Reality of global warming

[Ben Dhyan]

"Hmmmm..... so apparently the planet has been warmer in the not so distant past...."


This color-coded map shows a progression of changing global surface temperatures since 1884. Dark blue indicates areas cooler than average. Dark red indicates areas warmer than average.


https://climate.nasa.gov/interactives/climate-time-machine

You obviously did not check the graphs, by not so recent past, we are talking mainly about the last few thousand years, some folk think that present temperatures are unprecedented.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

NASA's institute for space studies

What is really warming the World

What's Really Warming the World?

Hmmmm.....what temperature data did Bloomberg use Shawn?

 

[sayak83]

Your dishonesty is there for all to see, i never said or implied that an El Nino occurred every second year, you made it up to misdirect from your not having understood the El Nino/La Nina process.

What three different satellites are you referring to, please tell us what they are?

Satellites have the advantage over thermometers in that they are measuring the whole earth every day with the same instruments, though it is atmospheric and not surface temperature, There are pros and cons of both methods which is why they were both selected by the IPCC to be used for collecting global temperature data.

Two things about the last plot, yes it does show a warming trend, about 0.2 C over the period, which if it were to continue works out at about 1C increase over the century to 2100, which is well below most of the IPCC models, but secondly, the La Nina phase process is not complete and the temperature will go much lower than the present, and with it the trend could drop back to a complete pause as was in place before the 2015/16 El Nino.

I am linking a free open Access paper that demonstrates that everything you are saying about the supposed slowdown is demonstrably and mathematically wrong. Read it and see if it makes sense. If not, I will explain the ideas in it. I will respond to rest of your posts later.


Global temperature evolution: recent trends and some pitfalls - IOPscience

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I am linking a free open Access paper that demonstrates that everything you are saying about the supposed slowdown is demonstrably and mathematically wrong. Read it and see if it makes sense. If not, I will explain the ideas in it. I will respond to rest of your posts later.


Global temperature evolution: recent trends and some pitfalls - IOPscience

Tamino or the Met Office, who would you trust to validate or not a pause?

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/binarie...q/0/paper2_recent_pause_in_global_warming.pdf

 

[sayak83]

Tamino or the Met Office, who would you trust to validate or not a pause?

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/binarie...q/0/paper2_recent_pause_in_global_warming.pdf

Tamino, since I know the math and can validate it myself. Met office is simply using a term that has become common without any scientific validation.

The Idea of a pause has been scientifically refuted in countless papers. The use of the term is unscientific. Period.
New study finds ‘no substantive evidence’ of a global warming ‘pause’


Paper
On the definition and identifiability of the alleged “hiatus” in global warming : Scientific Reports

There is no pause. That has been established objectively. Refute the Mathematics if you can.


The link I posted earlier explains clearly using simple reasoning, math and evidence that the idea of a pause is simply false. Have you read it? Can you understand it? Please refute the Mathematics and data presented and do not post links that simply assumes there has been a pause without proving its existence through mathematical analysis.

 

[sayak83]

Hmmmm..... so apparently the planet has been warmer in the not so distant past....

80 Graphs From 58 New (2017) Papers Invalidate Claims Of Unprecedented Global-Scale Modern Warming

Scientists Increasingly Discarding ‘Hockey Stick’ Temperature Graphs

“[W]hen it comes to disentangling natural variability from anthropogenically affected variability the vast majority of the instrumental record may be biased.” — Büntgen et al., 2017

Last year there were at least 60 peer-reviewed papers published in scientific journals demonstrating that Today’s Warming Isn’t Global, Unprecedented, Or Remarkable.
.
Just within the last 5 months, 58 more papers and 80 new graphs have been published that continue to undermine the popularized conception of a slowly cooling Earth temperature history followed by a dramatic hockey-stick-shaped uptick, or an especially unusual global-scale warming during modern times.
.
Yes, some regions of the Earth have been warming in recent decades or at some point in the last 100 years. Some regions have been cooling for decades at a time. And many regions have shown no significant net changes or trends in either direction relative to the last few hundred to thousands of years.
.
Succinctly, then, scientists publishing in peer-reviewed journals have increasingly affirmed that there is nothing historically unprecedented or remarkable about today’s climate when viewed in the context of long-term natural variability.

Please explain how any of the papers actually suggest the conclusions you or the website proposes. I only saw rampant cherry picking going on. Thank you.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Tamino, since I know the math and can validate it myself. Met office is simply using a term that has become common without any scientific validation.

The Idea of a pause has been scientifically refuted in countless papers. The use of the term is unscientific. Period.
New study finds ‘no substantive evidence’ of a global warming ‘pause’


Paper
On the definition and identifiability of the alleged “hiatus” in global warming : Scientific Reports

There is no pause. That has been established objectively. Refute the Mathematics if you can.


The link I posted earlier explains clearly using simple reasoning, math and evidence that the idea of a pause is simply false. Have you read it? Can you understand it? Please refute the Mathematics and data presented and do not post links that simply assumes there has been a pause without proving its existence through mathematical analysis.

Sayak says..."Met office is simply using a term that has become common without any scientific validation."

Sayak, do you know what and who the Met Office is?

As one of the world's leading climate research centres, the Met Office Hadley Centre is a key contributor to the IPCC process. Seven of our scientists were lead or coordinating lead authors on the AR5 report, for example, and there were numerous other contributing authors from the Met Office. Our observational datasets, climate modelling and numerous peer-reviewed papers from our scientists are also assessed in the reports. Our contribution draws on the breadth of the UK's climate expertise and our partnerships with research establishments across the UK and internationally.

Find out more from Coordinating Lead Author, Peter Stott, in our video about the IPCC process:

 

[sayak83]

Sayak says..."Met office is simply using a term that has become common without any scientific validation."

Sayak, do you know what and who the Met Office is?
G
As one of the world's leading climate research centres, the Met Office Hadley Centre is a key contributor to the IPCC process. Seven of our scientists were lead or coordinating lead authors on the AR5 report, for example, and there were numerous other contributing authors from the Met Office. Our observational datasets, climate modelling and numerous peer-reviewed papers from our scientists are also assessed in the reports. Our contribution draws on the breadth of the UK's climate expertise and our partnerships with research establishments across the UK and internationally.

Find out more from Coordinating Lead Author, Peter Stott, in our video about the IPCC process:

Yes I know. I also know that the report you linked me simply says a pause exists without justification. Sorry, anything proposed without justification is rejected without justification. I also note that the report is from 2013, several years before the scientific papers comprehensively showed that the pause did not exist. The met office was simply wrong to assume there was one.

Indeed a lot of scientists did think that the warming had paused and we were very happy about the fact. The IPCC report itself in 2013 discusses the pause.
Unfortunately a systematic set of studies from 2014 onwards revealed it wasn't real . So the concept of the pause has now been debunked scientifically and the next IPCC report will contain that correction.


It appears that you are not interested in the science but only political sophistry for your ideologically set positions. No matter, I will explain the papers in detail and demonstrate that there has never been a pause in the warming for other readers here.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Yes I know. I also know that the report you linked me simply says a pause exists without justification. Sorry, anything proposed without justification is rejected without justification. I also note that the report is from 2013, several years before the scientific papers comprehensively showed that the pause did not exist. The met office was simply wrong to assume there was one.

Indeed a lot of scientists did think that the warming had paused and we were very happy about the fact. Unfortunately a systematic set of studies from 2014 onwards revealed it wasn't real.

It appears that you are not interested in the science but only political sophistry for your ideologically set positions. No matter, I will explain the papers in detail and demonstrate that there has never been a pause in the warming for other readers here.

You re indulging in spin.....the hiatus the Met Offfice acknowledged was real enough at the time, but was subsequently busted by the increased warming of the latest El Nino. The chance of the pause returning is possible when La Nina conditions return, we will have to wait and see.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Please explain how any of the papers actually suggest the conclusions you or the website proposes. I only saw rampant cherry picking going on. Thank you.

Ok, note that these few graphs show higher temperatures than present have existed in the past...you can check out the other 74 that together show this was widespread through out the planet....the present warming is not unprecedented.

 

[sayak83]

Ok, note that these few graphs show higher temperatures than present have existed in the past...you can check out the other 74 that together show this was widespread through out the planet....the present warming is not unprecedented.

Cool I will refute them one by one. Stay tuned.

 

[sayak83]

You re indulging in spin.....the hiatus the Met Offfice acknowledged was real enough at the time, but was subsequently busted by the increased warming of the latest El Nino. The chance of the pause returning is possible when La Nina conditions return, we will have to wait and see.

No. The 1998-2013 temperature itself was not a pause.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Cool I will refute them one by one. Stay tuned.

Cool, but I suspect this is going to take time, it is generally not an easy task to successfully refute a peer reviewed scientific paper published in a respected journal, not alone 80 of them. Let us see how many retractions result?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

No. The 1998-2013 temperature itself was not a pause.

Was too....

WORKING GROUP I CONTRIBUTION TO THE IPCC FIFTH ASSESSMENT REPORT
CLIMATE CHANGE 2013: THE PHYSICAL SCIENCE BASIS - 30 September 2013

Box 9.2: Climate Models and the Hiatus in Global-Mean Surface Warming of the Past 15 Years

http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/uploads/WGIAR5_WGI-12Doc2b_FinalDraft_Chapter09.pdf

 

[sayak83]

Cool, but I suspect this is going to take time, it is generally not an easy task to successfully refute a peer reviewed scientific paper published in a respected journal, not alone 80 of them. Let us see how many retractions result?

Oh. The papers are all right. I will refute the distorted cherry picking of their results.

 

[sayak83]

Why there was no pause in warming

The fact that global warming has never paused is now quite well established through a slew of careful analysis of the 1998-2013 data in multiple papers. Here I will explain the science and the Mathematics behind this conclusion following the useful open access review paper that recently came out.

Global temperature evolution: recent trends and some pitfalls - IOPscience


First let us discuss what temperature we are talking about. The temperature data we wish to analyze is the Global Mean Surface Temperature. There are many layers to our planet who take up heat from the sun. The ocean is the most important which is divided into several layers, the upper layer, the middle layer and the deepest ocean. Similarly the atmosphere is divided into lower troposphere, upper troposphere, the stratosphere and higher but thinner layers above. Each of these take up different parts of the heat, but much of our weather depends on surface events... and hence the surface temperature... which is the joint land surface and ocean surface combined... is both the most well measured and well understand part of our climate science.

The key question that the paper (and at least 5 more) addresses is as follows:-

"
While many scientific publications of the past years have discussed an alleged 'hiatus' or 'slowdown' and its possible causes, few have provided any statistical assessment of whether a significant trend change actually occurred. While it is clear and undisputed that the global temperature data show short periods of greater and smaller warming trends or even short periods of cooling, the key question is: is this just due to the ever-present noise, i.e. short-term variability in temperature? Or does it signify a change in behavior, e.g. in the underlying warming trend? In other words, are periods of particularly high or low warming trend significant, in that any of them is unexpected and requires further explanation than just the usual noise in the data? "

Climate, like every complex, chaotic self organized system contains inherent irreducible randomness and stochastic effects. Other examples that may be familiar to everybody are turbulent flow of rivers or how a wood fire burns. In each of these, the flow has a general large scale trend, and on it is superpower lots and lots of Eddie's and fluctuations. Climate is similar. We have a mean trend and over it multiple kinds of periodic and a-periodic fluctuations.

The scientific question therefore is, does the climate data of the recent years signify a change in the warming trend or they are simply expected stochastic fluctuations. Fortunately the ways of determining this is quite well developed in statistics, as removing the noise from the signal is one of the basic capabilities needed in information technology and the science of complex systems.

The most popular manner in which the stochastic fluctuations are modeled in information theory is through additive white gaussian noise


"Additive white Gaussian noise (AWGN) is a basic noise model used in Information theory to mimic the effect of many random processes that occur in nature. The modifiers denote specific characteristics:

• Additive because it is added to any noise that might be intrinsic to the information system.
• White refers to the idea that it has uniform power across the frequency band for the information system. It is an analogy to the color white which has uniform emissions at all frequencies in the visible spectrum.
• Gaussian because it has a normal distribution in the time domain with an average time domain value of zero.

Wideband noise comes from many natural sources, such as the thermal vibrations of atoms in conductors (referred to as thermal noise or Johnson-Nyquist noise), shot noise, black body radiation from the earth and other warm objects, and from celestial sources such as the Sun. The central limit theorem of probability theory indicates that the summation of many random processes will tend to have distribution called Gaussian or Normal."

Consider any signal, like temperature T(t), where t refers to the fact that the temperature depends on time. A simple way to expand the temperature is to separate it into a trend component and a Gaussian noise component.
T(t) = T'(t) + c(t)
Where T(t) is the raw variable, T'(t) is the signal and c(t) is the noise.

If a bunch of data values are taken in each of various time points t1, t2, t3... then we can write for each of these groups

T3 = T'(t3) + c3 and so on for all other (t1, t2,...)

where T3 are the data value, T'(t3) is the signal value at that time point and c3 is the noise value. T' is considered the mean or expectation value of the variable (here temperature) at that time. The mean of the noise is zero. So

T'(t3) = E(T|t3) (how to calculate expectations)
and
E(c3) = 0

Same holds for all other data points in various other times.

The mean rate of increase of temperature around a specific time t3 is given by the differentiation of the signal at t3.
DT(t3) = dT'/dt @ t3

Now that we have defined what the trend is and means to say that rate of increase in global warming trend has increased or decreased (DT changes), lets see how to assess it.

"Establishing acceleration or deceleration of global temperature means detecting and confirming a change in the trend. Since the trend is distinct from the noise, the influence of noise will always lead to apparent changes. Distinguishing those which are genuine from those induced by noise is the purpose of statistical significance testing...
For our purpose, a significant slowdown or acceleration in global warming is a behavior of global-mean temperature which is highly unlikely to occur under the null hypothesis of a constant warming trend plus short-term random variations as observed in the past (where 'past' refers to a suitably defined baseline period)...
Any claim of a significant slowdown or acceleration would require data that are highly unlikely (e.g. 5% or 10% likelihood depending on the desired confidence level) to be consistent with this null hypothesis....
We consider five prominent global temperature data sets: (i) NASA GISTEMP (Hansen et al 2010, GISTEMP Team 2016), NOAA (Smith and Reynolds 2005, Smith et al 2008), HadCRUT4 (Morice et al 2012), the revision of HadCRUT by Cowtan and Way (2014), and the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (Rohde et al 2013). "


The issue might be compared to deciding the form of a tennis player... say Roger Federer. Based on his past performance we have an expectation of what his firm was like. Now we can look at more current win/loss statistics to decide whether they are within the expected variability of day to day chance or whether his form has truly dipped or improved. We determine this by calculating how likely is the current stats of win/loss based on the previous form and its variance.

Continued...

 

[sayak83]

Part2


So the next task is to develop a population distribution. Usually the period 2000-2014 is typically alleged to be the slow down period. That is a 14 year period. The 5 datasets provide good data from 1970 onwards. Thus one can create a statistical population by calculation trend and variability from 1970 onwards with every 14 year period, ending at 2016. So it would go as 1970-1984, 1971-1985........2002-2016. The 2000-2014 is then a random 14 year sample picked out of this population of this 14 year long time series data of Temperatures.

Next one has to establish the "baseline form" of the temperature. The period 1970-2000 before the alleged slowdown naturally suggests itself. The variance of white Gaussian noise and the rate of increase in trend DT over this period is,

GISTEMP dataset 1970-2000

Baseline increase 0.0173 Celsius/year
Baseline standard deviation due to noise 0.103 Celsius

HadCRUT4 dataset is incomplete, as it does not measure the Arctic area where warming effects is particularly prominent. However it is also used to get a conservative estimate.

HADCRUT4 dataset 1970-2000

Baseline increase 0.0172 Celsius /year
Baseline standard deviation 0.103 Celsius

Now the paper does Monte Carlo simulations generating 10,000 realization of possible time series data that have the baseline mean and white noise deviation that has been calculated above.

What is Monte Carlo simulation and how to do it

Introduction To Monte Carlo Simulation

"it is somewhat counterintuitive to think that flipping the coin millions, billions or trillions of times could give us insight into what is happening in a nuclear reactor, into tomorrow's weather, or into our current recession. And yet Monte Carlo simulation, which is, essentially, a series of coin flips, is used to explore these areas and many, many more.
This form of simulation was first developed and used systematically during the Manhattan Project, the American World War II effort to develop nuclear weapons. John von Neumann and Stanislaw Ulam suggested it to investigate properties of neutron travel through radiation shielding, and named the method after the Monte Carlo Casino in Monaco. They, along with others, used simulation for many other nuclear weapon problems and established most of the fundamental methods of Monte Carlo simulation."


With 10,000 possible time series trajectories constructed by Monte Carlo simulations, one can now look at how likely us it that the 2000-2014 temperatures values will crop up in a randomly chosen 14 year time period.

What are the mean rate of increase and standard deviation for the 2000-2014 period.

GISTEMP data 2000-2014 period

Mean increase 0.0074 Celsius/year

HadCRUT4 data (lacking Arctic Region) 2000-2014 period

Mean increase 0.0003 Celsius /year

Given the baseline trend and variance Monte Carlo simulation shows that
a) with GISTEMP data there is 73% likelihood that at least one of the sampled 14 year intervals since 1970 contains a warming trend lower than the 2000-2014 measure.

b) with HadCRUT4 data there is still a 31% likelihood that at least one of the sampled intervals have a temperature trend lower than 2000-2014 values.

Thus the full global temperature data makes it highly likely that we would find one such interval as 2000-2014 rate of warming and even with incomplete HADCRUT4 data, the chance of finding such period remains quite likely. None of this comes even close to the statistical significance figures of 5% or less that indicates that the baseline trend of rising temperatures has changed.


Thus the case for a global warming pause is refuted objectively.


A common mistake to make here is as follows.
Assume that each 14 year period temperature trend is a colored ball, red balls are hotter than average while blue balls are colder than the average trend (mean may be yellow). Two different questions can be answered by statistics:-

1)Suppose I close my eyes and blindly pick up a ball from the box. What is the likelihood that I will up a deep blue ball (like 2000-2014) period on my first try? That would indeed be low<10% for GISTEMP.

But this is not the reality here. We have looked at all the 14 year periods from 1970 on, and have deliberately selected the 2000-2014 period knowing it has a slow rate of temperature increase. So here the question is

2)I open up the box and look at all the balls. What is the likelihood of finding at least one deep blue ball that I can pick out from the box? That probability is 74%.


In summary, there is nothing significant or unusual about the interval of lesser warming trend that started around the turn of the century.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Oh. The papers are all right. I will refute the distorted cherry picking of their results.

Haha.....how is reading temperature level off a graph cherry picking?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Why there was no pause in warming

The fact that global warming has never paused is now quite well established through a slew of careful analysis of the 1998-2013 data in multiple papers. Here I will explain the science and the Mathematics behind this conclusion following the useful open access review paper that recently came out.

Global temperature evolution: recent trends and some pitfalls - IOPscience


First let us discuss what temperature we are talking about. The temperature data we wish to analyze is the Global Mean Surface Temperature. There are many layers to our planet who take up heat from the sun. The ocean is the most important which is divided into several layers, the upper layer, the middle layer and the deepest ocean. Similarly the atmosphere is divided into lower troposphere, upper troposphere, the stratosphere and higher but thinner layers above. Each of these take up different parts of the heat, but much of our weather depends on surface events... and hence the surface temperature... which is the joint land surface and ocean surface combined... is both the most well measured and well understand part of our climate science.

The key question that the paper (and at least 5 more) addresses is as follows:-

"
While many scientific publications of the past years have discussed an alleged 'hiatus' or 'slowdown' and its possible causes, few have provided any statistical assessment of whether a significant trend change actually occurred. While it is clear and undisputed that the global temperature data show short periods of greater and smaller warming trends or even short periods of cooling, the key question is: is this just due to the ever-present noise, i.e. short-term variability in temperature? Or does it signify a change in behavior, e.g. in the underlying warming trend? In other words, are periods of particularly high or low warming trend significant, in that any of them is unexpected and requires further explanation than just the usual noise in the data? "

Climate, like every complex, chaotic self organized system contains inherent irreducible randomness and stochastic effects. Other examples that may be familiar to everybody are turbulent flow of rivers or how a wood fire burns. In each of these, the flow has a general large scale trend, and on it is superpower lots and lots of Eddie's and fluctuations. Climate is similar. We have a mean trend and over it multiple kinds of periodic and a-periodic fluctuations.

The scientific question therefore is, does the climate data of the recent years signify a change in the warming trend or they are simply expected stochastic fluctuations. Fortunately the ways of determining this is quite well developed in statistics, as removing the noise from the signal is one of the basic capabilities needed in information technology and the science of complex systems.

The most popular manner in which the stochastic fluctuations are modeled in information theory is through additive white gaussian noise


"Additive white Gaussian noise (AWGN) is a basic noise model used in Information theory to mimic the effect of many random processes that occur in nature. The modifiers denote specific characteristics:

• Additive because it is added to any noise that might be intrinsic to the information system.
• White refers to the idea that it has uniform power across the frequency band for the information system. It is an analogy to the color white which has uniform emissions at all frequencies in the visible spectrum.
• Gaussian because it has a normal distribution in the time domain with an average time domain value of zero.

Wideband noise comes from many natural sources, such as the thermal vibrations of atoms in conductors (referred to as thermal noise or Johnson-Nyquist noise), shot noise, black body radiation from the earth and other warm objects, and from celestial sources such as the Sun. The central limit theorem of probability theory indicates that the summation of many random processes will tend to have distribution called Gaussian or Normal."

Consider any signal, like temperature T(t), where t refers to the fact that the temperature depends on time. A simple way to expand the temperature is to separate it into a trend component and a Gaussian noise component.
T(t) = T'(t) + c(t)
Where T(t) is the raw variable, T'(t) is the signal and c(t) is the noise.

If a bunch of data values are taken in each of various time points t1, t2, t3... then we can write for each of these groups

T3 = T'(t3) + c3 and so on for all other (t1, t2,...)

where T3 are the data value, T'(t3) is the signal value at that time point and c3 is the noise value. T' is considered the mean or expectation value of the variable (here temperature) at that time. The mean of the noise is zero. So

T'(t3) = E(T|t3) (how to calculate expectations)
and
E(c3) = 0

Same holds for all other data points in various other times.

The mean rate of increase of temperature around a specific time t3 is given by the differentiation of the signal at t3.
DT(t3) = dT'/dt @ t3

Now that we have defined what the trend is and means to say that rate of increase in global warming trend has increased or decreased (DT changes), lets see how to assess it.

"Establishing acceleration or deceleration of global temperature means detecting and confirming a change in the trend. Since the trend is distinct from the noise, the influence of noise will always lead to apparent changes. Distinguishing those which are genuine from those induced by noise is the purpose of statistical significance testing...
For our purpose, a significant slowdown or acceleration in global warming is a behavior of global-mean temperature which is highly unlikely to occur under the null hypothesis of a constant warming trend plus short-term random variations as observed in the past (where 'past' refers to a suitably defined baseline period)...
Any claim of a significant slowdown or acceleration would require data that are highly unlikely (e.g. 5% or 10% likelihood depending on the desired confidence level) to be consistent with this null hypothesis....
We consider five prominent global temperature data sets: (i) NASA GISTEMP (Hansen et al 2010, GISTEMP Team 2016), NOAA (Smith and Reynolds 2005, Smith et al 2008), HadCRUT4 (Morice et al 2012), the revision of HadCRUT by Cowtan and Way (2014), and the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (Rohde et al 2013). "


The issue might be compared to deciding the form of a tennis player... say Roger Federer. Based on his past performance we have an expectation of what his firm was like. Now we can look at more current win/loss statistics to decide whether they are within the expected variability of day to day chance or whether his form has truly dipped or improved. We determine this by calculating how likely is the current stats of win/loss based on the previous form and its variance.

Continued...

And yet there it is.......

 

[shawn001]

The chart Ben used for showing no temperatures rising for 18 years was from The Remote Sensing System.

"Climate change doubters may have lost one of their key talking points: a particular satellite temperature dataset that had seemed to show no warming for the past 18 years.


The Remote Sensing System temperature data, promoted by many who reject mainstream climate science and especially most recently by Sen. Ted Cruz, now shows a slight warming of about 0.18 degrees Fahrenheit since 1998. Ground temperature measurements, which many scientists call more accurate, all show warming in the past 18 years.

"There are people that like to claim there was no warming; they really can't claim that anymore," said Carl Mears, the scientist who runs the Remote Sensing System temperature data tracking.

So the person who actually runs's The Remote Sensing System Carl Mears of which Ben used the graph disagrees with him and the chart was wrong.

https://phys.org/news/2016-03-revamped-satellite-global.html