Paper refuting global-warming halt is "scientific misconduct" claims Rep. Smith

[Paratus]

In the past UAH was typically higher than the surface record during El Nino events...now the surface record is significantly higher for this one. Yes, they aren't equivalent measurements, but they have historically tracked each other relatively well until recently. What do you think has happened that explains this unusual divergence?

Please point out the new divergence. There are similar divergences in your plot in the past.

 

[WHAMPOM]

In the past UAH was typically higher than the surface record during El Nino events...now the surface record is significantly higher for this one. Yes, they aren't equivalent measurements, but they have historically tracked each other relatively well until recently. What do you think has happened that explains this unusual divergence?

Lack of maintenence of satellite sensors? Isn't it time to replace them all, I have only heard of new ones being placed on hold waiting for cheap civilian space tech to be perfected. After all we cannot depend on using surplus Russian boosters forever.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Please point out the new divergence. There are similar divergences in your plot in the past.

The divergence is obvious. Tropospheric temps should run higher...not lower than surface temperatures.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Lack of maintenence of satellite sensors? Isn't it time to replace them all, I have only heard of new ones being placed on hold waiting for cheap civilian space tech to be perfected. After all we cannot depend on using surplus Russian boosters forever.

Wishful thinking? Or do you have something based in reality?

 

[Jaskalas]

Why do you expect these to move in lock step? Why is it surprising when they don't? And what especially makes you think it's fraud when the surface temperatures are recalibrated but not when the satellite data is?

1: They matched each other nicely.
2: Now one dataset says there is a pause, the other just climbs as usual.
3: Because the satellite record isn't calibrated with... ship buckets.

Among many other issues of missing, made up, and infilled data.
​

NCEP confirms the pause, if not a cooling trend.

I'm also hearing that radiosonde data agrees with satellite, but I've no chart of radiosonde going to 2015.

 

[fskimospy]

The divergence is obvious. Tropospheric temps should run higher...not lower than surface temperatures.

Looks to me like several identical divergences have happened in the past.

 

[Paratus]

1: They matched each other nicely.
2: Now one dataset says there is a pause, the other just climbs as usual.
3: Because the satellite record isn't calibrated with... ship buckets.

Among many other issues of missing, made up, and infilled data.
​

NCEP confirms the pause, if not a cooling trend.


I'm also hearing that radiosonde data agrees with satellite, but I've no chart of radiosonde going to 2015.

Lol why do you keep linking to these hack websites.?

Now I'm supposed to believe a short period of sea surface temperatures means the earths cooling? LOL again.

However since I use a model that actually works I found the missing heat:

Stop supporting fraudulent claims. You're better than that.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Looks to me like several identical divergences have happened in the past.

Globally, satellite lower troposphere should generally run about 1.2 times the surface temperature...currently, the surface temperature far exceeds satellite measurements with satellite lower troposphere now running about .7 times the surface temperature! Isn't that curious?

 

[Paratus]

UAH lower troposphere should run 1.2 times the surface temperature...currently, the surface temperature far exceeds satellite measurements by 1.5! Isn't that curious?

link

 

[Double Trouble]

That's not how politics works. You give me a big enough pile of emails from anyone, literally anyone, and I bet you a lot of money I can find something I can twist into a scandal of sorts. It works every time. NOAA already embarrassed him once by pointing out that the data he was demanding because he thought they were hiding something was already publicly available. He needs at least something now to make him not look so bad and he's determined to find it whether it exists or not.

That doesn't really make a difference. Congress pays the bills, they can ask questions and make demands, even if NOAA doesn't like them and even if they are complete BS.

I don't see how they're going to avoid turning over the information he's asking for, bitching and moaning about it isn't going to change anything.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

link

Gladly.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UAH_satellite_temperature_dataset

Climate models predict that as the surface warms, so should the global troposphere. Globally, the troposphere should warm about 1.2 times more than the surface...

 

[fskimospy]

That doesn't really make a difference. Congress pays the bills, they can ask questions and make demands, even if NOAA doesn't like them and even if they are complete BS.

I don't see how they're going to avoid turning over the information he's asking for, bitching and moaning about it isn't going to change anything.

I imagine they will end up turning them over too, but you're badly mistaken that what they are doing won't change anything. They have succeeded in badly embarrassing Smith, and they will probably embarrass him more before it's done.

In the end he will think twice before being so stupid again.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

What ever happened to all that transparency we were promised?

 

[fskimospy]

What ever happened to all that transparency we were promised?

It is interesting that you are worried about insufficient transparency in this case instead of attempts by congress to undermine science with an obvious fishing expedition.

Then again, his sort of attempt is pretty standard for the denier community that you're in, so it's not that surprising I guess. Deniers are forced into this sort of underhanded behavior because they can't win on the science.

 

[fskimospy]

Globally, satellite lower troposphere should generally run about 1.2 times the surface temperature...currently, the surface temperature far exceeds satellite measurements with satellite lower troposphere now running about .7 times the surface temperature! Isn't that curious?

It would be more curious if not for the fact that it appears from eyeballing your graph that similar discrepancies have happened repeatedly in the past.

Somehow I doubt this will console you though, as I don't think you care about the data except as it serves the narrative you want to push. I have little doubt this one will be discarded as well when you feel it is no longer tenable and you will move on to a new one, all while never changing your conclusions.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

It would be more curious if not for the fact that it appears from eyeballing your graph that similar discrepancies have happened repeatedly in the past.

Somehow I doubt this will console you though, as I don't think you care about the data except as it serves the narrative you want to push. I have little doubt this one will be discarded as well when you feel it is no longer tenable and you will move on to a new one, all while never changing your conclusions.

I must be blind...which years show similar discrepancies where surface temps significantly exceed lower troposphere temps?

 

[fskimospy]

I must be blind...which years show similar discrepancies where surface temps significantly exceed lower troposphere temps?

Well your chart is pretty messy, but it looks like 1993 or so would be a good example. Get that prescription checked!

 

[fskimospy]

Looks like 2006 is another good one.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Well your chart is pretty messy, but it looks like 1993 or so would be a good example. Get that prescription checked!

Similar discrepancies this past decade have NOT occurred repeatedly in the past. Ocean temps were revised significantly upward starting in 1998...ala the "sea bucket" adjustment. Coincidentally, about the same time a large and prolonged divergence resulted. Hmmmm.

 

[fskimospy]

Similar discrepancies this past decade have NOT occurred repeatedly in the past. Ocean temps were revised significantly upward starting in 1998...ala the "sea bucket" adjustment. Coincidentally, about the same time a large and prolonged divergence resulted. Hmmmm.

Are you acknowledging that similar discrepancies appear in the chart you linked or not?

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Are you acknowledging that similar discrepancies appear in the chart you linked or not?

Yes, smaller margins for relatively short periods of time...but nothing like we've seen starting in 1998 when the ocean temp data was adjusted significantly upward. Are you going to acknowledge that the discrepancies since 1998 are decidedly more significant or not?

 

[fskimospy]

Yes, smaller margins for relatively short periods of time...but nothing like we've seen starting in 1998 when the ocean temp data was adjusted significantly upward. Are you going to acknowledge that the discrepancies since 1998 are decidedly more significant or not?

So in other words, you're abandoning your initial chart and replacing it with a new one. Curiously enough, in your new chart the thermometer temperatures are consistently higher than the satellite temperatures despite you previously claiming that the opposite should be true. Don't you find that curious?

Seems to be a data problem or an analysis problem somewhere, but that's why taking graphs from denier websites is a bad idea. Paratus can probably talk about it more intelligently than I can, as he knows more about the underlying systems. I do know about data and graphing though, and basic errors like these stand out easily.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

So in other words, you're abandoning your initial chart and replacing it with a new one. Curiously enough, in your new chart the thermometer temperatures are consistently higher than the satellite temperatures despite you previously claiming that the opposite should be true. Don't you find that curious?

Seems to be a data problem or an analysis problem somewhere, but that's why taking graphs from denier websites is a bad idea. Paratus can probably talk about it more intelligently than I can, as he knows more about the underlying systems. I do know about data and graphing though, and basic errors like these stand out easily.

So in other words, you will not concede that their may be a legitimate divergence issue here. Got it.

 

[fskimospy]

So in other words, you will not concede that their may be a legitimate divergence issue here. Got it.

No, I'm saying you are shifting between sources when convenient and those sources not only disagree with each other, but with other statements you have made. That indicates incompetent analysis and/or a search for websites that tell you what you want to hear.

 

[Paratus]

So in other words, you're abandoning your initial chart and replacing it with a new one. Curiously enough, in your new chart the thermometer temperatures are consistently higher than the satellite temperatures despite you previously claiming that the opposite should be true. Don't you find that curious?

Seems to be a data problem or an analysis problem somewhere, but that's why taking graphs from denier websites is a bad idea. Paratus can probably talk about it more intelligently than I can, as he knows more about the underlying systems. I do know about data and graphing though, and basic errors like these stand out easily.

I've taken a look around and it's possible there's a discrepancy between the models and the observations. Could be the models. Could be another issue with the satellite data. I keep reading about differences in the tropics.

So with that being said does this suddenly throw global warming into doubt. No.

Lets do a sanity check using energy balance.

Basically we need to look at the energy input to earth and temperature/energy retention trends of the various portions of the earth.

MMGW theory says temperature/energy retention should be increasing overall.
Doc and Jaskalas contend that these discrepancies mean there's a pause and temperature/energy retention should be roughly flat.

During the mid to late 00's solar irradiance was down which wouldn suggest a decrease in temperature/energy retention or at least a decrease in the rate of increase.

Since I'm using my phone and to throw Doc and Jasklas a bone for the atmospheric data I'll forgo finding stratospheric and upper tropospheric data and I'll use Docs satellite plot for the TLT and Jasklases NCEP sea surface data for the surface temperatures eve though we know the surface record shows the standard increase in temperatures.

So for the sake of this argument only, I'll agree to postulate that these atmospheric records show no short term increase over the last 10 years or so.

Lastly we need to look at the oceans. If they haven't gained an energy over the same period that would definitively prove there was a pause.

But as I've already posted we know the oceans have continued to retain energy at a staggering rate.

Despite the drop in solar output the oceans have continued to retain heat over the last decade at roughly the same rate which indicates greater back radiation from greenhouse gases.

There's been no pause. Using the energy balance model, TLT sea surface temperatures, surface record, etc simply help us to understand what the planet is doing. It undeniable that's it warming up over the last decade just as rapidly as the previous 4 decades

NOAA thinks so.

The Japanese Meteorology Agency thinks so:

NASA thinks so. In fact they found the oceans make up for any possible pause:

http://www.iflscience.com/environment/nasa-finds-global-warming-hidden-indian-and-pacific-oceans

The notion that global warming was slowing down at the start of this century left climate scientists stumped. They were unable to explain this so called “hiatus,” which quickly became an important weapon in the arsenals of climate skeptics. Was global warming coming to a halt? Probably not. U.S. government researchers undermined this argument last month with research that suggested that the observed pause in global warming was based on incorrect data. A recent study by NASA has another explanation for the hiatus – extra heat from greenhouse gases had been trapped in the Pacific and Indian oceans.

Throughout the 20th century, global surface temperatures were increasing as a result of an increase in greenhouse gas concentrations. While greenhouse gases continued to trap extra heat, several papers noted that global average surface temperatures had no longer been climbing since 2003, and, in some cases, temperatures were in fact cooling.

To figure out what was going on, NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory analyzed direct ocean temperature measurements. Their findings showed that temperatures below the ocean’s surface had in fact been increasing.

The study, published in Science, observed two decades of data and found that the Earth’s extra heat was being redistributed by the world’s largest oceans. Researchers found that “cooling in the top 100-meter layer of the Pacific Ocean was mainly compensated by warming in the 100- to 300-meter layer of the Indian and Pacific Oceans.”

“Our findings support the idea that the Indo-Pacific interaction in the upper-level water (0–300 m depth) regulated global surface temperature over the past two decades and can fully account for the recently observed hiatus,” researchers wrote in the paper.

While global warming is a widely established phenomenon within the scientific community, whether this warming has been slowing down or not continues to be debated. Previous research attempting to explain the hiatus relied more heavily on climate models. This study, on the other hand, involved the use of observational data, which is why the researchers believe that it provides the “most definitive explanation of how the heat was redistributed.”