. They said the buoy data was the best and then added wide error bars from the ship data, to somehow make it more accurate.

If you think that is ok, you must have comprehension problems.

lee wrote on Jun 5^th, 2015 at 8:09pm:

Did you read the top post they've added .12C +/- 1.7C to the buoy data. Because it differed from the ship data. They said the buoy data was the best and then added wide error bars from the ship data, to somehow make it more accurate. If you think that is ok, you must have comprehension problems.

You need to go back to the paper. These comments were made before the paper was published.

If you have read the paper, tell me this -

During which period of time (years)  do the most significant corrections apply?

and

Do the corrections for non-climatic effects increase or reduce the trend?

If you are simply parroting what's on WUWT, then you probably won't know.

John_Taverner wrote on Jun 5^th, 2015 at 6:26pm:

lee wrote on Jun 5th, 2015 at 3:11pm: Not the multiple adjusted data. Like the shonky graphs that Ajax cuts and pastes. Such faith in Bob Tisdale. I hear that he's decided to retire again - only the second time in 15 years. Quote: I’m Retiring from Full-Time Climate Change Blogging Posted on January 3, 2014      by Bob Tisdale THIS IS A STICKY POST.  NEW POSTS WILL APPEAR BELOW IT. # # # As many of you are aware, I’m a pensioner, a retiree…or had been.  Sales of my ebooks and the occasional tip/donation (many thanks to all who have donated over the years) have helped to pay the bills, but they haven’t covered them. So I’ve been forced to find another source of income. It was probably a nice little earner spouting lies like he did. You see that Lee?  There is hope for you yet. If a retired car salesman can do it, so can you.

Ajax's graphs are probably not 'shonky', when compared to the IPCC , and other warmist institution's graphs...

John_Taverner wrote on Jun 5^th, 2015 at 8:28pm:

These comments were made before the paper was published.

You mean they read the pre-release? And did the paper change from the embargoed release and official release? You seem to have a strange view on required timeframes.

lee wrote on Jun 5^th, 2015 at 8:50pm:

John_Taverner wrote on Jun 5th, 2015 at 8:28pm: These comments were made before the paper was published. You mean they read the pre-release? And did the paper change from the embargoed release and official release? You seem to have a strange view on required timeframes.

I mean that they didn't read the paper. Neither did you. You just read a blog.

I have read the paper. I'm happy to discuss it with you when you can show that you have too. When you have read it, you should be able to answer my two questions.

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jun 5^th, 2015 at 8:42pm:

Ajax's graphs are probably not 'shonky', when compared to the IPCC , and other warmist institution's graphs...

When you take a 5 year running mean to conceal the fact that you switched datasets, that is shonky. When you cut and paste something without knowing what it is, that is even shonkier.

Ok, you've read it what did they base their .12C on if it wasn't the referenced paper?

POOMA I would say. What period does this maximum adjustment apply to? You must know that. 

Ok, I'll make it easier for you. Multiple choice.

Was it:

A 1880 - 1940 ?
B 1970 - 1990 ?
C 1998 - 2014 ?

'To make the buoy data equivalent to ship data on average
requires a straightforward addition of 0.12°C to each buoy observation.'

'In addition, because buoy data were determined to have less noise than ship data (greater precision)'

'Boldface indicates trends that are significant at the 0.10 significance level.'

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/suppl/2015/06/03/science.aaa5632.DC1/Karl-SM.pdf

So now you're looking at the supplementary information.

Still no luck with the questions I asked?

OK, I'll help you out with one of them.  The major adjustment was for the period 1880-1940. This amounted to around 0.12 degrees C.  So that would be A.

Are you starting to "get it" ?

Yes, because that tells us the method used. So have those who criticised the paper reviewed it? It would seem the answer is, yes.

They took (Ugly) noisy data from the ships, spliced it to (pretty) accurate data from the buoys and gave birth to a pretty ugly bastard child.

"lipstick" meet "pig".

The alarmist camp even tampers with correct data to give a distorted view of the truth.

They are such hypocrites.


Quote:

@NOAA ‘s desperate new paper: Is there no global warming ‘hiatus’ after all? Guest Blogger / 1 day ago June 4, 2015         Patrick J. Michaels Richard S. Lindzen Paul C. Knappenberger A new paper published today by Science, from Thomas Karl and several co-authors[1], that removes the “hiatus” in global warming prompts many serious scientific questions. The main claim[2] by the authors that they have uncovered a significant recent warming trend is dubious. The significance level they report on their findings (.10) is hardly normative, and the use of it should prompt members of the scientific community to question the reasoning behind the use of such a lax standard. In addition, the authors’ treatment of buoy sea-surface temperature (SST) data was guaranteed to create a warming trend. The data were adjusted upward by 0.12°C to make them “homogeneous” with the longer-running temperature records taken from engine intake channels in marine vessels. As has been acknowledged by numerous scientists, the engine intake data are clearly contaminated by heat conduction from the structure, and as such, never intended for scientific use. On the other hand, environmental monitoring is the specific purpose of the buoys. Adjusting good data upward to match bad data seems questionable, and the fact that the buoy network becomes increasingly dense in the last two decades means that this adjustment must put a warming trend in the data. About these ads The extension of high-latitude arctic land data over the Arctic Ocean is also questionable.   Much of the Arctic Ocean is ice-covered even in high summer, meaning the surface temperature must remain near freezing. Extending land data out into the ocean will obviously induce substantially exaggerated temperatures. Read the rest here http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/06/04/noaas-new-paper-is-there-no-global-warming-hiatus-after-all/

lee wrote on Jun 6^th, 2015 at 11:45am:

Yes, because that tells us the method used. So have those who criticised the paper reviewed it? It would seem the answer is, yes. They took (Ugly) noisy data from the ships, spliced it to (pretty) accurate data from the buoys and gave birth to a pretty ugly bastard child. "lipstick" meet "pig".

You've got it arse about, because you just read the blogs. The bucket data from 1880 to 1940 is what was adjusted (upwards).

Have a think about it. 

Let's suppose for a second Karl et al is correct.

Karl says the warming is 0.116/decade, the IPCC models (1990) say the warming for business-as-usual was 0.29/decade.  The IPCC models have been proved wrong.

Think about it.

You don't want to look at the methodology, merely that the conclusions match the hypothesis?

lee wrote on Jun 6^th, 2015 at 4:43pm:

Let's suppose for a second Karl et al is correct. Karl says the warming is 0.116/decade, the IPCC models (1990) say the warming for business-as-usual was 0.29/decade.  The IPCC models have been proved wrong. Think about it. You don't want to look at the methodology, merely that the conclusions match the hypothesis?

You're changing the subject. We were talking about the
"Possible artifacts of data biases in the recent global surface warming" hiatus paper were we not?

JT, Sorry. Thanks for reminding me.

Yes, they are only "possible artifacts", they may not be artifacts at all, just a mental exercise. A way to waste a weekend.

Isn't 0.116C/decade really, really scary?

lee wrote on Jun 6^th, 2015 at 5:54pm:

JT, Sorry. Thanks for reminding me. Yes, they are only "possible artifacts", they may not be artifacts at all, just a mental exercise. A way to waste a weekend. Isn't 0.116C/decade really, really scary?

Why isn't it scary?

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jun 5^th, 2015 at 8:42pm:

John_Taverner wrote on Jun 5th, 2015 at 6:26pm: lee wrote on Jun 5th, 2015 at 3:11pm: Not the multiple adjusted data. Like the shonky graphs that Ajax cuts and pastes. Such faith in Bob Tisdale. I hear that he's decided to retire again - only the second time in 15 years. Quote: I’m Retiring from Full-Time Climate Change Blogging Posted on January 3, 2014      by Bob Tisdale THIS IS A STICKY POST.  NEW POSTS WILL APPEAR BELOW IT. # # # As many of you are aware, I’m a pensioner, a retiree…or had been.  Sales of my ebooks and the occasional tip/donation (many thanks to all who have donated over the years) have helped to pay the bills, but they haven’t covered them. So I’ve been forced to find another source of income. It was probably a nice little earner spouting lies like he did. You see that Lee?  There is hope for you yet. If a retired car salesman can do it, so can you. Ajax's graphs are probably not 'shonky', when compared to the IPCC , and other warmist institution's graphs...

Gizmo is playing guessing games like Lomborg  ;D ;D ;D ;D

That is why Lomborg got laughed at by all of Australia and Tony Abbott can't help but look like a man with no gravitas at the next election  :D :D :D :D :D

Imagine being a liberal voter knowing Tony Abbott hates kids and the whole nation knows it but you're going to vote for him anyway because that's how the bluebloods get their reputation  ;D ;D  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

lee wrote on Jun 6^th, 2015 at 5:54pm:

JT, Sorry. Thanks for reminding me. Yes, they are only "possible artifacts", they may not be artifacts at all, just a mental exercise. A way to waste a weekend. Isn't 0.116C/decade really, really scary?

There you go trying to analyse the paper without having read it again.  It's a bit like using gravestone inscriptions only  to reveal the history of the 19th century.



Quote:

You don't want to look at the methodology, merely that the conclusions match the hypothesis?

That's a bit rich considering that you're making (wrong) proclamations about it without having read the paper.

lee wrote on Jun 5^th, 2015 at 9:37pm:

Boldface indicates trends that are significant at the 0.10 significance level.

'In statistics, the p-value is a function of the observed sample results (a statistic) that is used for testing a statistical hypothesis. Before the test is performed, a threshold value is chosen, called the significance level of the test, traditionally 5% or 1% [1] and denoted as α'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-value

So you think the postulation is statistically significant?

lee wrote on Jun 6^th, 2015 at 6:36pm:

lee wrote on Jun 5th, 2015 at 9:37pm: Boldface indicates trends that are significant at the 0.10 significance level. 'In statistics, the p-value is a function of the observed sample results (a statistic) that is used for testing a statistical hypothesis. Before the test is performed, a threshold value is chosen, called the significance level of the test, traditionally 5% or 1% [1] and denoted as α' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-value So you think the postulation is statistically significant?

Who are you talking to?

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jun 6^th, 2015 at 6:41pm:

lee wrote on Jun 6th, 2015 at 6:36pm: lee wrote on Jun 5th, 2015 at 9:37pm: Boldface indicates trends that are significant at the 0.10 significance level. 'In statistics, the p-value is a function of the observed sample results (a statistic) that is used for testing a statistical hypothesis. Before the test is performed, a threshold value is chosen, called the significance level of the test, traditionally 5% or 1% [1] and denoted as α' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-value So you think the postulation is statistically significant? Who are you talking to?

Himself. (He's lost the plot)

Somebody who talks about a paper without having read it must be suss. Do you agree?

John_Taverner wrote on Jun 6^th, 2015 at 8:03pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jun 6th, 2015 at 6:41pm: lee wrote on Jun 6th, 2015 at 6:36pm: lee wrote on Jun 5th, 2015 at 9:37pm: Boldface indicates trends that are significant at the 0.10 significance level. 'In statistics, the p-value is a function of the observed sample results (a statistic) that is used for testing a statistical hypothesis. Before the test is performed, a threshold value is chosen, called the significance level of the test, traditionally 5% or 1% [1] and denoted as α' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-value So you think the postulation is statistically significant? Who are you talking to? Himself. (He's lost the plot) Somebody who talks about a paper without having read it must be suss. Do you agree?

Busy: i'm all document shocked with wikipedia pages  :D :D :D :D :D

They tell me it's fine (Wiki). William Connolley, and friends control the AGW narrative there.

So JT refuses to discuss the methodology of the paper, with its pseudo accuracy and metrics. Just what you expect.

He merely wants to confirm his biases.

lee wrote on Jun 6^th, 2015 at 9:02pm:

They tell me it's fine (Wiki). William Connolley, and friends control the AGW narrative there. So JT refuses to discuss the methodology of the paper, with its pseudo accuracy and metrics. Just what you expect. He merely wants to confirm his biases.

oh noes: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/10/13/wikipedia-turbo-revisionism-by-william-connolley-continues/

FOLLOW THE MONEY  ::) ::)

For those who didn't like the wiki link.

Something more suited perhaps-

'The alternative hypothesis is the one you would believe if the null hypothesis is concluded to be untrue. The evidence in the trial is your data and the statistics that go along with it. All hypothesis tests ultimately use a p-value to weigh the strength of the evidence (what the data are telling you about the population). The p-value is a number between 0 and 1 and interpreted in the following way:

    A small p-value (typically ≤ 0.05) indicates strong evidence against the null hypothesis, so you reject the null hypothesis.

    A large p-value (> 0.05) indicates weak evidence against the null hypothesis, so you fail to reject the null hypothesis.

    p-values very close to the cutoff (0.05) are considered to be marginal (could go either way). Always report the p-value so your readers can draw their own conclusions.'

http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/what-a-pvalue-tells-you-about-statistical-data.html

lee wrote on Jun 6^th, 2015 at 9:02pm:

They tell me it's fine (Wiki). William Connolley, and friends control the AGW narrative there. So JT refuses to discuss the methodology of the paper, with its pseudo accuracy and metrics. Just what you expect. He merely wants to confirm his biases.

For the last time: I am perfectly happy to discuss the paper with anybody who has bothered to read it.

Clearly, all you have read is Chinese whispers and pulp fiction at WUWT.  Don't waste my time until you have bothered to read the paper.

John_Taverner wrote on Jun 7^th, 2015 at 1:09pm:

lee wrote on Jun 6th, 2015 at 9:02pm: They tell me it's fine (Wiki). William Connolley, and friends control the AGW narrative there. So JT refuses to discuss the methodology of the paper, with its pseudo accuracy and metrics. Just what you expect. He merely wants to confirm his biases. For the last time: I am perfectly happy to discuss the paper with anybody who has bothered to read it. Clearly, all you have read is Chinese whispers and pulp fiction at WUWT.  Don't waste my time until you have bothered to read the paper.

What paper are we talking about Johno.....????

Remember that the paper is the sum of its parts.

So tell me what the  'p' value tells us.

'Global temperature anomaly estimates are a product, not a measurement

The first thing to remember is that an estimate of how much warmer one year is than another in the global mean is just that, an estimate. '

Gavin Schmidt- http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2015/06/noaa-temperature-record-updates-and-the-hiatus/#sthash.B1t4pbWO.dpuf

'Prof Tim Osborn, Professor of Climate Science at the University of East Anglia, said he would caution against dismissing the slowdown in surface warming on the basis of this study, nor to downplay the role of natural decadal variability for short-term trends in climate.

“There are other datasets that still support a slowdown over some recent period of time, and there are intriguing geographical patterns such as cooling in large parts of the Pacific Ocean that were used to support explanations for the warming slowdown,” Professor Osborn said.'

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/climate/global-warming-didnt-stall-new-study-shows/story-e6frg6xf-1227383820131

CRU East Anglia

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/documents/421974/487107/gtc_feb2015.gif

The IPCC's 'hiatus'.

lee wrote on Jun 7^th, 2015 at 3:16pm:

'Prof Tim Osborn, Professor of Climate Science at the University of East Anglia, said he would caution against dismissing the slowdown in surface warming on the basis of this study, nor to downplay the role of natural decadal variability for short-term trends in climate. “There are other datasets that still support a slowdown over some recent period of time, and there are intriguing geographical patterns such as cooling in large parts of the Pacific Ocean that were used to support explanations for the warming slowdown,” Professor Osborn said.' http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/climate/global-warming-didnt-stall-new-study-shows/story-e6frg6xf-1227383820131 CRU East Anglia http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/documents/421974/487107/gtc_feb2015.gif The IPCC's 'hiatus'.

Professor Tim Osborne is quite correct. We should have an open mind.  Science doesn't work on the basis of single studies.  Time will tell as to how well accepted this work will become. A lot will depend on other studies to check this work.

Having an open mind is nothing like criticising a work on the basis of second hand blog opinions.

John_Taverner wrote on Jun 7^th, 2015 at 3:45pm:

Having an open mind is nothing like criticising a work on the basis of second hand blog opinions.

Says John, who only wants to study a part of Karl et al. Closed mind.

Ajax wrote on Jun 7^th, 2015 at 2:35pm:

[ What paper are we talking about Johno.....????

Try to keep up.

lee wrote on Jun 7^th, 2015 at 3:54pm:

John_Taverner wrote on Jun 7th, 2015 at 3:45pm: Having an open mind is nothing like criticising a work on the basis of second hand blog opinions. Says John, who only wants to study a part of Karl et al. Closed mind.

Knock knock. Is Lee there?

I have read the paper in its entirety. You have not. If you had, then you'd have be able to answer the questions.

Who has the closed mind?

You have said that you have read the paper "in its entirety".

What is your view of the laughable 0.10 significance?

lee wrote on Jun 7^th, 2015 at 6:08pm:

You have said that you have read the paper "in its entirety". What is your view of the laughable 0.10 significance?

Once more, I'm not prepared to discuss your parroting of WUWT.

I'm merely "parroting" the paper. It is in their methodology.

I've showed you the statistical significance, but you can't/won't acknowledge any shortfalls in the paper.

Talk about being blind to imperfections.

During which period of time (years)  do the most significant corrections apply?

and

Do the corrections for non-climatic effects increase or reduce the trend?

If you are simply parroting what's on WUWT, then you probably won't know.

You still haven't answered the Basic question. It is right there in Black and white, significance 0.10. Do you find it significant?

lee wrote on Jun 7^th, 2015 at 8:21pm:

You still haven't answered the Basic question. It is right there in Black and white, significance 0.10. Do you find it significant?

In what context?

lee wrote on Jun 7^th, 2015 at 2:45pm:

'Global temperature anomaly estimates are a product, not a measurement The first thing to remember is that an estimate of how much warmer one year is than another in the global mean is just that, an estimate. ' Gavin Schmidt- http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2015/06/noaa-temperature-record-updates-and-the-hiatus/#sthash.B1t4pbWO.dpuf

Good link. I hadn't read that before.  There are actually some clues in that link if you read it in full. That is, if you prefer to read what people write about the paper to reading the paper itself.

Quote:

The fun for the blog-watchers is what happened next. What could one do to get the story all wrong? First, you could incorrectly assume that scientists working on this must somehow be unaware of the problems (that is belied by the frequent mention of post WWII issues in workshops and papers since at least 2005, but never mind). Next, you could conflate the ‘buckets’ used in recent decades (as seen in the graphs in Kent et al 2007‘s discussion of the ICOADS meta-data) with the buckets in the pre-war period (see photo above) and exaggerate how prevalent they were. If you do make those mistakes however, you can extrapolate to get some rather dramatic (and erroneous) conclusions. - See more at: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/06/of-buckets-and-blogs/#sthash.LoZUGNYH.dpuf

That's why I said not to trust denialist blogs. Read the paper itself.

Karl et al.

He makes some very big assumptions and predications, in other words a strawman argument.


Quote:

A First Look at ‘Possible artifacts of data biases in the recent global surface warming hiatus’ by Karl et al., Science 4 June 2015 Guest Blogger / 3 days ago June 4, 2015         Guest essay by Ross McKitrick University of Guelph June 4, 2015 Background The idea that there has been a hiatus in global warming since the late 1990s comes from examination of several different data sets: Sources: all data accessed through http://www.climate4you.com/GlobalTemperatures.htm except last one, taken from http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v5/n3/full/nclimate2513.html. The IPCC’s recent report identified this hiatus and commented as follows (Working Group I, Chapter 9, Box 9.2): The observed global-mean surface temperature (GMST) has shown a much smaller increasing linear trend over the past 15 years than over the past 30 to 60 years… Depending on the observational data set, the GMST trend over 1998–2012 is estimated to be around one-third to one-half of the trend over 1951–2012. K15 New Estimates Karl et al. (2015, which I’ll call K15) have struck a very different note, saying that the post-1998 trend is much higher than previously thought, and is in fact about the same as that of the post-1951 interval. Their trend estimate revisions are as follows: So what changed in the SST records? Bear in mind that there are very few records of air temperatures over the oceans, especially prior to 1950. So to get long term climate estimates, scientists use SST (i.e. water temperature) data, which have been collected since the 1800s by ships. The long term SST records were never collected for climate analysis and they are notoriously difficult to work with. Many judgments need to be made to yield a final record, and as the K15article shows, changes in some of those assumptions yield major changes in the final results. Read the rest here http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/06/04/a-first-look-at-possible-artifacts-of-data-biases-in-the-recent-global-surface-warming-hiatus-by-karl-et-al-science-4-june-2015/

Ajax wrote on Jun 8^th, 2015 at 10:15am:

Karl et al. He makes some very big assumptions and predications, in other words a strawman argument.

He obviously didn't read or understand the paper either.

John_Taverner wrote on Jun 8^th, 2015 at 10:35am:

Ajax wrote on Jun 8th, 2015 at 10:15am: Karl et al. He makes some very big assumptions and predications, in other words a strawman argument. He obviously didn't read or understand the paper either.

I've read enough about it.......!!!!!

Don't want to waste anymore time.

Ajax wrote on Jun 8^th, 2015 at 10:51am:

John_Taverner wrote on Jun 8th, 2015 at 10:35am: Ajax wrote on Jun 8th, 2015 at 10:15am: Karl et al. He makes some very big assumptions and predications, in other words a strawman argument. He obviously didn't read or understand the paper either. I've read enough about it.......!!!!! Don't want to waste anymore time.

No, you wouldn't want to read the actual paper. It might make your brain hurt.

John_Taverner wrote on Jun 8^th, 2015 at 10:56am:

Ajax wrote on Jun 8th, 2015 at 10:51am: John_Taverner wrote on Jun 8th, 2015 at 10:35am: Ajax wrote on Jun 8th, 2015 at 10:15am: Karl et al. He makes some very big assumptions and predications, in other words a strawman argument. He obviously didn't read or understand the paper either. I've read enough about it.......!!!!! Don't want to waste anymore time. No, you wouldn't want to read the actual paper. It might make your brain hurt.

No use reading one mans bullshit.

Do you also believe that smoking is good for your health?

John_Taverner wrote on Jun 8^th, 2015 at 11:09am:

Do you also believe that smoking is good for your health?

Haha....you getting funny Johno.......!!!!!!..... ;D

Ajax wrote on Jun 8^th, 2015 at 11:05am:

John_Taverner wrote on Jun 8th, 2015 at 10:56am: Ajax wrote on Jun 8th, 2015 at 10:51am: John_Taverner wrote on Jun 8th, 2015 at 10:35am: Ajax wrote on Jun 8th, 2015 at 10:15am: Karl et al. He makes some very big assumptions and predications, in other words a strawman argument. He obviously didn't read or understand the paper either. I've read enough about it.......!!!!! Don't want to waste anymore time. No, you wouldn't want to read the actual paper. It might make your brain hurt. No use reading one mans bullshit.

So you believe in Bjorn Lomborgs assesment that it is safe for fossil fuels to warm our kids earth by 3 degrees instead of 2?

:D :D :D :D :D

' In essence, the bias correction involved calculating the average difference between collocated buoy and ship SSTs. The average difference globally was −0.12°C, a correction which is applied to the buoy SSTs at every grid cell in ERSST version 4.'

But they don't mention -

'That quote refers to a paper by Kennedy et al. (2011 Table 5)5 which reports a mean bias of +0.12oC. However, Kennedy et al. also note that the estimate is very uncertain: it is 0.12 ±1.7oC! Also, the bias  varies  by  region.  This  is  a key difference  between  the  method  of
K15 and  that  of  others. K15 added 0.12oC to  all  buoy  data,  but  the  Hadley  group  and  the  Hirahari  group  use  region - specific adjustments.

4  Hirahara, S. et al. Centennial-Scale Sea Surface Temperature Analysis and Its Uncertainty, Journal of Climate Vol 27 DOI: 10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00837.1'

'Second, there was a large change in ship observations (i.e., from buckets to engine intake thermometers) that peaked immediately prior to World War II. The previous version of ERSST assumed that no ship corrections were necessary after this time, but recently improved metadata (18) reveal that some ships continued to take bucket observations even up to the present day.'

What corrections did they make for different measuring depths.

Different ships, different depths.

Laden or unladen?

Sensors mounted forward or midships or aft? Water turbulence gives different temperatures.

Having adjusted the temperatures they then give more to weight to the modern temperatures. Give it a free kick.

Since the days of sail, ships rarely sail the Roaring Forties, Furious Fifties, so that the bias is toward the equator.

lee wrote on Jun 8^th, 2015 at 11:46am:

' In essence, the bias correction involved calculating the average difference between collocated buoy and ship SSTs. The average difference globally was −0.12°C, a correction which is applied to the buoy SSTs at every grid cell in ERSST version 4.' But they don't mention 'That quote refers to a paper by Kennedy et al. (2011 Table 5)5 which reports a mean bias of +0.12oC. However, Kennedy et al. also note that the estimate is very uncertain: it is 0.12 ±1.7oC! Also, the bias  varies  by  region.  This  is  a key difference  between  the  method  of K15 and  that  of  others. K15 added 0.12oC to  all  buoy  data,  but  the  Hadley  group  and  the  Hirahari  group  use  region - specific adjustments. 4  Hirahara, S. et al. Centennial-Scale Sea Surface Temperature Analysis and Its Uncertainty, Journal of Climate Vol 27 DOI: 10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00837.1' 'Second, there was a large change in ship observations (i.e., from buckets to engine intake thermometers) that peaked immediately prior to World War II. The previous version of ERSST assumed that no ship corrections were necessary after this time, but recently improved metadata (18) reveal that some ships continued to take bucket observations even up to the present day.' What corrections did they make for different measuring depths. Different ships, different depths. Laden or unladen? Sensors mounted forward or midships or aft? Water turbulence gives different temperatures. Having adjusted the temperatures they then give more to weight to the modern temperatures. Give it a free kick.

here comes lee to stop Ajax having to answer my question  :D :D :D :D

Sorry forgot the link-

http://www.rossmckitrick.com/uploads/4/8/0/8/4808045/mckitrick_comments_on_karl2015.pdf

lee wrote on Jun 8^th, 2015 at 11:55am:

Sorry forgot the link- http://www.rossmckitrick.com/uploads/4/8/0/8/4808045/mckitrick_comments_on_karl2015.pdf

Yay, more document shock  :D :D :D :D

** I wish i voted liberal so I could hate kids aswell  ::)

** Yay, copper internet so i can compete in the asian century gee thanx dad of course I'll come see you in the nursing home so we can talk about intergenerational theft  ::) ::)