57:21 I did a fair amount of work yesterday about, on this new report about the glitch. And you know, I love me a good glitch. Which glitch? Oh! The global warming pause caused by glitch in data. I have an introductory clip if you want it. Very good, I'd love a clip let me see what... Yes Rich, the new NOAA report contradicts warming pause A new study rejects the theory of a pause on global warming over the past 15 years. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration says an apparent hiatus in rising temperatures likely comes from limits on data from previous eras, and that warming, quote, has in fact been as fast or faster than that seen over the last half of the 20th century."
58:14 This is so fantastic. So let's just summarize for a second, all scientists were all 97% of them were all in on yeah number Yeah well they were they were all the same bogative number We're all in on you know we can't really explain why we see this pause and the global warming but it's you know, it's not atypical. These things do happen and you know but it was annoying because it was being thrown in their face continuously constantly so now NOAA the National Oceanographic what is this? Atmospheric Agency Administration Thank You
58:58 They went back and they changed a number of things in the way... Let's go back and change history. They did, they changed the data. And this is not really largely discussed that there's no one really diving into it So I went and first of all it was hard to get the actual report because you have to purchase it, and you have to be a member of some scientific... Bill Nye the science guy can get it but I can't. You have to be a clown then you can get the information So they published in Science Magazine the general article under the title, Lost and Found Earth's Missing Heat. A reanalysis of surface temperatures suggests there was never a global warming hiatus." Now this is interesting because once again they're using all these kind of fudge words and if you look at the scientific article itself published in Science Express
59:59 the headline there, of course all of this is in PDF marked up in the show notes at 728.noagendanotes.com. Possible artifacts of data biases in the recent global surface warming hiatus and then the opening paragraph Much study has been devoted to the possible causes of an apparent decrease in the upward trend of global surface temperature since 1998, a phenomenon that has been dubbed the Global Warming Hiatus. Here we present an updated global surface temperature analysis that reveals the global trends are higher than reported by the IPCC especially in recent decades
1:00:38 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." So, what they did...and we're talking the difference of 0.1...0.03 degrees centigrade. Well let's stop before you continue and then I'm going to just ask quick questions here After all this global warming stuff. Mm-hmm they got it wrong, and then they got it right This is the obvious Problem that you can't say we're right We're right were right and then say yeah But we were wrong on this we were even more right than we knew That doesn't work isn't science The whole idea is that its reproducible that anyone's not okay? Yes well It is if you change things and so I found
1:01:38 The methodology they used to change this data in the supplementary material for the report, Possible Artifacts of Data Biases in the Recent Global Surface Warming Hiatus. And again I marked a few things up here but And this thing is filled with...I mean, you think it's like we just measure everything and then we put it together and we average it out. We look at the graph. We have the data points. You put it into Excel and it poops out." No! They have had the formulas that are in this document to me nothing I've ever seen before. It was Einstein-type writing stuff
1:02:20 And the things they've changed, that's what it looks like. Like Einstein formulas. The main things they've changed is they've taken different data sets from the buoys in the ocean... They've taken different pieces of data from engine temperature monitoring systems and then when you read- Of course I'm way out of my depth here but under the Data & Analysis Method Maybe you can help, John. The new analyses presented here are based on foundational data sets and processing procedures for land surface air temperature and sea surface temperature. The data sets are publicly available so we could put this into our own spreadsheet I'm sure it wouldn't work as well And so the bias corrections are applied to the stations
1:03:08 They give a number for data bank as described by Mena and Williams. So first of all, can you explain to me a bias correction? How do I interpret a bias correction? I'm guessing... Don't forget that I was kind of trained as a chemist not a physicist. Sure! I could tell you what white snake wasn't the number one in the top 20. Yeah, yeah, White Snake. It would be I would call it loosely a fudge factor. In other words, you know what the result's like, you got the result right? Here is the result and here is the initial formula that would make this result exactly what it is but it doesn't quite come out right so you bias it but you know this is the result, you're absolutely positive, you're totally convinced that this is what it is
1:04:05 And so then you throw in a little thing in there and, ah! Now it all works. Well here's how they did it... I think is cheating personally Listen to how they did it This is followed by computation of temperature anomalies for the station and the data bank So what I had the way understand that is there are anomalies in this temperature reading probably to the low side The anomalies are then averaged... Listen, the anomalies are then averaged within 5 by 5 degree boxes. So anything that was outside of the five by fiv- it may be 0.05 degrees. Oh, that's interesting! They close it in from the gridded anomalies A global analysis is performed for each year month using and here comes empirical orthogonal teleconnections
1:04:55 And this is throughout this document they're talking about the bias correction. We use bias correction and empirical orthogonal teleconnection methodologies So I look this up, and... ...I found a paper going back to 1981... ...titled Sampling Errors in the Estimation of Empirical Orthogonal Functions This is a way to prove to draw out climate in graphs. If you read this whole introduction, it's... Climate may be defined as the multivariate multiple-time probability distribution of states of the ocean ice atmosphere system and a primary goal in modern climatology is the measurement and understanding of the parameters describing the stationary probability distribution. My brain's freezing!
1:05:46 But now, we cannot know the exact EOFs for climate but must be satisfied with estimates of them based on a finite number of independent realizations of the instantaneous state of the field. The purpose of this paper is to provide an estimate of the sampling errors encountered in some common climatological applications. While much of the underlying theory exists in statistical literature, it's usually not a form convenient for the climatologist. Aha! You see? It's not convenient. So they have to bias things to make them fit into these EOF models
1:06:24 And again, so this paper goes through all kinds of things way above my head. But they really do conclude by saying that using EOFs you really can't... Conclusion. This paper we have reviewed some properties of EOS shown how they may be computed from grid point information and use standard linear analysis to estimate sampling errors. The discussion is focused on the applications, the climatology, then a whole bunch of theoretical crap. They're saying I'm going to paraphrase. It is not a great way to show the actual climate as it is happening, it is a good way to get to a point where you want to be in your presentation of climatological data That is not as important as who wrote this report This was the piece that got me excited because that's more my wheelhouse You look at