NOAA hides data 'refuting' the nearly two-decade pause in global warming

A controversial issue is whether there has been a  nearly two-decade pause in global warming, as asserted by climate change "agnostics."  In June, 2015, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration published a study that claimed that the warming pause was based on a misreading of the data.

According to a NOAA press release, the new study:

finds that the rate of global warming during the last 15 years has been as fast as or faster than that seen during the latter half of the 20th Century. The study refutes the notion that there has been a slowdown or "hiatus" in the rate of global warming in recent years....

"Adding in the last two years of global surface temperature data and other improvements in the quality of the observed record provide evidence that contradict the notion of a hiatus in recent global warming trends," said Thomas R. Karl, L.H.D., Director, NOAA's National Centers for Environmental Information. "Our new analysis suggests that the apparent hiatus may have been largely the result of limitations in past datasets, and that the rate of warming over the first 15 years of this century has, in fact, been as fast or faster than that seen over the last half of the 20th century."

Okay, if that's correct, then show us the evidence. Reveal the data that is the basis for such a conclusion. After all, hiding the data isn't what science is about. True science opens up the evidence for everyone, to replicate, to judge the study's methodology and evaluate the conclusions. To hide the data is, to borrow a phrase from global warming alarmists, "anti-science."

But that's what NOAA did. It refused a request for the data by Congress and by Judicial Watch. Now Judicial Watch has announced that it had to file suit, on Dec. 2. Apparently that was enough for NOAA to give Congress something, but to date, the public has been given nothing.

NOAA supposedly is the last word in the global warming debate, providing the data on which to judge whether temperatures are arising. NOAA gathers the data in "thousands of ways" from a plethora of sources. How those data are collected and compiled is one of several key issues in the global warming debate.

Rep.Lamar Smith (R-TX) had requested  the data and internal communications related to the study. Judicial Watch also wants to compare what was said internally and how its information was presented to the public. As Smith's committee said in its subpoena to NOAA:

Information provided to the Committee by whistleblowers appears to show that the study was rushed to publication despite the concerns and objections of a number of NOAA employees.

As Smith wrote in a Nov. 27 op-ed in the The Washington Times:

NOAA often fails to consider all available data in its determinations and climate change reports to the public. A recent study by NOAA, published in the journal Science, made “adjustments” to historical temperature records and NOAA trumpeted the findings as refuting the nearly two-decade pause in global warming. The study’s authors claimed these adjustments were supposedly based on new data and new methodology. But the study failed to include satellite data.

The last Judicial Watch heard from NOAA, on Dec. 15, was that the agency would "begin searching for documents responsive to Judicial Watch’s FOIA request."

So, who's anti-science now? And why haven't we heard much about this from the media?

Read why Americans need to learn about the nation's most ignored war.

Find out what freelance editorial services I can provide for you.

Want to be notified by email when I post? Type your email address in the box and click the "create subscription" button. My list is completely spam free, and you can opt out at any time.

Comments

Leave a comment
  • You are absolutely right. NOAA needs to publish the algorithm used to convert ship based temps to buoy based temps and back again.

    There are dozens, (if not hundreds) of scholarly papers researching the hiatus. The most promising theory explaining it being that the ocean is some sort of heat sink, storing global heat. But now that theory and all the other papers can be relegated to the trash heap because, oops, bad data. Sorry about that.

  • Climate Change is now a religion, because so many --including the current Pope-- seem to believe in so little, so attempts to change peoples minds based on fact is not going to work.

    People want to believe, so they will. Climate Change as a religion will overshadow every other movement going forward, and to disbelieve is to be a heretic.

  • And you, of course, have the facts. And 97% of scientists who are experts on climate and the atmosphere don't? How obtuse can you be?

  • Dennis, why do you let your politics distort your view on climate change? Do you really believe NOAA would hide the facts about the so-called "hiatus"? What would be its motivation to do so? Are you just throwing meat to your base?

  • In reply to Aquinas wired:

    The hiatus is not "so called". It is measurable. Representatives of the 97% actively researched and studied the slowdown or hiatus. Like I said in the above comment, the leading paper postulated the ocean as a heat sink. The paper agreed that measured temps were not increasing...the paper sought to explain why.

    No one in the scientific community denied the existence of the slowdown, which is why they rightly did the research to determine how the current climate model was deficient.

    But now we have a scientific conflict. The above mentioned paper suggests an explanation for the lack of increasing temperature. And now NOAA releases a paper saying the temperatures actually have been increasing.

    You see the problem? Who's paper is right? They both cannot be right. If we, for the sake of argument, state that NOAA is correct, then the aforementioned paper is wrong, describing something that does not exist. Someone is guilty of bad science, even though (presumably) both papers passed a peer review.

  • In reply to Aquinas wired:

    The temptation is to view the issue in ideological terms, from both sides. As an editorial writer at the Sun-Times years ago, I wrote editorials supporting the global warming warnings urging that something must be done before it's too late. But the more I studied it, the more I wondered if I had been wrong. Climate is one of the most complex phenomena in global science. There are so many variables involved that one can wonder whether they all even have been identified. The conclusions are based on theoretical models, that in the case of the "hiatus" have been shown to be questionable.There are not just questions about the methodology but such things as cloud formation, which climate scientists themselves say is poorly understood. I'm not one to oppose reducing the amount of manmade carbon dioxide into the atmosphere (at reasonable rates), but I'm also not one to put aside my own intelligence to what are politically inspired demands and scientific uncertainty. As to "why" NOAA would hide the facts--I don't know. But when it comes to scientific endeavors, it shouldn't take the threat of a lawsuit to shake loose the logarithms or whatever other evidence goes into a controversial conclusion. As to my "base?" You mean the dozen readers who come here?

  • In reply to Dennis Byrne:

    There is no "scientific uncertainty" about the fact that our planet is warming at an alarming rate. And whether it's 97% or 91% the consensus of the scientific community is that we are contributing to this global warming by burning fossil fuels.

  • fb_avatar

    The old 97% canard again?...Please research ther origins of the "data"...it's one of the grand frauds of the "global warming" mess, almost as big a mess as Michael Mann's "hockey stick"...can't for that to get into court

  • In reply to Jill Marie:

    I don't think Pope Francis would agree with you, either.

Leave a comment

  • ChicagoNow is full of win

    Welcome to ChicagoNow.

    Meet our bloggers,
    post comments, or
    pitch your blog idea.

  • Advertisement:
  • Visit my new website

    I'm a freelance writer, editor and author. I can help you with a wide variety of projects. Check out my new website at www.dennisbyrne.net

  • Meet The Blogger

    Dennis Byrne

    Chicago Tribune contributing op-ed columnist and author of forthcoming historical novel, "Madness: The War of 1812." Reporter, editor and columnist for Chicago Sun-Times and Chicago Daily News. Freelance writer and editor.

  • Subscribe to The Barbershop

    Enter your email address:

    Delivered by FeedBurner

  • Dennis Byrne’s Facebook Fan Page

  • Categories

  • Like me on Facebook

  • Our National Debt

  • Twitter

  • Tags

  • Recent Comments

  • /Users/dennisby/Desktop/trailer.mp4
  • Recent posts

  • Latest on ChicagoNow

  • Advertisement: