There was NO "hiatus" in global warming -- if you include El Nino
Practically everybody, from Warmists to skeptics, accepts that global temperatures plateaued in C21. There was a "pause" or "hiatus" in global warming. Yet in the latest study we have powerful proof that there was NO plateau, no "hiatus' no "pause". Big upset. But is it?
The guys behind the new study have no shame. They have done careful work but made a most convenient and demonstrably false assumption. It does sounds like they have used a meticulously validated data set. And they have. But the study has a couple of old Warmist lags behind it so I knew that a quick look at the raw data would expose fraud. It took me only minutes to see it but there it is as plain as the nose on your face in their summary graph reproduced below.
They include in their data the whole of the 2015/2016 El Nino episode, a natural climatic fluctuation unrelated to anthropogenic global warming. Have a look at the graph up to 2014 only and there is that pesky plateau again: ups and downs but no trend. The claims made by the authors are a calculated deception.
Warmists did early on in the El Nino period discount the El Nino influence and claimed that the temperature rise was mainly due to anthropogenic global warming. But as the figures came in that became untenable.
1). For a start, the El Nino period just happened to coincide with a flatlining in CO2 levels. So with no increase in CO2, a temperature increase could not be due to CO2.
2). My favourite graph below shows a temperature history that is typical of El Nino (a rise followed by a fall) but which is totally unlike what we would expect from an increase in CO2 levels. Rises of CO2 in the period of interest are permanent. They don't suddenly go into reverse. It is the whole Warmist case that CO2 rises are cumulative.
Note that the graph refers to sea-surface temperature, which is the main focus of the current study. There is just no honesty in these galoots
A new independent study shows no pause in global warming, confirming a set of temperature readings adjusted by U.S. government scientists that some who reject mainstream climate science have questioned.
The adjustments, made by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in 2015 to take into account changes in how ocean temperatures have been measured over the decades, riled a House committee and others who claimed the changes were made to show rising temperatures.
The House Science Committee subpoenaed the agency's scientists and then complained that NOAA wasn't answering its requests quickly enough.
Last year,the NOAA updated its main SST reconstruction, its Extended Reconstruction Sea Surface Temperature, or ERSST, accounting for the recent spike in buoy measurements and incorporating adjustments to ship-based measurements.
NOAA’s latest numbers increased the SST trend estimate over the last 18 years from 0.07° Celsius per decade to 0.12° Celsius per decade, highlighting a notable difference between NOAA’s latest ERSST record and three other commonly-used SST measuring series.
The new international study looked at satellite data, readings from buoys and other marine floats for ocean temperatures.
Each measurement system independently showed the same 20 years of increase in temperatures that NOAA found: about two-tenths of a degree Fahrenheit per decade since 2000, said the study's lead author, Zeke Hausfather of the University of California, Berkeley.
'Our research confirms that NOAA scientists were right,' Hausfather said. 'They were not in any way cooking the books.'
NOAA adjusted past data to take into account old measurements by ships that often recorded temperatures from their engine rooms, where heat from the engines skewed the data.
Buoys and satellite data don't have such artificial warming, Hausfather said.
In 1990, about 90 percent of the ocean temperature readings were done by ships, now it is about 85 percent by the more accurate buoys, Hausfather said.
Scientists Andrew Dessler of Texas A&M University and Kevin Trenberth of the National Center for Atmospheric Research, who weren't part the original study or the more recent one that confirmed its conclusions, called both accurate.
'This paper further allays any qualms that there may have been scientific errors or any non-scientific agendas,' Trenberth said in an email.
Officials at the House Science Committee did not respond to repeated requests for comment.
Hausfather's study was published Wednesday in the journal Science Advances .
SOURCE. The journal article ("Assessing recent warming using instrumentally homogeneous sea surface temperature records") is here