The conclusion of the Karl et al paper is not only puzzling, but it has some very amusing qualities as well. If it is really true that there are “possible artifacts of data biases in the recent global surface warming hiatus” then this puts some other things in an awkward light.
The paper showed a different looking temperature series in which there is no “hiatus” in warming, it goes just straight up where modern day measurements find a standstill of temperature increase of almost two decades now.
If that is really true, then obviously the other datasets must be wrong. They still show that, according to the paper, non-existing hiatus. Because the result came from their choice of adjustments for scarce data, one could conclude that the adjustment of scarce, spatially incomplete data is preferable over higher quality data with better spatial coverage… 🙂
But the most amusing part is that in the last years, no time and effort was spared trying to explain that “hiatus”. Many dozens of explanations were found to justify its existence, like volcanoes, pollution or heat now residing in the deep ocean in stead of on the surface. That’s is not only seepage from the skeptic theme into the established science, but a widespread delusion among climate scientists 😉 Are these explanations still correct? Or where they just to get rid of the hiatus by making it a non-issue?
By the way, the data to conclude that the heat went into the deep ocean, came from scarce, spatially incomplete data. Where did we hear that before? Why are they drawn to such low quality data, again and again? Why do they think that adjustments of such data is somehow better than actual measurements?
But hey, the “experts” said it, so it must be true 😉