Tagged: David Rose

Lies about the pause

Scare Pollution is the story of Steve Milloy’s investigation of experiments the US Environmental Protection Agency conducted on human subjects with diesel exhaust. Milloy stumbled upon the EPA’s activities when it published a case report of a middle-aged woman who developed cardiac arrhythmias and needed to be taken to the hospital. It turned out she was one of several study subjects who were exposed to diesel exhaust piped into test chambers, and monitored.

EPA claims the purported notorious killer PM2.5 in diesel exhaust killed hundreds of thousands of people in the United States every year and needs to be regulated stringently.

Behind closed doors, when questions over the experiments arose the EPA had a remarkable defense: PM2.5 was actually not dangerous when inhaled in high concentrations, at all. It was just some harmless experimentation.

This kind of two-faced rhetoric is common in the climate debate. The latest example surrounds John Bates’ criticism of Karl et al 2015 (K15), a paper touting the effect of adjustments to the instrumental global average record.

Karl et al came out in 2015, some months before the Paris climate agreement. At the time climate consensusists were getting hammered by questions about the pause, an 18-year stretch starting 1997 that showed almost no increase in global temperatures. K15 ocean temperature adjustments tweaked the global average just enough to create an upward trend.

This is the headline Carbon Brief ran for the paper:


The authors were clear their paper affected the pause.

This was their title:


This was their abstract:


This was the editorial note to the paper:


To anyone, the paper was about the pause. It’s in the paper title, abstract, and accompanying press releases.

If you got your news from Zeke Hausfather or Victor Venema …

…you would think K15 almost had nothing to do with the pause.

Venema is fond of pushing the line that adjustments ‘reduce global warming.’ By focusing on the pause K15’s authors left themselves and the practice of adjustments open to the charge of manipulation of trends.  Adjustments actually ‘make our estimate of global warming smaller,’ says Venema, as he castigates David Rose for printing John Bates’ objections.

So we have quite some irony here. Rose never mentions that the adjustments make our estimate of global warming smaller; that would not have fit into the conspiracy he is trying to sell.

The context was only slightly different but here he is in 2015, pushing the same line:

Being land creatures people do not always realise how big the ocean is, but 71% of the Earth is ocean. Thus if you combine these two temperature signals taking the area of the land and the ocean into account you get the result below. The net effect of the adjustments is a reduction of global warming.

It was the skeptics, and David Rose, who focus on the ‘right end’ of the global temperature (the pause):

But Rose is obsessed with the top panel. I made the graph extra large, so that you can see the differences. […] The “problem” is the minute change at the right end of the curves.

You can see Sou Bundanga pushing the same message here:

Applying the corrections to the sea surface temperature data reduces, not increases, the rate of warming over the instrumental period. This is the opposite to what deniers often claim – that all adjustments increase warming!

She even includes a graph from the paper she annotated to drive home the point:


Here’s Realclimate’s Gavin Schmidt at it:

The second panel is useful, demonstrating that the net impact of all corrections to the raw measurements is to reduce the overall trend.

What Schmidt, Venema and the others perform here is pure misdirection.

‘Question Karl et al’s adjustments, will you? Look at all adjustments. We even reduce trends and global warming. You should have no problem buying Karl et al.’

The reality, almost no skeptic has questioned adjustments to the sea surface records of the 1910-1940 period. In fact, there are reasons to question them, apart from the straw-man arguments of Venema and Schmidt. These NOAA adjustments—which are present in ERSSTv3 and have nothing to do with Karl et al—by reducing the 1910-’40 rate, make temperatures match climate models  more easily. They reduce an inconveniently high rate of warming during a period with reduced anthropogenic CO2.

Speaking of complaints about reduced rates, here is the effect of NOAA’s methods on the 1940-1979 period, compared to HADCRUT:


That’s right – by reducing the rate of cooling, NOAA renders 1945 – 1974 as a warming period!

No one objected to adjustments because they increase a so-called ‘overall trend,’ a metric that involves ridiculously drawing a straight line from 1880-2015 right through the many ups and downs. If you examine the paper itself, you will see it makes only scant mention of the ‘overall trend.’

Embarrassingly for Schmidt/Venema, K15 make clear its own adjustments have no effect on the full period of record (emphasis mine)

For the full period of record (1880–present) (Fig. 2), the new global analysis has essentially the same rate of warming as that of the previous analysis (0.068°C decade−1 and 0.065°C decade−1, respectively) …

K15 state explicitly their adjustments mainly impact the pause:

…reinforcing the point that the new corrections mainly have an impact in recent decades.

This is Carbon Brief in their article on K15 (emphasis mine)

While the authors apply their corrections to the full temperature record stretching back to 1880, the biggest impact is on the rate of warming in recent decades, say the authors.

If misdirection was not enough …

.. confusion is further propagated by misquotation and quote surgery.

Take the example of this Zeke Hausfather tweet:

Hausfather is responding to David Rose’s article on Bates’ criticism of K15. As described, you can see Hausfather talking about NOAA adjustments in general, all taken together, making the exact opposite claim of the paper.

But there’s more. Look at the graph in the tweet which appears to have been created by him and an organization called ‘Climate Feedback‘.



The annotation at the top quotes Rose’s article reads “<<this resulted in the dramatic increase of the overall global trend>>,” making it appear as though Rose was talking about the 1880-2015 overall trend. Climate Feedback then responds (highlighted in yellow) by offering the now-familiar excuse that ‘all adjustments’ decrease the global warming trend.

But head over to the Daily Mail and it is plain Rose is talking about K15 adjustments to ship-buoy sea surface temperatures, affecting the 2000-2014 period, which in turn produced a dramatic increase in the ‘global trend.’

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.

What adjustments were done in K15 to sea temperatures affected the global trend – big mystery there, isn’t it?

Climate Feedback and Hausfather have to rip out part of a sentence from its context, pretend its author is not saying what he is saying, but instead is something they have a pre-cooking talking point lined up for, in order to pretend they’re providing ‘feedback.’

If you are credible scientists why would you, repeatedly, counter criticism of K15 adjustments by pretending they were about ‘all adjustments’? These are not people who deserve to be taken seriously.


As it is practiced now, no distinct lines are drawn between changes that are needed as an integral part of deriving a global average temperature and adjustments that are justified on grounds of available data being less than ideal. The two are treated as though they were conceptually the one and the same. As much as possible, papers and their authors describe their work as an indispensable part of one amalgamated methodological continuum. This continuum however has no room to distinguish tweaks that produce changes of insignificant magnitude and more significant ones. The main purpose of deriving a global average temperature has shifted from one of monitoring changes over long periods of time, say decades, which requires a reasonably accurate but stable methodology and high-quality data sources, to one that chases the mirage of the ‘one true temperature,’ and increased precision in the service of media talking points and rebuttals to climate skeptics.

Adjustments are not questioned by skeptics because ‘they are produce increase warming.’ As they stand, adjustments reduce the rate of warming during a period of less anthropogenic influence and reduce the rate of post-WWII cooling. They slightly nudge up temperatures to convert a lack of a trend into a positive trend. In other words they seem to serve a variety of purposes, both political and scientific, at different points of time. Rather than cooling or warming overall, they appear to reduce the magnitude of natural variability that is likely present in the instrumental record, as each truth overwrites the previous one. The Climategate emails show the people in charge of deriving a global average openly discussing tweaking warming or cooling during various periods when talking about adjustments. The bias inherent in such a situation lies right in front of our eyes.


David Rose and the deep ocean PCC complaint

I have almost never written on the science of global warming. The depth of pseudoscience and absurd nonsense to which the global temperature question has sunk to is mind-boggling.

Take a look at this complaint about UK journalist David Rose’s article. The complainant (aka ‘greener blogger’) says the article is “inaccurate, “misleading”, distorts “the truth”, necessitates the Press Complaints Commission “to interview Prof Myles Allen”, the newspaper to “retract”, “present a “correction” and give the correction “equal prominence”.  The missing stipulations are methods by which Rose is to be quartered.

Rose’s point was about the flat trend in global average temperatures. The blogger feels thinks this an issue because global temperatures are going up.

When the continuing increase of ocean temperature is included, a statistically significant increase in the world’s average temperature has continued since 1997.

Is that how we measure something? Use a metric. Switch over to another one when inconvenient? Do we splice together different data in such manner? Not only is this  scientifically indefensible, it is eye-watering hypocrisy.

Of course, ‘greener blogger’ is not alone in jumping to the ocean for help. The type of thinking gives rise to a number of questions:

[1] At once it is  claimed that skeptics are illusionists for seeing and showing ‘pauses’ in meandering temperature  where none exist, and, that there is a ‘pause’ which is explained by “heat” going into ocean depths. Which one is it?

If the latter explanation is to be believed, then all the bullshit about there not being a flat trend in temperatures is just that – bullshit. The bashing on people for simply asking “why is the temperature not going up?” was just sheer posturing?

[2] If the explanation for the pause is obvious, why was the pause not predicted? How do you know it is a ‘pause’? You didn’t know there was going to be one.

[3] If heat that’s going into the oceans will come back to ‘haunt us’, how do we know the heat which haunted the 2nd half of the 20th century wasn’t from a previous episode, but due to CO2?

[4] If ocean temperature is the “real deal”, why were you guys measuring atmospheric temperatures all these years?

[5] Why is global warming hiding in the deep oceans where no one can measure it?

[6] Why did scientists fervently research deep ocean warming all the while mocking people for asking where the heat was?

[7] Why did the heat suddenly decide to go into the oceans now?

[8] The climate models did not contain any pause because they do not include the mechanism that produces it, isn’t it? Why are you using them then?

[9] If the oceans are now determined to have such a profound influence on global surface temperature, how did you manage to blame the previous temperature rise on anthropogenic CO2 using models that did not include this effect?

[10] If the flat trend is real, the rate of warming is slower that predicted. This means it is not as worse as you thought, isn’t it?

[11] You did not predict it. This means you did not know what was going on, isn’t it?

I doubt we should be pulling newspaper articles in fear of criticism from self-appointed green busybodies whose knowledge of global temperature is from such sources as the Wikipedia witch doctor William Connolley. In a pathetic twist, a video the complaining green blogger relied on to make his case has been flushed down the drain. A fine piece of pseudoscience while up and running, it showed how ENSO, volcanoes, sunlight, moonlight and other ‘influences’ could be (magically) removed from the temperature curve to show unabated CO2 global warming.

If the flat trend continues, I wonder how long it’ll be before another jewel from the collection, the ‘escalator’ graph, comes down. That may be asking for too much. It has to dawn on its owners, that explaining the flat trend by ‘deep ocean heating’ involves accepting the flatness to be real.