Not quite.
Oh HELL No.. This one paper went BACKWARDS from ocean buoy measurements to recreate the old method of measuring water temperature in ship's intake channels.. And Karl adjusted the BUOY data to homogenize with the artificially elevated OLDER methods..
Anyways. Only thing that matters is the hysteria is in full retreat. As witnessed by all the PREDICTED modeling over the past 20 years. Even if Karl WAS correct (and there's little chance of that) --- it would put the actual trend in the 2.5th percentile of the Modeling results.
Science publishes new NOAA analysis: Data show no recent slowdown in global warming.
Since the release of the IPCC report, NOAA scientists have made significant improvements in the calculation of trends and now use a global surface temperature record that includes the most recent two years of data, 2013 and 2014--the hottest year on record. The calculations also use improved versions of both sea surface temperature and land surface air temperature datasets. One of the most substantial improvements is a correction that accounts for the difference in data collected from buoys and ship-based data.
(Credit: NOAA)
Prior to the mid-1970s, ships were the predominant way to measure sea surface temperatures, and since then buoys have been used in increasing numbers. Compared to ships, buoys provide measurements of significantly greater accuracy. "In regards to sea surface temperature, scientists have shown that across the board, data collected from buoys are cooler than ship-based data," said Dr. Thomas C. Peterson, principal scientist at NOAA's National Centers for Environmental Information and one of the study's authors. "In order to accurately compare ship measurements and buoy measurements over the long-term, they need to be compatible. Scientists have developed a method to correct the difference between ship and buoy measurements, and we are using this in our trend analysis."
In addition, more detailed information has been obtained regarding each ship's observation method. This information was also used to provide improved corrections for changes in the mix of observing methods.
New analyses with these data demonstrate that incomplete spatial coverage also led to underestimates of the true global temperature change previously reported in the 2013 IPCC report. The integration of dozens of data sets has improved spatial coverage over many areas, including the Arctic, where temperatures have been rapidly increasing in recent decades. For example, the release of the International Surface Temperature Initiative databank, integrated with NOAA's Global Historical Climatology Network-Daily dataset and forty additional historical data sources, has more than doubled the number of weather stations available for analysis.
Lastly, the incorporation of additional years of data, 2013 and 2014, with 2014 being the warmest year on record, has had a notable impact on the temperature assessment. As stated by the IPCC, the "hiatus" period 1998-2012 is short and began with an unusually warm El Niño year. However, over the full period of record, from 1880 to present, the newly calculated warming trend is not substantially different than reported previously (0.68°C / Century (new) vs 0.65°C / Century (old)), reinforcing that the new corrections mainly have in impact in recent decades.
There is no major significance to the 0.03degC differences in the Karl analysis. As the chart I provided above shows. The rate of warming is STILL insignificant. But least you should think a NOAA document is a good place to get the true story about the Karl paper --- let's read this together right from the "paper". I put paper in quotes, because this lone study isn't EVEN a paper. It's in short note format with a total of only 2.5 pages of description of their work. Anyways..
First, several studies have examined
the differences between
buoy- and ship-based data, noting
that the ship data are systematically
warmer than the
buoy data (15–17). This is particularly
important, as much of the
sea surface is now sampled by
both observing systems, and surface-
drifting and moored buoys
have increased the overall global coverage by up to 15% (see
supplemental material for details). These changes have resulted
in a time-dependent bias in the global SST record,
and various corrections have been developed to account for
the bias (18). Recently, a new correction (13) was developed
and applied in the Extended Reconstructed Sea Surface
Temperature dataset version 4, which we use in our analysis.
In essence, the bias correction involved calculating the
average difference between collocated buoy and ship SSTs.
The average difference globally was −0.12°C, a correction
which is applied to the buoy SSTs at every grid cell in
ERSST version 4. [Notably, IPCC (1) used a global analysis
from the UK Met Office that found the same average shipbuoy
difference globally, although the corrections in that
analysis were constrained by differences observed within
each ocean basin (18).] More generally, buoy data have been
proven to be more accurate and reliable than ship data, with
better known instrument characteristics and automated
sampling (16). Therefore, ERSST version 4 also considers
this smaller buoy uncertainty in the reconstruction (13).
Exactly as I stated. They used the LESS accurate, higher temperature bias, and more variable SHIP INTAKE corrections and applied them BACKWARDS to the BUOY data. This is akin to the NASA "Space Sciences" guys at GISS --- dissing their own satellite fleet in favor of thermometers. Takes a bunch of balls scientifically to take a LOUSY metric and a GREAT metric and simply split the difference .. Don't it???
And using the GLOBAL AVERAGE instead of the individual ocean basin corrections PREVIOUSLY used, is either lazy or dishonest. Pick one.
This short essay's only reason to be --- is to make headlines and create doubt about EVERY OTHER TEMPERATURE RECORD on the planet. Including BEST at Berkeley, and Hadley and the satellites. Not significant in the least or in the long run..
