Prosecute the torture.

December 6, 2015

The Tribune-Review Gets Climate Science Wrong. Again.

Let's start at the top of today's propaganda pile:
Federal researchers insist in a “bombshell” report that global warming hasn't paused since 1998. Despite contradictory scientific evidence, you'll just have to trust them.
Or you can read the paper yourself.

It's right here.  That's the paper that's upset the anti-science crowd who've wrongly claimed for years the existence of the post-'98 el Niño hiatus.  Since the science disagrees with their pre-paid notions of "no warming!", the science must be wrong, right?

Here's the abstract:
Much study has been devoted to the possible causes of an apparent decrease in the upward trend of global surface temperatures since 1998, a phenomenon that has been dubbed the global warming “hiatus.” Here, we present an updated global surface temperature analysis that reveals that global trends are higher than those reported by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, especially in recent decades, and that the central estimate for the rate of warming during the first 15 years of the 21st century is at least as great as the last half of the 20th century. These results do not support the notion of a “slowdown” in the increase of global surface temperature.
And this is why they did what they did:
Given recent improvements in the observed record and additional years of global data (including a record-warm 2014), we reexamine the observational evidence related to a “hiatus” in recent global surface warming.
They authors said that the method of collected data was always changing and gave three examples:
Changes of particular importance include (i) an increasing amount of ocean data from buoys, which are slightly different than data from ships; (ii) an increasing amount of ship data from engine intake thermometers, which are slightly different than data from bucket seawater temperatures; and (iii) a large increase in land-station data, which enables better analysis of key regions that may be warming faster or slower than the global average.
And so on.  It's all there in the paper. No pause.  No hiatus.  The data supports the idea that whatever was thought of as "the pause" was caused by "residual data biases" that needed to be corrected.  Once they were understood (that bouy data was slightly different from ship data, and so on) and corrected, BAM! the hiatus disappeared, like the shadow thrown by a passing cloud.

And that scared the Dickens out of the anti-science crowd, leading to this (via MSNBC):
Climate deniers, including those on the House Science Committee, were fond of the “pause” idea and were outraged that a public-sector scientist was involved in debunking it. So, Committee Chairman Lamar Smith went after the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, demanding an explanation of how Karl’s journal piece came together.
This is what the braintrust is talking about.  The funny thing is what happened next in the above MSNBC piece.  They go to this piece at Vox:
[Ranking member Bernice Johnson explained] that Smith made three written requests for information about Karl’s study, all of which NOAA responded to in writing and in personal briefings. “Moreover,” she writes, “NOAA attempted to explain certain aspects of the methodology about which the Majority was apparently confused.” (Imagine how that meeting went.)

Among Smith’s repeated demands: access to the data and methods behind NOAA’s work on climate. Except, as NOAA and Democratic members of the committee kept trying to explain, those data and methods are posted on the internet. Anyone can access them. Yet Republicans kept demanding them.
What was the braintrust saying, again, about transparency?

Do they even have the slightest clue how silly they look right now?

Yea, probably not.

Do the rest of the staff (ie the real news reporters, editors and so on) realize how silly THEY look for having to work in the same building as the anti-science know nothings on their paper's editorial board?

Yea, probably.

6 comments:

Omega Supreme said...

NOAA and Democratic members of the committee kept trying to explain, those data and methods are posted on the internet.
For some odd reason I can not find the computer code that generates the merged land–ocean surface temperature analysis dataset.

Just an oversight I am sure.

Ol' Froth said...

The Stupid, it is strong in this one. The link is RIGHT THERE to the data, and now you're asking for the computer code? I'm sure once you find that you'll demand to know how calculus works.

Zeus0209 said...

So there were apparently no advancements in mathematics before Newton discovered calculus?

Asked and answered. Time to move on.

Omega Supreme said...

Bet Ol believes.
The Stupid, it is strong in people who want Law Enforcement to Record Interrogations.
After all it is all there in the transcripts and police reports.
Why The FBI Doesn’t Record Interrogations
http://jonathanturley.org/2013/05/11/why-the-fbi-doesnt-record-interrogations/
California Prosecutor Falsifies Transcript of Confession
http://observer.com/2015/03/california-prosecutor-falsifies-transcript-of-confession/



Ol' Froth said...

WOW! Way to change the subject! Also, I have no problem with recording interrogations.

Omega Supreme said...

Questions that NOAA and progressives do not want to answer.
http://hotair.com/archives/2015/10/29/noaa-withholds-climate-documents-from-congress/
“It is a long-standing practice in the scientific community to protect the confidentiality of deliberative scientific discussions.”
...
Excuse me? Where in blue blazes did that long-standing practice come from? You’re a government agency which is funded by the taxpayers, so unless your information involves national security and would endanger us or our allies [or would embarrass law enforcement] if it became public, you turn over your work to the people’s house upon request. And since when is a scientific debate in need of confidentiality to begin with? In theory at least, the public debate of theories, research and ideas so they can be vetted and tested is at the core of the scientific principle. You’re talking about a bunch of temperature readings as well as questioning the accuracy of instruments. How is that not a matter for public consumption?