JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).


The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

Australian Environment Conference Oct 20 2012


micropace


GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



Thank God! BEST project rescues us from thousands of lying global thermometers

Lucky the BEST* project is here to save us from the lying thermometers of the past. Apparently people in the 1960′s and 1970′s were clever enough to get man on the moon, but too stupid to measure the temperature. Millions of people were fooled into thinking the world was cooling for three decades by erroneous thermometer readings. Who would have guessed?

Back then, everyone was sure that the 1970′s was a lot colder than the 1940′s, as Steven Goddard reminds us:

1970's cooling and global temperature measurement

Newsweek April 1975

See the original Newsweek report at Denis Dutton‘s site.

The Global Bermuda-Triangle Effect: Thermometer Weirding

The performance of global thermometers is baffling. The technology is nearly 300 years old. The first thermometers were produced in 1724 by Daniel Fahrenheit, and by 1742 Anders Celsius had invented its main competitor. This simple, reliable instrument spread throughout the world and worked well. So far so good. But from 1920 we see the first signs of worldwide systematic errors (first too high, and then too low?!).

The strange “Wierding” effect struck both mercury and alcohol thermometers and was most savage between 1945 and 1975.  Frank Lansner compared the BEST projects result with his Rural Unadjusted Temperature Series (RUTI, below). The Berkley Earth Project (shown here in the dark green line) corrects for the inexplicable Wierding, and now reveals that the rural thermometers worldwide were systematically recording an astonishing half a degree too low! (Frankly, it’s a wonder that planes were able to land at country airports.)

 

While rural raw temperatures fell, the BEST "reality" was that really it wasn't that cold.

See the RUTI analysis at Hide the Decline

Scientists and journalists fooled

Lowell Ponte, 1976

“Another Ice Age?” asked Time Magazine on June 24, 1975.

It seems that many people were tricked into thinking the world was cooling, and saw the signs of it everywhere they looked.

The mass delusion extended to imagining that growing seasons were shorter and to seeing fictitious extra snowfall in satellite photos. From Newsweek 1975, headlined “The Cooling World”:

In England, farmers have seen their growing season decline by about two weeks since 1950, with a resultant overall loss in grain production estimated at up to 100,000 tons annually.

A survey completed last year by Dr. Murray Mitchell of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reveals a drop of half a degree in average ground temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere between 1945 and 1968. According to George Kukla of Columbia University, satellite photos indicated a sudden, large increase in Northern Hemisphere snow cover in the winter of 1971-72. And a study released last month by two NOAA scientists notes that the amount of sunshine reaching the ground in the continental U.S. diminished by 1.3% between 1964 and 1972.

 

Headlines of the coming ice age from the 1970s

Climate Depot has the FACTSHEET on the 1970s ice-age predictions with links to the articles.

It’s shocking, unthinkable — the consensus of experts was wrong

Science News March 1 1975

Meteorologists at the time  were completely misled by the errant data from thermometers all over the world. They predicted mass starvation due to colder conditions:

The central fact is that after three quarters of a century of extraordinarily mild conditions, the earth’s climate seems to be cooling down. Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century. If the climatic change is as profound as some of the pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic. “A major climatic change would force economic and social adjustments on a worldwide scale,” warns a recent report by the National Academy of Sciences, “because the global patterns of food production and population that have evolved are implicitly dependent on the climate of the present century.”

[]Newsweek 1975,]

What could have caused both mercury and alcohol thermometers to malfunction simultaneously all over the world?

The systematic global errors beg further investigation. Was there some kind of cosmic interference, or were all the thermometers just dastardly lying pot-smoking instruments out to trick us?

Or darkly, could it be an infectious agent at work? If it was, it remains unknown to science, and defies explanation. What could coincidentally afflict thermometers made of alcohol (otherwise used to kill microorganisms) and mercury (toxic to everything)? A mercury based life-form would mean a new Kingdom of living organisms. That these unlikely infections might also have managed to cross solid glass makes it all the more imperative that we set up a UN agency immediately (and with $500 billion dollars) to investigate.

Quick, write to your elected representative, send it to Mythbusters, and notify William Shatner. This is serious.

————————————-

*Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Project: BEST means the “BEST PR they can manage “. Make no mistake. BEST are trying to rewrite history, but we are not fooled.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.2/10 (92 votes cast)
Thank God! BEST project rescues us from thousands of lying global thermometers, 9.2 out of 10 based on 92 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/6796dnv

172 comments to Thank God! BEST project rescues us from thousands of lying global thermometers

  • #
    Rick Bradford

    I can’t find anyone who has a good thing to say about BEST — even the creepy Deltoids are laying into it, apparently because Muller said a couple of years ago that “hide the decline” shenanigans are not the way to do science, and the Deltoids haven’t forgiven him.

    And, would you believe it, even the druids at RealClimate piled on, saying “the results could not have been less surprising if the press release had said ‘Man Finds Sun Rises At Dawn’.”

    All very weird.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    DougS

    JN:
    “…Quick, write to your elected representative, send it to Mythbusters, and notify William Shatner. This is serious….”

    It’s not just serious it’s serial, super-serial in fact.

    I detect the unmistakable fingerprints (or claw/trotter prints!) of the dastardly ‘ManBearPig’.

    We’re doomed!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Rereke Whakaaro

    BEST means the “BEST PR they can manage “. Make no mistake. BEST are trying to rewrite history, but we are not fooled.

    When will they learn? If something isn’t working, then doing it harder just makes it more obvious.

    We have been through the, “lets fudge the thermometer record” phase, followed by the “lets try homogenising the readings” stage, followed by the “hey, I know, why don’t we just selectively smooth the trends” fudge, culminating in the “bugger it, lets just hide the decline” trick.

    What ever these guys are hitting up on, it must surely be good shit.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Joe Lalonde

    Jo,

    Is it the sun or is it the atmospheric changes?
    Some scientists say the suns activity and heat has not changed only the solar activity. So if it is not the sun, then the planet must be the cause of the changes of heat and cold for an event like an Ice Age.

    I was studying the density differences of fresh water to salt water for differences in power generation when I came across an oceanographer that found the ocean salt had changed on the surface of the oceans. Ruth Curry in the 1970′s found the ocean salt had intensified on the surface and of course everyone blamed it on global warming. This is where a scientist lost the current of ocean heat he was tracking shortly after.
    But still scientists fluffed off ocean salt as any effect.
    In order for salt to change, their must be mass evaporation to intensify it’s density. But their was not.
    So the next logical answer is pressure differences. Where the salt started to change is also where we have the strongest centrifugal force.
    Again, scientists fluff off centrifugal force as pseudo science as they could never understand it or recreate it and it does not fall under the protection of the laws of science.

    I have been watching the interesting changes of cloud mass that just about covered ALL of the northern hemisphere land mass last winter. The ocean surface heat was in the Arctic and the cold air mass was blowing over this.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Grumpy Old Man

      Joe, do you mean centipetral or centrifugal force?


      Report this

      00

    • #
      gemini4

      #4 …don’t rule out the sun so easily.

      Brian Cox reported on work done in South America which establishes a relationship between the amount of energy received from the sun and river levels. Although the solar output is fairly stable, the transmission efficiency of the energy required for evapotranspiration on earth is affected by a variety of things.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    rukidding

    So what does the worlds average temperature mean.Who lives in a place that has the worlds average temperature.I sure don’t and I would think the vast percentage of the world doesn’t either.
    So what is the worlds average temperature and no it is not 0.7C.Here is a hint world aviation has been using 15C as the average atmospheric temp for as long as I can remember.Put it on a temperature graph with a scale from 0 to 100 and show me the hockey stick without the use of a high powered magnifying glass. :-)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Jeremy C

    Jo,

    Anthony Watts was very enthusiastic about the BEST project when it started saying he would accept what the project came up with.

    Are you and other deniers laying into them because they didn’t come out with what you guys hoped for?

    This is a serious question, I’m not trying to point score.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      incoherent rambler

      I think before the project started that Anthony stupidly assumed that they would approach the task professionally and honestly.


      Report this

      00

    • #
      Gnome

      I was excited about this project but I expected a more thorough statistical analysis of the existing data.

      I expected a proper comparison of data quality by region including especially comparison between northern and southern hemisphere data and separate analysis of those data. It didn’t happen. Nonetheless, the data is now available for those with the capacity to handle it and that is worthwhile. The story is nowhere near at an end yet, This not the beginning of the end but the beginning of the beginning.

      (If two thirds of thermometers show warming and one third don’t it only goes to prove that high temperatures prove global warming and low temperatures prove global warming.)


      Report this

      00

    • #

      Are you and other deniers laying into them because they didn’t come out with what you guys hoped for? This is a serious question, I’m not trying to point score.

      Jeremy, I don’t know what the deniers are doing. You’d know more deniers in denial-of-their-own-namecalling, and deniers-of-unadjusted-thermometer-records that I would. Why ask me? When you can admit you are tossing baseless incendiary terms that you can’t define in any scientific way, then I’ll answer your “not point scoring” questions.

      If you are “serious” try using English.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Andrew McRae

        That’s an interesting set of “denier” genres.
        Merely for the purpose of concise communication I hereby propose a new brand of “climate denier”.

        Disco Deniers : People who believe that the 1970s were NOT cooler than the 1940s (by at least a quarter of a Celsius degree).

        This term is literal and non-pejorative – it applies even if evidence exists to support it.

        This still leaves the ambiguity about what warm body is being measured and compared. Based on the evidence of HadSST3 versus RUTI, I am currently a Sea Disco Denier, but I am not a Land Disco Denier. This is to be expected since the oceanic heat sink has a more stable temperature. (If Frank could supply a graph of world SST3 vs RUTI this would make the Land vs Sea distinction sharper than judging different charts by eye, hint hint Frank.)

        BEST seems to think the land is the ocean. This makes BEST a Land Disco Denier by the above definition.

        Personally I’m going to wait another two weeks until Steve “Hockey Stick Slayer” McIntyre has passed judgement. In his initial examination of BEST, McIntyre’s analysis of the 1970s discrepancy is conspicuous by its complete absence.


        Report this

        00

    • #
      BobC

      Jeremy C
      October 27, 2011 at 10:30 pm

      Are you and other deniers laying into them because they didn’t come out with what you guys hoped for?

      What is it we are denying? We are just skeptical of yet another attempted historical record re-write by biased parties.

      You appear to be denying that thermometers are capable of reading the temperature, without political interference and “re-interpretation” by self-interested scientists. What evidence do you have that this is required? If you would submit that, we could analyze it — no need to “deny” it, as it would be logical Swiss Cheese.

      Perhaps we need “politically-correct” thermometers to satisfy you? (Lucrative government grants might be available for their development.)


      Report this

      00

    • #
      BobC

      BTY, Jeremy C:

      To have blind faith in climate scientists who first, claimed that the ’70s were cooling, but now claim that they were actually warming shows a level of mindless conformity that would make a lemming proud (and a used-car salesman excited). The “ground truth” in this question is the actual thermometer readings (and the supporting data, such as growing season length, etc), which clearly show cooling.

      Who you gonna believe — climate scientists or the lying data?


      Report this

      00

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      Anthony Watts thought that statisticians would, you know, use valid statistical techniques in their analysis.

      But they haven’t. But to be fair, they probably haven’t because they can’t.

      It is not kosher to use smoothed data in further analysis. Smoothing data is a presentational technique to show general trends. But in the process of smoothing, you loose all of the detailed signal.

      The problem with the temperature record is that large parts of it have been smoothed, and adjusted, and homogenised to allow for various (undefined) “errors” in the readings. The original source records, it seems, have been eaten by somebody’s dog, who then promptly died.

      Garbage in equals garbage out, and if your “raw data” is a sow’s ear, then there will be a deficit of silk purses.


      Report this

      00

    • #
      Dave N

      “Anthony Watts was very enthusiastic about the BEST project when it started saying he would accept what the project came up with.”

      Then I’m sure you’ll be able to provide a quote from Anthony that says that.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        DougS

        Indeed, why would anyone give carte blanche to any group without full knowledge of the data, methodology and code used.

        I don’t believe that Watts said any such thing.

        The unspeakable BBC does the exact opposite – nobody gets to make a documentary until they approve the conclusions.

        00

    • #
      Bruce of Newcastle

      Jeremy – There are two main points regarding the BEST effort:

      (1) There are discrepancies with previous datasets and other observations (eg the whole ice age scare in the ’70′s – which I remember).

      (2) In the main the BEST temperature record can be explained just as well by the solar + low climate sensitivity hypothesis as can the likes of HadCRUT v3.

      If you use the pSCL vs av solar cycle temperature regression equation, plus a low climate sensitivity number (eg 0.7 C/doubling) you’ll get a close fit on trend. That is consistent with the findings of scientists like Prof Rao, who must be one of the main reasons you don’t see India hysterical about global warming.

      So, in essence the answer to your question is “who cares?” because it isn’t the temperature data that is important but the interpretation of the data.


      Report this

      00

    • #
      cohenite

      This is a serious question, I’m not trying to point score.

      You are such a liar JC.

      On a far more interesting point than JC’s callow insults prominent business man Jeff McCloy has the wind in his sails about Lake MacQuarie Council’s AGW policy about water-side homes; he plans to sue; there is a poll here; please visit and indicate your support:

      http://www.theherald.com.au/polls/?page=

      The report of McCloy’s planned class action is here:

      http://www.theherald.com.au/news/local/news/general/mccloy-to-mount-climate-class-action-against-council/2338650.aspx


      Report this

      00

    • #
      Konrad

      Why are people upset with Dr. Muller and “BEST”? Here is just a few of the reasons -

      Dr. Muller’s bad behaviour is extensive and he certainly has prior form.
      First, regardless of the content of the BEST paper, Dr. Muller appears to have chosen the wrong PR. He has chosen press release over peer review. He has chosen propaganda. He has chosen poorly for the third time in a row. Sceptics will never forgive and the Internet will never forget.

      Next, he is quoted as saying global warming is real therefore people should no longer be sceptics. This strawman argument seeks to imply that sceptics don’t believe it has warmed since the little ice age. This is particularly insulting given the constant effort sceptics have to put in to stop alarmists erasing the LIA and MWP from history!

      Then in a paper written after Fall et all, and using some of the same data, Dr. Muller ignores one of the most important findings of Fall et all. For the worst sited stations Tmin was found to rise faster than Tmax. AGW believers have often postulated that UHI or micro site problems would “raise all boats equally”. However Fall et all shows that the worst rated stations exhibited a slight warming with a reduced diurnal range, previously claimed to be the exclusive signature of AGW. Sadly Dr. Muller states in his papers’ conclusion that diurnal maxima and minima were not addressed. Dr. Muller is slyly trying to keep the “exclusive signature of AGW” in the data, despite it being a product of the worst sited stations, by saying it has little effect on “average” station trends.

      Further to this, despite promises, there appears little in the BEST paper that indicates any reliable method for determining the difference between gradual micro site degeneration, gradual UHI increases and a gradual AGW trend. The “scalpel” technique promoted by Dr. Muller’s team can’t cope with “gradual”

      And finally, Dr. Muller shows that US surface temperatures were hotter recently than in 1934. This is achieved through the use of Dr. Tom Karl’s pet rat TOBy, otherwise known as the TOBS adjustment. Adjusting station data for time of observation bias is legitimate, but only when supported by ACTUAL STATION METADATA! Guess what Dr. Muller didn’t use? Without the rubbish TOBS adjustment there would be almost no trend in 20th century US surface station data.

      Dr. Muller’s work is hopelessly flawed, ignores previous important findings and adds nothing new to the analysis of noisy surface station data. None of the four “BEST” papers have passed peer review or even climate science “pal review”, yet the has been a blitz of press releases. I fully expect to see this tripe in the next IPCC report along with the next shovel load of grey literature from WWF and Greenpeace.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Another Ian

        Maybe a few more? From comments at

        http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/21/best-what-i-agree-with-and-what-i-disagree-with-plus-a-call-for-additional-transparency-to-preven-pal-review/#comments

        “Legatus says:
        October 21, 2011 at 8:31 pm
        Anthony:
        Apparently, you are not aware of this:
        Muller & Associates
        Richard Muller , President and Chief Scientist

        GreenGov is a service offered by Muller & Associates
        Helping governments build energy strategies that are right for them
        Government energy policy is increasingly confounded by the complex interplay of international treaties, fluctuating prices, declining reserves, and a rapidly growing array of technological developments. Energy policy involves economics, energy security, and climate change. For some initiatives, these issues may be addressed simultaneously. For others the potential solutions might be in direct conflict. Coal, as one example, is abundant in some countries, but it is also a strong emitter of carbon dioxide
        Clean Energy – demystifying emerging technologies and avoiding costly “misinvestments
        We know that in order to be effective, solutions must be sustainable.

        Hats what they say, here is what you said:

        3. The release method they chose, of having a media blitzkrieg of press release and writers at major MSM outlets lined up beforehand is beyond the pale. While I agree with Dr. Muller’s contention that circulating papers among colleagues for wider peer review is an excellent idea, what they did with the planned and coordinated (and make no mistake it was coordinated for March 20th, Liz Muller told me this herself) is not only self-serving grandiosity, but quite risky if peer review comes up with a different answer.
        The rush to judgment they fomented before science had a chance to speak is worse than anything I’ve ever seen, and from my early dealings with them, I can say that I had no idea they would do this, otherwise I would not have embraced them so openly. A lie of omission is still a lie, and I feel that I was not given the true intentions of the BEST group when I met with them.

        That’s some claim. Four papers that have not been peer-reviewed yet, and they KNOW they’ll pass peer review and will be in the next IPCC report? Is it just me or does that sound rigged? Or, is it just the product of an overactive ego on the part of the BEST group?

        Now do you begin to understand? Look above, their website, they call it greenGov, sounds like a mixture of green and government to me, sound like skeptics to you? They want to “help” you avoid “climate change” (their words) to avoid “carbon dioxide” (their words), sound like skeptics? They want to help you with “clean energy” and to be “sustainable”, (their words”, sound like skeptics? They have a prior agreement to appear in the IPCC report (that’s sure what it sounds like), sound like skeptics to you?

        Sooo, why might they have a media blitz? It’s rather obvious, actually, Muller & Associates wants business, and the BEST project assures that they will get it. Having a media blitz, and actually being in the IPCC report, sets them up as “the experts”, you know, the ones to call if you need “help” (P.S., bring cash). Does it begin to make sense now?

        And they want you associated with them, you and Judith Curry, and as many other bigger name skeptics as they can get. That way they can say, “see, even the skeptics agree with us, we are that good”. That way, they can even get business with people who are somewhat skeptical, which is at least half of them now. Hey, double the business of all those other companies, who wouldn”t want that?

        You say that some people are going overboard (“There’s lots of hay being made by the usual romminesque flaming bloggers”), suspecting the BEST people of bad motives, then you come here and provide practically definitive proof that, yes, they are doing exactly that. Look at their own website, figure it out for yourself.

        Well, thats what it looks like to me, I would sure love to be proven wrong, but if this thing gets pal reviewed, and gets into the next IPCC report, that’s pretty much an open and shut case.”


        Report this

        00

    • #
      brc

      Yes, let’s talk about deniers!

      People who deny that carbon taxing is a failure, doesnt’ achieve anything and will never succeed!

      People who deny that their models have no predictive value, and who deny that a module with no predictive value has no value at all.

      People who deny that science is progressed by testable theories instead of headcount and mutual back-slapping by people with self-imposed important sounding titles and committees!

      People who deny that billions of taxpayer and activist money has been spent perpetuating the global warming scare, still claiming to be the trounced upon minority!

      People who deny that, despite the endless eulogies, the Barrier Reef appears to be just fine after all?

      People who deny that there hasn’t been one single ‘climate refugee’ despite us supposedly having millions or billions by 2012?

      Are those the deniers you were talking about? Or is it some other set of unknown sub-humans to which you were referring?


      Report this

      00

    • #
      KeithH

      Jeremy C. Before indulging in such ridiculous unsubstantiated namecalling again, you would do well to read the following and then conduct a soul-searching self-examination.

      “The label of “denier” says nothing about me, but everything about the person making the charge. A scientific theory cannot be “denied.” Only a belief can be denied. Scientific theories are never denied or believed, they are only corroborated or falsified. Scientific knowledge, by its very nature, is provisional and subject to revision. The provisional nature of scientific knowledge is a necessary consequence of the epistemological basis of science. Science is based on observation. We never have all the data. As our body of data grows, our theories and ideas must necessarily evolve. Anyone who thinks scientific knowledge is final and complete must necessarily endorse as a corollary the absurd proposition that the process of history has stopped.

      The person who uses the word “denier” thus reveals that they hold global warming as a belief, not a scientific theory. Beliefs are the basis of revealed religion. Revelations cannot be corroborated or studied in the laboratory, so religions are based on dogmatic beliefs conservatively held. Religions tend to be closed systems of belief that reject criticism. But the sciences are open systems of knowledge that welcome criticism.”

      Excerpts from an article by David Deming, a geophysicist, associate professor of arts and sciences at the University of Oklahoma reported on ICECAP 19/10/2011

      http://www.icecap.us/


      Report this

      00

    • #
  • #
    incoherent rambler

    The refusal of the AGW crowd to acknowledge the historical temperature record, is just preparing the ground for the next phase of refusing to acknowledge the current day temperature record.

    The last cold nothern hemisphere winter was just peoples imagination. They only “felt” cold, it wasn’t really cold.
    The thermometers are clearly in error, in total conflict with the models AND the models are always right.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      DougS

      The BBC got very upset with the cold weather right across the northern hemisphere.

      So much so that they wheeled out one of their tame weather ‘experts’ to show us (on a world map) that, although it was a bit chilly in Britain – it was lovely and hot in equatorial areas and in the southern hemisphere (where it was mid-summer).

      They really are seriously biased on AGW.


      Report this

      00

  • #

    I was a teenager in the mid 1970′s.

    In 1971.The Columbia river froze.

    In 1974.The river froze part way.

    Since then the most ice it gets are right along the shoreline.The river is ofter a quarter mile wide in the Tri cities area.

    In 1974.It snowed more than 1″ in a mid march day.Never since then accumulate or snow more than a few flakes in a cold rain.

    It was indeed colder in the 1960′s and 1970′s than now.

    I recall the prolonged cold and snow outbreaks in the plains and north eastern America.It made the news night after night.When Walter Cronkite,would report on them on CBS news.About Buffalo New York getting deeply buried in snow and bitter cold sinking into the great plains.

    He went into them many many times between 1976-1978.

    Muller and his ilk are playing a statistical con game and I resent it!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark Hladik

    Just to help some of those with a limited viewpoint (that being, that ‘history started on the day I was born’), do all of us a favor and visit a website called

    http://www.globalwarmingart.com

    There are several paleotemperature graphs there, all of which show that in the past, the Earth has been warmer than it is at present. There is one for the Phanerozoic, one that shows the past 65 million years (the Cenozoic Era, … … er, ah, I mean CAINOZOIC, for those ‘down under’), and one which concentrates on the last five million years, basically the Pliocene, Pleistocene, and Holocene.

    It is somewhat short-sighted to think that this is the first time in the history of the planet that the climate has changed. As the five-million year graph will show, change is the only norm, not the exception.

    While you’re at it, do yourself a favor, and run a cross-correlation on the Berner et al carbon dioxide concentration, and Phanerozoic temperatures, and look at the correlation coefficient. I have been making a library of the results reported to me by various individuals.

    Best regards to all,

    Mark H.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Question Everything

    Have you considered this cooling is also caused by humans and this is why have they changed from the problem of “global warming” to “climate change” so no matter what happens they will be right?


    Report this

    00

    • #
      klingon

      It’s just a NATURAL cycle.
      Nothing to do with human beings.


      Report this

      00

    • #
      J.H.

      It’s a matter of evidence QE…. There is no evidence that Anthropogenic sources of CO2 are having an effect on climate….. On the other hand, there is a multitude of evidence that suggest natural variation of climate is normal….

      Sometimes it pays to just bare the facts in mind, then to allow speculation to cloud the issue.


      Report this

      00

  • #

    It amazes me how that so many have taken to rewriting history. It use to be just the old Soviet Union. Apparently parts of it still live today – and still rewrite history.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      Phil,

      Governments – all governments – have always attempted to rewrite history – even feudal Kings who had nothing to gain, apart from the ability to adopt the moral high ground over other monarchs.

      Don’t blame the Soviets – they didn’t come up with the idea. Or any idea for that matter.


      Report this

      00

      • #

        I know the Soviets did not invent the idea, and I agree with you about rewriting. But usually the monarchs of old did it for nationalist reasons (the monarch being the state). The Soviets took it to a new plateau where even the most mundane things had to be theirs. So it is with AGW – they are constantly changing their line to suit the facts. Eventually, they will get back to we are causing another ice age (The Day After Tomorrow) when the data turns south on them.


        Report this

        00

      • #

        In a way I think there is similarities between China, Iran, (Soviet) Russia and… IPCC:
        In al cases they done like the internet at all.
        Dont like free thoughts and dialog.

        K.R. Frank


        Report this

        00

      • #
        brc

        Don’t be so hard on the Soviets.

        They did give us 70 years of test data as to why socialism is a terrible idea. This selfless act of self-sabotage should hopefully prevent anyone else trying the same thing for a long time.


        Report this

        00

  • #
    janama

    what amazes me is that all this is about 4 papers that haven’t been peer reviewed yet!!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Sundance

    How well I remember Muller’s balmy 1970s when my outdoor job allowed me to enjoy the tropical -72degF (with wind chill factored in) temperatures in Chicago. That warming must have been what cuased my greenhouse gases (the CO2 and water vapor from my breaths) to instantly freeze to my face.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Cookster

    Slightly off topic, but “The” Steven Sherwood has posted a thought provoking article in today’s The Australian why he thinks ’30 minute public debates’ are not an appropriate means of challenging the validity of the current climate science “consensus”. I’d be interested to know your thoughts?

    Note The Australian has recently moved (annoyingly) to subscription only. The article can only be read in full after applying for a 3 month trial (although this does not take very long to complete).


    Report this

    00

  • #

    It was obviously a conspiracy by the Koch’s grandfather to overestimate temperatures in the 1930′s.


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #
    klingon

    Some interesting reading……..

    Global cooling found in satellite measurements

    http://www.delawareonline.com/article/20090914/OPINION10/90913015

    THE COOLING WORLD – newsweek1975

    http://img6.imageshack.us/img6/3791/newsweek1975globalcooli.jpg

    Popular Technology.net: 1,000 References of Global Cooling

    http://www.populartechnology.net/2010/12/1000-references-of-global-cooling.html

    November 2nd, 1922. Arctic Ocean Getting Warm; Seals Vanish and Icebergs Melt.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/03/16/you-ask-i-provide-november-2nd-1922-arctic-ocean-getting-warm-seals-vanish-and-icebergs-melt/


    Report this

    00

  • #
    janama

    I’ve just noticed that Wood For Trees interactive charts has added the Best chart to it’s options.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    So it’s not just Australia, nor USA, but the whole world.
    Do you get the feeling that when climate scientists (e.g. David Jones) say that temperature adjustments are neutral they are either (a) incompetent or (b) ???????

    Well done Frank, and Jo.

    Ken


    Report this

    00

    • #

      Hi Ken!

      Its very interesting what scientists said earlier, even Phil Jones.
      The “changing” of temperature data – as far as I can see – started in 1981 in J. Hansens writing, then first 4-5 years later Jones and the others where hooked on this new practice.

      quotes from Jones and others:

      *******************
      U.S. National science board 1974:
      “During the last 20 to 30 years, world temperature has fallen, irregularly at first but more sharply over the last decade”

      Phil Jones, 1985, about the temperature decline after the 1930´ies:
      “No satisfactory explanation for this cooling exists, and the cooling itself is perplexing because it is contrary to the trend expected from increasing atmospheric CO2 concentration. Changing Solar Activity and/or changes in explosive volcanic activity has been suggested as causes… but we suspect it may be an internal fluctuation possibly resulting from a change in North Atlantic deep water production rate.”

      So, Jones said in 1985 that: “the cooling itself is perplexing” – but why not say so today? And why don’t we see a “perplexing” cooling after 1940 in the IPCC graphic today? And furthermore, back in the early 1980´ies Jones appears to accept data as is at least to such an extent that he is considering how nature has produced these “perplexing” cooling data – like a real scientist should.

      In 1986, it seems that jones more and more takes distance to the older data:
      “The method of Vinnikov et al. (1980), involving nearly 1200 maps, is both time-consuming and subjective. The results could not Practically be repeated even if the precise data sources were known.
      Yamamoto’s (1981) results are not strictly comparable to the other analyses discussed here because a zero anomaly value was assumed for all grid points where interpolation could not be made.” Etc.etc.

      But in 1982 Jones wrote:
      “The high correlations in table 2, particularly those with Budyko (1969) and Vinnikov et al. (1980) supports the reliability of our results”. (Jones in 1982 describes both strengths and weaknesses of his methods and results.)

      Jones describes how the 1985-86 data show much less cooling than in 1980-82:
      “A cooling of about 0.28 C is evident between 1940 and 1965. The magnitude of this cooling in the present analysis is considerably smaller than in the earlier analyses of Vinnikov et al. (1980), Hansen et al. (1981) and Jones et al. (1982), amounting to about 0.38 C in those studies.”
      ***********************

      This is taken from
      http://hidethedecline.eu/pages/posts/the-perplexing-temperature-data-published-1974-84-and-recent-temperature-data-180.php
      Part 1.3

      K.R. Frank and thanks for comment!


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Bulldust

    It seems station siting has been a concern for some time… since the late 1800s at least:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/26/even-as-far-back-as-1892-station-siting-was-a-concern/

    And this was before jet engines, air conditioners, latex [aint and a host of other things…


    Report this

    00

  • #
    amcoz

    Whether the weather is tethered to the pretty, pictorial displays of its temperature the question remains: WTF has it got to do with humankind, least of all how is so related to me and the rest of my 7 billion neighbours?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Joe V.

    The period of real temperature decline coincides with the proliferation in nuclear testing , which ~ doubled the amount of the heavier Carbon-14 in the atmosphere.
    The decline in temperature due to the heavier Carbon-14 absorbing more of the heat, will gradually dissipate as the levels of Carbon 14 are already falling..


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Lawrie

    The most gratifying aspect of this story and the machinations of “scientists” to try and keep the warming going when it seems it has slowed or stopped is that the more they try the bigger fools they will be when cooling becomes too obvious to ignore. Warming and cooling cycles are obvious to all except the true believers and we are at the beginning of a cooling cycle. There is nothing so embarrassing as to be caught in a lie. Remember the Information Minister in Iraq stating that there were no tanks in Bagdag when the TV showed them in the background. These scientists, and the AGE, are saying there is no cooling while ice forms around their feet.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Gerry

    “It does not matter whether average temperatures may or may not have cooled for a few decades prior to 1975, or what the personal opinions and speculations of scientists in the 1960′s and 70′s were. This is 2011, friends!! You and I (and a new generation of scientists since then) should have learned something!

    There seems to be widespread agreement now that global temperatures have increased since about 1980. That’s what all the graphs, including the ones on this article, show. What happened before then is really not relevant.

    Temperature measurements have improved over the years as technology has developed. For example, satellite data became available only around 1972. Alcohol and mercury thermometers need to be calibrated, the scale provided by the manufacturer is only approximate. When a single central source is used (such as in satellite-based measurements), the measurements will be very consistent relative to each other and are not dependent on calibration.

    Pretending that things are and will be as always contradicts what one of the other commentators said already: the only thing that never changes is that there will be change. I don’t know whether I’ll ever have an automobile accident but I wear a seatbelt because if I am in an accident I’ll be more likely to survive it. I don’t know whether or how much temperatures will rise on earth or where I live, but I’d like to know what I should do to increase the likelihood that I and my community will do the best possible if the temperature does go up more.

    Making up your own facts or selecting only those that support your position as some writers have done is not helpful. The arctic ice issue is a good example. What really matters, especially to sea level rise, is the ice VOLUME (or weight) above land because if it melted it would raise sea level, dramatically so (21 ft) if it slid into the ocean (probably not for at least 100 years). How much additional area over water the ice covers is variable and doesn’t matter or tell all that much. “


    Report this

    00

    • #
      John Smith101

      Gerry, I’m not sure whether your comment is made in ignorance or obfuscation. Knowing how much average temperatures varied in previous decades is important for it tells us about natural variability, which in turn provides a base line in order to determine anthropogenic impacts in, using your example, 2011, and beyond. It is, therefore, quite relevant.
      When you say, “I’d like to know what I should do to increase the likelihood that I and my community will do the best possible if the temperature does go up more” (you are actually implying adaption in this instance) surely it would be better to know how much is natural variability and how much is anthropogenic, is it not? Obviously, natural variability we can only adapt to; anthropogenic impacts we can (possibly) do something about.
      Also, be careful using the “arctic ice issue”. It is apparent you do not understand the terminology or dynamics. The arctic ice issue refers to the seasonal expansion and contraction of sea ice freezing and thawing and has no bearing on sea levels. You have confused ice VOLUME, used recently in connection with sea ice as a means of explanation to adhere to the global warming orthodoxy, with the ice volume (or weight) in connection with polar ice sheets, a type of land based glacier, which in this part of the world is represented by Greenland, as evidenced by your reference to your “dramatic” 21ft sea level rise. The Greenland ice sheet is over a kilometre thick and occupies a crustal depression, much of which lies below sea level. It is impossible to melt by the impact of anthropogenic greenhouse gases alone let alone raise sea levels to the quoted height. Furthermore, occupying a depression, it is impossible to slide and such a simplistic “model”, though used by Hanson and others, in no way represents the actual dynamics of ice sheet behaviour.
      As you say, “Making up your own facts or selecting only those that support your position as some writers have done is not helpful.” Cheers.


      Report this

      00

    • #

      Hi Gerry,
      you write: “That’s what all the graphs, including the ones on this article, show. What happened before then is really not relevant…Temperature measurements have improved over the years as technology has developed.

      As long as GISS, Hadcrut etc shows data older than 1980 it must be because it has a purpose even though data is supposed to be lower as you indicate.
      But as Joanne indicates, Atomic bombs where made in 1945, and do moon landing in 1969, so honestly, reading a mercury thermometer was a technique known before 1980 should be possible.

      If NOT data before 1980 is useful, NO ONE should use it.

      But it is used to claim that something unusual is going on today, and thats the question.

      Arctic:
      You write: “Making up your own facts or selecting only those that support your position as some writers have done is not helpful. The arctic ice issue is a good example.”

      What is interesting about the Arctic again is, if something unusual is happening.
      Heat affects ice, and therefore, dont you think that thermometers is a really really good starting point for evaluating if something is unusual in tha Arctic?

      Well, I do: Heres a simple collection of data from those Arctic thermometers closest to summer-ice-areas. What do they tell?
      http://hidethedecline.eu/pages/posts/estimating-arctic-sea-ice-area-1920-1978-using-temperature-stations-234.php

      And how about Greenland?? Why is it that “scientists” pathologically ignores that temperatures 1925-45 where similar on Greenland to what they are today?
      Why is it SOOO important not to talk about the hard facts?
      Greenland temperatures:
      http://hidethedecline.eu/media/ARUTI/Europe/GreenlandIceland/fig3.jpg

      - taken from “RUTI: Greenland Iceland and Svalbard”
      http://hidethedecline.eu/pages/ruti/europe/greenland-iceland-and-svalbard.php

      What so awfull about real data?

      K.R. Frank


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Graeme

    What could have caused both mercury and alcohol thermometers to malfunction simultaneously all over the world?

    I would assume that they were all corrupted by funding from Big OIL! You know – thermometers are just greedy so and so’s.

    G


    Report this

    00

  • #
    DomS

    “What could have caused both mercury and alcohol thermometers to malfunction simultaneously all over the world?”

    Maybe they were affected by the temperature? :P


    Report this

    00

  • #

    lawrie #21 when you refer as ”fools” you must be looking at your mirror. You know why? Warmist say it’s getting warmer – all the Skeptic Smarties are looking why is getting warmer – so they don’t blame the CO2. Then the Warmist mention; is getting cooler – same thing – Skeptics are researching all the possibility why is getting colder. BECAUSE THE SMARTIES CANNOT UNDERSTAND THAT THE WARMIST DON’T HAVE ANY IDEA WHAT WAS EXACT TEMPERATURE even LAST YEAR. How can they talk about previous years. Warmist, IPCC don’t have 0,0000000000000000001% of the data ESSENTIAL, to know what was the temperature in the troposphere last year. Not one of them can come up with correct number to save his life. But the Sceptic Smarties are constantly searching why is warmer / why is colder… Looking to make ”back-door exit” for the Warmist. Atmosphere is not getting warmer or colder – they only say that is getting warmer / colder – Skeptics instantly increase the noise by decibels… who is the fool???…

    The best example are the Sceptic’s Stupid Sunspots. Lets call them ”SSS” The truth is: atmosphere wasn’t warming / now is not cooling. Because is no warming / billions spent – leading Warmist needs to be brought in court of justice; for soliciting money on false pretence. Tragically, tragically… the sceptic’s Smarties got stuck into sunspots. Which means: the Warmist have justification why is not continuing to warm up even though CO2 is increasing. With the ”SSS” (Stupid Smarty’s Sunspots) they are creating justification why is not getting warmer… shame, shame…

    Sunspots / solar eclipse are nothing that the self adjusting mechanism the atmosphere has – to stay same temperature every day of every year and millennia. Warmth and coldness change location / altitude / latitude/ longitude, but overall is same warmth units all the time. Therefore, it’s very unfair to call the Warmist ”fools” The one in your mirror is not a Warmist. Warmist are wining by telling all the lies / thanks to the sceptic’s Gallahs. Have some real proofs Lawrie: http://globalwarmingdenier.wordpress.com


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pat

    time out for a laugh!

    26 Oct: BBC: Lack of computing power ‘hindering weather forecasting’
    Prof Paul Hardaker, head of the Royal Meteorological Society, was speaking to the Commons science committee.
    He said more supercomputers were needed to carry out complex calculations, but finding the money was “an issue”.
    However, the potential economic benefits of more accurate forecasts were “enormous”, the MPs heard…
    Prof Ed Hill, director of the National Oceanography Centre, said: “The potential, if one could have reliable seasonal forecasts, is enormous.
    “The kinds of users would be obviously from the insurance sector, the power generation industry, construction, agriculture, tourism, the retail industry – understanding which products to put on the shelves at any time – manufacturing and transport.
    “The potential is enormous and particularly where large investments are at stake. Then, any information that can add some level of insight into what is going on is worth having…
    But Prof Hill, Prof Hardaker and a third witness – Prof Alan Thorpe, the director general of the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts – all agreed a lack of supercomputers was a major problem.
    “I recognise there’s an affordability issue and we have to make priorities, but it is a significant limitation in our capability at the moment,” Prof Hardaker said.
    “When we are starting to try to look into the whole earth system… the complications of that are such that we do really need to make a step change in current capabilities.”
    Prof Thorpe added: “We have fallen a long way behind the curve in terms of computer ability keeping pace with the science. This is a real limitation…
    The Met Office is largely funded by the government, with some additional money coming from the Civil Aviation Authority and other sources like the European Union.
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-15463797


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Joe V.

      Didn’t we lose our way, the moment we expected computers could replace common sense ? That’s not something you get with more computing power.
      Computing power increases capacity, complexity & faith in the computer. That makes it harder to realise & accept that it might be wrong.
      Common sense suspended…


      Report this

      00

    • #
      Lawrie

      Pat,

      This is a day or soate but Piers Corbin has out forecast the Met for years now using some historical records and a laptop. Instead of bigger computers the Met need a few more Corbins and a lot less AGW adherence.


      Report this

      00

  • #

    So, as a very, very novice AGW debunker, what do I say to the person who posted the WSJ article about BEST on my Facebook page chirping that “indeed things are warming, here’s proof from the WSJ”?

    Please, give me something simple that the common folk will understand.

    Thanks!


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Joe V.

      How about, the one about :- The same data from the same stations produced the same results. As even ‘Real Climate’ says that’s about as revealing as discovering the sun rises in the morning.

      Without the raw data there’s nothing new can come from already massaged data.

      What went on through the fifties, sixties & (half) seventies to ‘re-base’ temperature measurement , as seen from the RUTI / BEST comparisson graph above ?

      A study being publicised so widely before peer review , is clearly more about trying to make an impression than about anything of substance.

      Without revisiting the raw-data how can the results be meaningfully re-evaluated ?

      Hide the decline, loose the raw data & spin like crazy.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    pat

    21 Oct: Orange County Register, California:
    Steven Greenhut: California global warming law choking food processorsState smog regulators are embarked on a massive utopian experiment that will soon push thousands more California jobs to neighboring states and other countries
    So at a time of record-high unemployment – and jobless rates in the valley are far higher than the state’s overall 12.1 percent rate – and tough competition, California is imposing a costly new regimen that will put the state’s agricultural processors at a competitive disadvantage…
    Ben Curti of Tulare-based cheese maker Land O’Lakes testified that his firm has spent millions of dollars on a new higher-efficiency boiler and yet only marginally reduced greenhouse-gas emissions. So the company is facing additional millions of dollars in annual obligations just in cap-and-trade costs…
    The cap-and-trade law, Assembly Bill 32, was signed into law in 2006 to address warming of the planet. That’s why it is utopian. Do we think that punishing food processors and what remains of California manufacturers is going to cool the Earth?
    D’Adamo agreed that CARB does not believe that AB32 will reduce global warming, but rather was passed to encourage other states and countries to follow California’s lead.
    Meanwhile, real businesses will be shedding jobs and losing them to Mexico and China, where the air-quality standards are far less stringent. We’ll be getting more real pollution as part of a plan to try to nudge others to do something about a global-warming theory…
    http://www.ocregister.com/opinion/california-323210-new-jobs.html


    Report this

    00

  • #

    [...] Thank God! BEST project rescues us from thousands of lying global thermometers [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pat

    28 Oct: Courier Mail Brisbane: Patrick Lion: Anna Bligh’s team wastes another $116m on controversial ZeroGen clean-coal debacle
    The Courier-Mail can reveal the controversial ZeroGen operation was shut down a fortnight ago, despite the Premier promising the ailing firm would be given to – and run by – the coal industry to ensure its work did not go to waste.
    Documents filed with the Australian Securities and Investments Commission this month show the company is under external administration after a liquidator was appointed on October 11.
    ZeroGen was set up to be owned by the Government to develop carbon capture technology. Its key project was to be a $4.3 billion clean coal power plant in central Queensland, running by 2015, with the power to capture 90 per cent of coal emissions.
    The confirmation of the financial losses come as photos have emerged showing former ZeroGen chiefs living it up in Japan and Singapore as they tried to secure backing of business giant Mitsubishi Corp…
    Queensland has pumped $116 million into the project, the Commonwealth about $43 million and the coal industry about $50 million.
    Federal Opposition climate change spokesman Greg Hunt yesterday called for an inquiry, saying the loss of so much money was scandalous…
    But now the ZeroGen website has been closed.
    “The ZeroGen Project has concluded,” the site states…
    http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/clean-coal-plan-goes-to-zero/story-e6freoof-1226178916182


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Kevin Moore

    http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/snowfalls-are-now-just-a-thing-of-the-past-724017.html

    Independent Co.UK
    Charles Onians
    Monday, 20 March 2000

    Britain’s winter ends tomorrow with further indications of a striking environmental change: snow is starting to disappear from our lives.

    Sledges, snowmen, snowballs and the excitement of waking to find that the stuff has settled outside are all a rapidly diminishing part of Britain’s culture, as warmer winters – which scientists are attributing to global climate change – produce not only fewer white Christmases, but fewer white Januaries and Februaries.

    The first two months of 2000 were virtually free of significant snowfall in much of lowland Britain, and December brought only moderate snowfall in the South-east. It is the continuation of a trend that has been increasingly visible in the past 15 years: in the south of England, for instance, from 1970 to 1995 snow and sleet fell for an average of 3.7 days, while from 1988 to 1995 the average was 0.7 days. London’s last substantial snowfall was in February 1991.

    Global warming, the heating of the atmosphere by increased amounts of industrial gases, is now accepted as a reality by the international community. Average temperatures in Britain were nearly 0.6°C higher in the Nineties than in 1960-90, and it is estimated that they will increase by 0.2C every decade over the coming century. Eight of the 10 hottest years on record occurred in the Nineties.

    However, the warming is so far manifesting itself more in winters which are less cold than in much hotter summers. According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become “a very rare and exciting event”.

    “Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,” he said.

    The effects of snow-free winter in Britain are already becoming apparent. This year, for the first time ever, Hamleys, Britain’s biggest toyshop, had no sledges on display in its Regent Street store. “It was a bit of a first,” a spokesperson said.

    Fen skating, once a popular sport on the fields of East Anglia, now takes place on indoor artificial rinks. Malcolm Robinson, of the Fenland Indoor Speed Skating Club in Peterborough, says they have not skated outside since 1997. “As a boy, I can remember being on ice most winters. Now it’s few and far between,” he said.

    Michael Jeacock, a Cambridgeshire local historian, added that a generation was growing up “without experiencing one of the greatest joys and privileges of living in this part of the world – open-air skating”.

    Warmer winters have significant environmental and economic implications, and a wide range of research indicates that pests and plant diseases, usually killed back by sharp frosts, are likely to flourish. But very little research has been done on the cultural implications of climate change – into the possibility, for example, that our notion of Christmas might have to shift.

    Professor Jarich Oosten, an anthropologist at the University of Leiden in the Netherlands, says that even if we no longer see snow, it will remain culturally important.

    “We don’t really have wolves in Europe any more, but they are still an important part of our culture and everyone knows what they look like,” he said.

    David Parker, at the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research in Berkshire, says ultimately, British children could have only virtual experience of snow. Via the internet, they might wonder at polar scenes – or eventually “feel” virtual cold.

    Heavy snow will return occasionally, says Dr Viner, but when it does we will be unprepared. “We’re really going to get caught out. Snow will probably cause chaos in 20 years time,” he said.

    The chances are certainly now stacked against the sort of heavy snowfall in cities that inspired Impressionist painters, such as Sisley, and the 19th century poet laureate Robert Bridges, who wrote in “London Snow” of it, “stealthily and perpetually settling and loosely lying”.

    Not any more, it seems.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Joe V.

      It’s all too easy to knock, masters in hindsight that we are.
      But where would we be without our visionaries, projecting for us what might be ?
      The difficulty with modern education seems to be in separating the exciting projections from boring old reality.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    pat

    28 Oct: Courier Mail: Solar shonks Cleaner Energy use fake website showing the company won a non-existent award
    Contacted by The Courier-Mail, groups whose names appear on the website – including Curtin University – said they had never heard of the “commission” or Cleaner Energy.
    “I’m confident that this organisation is a complete fake,” Mark Bretherton, a spokesman for the Clean Energy Council, which accredits solar installers, said…
    Hundreds of irate customers around Queensland and several unpaid installers are pursuing Cleaner Energy, which is thought to have debts running into millions of dollars.
    Karen Davis, of Windsor, was surprised to find her newly installed solar system caused her quarterly power bill to increase by $1000 because the panels were not properly connected to the grid.
    She said solar panels were installed on the wrong side of her roof and the inverter unit fell off the wall after three weeks and had to be replaced.
    Cleaner Energy told her they would reimburse the power bill, but never did, she said.
    Cairns resident Adam Gibson paid $3500 for a 3kw system and so far has received “not a zack”.
    “I don’t want the panels any more. I just want my money back and nothing more to do with them,” he said.
    http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/solar-shonks-use-fake-website/story-e6freoof-1226178888032


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pat

    27 Oct: BusinessWeek: Bloomberg: Political Signal Needed on UN Carbon Market Future, Norway Says
    Climate envoys should send a “political signal” at the upcoming summit on their willingness to continue the United Nations carbon market to allay investors’ concerns about its future, Norway’s chief negotiator said…
    “We need to give confidence to the markets,” Harboe said in an interview in Brussels. “We need a signal that the mechanisms will continue. Maybe we’ll also have to introduce kind of flexibility or willingness to get new mechanisms or to make some adjustments.”…
    The CDM, which generates credits for investment projects that cut carbon in poor nations, shrank 46 percent to $1.5 billion last year, according to World Bank estimates…
    While poorer countries have been calling on industrialized states to adopt post-2012 Kyoto targets, nations including Japan and Russia have said they don’t want to extend the treaty. Their absence, along with that of the U.S., China and India, would leave the pact without targets for the five biggest national emitters of pollution from burning fossil fuels…
    Still, supply from existing CDM projects, excluding activities that the EU will ban from 2013, may be enough to satisfy demand from the region’s emitters up to 2020, offering companies little incentive to make new investments, according to Bloomberg calculations based on data by the Risoe Centre on Energy, Climate & Sustainable Development. The Roskilde, Denmark-based Risoe Centre is a unit of the UN Environment Program…
    http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-10-27/political-signal-needed-on-un-carbon-market-future-norway-says.html


    Report this

    00

  • #
    val majkus

    Cookster @ 14, yes I read that article – there’s a post on it here
    http://www.australianclimatemadness.com/2011/10/climate-scientist-yes-we-avoid-debate/
    bit of cut and paste:

    Steve Sherwood admits in The Australian today that climate scientists avoid debate, but attempts to justify that by claiming that it’s impossible to get their position across in a the short time normally allowed in debates.

    Sherwood also claims the science is settled – an interesting juxtaposition of conflicting arguments. On the one hand, the debate’s over, but on the other, there just isn’t time to explain why!

    and some great comments, the best one in my view is this one

    Sean McHugh October 28, 2011 at 10:46 am
    I wrote the following comment to that Australian article – I wouldn’t have been the only one. I hate it when newspapers invite comments and don’t publish any:

    Yes, I imagine it would be difficult to explain why the temperature stopped rising a decade ago, when it wasn’t supposed to, and why many countries have, for several years, been experiencing record snow and cold when all that was declared to have ended. I doubt we would ever be able to understand why all the flooding has occurred in Australia when the dams were no longer supposed to fill. And how could we possibly understand why the Antarctic isn’t melting, when it was supposed to? It must also be hard to explain why all the the sinking islands haven’t sunk and aren’t being evacuated as reported. We would also never grasp why the Medieval and Roman Warming periods have been erased from climate history. We couldn’t possibly understand why thermometer readings need to be adjusted upwards (instead of downwards) when being artificially heated by urban effects. It would be similarly too hard to explain the name changes, from “global warming”, to “climate change” to the latest, “climate weirding”. To the layperson, it just sounds [as] if climate science is looking for somewhere safe to hide. I am sure that it is a difficult subject, Steve. I hear the same of theology and astrology.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    During the 70-80’s, they were promising ‘’Nuclear Winter for year 2000’’ Before you even defrosted from their ‘’nuclear winter’’ – they went 180 degrees and promised ‘’Global Warming by 5-6⁰C, by 2060’’ Nobody demanded: show us your nuclear winter first, before we start to believe in your GLOBAL warming. Who is the fool?! Because their nuclear winter and GLOBAL warmings, both have being harvested from the same thin air. Since 97 Kyoto conference – the CO2 emission increased beyond anybody’s imagination. If they were remotely correct – by 2060, the temperature should have increased by at least 10⁰C, because of much more extra CO2, than they expected.

    Time is passing – temperature is not rising = time to call the leading Warmist to justice. How can one do that; when the sceptic Smarties are creating so many backdoors exits for the Warmist. Why should the Warmist admit guilt / why should they incriminate themselves; many of them will lose jobs, others power over the Urban Sheep, some will end up in jail. Al Gore would be the first one made to surrender the Nobel recognition. Lefty politicians will be pushed in background for decades. Unfortunately, the Warmist have all the help from the sceptical Smarties…

    I use sunspots as an example, but on every other subject is same situation…
    SUNSPOTS
    Before 2009, there was no powerful filter, to make it possible to look at the sun. Because of the glare – nobody was able to look at details on the sun’s surface. They were using cardboard; to cover the dimensions of the sun – so they can see the crown. They were scaring the ignorant with those flare on the crown – nobody noticed that: the flares seeing on the crown were going in another direction – if there was flares spewing towards the earth – they were covered by the cardboard. Now they can see the surface of the sun, but because NASA is part of the Organized Crime; they will invent bigger and smaller sunspots as suits them – as long as the Skeptics believe in their doo-doo

    In the past, many geologist and similar that cannot get a job for a company – they were busy ‘’finding’’ lots of phony GLOBAL warmings from the past. They find on 15m2 indication of some warmer climate – instantly they were declaring: the whole planet was warmer at that time! – to con and show importance to their students. That’s how the medieval ‘’phony GLOBAL warming / cooling evolved. In reality, at that time people were scared to sail more than 50km west of Portugal – not to fall of the planet – but the conmen has given it a tag GLOBAL. Then they had to find reason why was that warming, or cooling; sun was the first and last suspect = sunspots. They printed it in education books – become official…??? Does any of you believe that: 1234AD on July 4, a Sheppard was standing there, staring at the sun and recording sunspots??? Well, if he did, he wouldn’t have recorded for the next day; because he would have being blind. Should be all clear cut, boys.

    People, realize that: most of the ‘’scientists / researchers’’ that were concocting those lies – they know is all lies. As long as the Skeptics keep barking up the wrong tree – Warmist know that they don’t have mature opposition. Plimer and few others, collected dozens of past phony GLOBAL warmings – to prove that is not going to be GLOBAL warming by 2100?! That is a mother of all stupidity. Sent the sceptical people in wild darkness… The self adjusting mechanism is brilliant. If is a lunar eclipse – part of the planet doesn’t get sunlight – but temperature doesn’t go down even for one day. Because where is the shadow – air gets colder – shrinks – from other places lots of air goes there, to avoid vacuum = on other places with less air becomes a bit warmer = overall, same temperature. With sun-flares, they increase the temperature in the atmosphere – air in split second / instantly increases in volume – intercepts extra appropriate amount of coldness and readjusts in a jiffy. Start thinking guys, lots of people are ripped of. If you don’t know poo from clay regarding climate, learn first. Go in nature and see what climate is. Fujitsu air-conditioner doesn’t control the climate / CO2 or sunspots don’t control the climate. H2O controls the climate, on many different ways. Before you do that, don’t blame the Warmist


    Report this

    00

  • #
    rukidding

    You have got to hand it to the BEST team they appear to have p—ed both sides of the debate off now that has got to take skill. ;-) :-)


    Report this

    00

  • #

    MarkHladik #9 They don’t know correct temperature for the planet’s atmosphere even for the last year; because they collect data only on less than 0,000000000000001% of places necessary / esential, to know roughly what the temperature was. But you believe that they know exact temperature for 50million years ago?! They are pooling your leg, Mark.

    b] maybe if you learn that: for climate to change – it doesn’t need GLOBAL warming or GLOBAL cooling. If you travel from the east-coast of Australia, or USA, to the west-coast – YOU WILL ENCOUNTER 50 DIFFERENT CLIMATES. In one week travel, did 50 global warmings happened?

    Regarding carbon tax – you have to understand the politics about it. 1] they squandered billions of bucks to prevent the non-existent global warming. If it doesn’t show up soon – CO2 emission is increasing… they have to return the money back. But, if Australia imposes flat-rate carbon-tax to the suckers; when global warming doesn’t show up = they have proof: because they imposed carbon tax, global warming didn’t come up. From then on, you must obey everything they demand; otherwise GULAG. Because they are the saviours.

    In the process, China / India / Brazil and many other countries will keep increasing CO2 emission; but that is irrelevant, we are the sacrificial lamb. Planing to double the population, CO2 emission will keep increasing in Australia also; but that’s relevant, because CO2 is not a global warming gas anyway; the loot is important. Will be plenty money for the jet-setters.

    The Warmist from the lower genera and IQ will be fleeced also… here is a small example: last night on TV said: if you want to replace your swimming-pool filter for the more efficient one – the electricity board will give you a reward of $300 bucks – what they didn’t say is: those money will come from every Urban Sheep, including from the Warmist followers that cannot afford a swimming pool. that’s cool, thanks


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Those lying thermometers must go to jail. Because of them, lots of crimes are committed. Crime shouldn’t pay!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    rukidding

    A bit O/T but

    It appears another IPCC scientist has jumped off the bus

    Guess she won’t be getting another invite to the AR5 party. :-)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Andrew McRae

    To save you all a small amount of head scratching, I figured out what the Newsweek 1975 chart is saying in Celsius degrees.
    The “half degree drop” between 1945 and 1968 mentioned in the article text and visible in the graph is about 59.3°F – 59.8°F which converts to 15.1666°C − 15.4444°C = -0.27°C.

    This means NCAR in the 1970s was not a Land Disco Denier, you dig?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    janama

    Cardinal Pell socks it to em in London :)

    Let me begin by thanking the Global Warming Policy Foundation for the invitation to deliver this lecture. It came as a surprise and I truly appreciate the honour. However I am more grateful for the existence of the Foundation and its sane and important contributions in this debate.

    A word of two about the structure of the talk, because I examine the issue from a number of directions reflecting my own expertise. The central part discusses the scientific claims and demonstrates, I hope, that a scientific layman can cover and identify the basic issues.

    After a brief theological introduction I explain why I chose to write on global warming, while the central section is followed by a brief discussion of the propaganda wars, a longer discourse on the existence of the Medieval Warm Period, and concludes with some public policy questions and reflections.

    http://www.sydney.catholic.org.au/people/archbishop/addresses/2011//20111026_1463.shtml


    Report this

    00

    • #
      jl

      Cardinal Pell has spent his career pedalling the strict dogma of an invisible, unmeasurable, omnipotent super-being for which no evidence exists. Now he is speaking out about the climate-change shenanigans. At first I thought “what the…?”
      Upon further reflection, I now think “who could be better qualified?”


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Speedy

        jl

        I think the difference is that whereas Cardinal Pell can disprove the existence of global warming (paleoclimate, missing ‘hot spot’, cyclical nature of temperatures, diminishing effect of CO2 on IR adsorption etc), Michael Mann et al cannot disprove the existence of God.

        Cheers,

        Speedy.


        Report this

        00

        • #
          Llew Jones

          Blaney does it again. This time linking “belief in science” with belief in religious dogma in a former time.

          “Many of Blainey’s quarrels with contemporary academe boil down to questions about the nature and jurisdiction of science. Blainey’s instinct that science is a process of discovery rather than a body of consensual knowledge, true beyond question, would have been unremarkable 20 years ago. Yet in today’s heated climate, he risks being pinned with the badge of the denier, or at very least the arrogant slur of youth that, perhaps, he is simply past it. The rigidity of modern thought struggles with the wisdom of experience, particularly in Blainey’s case, where wisdom has been honed by more than a half-century of historical study.

          “It seems to me,” Blainey advances with customary caution, “It seems to me that science, in the eyes of its spokesmen, has reached an unusual stage. Sometimes in public debates you hear scientists saying this is simply a question for scientists, keep out. We have that in Australia on topics like global warming.

          “I think maybe we’ve reached an unusual stage in the flow of ideas where the science is too much on top. The interesting thing to me about science is it’s given the benefit of the doubt now in ways that Christianity used to be given the benefit of the doubt.

          “In 1970 the overwhelming majority of scientists believed that there was not going to be global warming over the next 40 years. Suddenly they change their minds and say: this is wonderful, look what science has discovered. They never say, look how wrong science was 20 years ago when they were telling us a completely opposite version. I think science is riding more highly than at any previous moment.”

          “So few of us are scientists that we don’t realise that it’s just like any other intellectual discipline and it stumbles. And has great achievements, but waits for the achievements for too long.”

          http://video.theaustralian.com.au/2161411250/Blainey-on-Christianity


          Report this

          00

      • #
        Llew Jones

        For Christians not quite “invisible”…nor…”and for whom no evidence exists”.. . Christians of all stripes will sing this Christmas.. “veiled in flesh the Godhead see”.. “Hail the incarnate deity”..

        Be that as it may. However having now read in full Pell’s address and his perspectives on climate change as distinct from the excerpt in The Australian one cannot help being conscious of his intellectual grasp of the science and his facility with the philosophy of science. Perhaps one of the more lucid, wide ranging and elegant statements yet of what is wrong with and fundamentally unscientific about the IPCC variety of human induced climate change.


        Report this

        00

    • #
      jiminy

      On Page 3, Pell raises anti-science. No matter what your take is on the rest of what he said, please think deeply and carefully about the full ramifications of these three questions.

      But where is the borderline separating us from what is beyond human power?
      Where does scientific striving become uneconomic, immoral or ineffectual and so lapse into hubris?
      Have scientists been co-opted onto a bigger, better advertised and more expensive bandwagon than the millennium bug fiasco?

      Let me briefly address the three questions because each begs a question.
      The first assumes the existence of a borderline that separates us from what is beyond our power, in fact is assumes a necessary borderline. It does so in order to set up and empower the second question which is intended to be a rhetoric and didactic point (in essence he is wanting to say, but dare not explicitly claim that, too much thinking is dangerous.) But why is it necessarily true that the border exists, or if it does, be hard and fast or even reachable?
      The second point raises the question about striving (forget the “scientific” qualification, a mere weaslishness on his part). Why is striving bad for us? He implies these issues but dare not say so explicitly – that “beyond this point there be dragons”. Well there ain’t. What’s worse is that he abuses the notion of hubris. Hubris is the notion that the gods strike down those who attempt to become like them; and the idea that becoming immoral is seen by the gods as becoming godlike is not, I believe, what he intended.
      Thirdly he raises a societal meme – “the millennium bug fiasco”, as bad science. This is a shambles on his part, although many people seem to have uncritically accepted as fact, that there never was a problem, and scientists were to blame. False in all respects. There was certainly an overblown societal response, runs on food shops bunkers built etc, but much of that was sensationalist driven (and I realise that’s the point he is trying to tie to the science). There certainly were problems. I was part of the Y2K project with my employers combing millions of lines of computer code, fixing close to a 1000 bugs, some of which would have halted production of all newspapers in Australia. Millions of dollars of loss was saved by the determined action of armies of programmers. Millions of dollars of un-necessary expenditure on the part of the public was caused by the determined actions of an army of sleazy opportunistic sales folk. The proper lesson to learn is that acting on a warning in a controlled way, and doing so early, is sane. Telling me the problem I just prevented has not happened and thus I must be lying is stupid – it is the assertion under another guise that no-one can do anything.
      So to answer the third question, absolutely not. Scientists are not on any band-wagon, or gravy train. Let me tell you there are better ways of getting rich than by taking large cuts in salary to pursue truth.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Kevin Moore

    Telegraph.co.uk 28 October 2011

    ‘Contraception cheapest way to combat climate change’

    Contraception is almost five times cheaper as a means of preventing climate change than conventional green technologies, according to research by the London School of Economics.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/6161742/Contraception-cheapest-way-to-combat-climate-change.html


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Peter Somers

    [ (First Post): I do enjoy all comments here and pick up a lot of ideas from them. I like the mention that a Denier must necessarily be the opposite of a Believer and not of a Scientist, thus firmly placing the Believer in the “Religious Rangers”.
    The statistic I like best is one I have seldom seen, and it’s to do with so-called “easy explanations” of CO.2 quantity in our air which so often only make things more obscure.! It’s this…
    >Carbon Dioxide is less than 1/400th of 1 percent in air.This is true, look it up; CO.2 is 383 parts per million in our air, less than 1/400th of a one hundredth part in air. We all went to school or you would not be reading this. But do people stop to ask How Much CO.2 we really have..? It’s bugger-all, and man adds-in only about 3% of THAT.! Australia adds(?) only about 1.8 parts in 100, of the 3% world total.
    >It’s certainly FAR less than 90% of most even here would hope to guess at. PLEASE PASS THIS ON… Important…!


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Andrew McRae

      Peter,
      It’s good that you’re looking into the numbers behind the headlines.
      However be careful not to rely on an argument from incredulity – ie “the number sounds so small, so how could it make any difference?” There are numbers to qualify the size of the effect too, so it doesn’t have to be a vague hand-waving objection.

      A graph like this one can help to put the global warming scam into perspective, though please remember that the accuracy of this data is in dispute.
      What the warmists would like to tell you is the following story. They will say that the the dark blue line on the right was caused completely by the dark brown line on the right, and was not caused by whatever process caused the light blue line on the left, even though the light blue line and dark blue line have the same slope over the same length of time. Actually, the warmists would prefer it if you looked at absolutely nothing before 1960, because that’s the only way they can convince you we’ve had “unprecedented warming” after the 1970s. (ie please forget that the 1930s ever happened).

      You may also want to keep an eye on the results of ocean “acidification” experiments too, since that is also a cause of CO2 alarm but does not get talked about as much as warming.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    observa

    There’s a blindingly obvious reason the world was cooling and entering a new ice age in the 1970s. They didn’t have the computers to model all the warming then you fools.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Wayne, s. Job

    The older the thermometer the more carefully they were calibrated, individually by craftsmen.

    They did not lie they were reliable and accurate. I have a thermometer and a barometer made by Dunklings the jewellers of Melbourne dated 1901. It operates perfectly to this day.I set my you beaut Sanyo reverse cycle air conditioner to a temperature and the old mercury thermometer reads the set temperature.

    Thus the old thermometers very very very accurate, no need for interpolation or adjustments.

    It would seem that modern statistical conbubilations are a trick to hide the truth of the past.
    Real science has been thrown to the wind by all of these so called experts and all we get are snow jobs.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    John Brookes

    The obvious thing about BEST is that they are people with a track record willing to have a go. That in itself is a good thing. There have been criticisms of the 4 BEST papers, as there should be. No doubt changes will be made as a result of the peer review process.

    The key finding (which hasn’t attracted much criticism that I’ve seen) is that the surface temperature records we’ve been using for a while now seem to be correct. While that is not surprising, some “skeptics” try not to believe this, because they don’t like to concede that any part of AGW is real. Other “skeptics” are quite happy to accept that it has been warming.

    You’ll remember that the BEST team didn’t trust the accuracy of HadCrut, GISS etc records. In particular, they didn’t like the manual auditing of the temperature record. So what they did was to develop algorithmic methods of analysing temperature data, so that it was, “untouched by human hands”.

    Even though Muller was once a “skeptic” of climate science, when he took the trouble to do the work himself, he got the same results the climate scientists got. Good on him and his team.


    Report this

    00

    • #

      Hi John Brooks!

      It seems you are confident with BEST, im sure you have used some time to check it out.
      When examining BEST, did you notice a link to the original temperature data they used?
      If YES: Could you provide me this link?
      If NO: Then BEST commits the same error as GISS and Hadcrut of hiding the full process.
      Why should anyone trust BEST more than GISS or Hadcrut if they basically commits the exactly same unscientific error of hiding data and adjutments done?

      If sceptics loose faith in BEST (just like other similar) while BEST seems to cover up and hide (just like other similar), whos fault is it that they loose faith?

      John, you then write: “While that is not surprising, some “skeptics” try not to believe this, because they don’t like to concede that any part of AGW is real”

      You are writing this to me, having personally gone through 4000 temperature records?
      Thats beyond reach.

      Frank


      Report this

      00

    • #

      John you are so disappointingly gullible.
      Muller never was a sceptic. This lie is being pushed to make it look like a sceptic was finally convinced of AGW. And you fell for it hook line and sinker.

      OPEN YOUR EYES JOHN. Aren’t you the least bit embarrassed as an adult to be suckered in so easily?

      Below is part of a Grist interview with Muller back in October 2008

      Do you consider yourself an environmentalist?

      Oh yes. [Laughs.] In fact, back in the early ’80s, I resigned from the Sierra Club over the issue of global warming. At that time, they were opposing nuclear power. What I wrote them in my letter of resignation was that, if you oppose nuclear power, the U.S. will become much more heavily dependent on fossil fuels, and that this is a pollutant to the atmosphere that is very likely to lead to global warming.

      What should a President McCain or Obama know about global warming?

      The bottom line is that there is a consensus — the [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] — and the president needs to know what the IPCC says.
      Second, they say that most of the warming of the last 50 years is probably due to humans. You need to know that this is from carbon dioxide, and you need to understand which technologies can reduce this and which can’t.

      John it takes 5 minutes to Google Muller (and his wife) to see that this man has numerous companies involved in “green” industry and has a lot to gain from the AGW scam.

      WAKE UP JOHN BROOKES stop being manipulated by con men and snake oil salesman.


      Report this

      00

      • #

        I know John Brookes is too lazy to do his own research, so here are a couple of tid-bits about the “former sceptic” Richard Muller.

        Below is part of what Muller teaches undergraduates.

        Once again, I emphasize that there is a consensus among scientists about global warming. It is represented by the IPCC reports. The 2007 report state that it is 90% likely that humans are responsible for at least some of the 1oF observed global warming of the previous 50 years, that is, the warming since 1957. The effect is real, and currently small. As I said previously, the real concern is that it is expected (with a 90% probability) to grow enormously over the next 50 years.

        Sounds to me like he is singing from the same hymn sheet as the rest of the pro AGW crowd.

        And here is the link to Muller & Associates


        Report this

        00

        • #
          John Brookes

          Sorry Baa, but I saw him on video doing the climategate two-step. He looked like a first class “skeptic” then. He fooled St Watts, so if he fooled me, I’m not too worried.

          But of course, I need to be careful. There are proper “skeptics”, and then there are “luke-warmers”, who have been partly fooled by the scam, and then there are “believers”, who are so gullible they just believe what the experts and the evidence tells them.

          Being a gullible “believer” type, its hard for me to properly distinguish “luke-warmers” from “skeptics”.


          Report this

          00

          • #
            BobC

            John Brookes
            October 29, 2011 at 7:36 pm
            But of course, I need to be careful. There are proper “skeptics”, and then there are “luke-warmers”, who have been partly fooled by the scam, and then there are “believers”, who are so gullible they just believe what the experts and the evidence tells them.

            I think, John, that you must have meant to say:
            “…they just believe what the experts and their manipulated ‘evidence’ tells them.”

            You certainly couldn’t have been talking about actual physical thermometer readings, since they tell us the opposite of what the “experts” are claiming. (Perhaps you need to read the post again.)


            Report this

            00

  • #
    James Macdonald

    We have been in this general warm period for about 10,000 years, which is the normal length between ice ages. This happened four times in the last half million years. Overcoats anyone?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark Hladik

    Reply to “Stefanthedenier”;

    Point taken; as it happens, I agree with you, that NO ONE knows the correct global temperature last year, or the year before, etc …

    What the paleogeochemistry DOES show is how temperature had CHANGED, from an arbitrary standard.

    It is true that no one can say that the Pridolian was 28.4 degrees Celsius, but we CAN state that a given age had a temperature deviation of ‘plus’ or ‘minus’
    delta-O-18(% PDB) from today.

    Dr. Urey’s paleothermometer has been a great tool in unraveling the mysteries of paleoclimatology. I stand by the orginial statement, that the only constant is change; there is no climatic “stasis”. Do, please, check out the graph of the Pliocene/Pleistocene/Holocene.

    And keep in mind, we are batting on the same (crickett/baseball) team.

    My best to all (and a special thanks to Jo for all her hard work!),

    Mark H.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Tristan

    But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century

    According to whom? A magazine article? That’s your evidence for a ‘consensus of experts’? Ok, you stick with the magazine article, and I’ll go with a slightly more quantitative approach.

    Luckily Frank Lansner is here to tell us that it’s a great big conspiracy* and that his results prove it!

    *A conspiracy involving public datasets and public adjustments. Those alarmists are getting so crafty these days!


    Report this

    00

    • #

      Hi Tristan!

      You gave me a link – what I was looking for was unadjusted station temperature data.
      Was your point that you can use that link to get unadjusted station temperature data?
      If so, i would be very interested if you can show me such using your link. Can you do that?

      Then in the above comment :
      Joanne Nova:” “But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century”

      To this you write: “According to whom? A magazine article? ”
      “so you doubt that colder weather will lead to less agricultural productivity”
      ??
      Then you write: “Luckily Frank Lansner is here to tell us that it’s a great big conspiracy”
      But I did not write about agricultural productivity.

      Im sorry, this looks like a rushed sarcastic pile of nonsence. Typical alarmistic lack of arguments, same same.

      Frank

      PS: If you actually want to do other than preach religion, but know more about where NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC and other magazines published temperature data before 1985, please ask.
      I can tell you all you want to know, even without desperate agw auto-sarcasm.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        rukidding

        Hi Frank

        Was your point that you can use that link to get unadjusted station temperature data?

        Talking about unadjusted data I went to the BOM site last night to try and find raw data for a particular Australian weather site and try as I might I could no longer find the individual stations.So if you or anyone else here has a link I would be great full if you/they would post it.
        Am I paranoid or is the BOM making it hard to get such information these days.


        Report this

        00

        • #

          Hi Rukidding!

          One of the real “heroes” here in my eyes is Alan Chetham of Appinsys.com, he made it possible for me and everone to easily check out UNADJUSTED GHCN data:
          http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/climap.aspx?area=australia

          Problem with Unadjusted GHCN is primarily, that some series are cur down, for some countries data has been slaughtered i would say. But for Australia, there is rather much data available.
          World wide there are also a few other sources to few UNADJUSTED temp data, but MOST sites that one believe is unadjusted, is heavily heavily adjusted, often with the consequence that you cant be allowed to compare 2000-2010 directy with 1930-50 data, AND 1930-50 data is colder after “homogenization”, where data appears homogenized to remove heat 1930-50.

          IN SHORT: GHCN “cherry-limits” data, and on this basis HADCRUT (and Similar) cherrypicks and adjust further.
          These are the roles.

          I would very muck like to know what station you are looking for, i may be able to add some info.

          K.R. Frank


          Report this

          00

      • #
      • #
        Tristan

        The unadjusted GHCN data is publicly available as you know. The adjustments that GHCN/NASA/CRUTEAM et al make to the data are all published as you know. Later data is adjusted by an average of about half a degree upwards as you know. Not exactly a newsflash, although it sounds dastardly when you don’t bother investigating further than that, doesn’t it? This isn’t because the thermometers weren’t reading accurately, despite Joanne’s mocking claims. Some stations were moved, others experienced a measurable change in microclimate. You should know this already. You are free to perform your own data analyses and there’ve been a number of independent publications or so doing just that, no doubt you’d have already examined these in your literature review. No doubt you’ve also looked at the investigation by Watts and his crew with that sufacestations.org project or whatever it’s called.

        I look forward to seeing your analysis, Mr Lansner, or rather, the analysis of your analysis. Hopefully the next write up you have on Mr Watts’ site has a more accurate headline than the one about your DMI results.


        Report this

        00

        • #

          Hi Tristan!

          Allthough your tone is still a little so-so, then you start something here that might look like dialog.

          I will answer in the hope that you will take this “all the way”, so no one waste time, ok?

          You write: “Later data is adjusted by an average of about half a degree upwards as you know.”

          See, i have to guess when you write a little loose like this (!)
          My guess is that you think of USHCN, where – in year 2000 – adjustments where made public? And then around 2008, they made a Version 2 adding further heat to recent years compared to 1940, in all around 0,4-0,45 K for the USA:
          http://hidethedecline.eu/media/temperature%20corrections/f8.jpg

          I have not seen an official statestik like this for global data sets like GISS or Hadcrut. (Hadcrut sadly lost their original data when moving they said)

          But Tristan, what i hear you say (?) is that its no news that global temperature data contains around 0,5 K in adjustments, and this is due to TOBS and the like?

          I think you will have a VERY hard time giving me a link or any documentation that GISS or Hadcrut (or BEST) openly admits that the global warming since 1940 basically consist of 0,5 K adjustments.
          In 1998, the official NASA point of view was, that the world had warmed 0,5 K since 1900 … things change fast when it comes to the climate debate.

          So i dont agree that it should be official that 0,5 K of the global warming in GISS + Hadcrut etc is adjustments.

          But lets say that you where correct.
          Does it sound reasonable that most of the global warming is not measure but result of adjustments?

          I have given around 12 examples of “reasons to warm-adjust” here in chapter 2.1
          http://hidethedecline.eu/pages/posts/part1-the-perplexing-temperature-data-published-1974-84-and-recent-temperature-data-181.php

          heres some ex you may think of:

          5) “Temperature stations moved to higher altitude explains warming corrections”
          Nonsense. If you place a station at a higher altitude, the temperature is likely to decrease and should be corrected. So we have a world wide trend during the 20´eth century where all countries starting in year 1900 independently of each other started to move their temperature stations up the hills?? I think any such altitude correction globally needs to be confirmed by some strong statistic data that shows that in general, temperature stations has been moved up in altitude. Anyone published on this subject? I would be surprised…

          AND


          10) “The measuring time, TOBS, has changed, and it so happens, that this gave too warm temperatures earlier, we must add a warming to later data then”.
          It’s true, that if you measure temperatures earlier in the morning, then you will have to correct for this cooling. I discussed this with a nice intelligent believer of GW, a scientist, and he says that this is actually the case.
          ”There has been some change to machine measuring of temperatures and now they are taken at night…”
          But taking temperatures at night in stead of day results in a perhaps 10 – 20 full degrees Celsius, so I am afraid this still sounds like nonsense. And normally there are both night and day measurements.
          What we need here is a solid independent documentation, that all over the world in all countries rich and poor, they have actually synchronically shifted the Time of OBServation to slightly earlier to explain the world wide TOBS warming corrections. Remember, these temperature data was taken in 1930, 40, 50 , 60, 70 – in times when temperature data were just for trivial weather use. So why would poor countries prioritize new equipment etc? And if new machinery was introduced, howcome they did not set the machine to measure at the same time as they used to? Howcome there is a world wide trend that they just happen to set the machines to measure a little earlier?

          Before accepting such coincidence – that just happens just yield another reason to add warm to data – I would like to see the world wide independent made graph of a still earlier TOBS in order to evaluate this apparently rather odd reason to reduce the 1930-70 decline in temperatures.

          K.R. Frank


          Report this

          00

        • #
          Tristan

          Sorry Frank, I’m afraid that you wont find too much constructive discussion with me. You’ll need to find someone with a detailed grasp of the GHCN adjustments.

          From what I have read (GHCN and Hansen et al (2010)) it seems that the total global temp adjustment of the 1880-2010 anomaly is something on the order of 0.1C of the 0.8C anomaly.

          Albatross and Peter Hogarth both post over at SkS and are capable of carrying detailed conversations without ad hominem (for the most part). I think they are generally speaking, lucid and patient.

          (The ‘half a degree upward’ I referred to is in reference to the US stations only)


          Report this

          00

  • #

    [...] that global cooling deniers have officially denied the historical records of heat in the 1930s and cold in the 1960s and 1970s, perhaps they are ready to join the forces which other deniers of [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Mark Hladik #48, Mark, climate is in constant change, never stopped changing, and never will. Reason the Warmist jumped from GLOBAL warming – to climate change; because climatic changes are a natural phenomena – GLOBAL warming is a phenomenal lie. No need for me to check on Paleocene/ Holocene. The people that invented those fancy names are pre-curse of the today’s evil.

    I and everybody should be able to prove that the climate is changing / human can change the climate – but cannot produce Global Warming. Especially in Australia – extra dams to save extra storm-water = the climate improves. Take farmer’s water to drain into the sea (as they are doing) less moisture inland = climate deteriorates.

    Back to your past temperatures: Milankovich was correct in the wobbling planet- that moves the place of the polls and the equator – readjustment of climate – but that is not GLOBAL warming or cooling. When the shonky experts in the past find dinosaurs bones in Alaska – their expertise was: must have being so hot planet – cold-blooded dinosaurs, without feather or wool, to survive in Alaska. WRONG!! At that time Alaska wasn’t on the polar cap.

    Another finds fossilized palm on Antarctic = must have being so hot planet, palms to grow on Antarctic. WRONG!! If Antarctic was on the southern poll, and was warm enough for palms – in Indonesia the water would have being above boiling point. Everything living has water in it. Unfortunately, palaeontologist have no background in physics / chemistry and common sense.

    Mark, most of the genes in every critter are junk genes / degenerated. But THE GENES FOR ADAPTATION AND DIVERSIFICATION ARE STILL ALIVE IN EVERYTHING. (you use it, or lose it)THAT IS THE BEST PROOF THAT CLIMATE NEVER STOPPED CHANGING!!! Now in Australia we have minister + shadow minister CLIMATE FROM CHANGING STOPPERS.

    Summer to winter climate changes / change of currents directions / Milankovich theory / rain increase / decrease; they are all climatic changes – but not GLOBAL warmings. Ice ages are wrongly interpreted also, by the people you are suggesting I should read their work…? On my website you will learn the correct versions. From people that believe in records of mid-eval ages ”sunspots” I have nothing to learn. Because: if somebody was so stupid at that time to look at the sun = they are using data from the ”most stupid person in mid-eval ages”

    It’s tragic that all that crap has being collected by ”big city Slickers” Cannot understand that: dryer means hotter days / colder nights – THAT IS NOT GLOBAL WARMING!!! Wetter means cooler days / warmer nights = milder climate. The stupid science FROM YOUR PALAEOCLIMATOLOGIST that says: trees were more prosperous = must have being warmer planet. WRONG! Mark. threes have water in them; rapid change in temperature; day / night = water shrinks / expands = trees suffer decompression problems – bad sick, small trees. Hotter days/ dryer means the trees need extra water to release as cooling process; but hotter days/ dryer means less water available

    All those thing were climatic changes – not warmer planet, or cooler planet. Because of palaeoclimatologist ignorance; most of the contemporary ”Skeptics” believe that the temperature in the atmosphere goes up and down as a yo-yo. WRONG!!! Saying that one year is warmer than another, is same as saying: the planet is warmer at lunch time by 12 degrees, than before sunrise. Mark, I know what you know; but you don’t know what i know = I have unfair advantage on you, http://globalwarmingdenier.wordpress.com


    Report this

    00

  • #
    kasphar

    Rukidding
    Not sure about raw data but bom.gov.au/climate/data gives temp and rainfall data for individual stations.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      rukidding

      Thanks kasphar I was looking in the wrong place I will bookmark it now


      Report this

      00

      • #

        Hi Rukidding, please also check out the link i gave in comment 51.1.1.1, and i would like to know what station you are investigating?

        K.R. Frank


        Report this

        00

        • #
          rukidding

          Hi Frank
          The station or town was Roseworthy in South Australia because a professor RN Jones,who was a lead author for AR4, had done a paper on the likely profitability or not of its wheat crop in 2080 but I don’t seem to be able to get the paper up now.
          The link you gave above also gives me errors.


          Report this

          00

          • #

            Hi rukidding

            The paper you mention is HERE

            It is a well put together detailed paper. However it suffers from the very same disease that all these papers suffer from. i.e. they make far too many assumptions, they rely on models (this paper uses climate model outputs, which is then input to a wheat growing model).

            One only needs to scroll down to the second last page, read the final paragraph of the conclusions to realise that the paper is a very good academic output that is useless as a policy making tool.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            rukidding

            Thank you Baa Humbug

            Is this the bit in the conclusion you are talking about.

            Uncertainties also exist with regard to crop modelling.
            Even though the APSIM-Wheat model is a state-of-the-
            art crop model that performed reasonably well here,
            Howden & Jones (2001), using another wheat module of
            the APSIM system, found that climate change would
            increase wheat yield.

            I would assume this study took awhile to do.It seems to me the money could have been better spent telling the good wheat farmers of Roseworthy how profitable their wheat crops were going to be over the next 30 years as I would assume not a lot if any will be alive in 2080


            Report this

            00

  • #

    Hi Rukidding (!)

    Roseworthy Agri. Australia, unadjusted:
    http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/climgraph.aspx?pltparms=GHCNT100AJanDecI188020100900110AR50194671001x

    Decline after 1940, temperatures heat up again, but unadjusted data are only public available until 1985, sadly.

    I used the station for RUTI Australia, SE:
    http://hidethedecline.eu/media/ARUTI/Australia/fig22.jpg

    And as we can see, many stations here are cut of around 1985-1990. Fortunately a few are public after 1990, but of course, only ones chosen by GHCN, so we can just pray that GHCN did not choose selectively as they do many places.

    Non the less, the SE Australia (non-coastal!) then gives the years after 1985 APPROXimately for Roseworthy.

    K.R. Frank


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Owen Morgan

    OT, but not entirely irrelevant. I am always a bit sceptical, when a supposedly scientific report is leaked prematurely. I am going to go a fair distance OT here, but I think that this example is a good instance of why activists can’t be trusted in such situations.

    Just north of the England-Scotland border is the nice, little (wee) town of Langholm and outside Langholm is Langholm Moor. Langholm Moor is the home to a lot of birds called Red Grouse and a number of Hen Harriers (same species as the Northern Harrier in US and Canada). The Red Grouse is shot, in season. The Hen Harrier is protected by law. As its name suggests, the harrier preys on other birds.

    Grouse-shooting is a business and so running a grouse moor isn’t merely a case of leaving the heather to grow. The moor has to be maintained in a condition which suits the grouse. Landowners on Langholm Moor became concerned that rising numbers of the protected Hen Harriers were seriously reducing the grouse population.

    A joint investigation was set up, between the landowners and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB). That the landowners and the RSPB were of contrasting opinions was known from the start. The landowners hoped to show that the harriers were so numerous that they were destroying the economic value of the moor and, with it, the incentive for anyone to continue to maintain the moor. The RSPB intended to demonstrate that Hen Harrier numbers had no impact on Red Grouse numbers.

    To ensure no dirty tricks, some ground rules were laid down. In particular, there was to be no leaking; there would be only one report; the contents of the report would be agreed by all concerned and would be published on a date agreed by all concerned.

    So what happened? The RSPB activists broke all of the ground rules, issuing their own report early, saying exactly what they would have said in the absence of any investigation whatever. They still claimed, however, that their “findings” were the outcome of the investigation. They simply used the existence of the joint panel to add a supposed consensus (where have we heard that word before?) to a debate where none really existed.

    Nowadays, the RSPB is all in favour of wind farms and periodically has to lie that wind turbines have no effect on the numbers of birds. As raptors, the Hen Harriers of Langholm Moor are among the species most at risk from bird-choppers.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    John Brooks #53.1 John, that’s what I have being trying to point all the time: the planet’s atmosphere overall wasn’t warmer or colder – then look for real reasons, for any anomaly. Antarctic wasn’t on the south poll, when was no ice there. Tilting of the planet + movements of the tectonic plates confused the ‘’researchers’’ long before the propaganda started. If the planet tilts, south poll gets to New Zealand / north poll would be in SE Canada – can you imagine where the equator / Antarctic would be? Only 2 million years ago, Poland had tropical climate. Equator was?

    John, if now gets warmer – south poll is on Antarctic – she will have MUCH MORE ICE, not less. The amount of ice on Antarctic doesn’t decrease if it gets warmer / increase when gets colder. They are all wrong! In my book says: ice on Antarctic melts from below; by the thermal heat – every day and night of the year, melts same amount. Because the thermal heat is protected by the ice, from the unlimited coldness above. If you have being in mineshaft – you will know about the heat I am talking about.

    Antarctic has enough coldness, to build another 7km thick ice in one season – on the top of the existing ice. Example: you know the hot steam that comes from the cooling towers of the electricity generators? If you had a pipe and enough of that hot steam; divert it to Antarctic – you can build bigger mountain of ice than the height of Mt. Everest. Regularly on TV, the chimneys from where CO2 comes out – the opening is 40m above your TV screen… nothing much to show. They show you instead the cooling towers – because the smog coming out of them looks terrible, BOO! BOO!!!

    Well that smog is distilled water = they are scaring the Urban Sheep with distilled water – on the driest continent. Cleaner water than you buy from the shop. Purpose for those cooling towers is: steam from the turbines, instead of wasted, goes in those cooling towers to condensate. Reason 2: that steam keeps the water in the towers just below boiling point. When it goes back in the boilers – needs small heating, to boil again. If it was water from the dam or the creek – would need much more coal. Now they invented another use for those cooling towers – to scare the crap out of the Smarties. Read the condensed version of my book in PDF on my website. You will see how many tricks they use + the damages they do and lots more: http://globalwarmingdenier.wordpress.com

    Contemporary south poll is different set-up than the north. Antarctic is land, surrounded by water – as long as there is raw material for creation / renewal of ice – she will have ice. One side gets more ice one year, Skeptics are beating themselves in the chest – year after it gets less – Warmist start yelling victory. In reality both camps are wrong. Antarctic gets affected by El Nina and La Nina; same as Australia = east-coast get more rain in La Nina.. North poll is a big problem, you will see why, if you read every sentence, without skipping. Have a nice day


    Report this

    00

  • #
    kasphar

    Just some thoughts. Is the BEST 1950 – 1980 adjustment a correction to NASA GISS adjustment when they dumbed down temps prior to 1980?
    And if BEST temps are correct, will this increase the average 1961 -1990 temps that we have used to compare global temps?


    Report this

    00

    • #

      Hi Kasphar!

      Best and GISS appears almost identical. It seems that this “GISS-ALIKE” come extremely convenitent because Hadcrut started to strongly show colder trend. Now AGW can claim that Hadcrut is a kind of outlier and that GISS and BEST is more correct.

      Im aware that a lot of things, considderations are made public from BEST that then the mathematical minded sceptics do analyses on – as they are supposed to do – but the basics from BEST, we dont have: The difference BEST vs. original temps. (And as shown in for example RUTI Coastal temperature stations, even original unadjusted data can be strongly misleading :-/)

      ((Why do Hadcrut have a colder trend after 2000 ? My GUESS is, that they have used stations 1950-today with more temperature sensitive locations making recent years warmer.
      This approach has the problem, that when temperatures then decline.. . Hadcrut avg goes down fast. They will have to shift stations again here and there. For August i think Hadcrut had finished their monthly result around 26 september! Normaly they are finished around the 15´th or so. They are having a hard time figuring out what to do with data these days. But now comes “BEST” and removes focus from Hadcrut.))

      K.R. Frank


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Kevin Moore

    http://orwellania.wordpress.com/

    Einstein-like breakthrough in Climate Science
    by prol14
    On May 19th MIT released a report that proves something. They proved group think still exists. That’s all they proved.

    Continue reading on Examiner.com Einstein-like breakthrough in Climate Science (Part 1) – Portland Civil Rights | Examiner.com http://www.examiner.com/civil-rights-in-portland/einstein-like-breakthrough-climate-science-part-1#ixzz1byTpHAbp
    This brings us to a disturbing and very concerning point. If the science behind this is correct, the math has been proven, why is it that the UN and the IPCC are refusing to look at the information that has been presented by Dr. Miskolczi and Dr. Zagoni? Why are these theories not being discussed? It is rare to even hear of their existence, let alone any debate about them. Why is it that the Main Stream Media has not announced this brilliant breakthrough to the world?

    The answer could not be simpler.

    MONEY.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    kasphar

    Just checking GISS and BEST from 1950 to 1980 I see that the former averages around 0 and the latter 0.2C. The BEST graph shown above has an 0C on the outer left axis but an 0.2C on the inner left axis. Any explanation please.


    Report this

    00

    • #

      It is a comparison graph. To help us visually, one graph is “slid” on top of the other until a common point is joined. This gives a better representation of the differences after the common point.

      Think of it like two acetate films being superimposed on each other.

      In the above case, the common point is (I believe) 1940. The BEST graph is cooler than RUTI prior to 1940, and warmer than RUTI after 1940.
      Cooling the past and warming the present has been a common practice (especially of GISS) in climatology. It gives a steeper slope hence more urgency about a warming 20th century.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Andrew McRae

    Hey Jo, they never fooled you for a second!

    BEST BUSTED (at WUWT and multiple commentators).
    The back stabbing continues!

    Never a dull moment in the carbon game.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Jeremy C

    To Dave N and DougS challenging me to show evidence of Anthony Watt’s enthusiasm for BEST.

    And, I’m prepared to accept whatever result they produce, even if it proves my premise wrong. I’m taking this bold step because the method has promise. So let’s not pay attention to the little yippers who want to tear it down before they even see the results. I haven’t seen the global result, nobody has, not even the home team, but the method isn’t the madness that we’ve seen from NOAA, NCDC, GISS, and CRU, and, there aren’t any monetary strings attached to the result that I can tell. If the project was terminated tomorrow, nobody loses jobs, no large government programs get shut down, and no dependent programs crash either. That lack of strings attached to funding, plus the broad mix of people involved especially those who have previous experience in handling large data sets gives me greater confidence in the result being closer to a bona fide ground truth than anything we’ve seen yet. Dr. Fred Singer also gives a tentative endorsement of the methods.

    and

    I’ve already said way too much, but it was finally a moment of peace where I could put my thoughts about BEST to print. Climate related website owners, I give you carte blanche to repost this.

    .

    The words of Anthony Watts from “Briggs on Berkeley’s forthcoming BEST surface temperature record, plus my thoughts from my visit there” on March 6, 2011 @: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/06/briggs-on-berkeleys-best-plus-my-thoughts-from-my-visit-there/.

    Go have a look for yourselves.

    BEST was best for Anthony so why is it being torn down now?


    Report this

    00

    • #
      BobC

      Jeremy C
      October 31, 2011 at 8:35 am ·
      BEST was best for Anthony so why is it being torn down now?

      Anthony obviously assumed that they would proceed in good faith (or, perhaps, intelligently). He was mistaken.

      As for “why is it being torn down?” — read the article. The BEST project denies all the diverse evidence that there was a cooling spell in the 1970s and instead promotes a yet-to-be revealed mathematical algorithm that they claim proves that all the thermometer readings (and other evidence, such as growing seasons, snow cover, and sunlight at ground measurements) were wrong.

      This is absurd for many reasons, not the least of which is that it is a blatant (and stupid) logical category error: Observations of reality can prove theoretical calculations wrong — Theoretical calculations cannot prove observations of reality wrong.


      Report this

      00

      • #

        Hi Bob!

        A nice set of “torpedos” against the AGW, thankyou. One can still wonder how many Torpedos AGW can take and still float.

        If you need another torpedo, perhaps take a look at this one:
        http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/30/co2-temperatures-and-ice-ages/

        K.R. Frank and thankyou for commenting!

        Jeremy C:
        BEST hides the original data and absolute adjustments done – just like GISS and Hadcrut.
        This is essential, and ruins faith in BEST.


        Report this

        00

        • #
          BobC

          Frank Lansner
          November 1, 2011 at 6:32 am

          One can still wonder how many Torpedos AGW can take and still float.

          In WWII, the British and Americans used “Q-boats” against the German submarines — decoy targets with concealed guns on deck to lure U-boats into attacking a “helpless” target on the surface. To keep them from sinking after a torpedo strike, they were often filled with ping-pong balls. Fires in tubs on deck and a special crew that “abandoned ship” lured the U-boat to the surface for the kill. Then the real crew uncovered the guns and sunk the U-boat. Once a couple of U-boats escaped, however, the ruse was known and the Q-boats lost their effectiveness.

          AGW won’t sink because, like the Q-boats, it is filled with nothing but (hot) air, of which there appears to be an inexhaustable supply. Their “big guns” (Hansen, et. al.) have lost their effectiveness since most people are catching on to the ruse.

          I expect the proponents of AGW will futilly continue on (like the remaining fans of Communism), dreaming of the day when they will seize power and force those damnable deniers to do their bidding.

          People like Nova will help see that that day never comes.


          Report this

          00

  • #
    Kevin Moore

    http://www.examiner.com/civil-rights-in-portland/einstein-like-breakthrough-climate-science-part-1#ixzz1byTpHAbp

    Einstein-like breakthrough in Climate Science (Part 1)

    On May 19th MIT released a report that proves something.

    “The most comprehensive modeling yet carried out on the likelihood of how much hotter the Earth’s climate will get in this century shows that without rapid and massive action, the problem will be about twice as severe as previously estimated six years ago – and could be even worse than that.”

    – David Chandler MIT News Office

    They proved group think still exists. That’s all they proved.

    How can this be? Their model seems so all encompasing… The key lay in this phrase, “selected so that each run has about an equal probability of being correct based on present observations and knowledge”, from MIT’s recent publication.

    Because they are using mathematical equations that have been found to be incorrect, they cannot get repeatable results that can be applied systemically to the entire Earth’s climate that matches the data actually recorded. They can only get a probability. This is the basis for all of the differing results in Climatology today; no two reports seem to be the same, anyone reading the headlines over the last 45 years can attest to this.

    As long as the Opacity of the Atmosphere is considered limitless in the calculations related to Radiative Transfer a precise model that matches global conditions cannot be made. This technical language may sound intimidating, however, the concepts are simple at their core. Our atmosphere is neither opaque, nor completely transparent. It is semi-transparent, and that is the basis of the error that current climate models are making. IPCC scientists, including those at MIT are not using the correct numbers for these concepts. This is one of the major reasons we see so many wildly different climate predictions. One group will report 6 degrees of warming over a century, another will say 1 degree, and none of them are accurate over the entire system.

    Because the solutions each group comes up with vary so widely, and because their models cannot be applied systemically, only one conclusion can be made: there is an error in the math somewhere. Somewhere basic and fundamental, that all of these learned scientists are using, that all of their calculations depend on as the foundation of their Science.

    In 2007, Dr Ferenc Miskolczi found that error and corrected it.

    Dr. Ferenc M. Miskolczi released his work: “GREENHOUSE EFFECT IN SEMI-TRANSPARENT PLANETARY ATMOSPHERES” in 2007 in the Quarterly Journal of the Hungarian Meteorological Society. Based on his previous studies, in this ground breaking work, Dr. Miskolczi states and then mathematically proves, it is water – the Oceans and the water vapor they generate in the atmosphere, that acts as the mechanism of Equilibrium.

    The answer lay in the complex science of Radiative Transfer. To clarify this complex science, I contacted Dr. Miklos Zagoni. He is a physicist and science historian at Eotvos Lorand University, Budapest, and is now a governmental adviser in his native country of Hungary. Dr Zagoni was once a solid supporter of Anthropogenic Global Warming – Man Made Global Warming. That is until Dr. Miskolczi corrected the math. He now works closely with Dr. Miskolczi, and other scientists who are mathematically describing reality as it is, not as the political establishment wants it to be.

    In an email conversation he related the basic nature of the error:

    “They [IPCC Climatologists] regard one specific parameter (opacity [of the atmosphere]) to be infinite in a specific approximation, according to an old and still unrecognized math error in the history of radiative transfer. Miskolczi revealed that error, gave the correct mathematical and physical solution, and the referred quantity became finite [specific] in his hands, and he became able to calculate its value correctly. His calculation proved that with finite opacity (or transparency — we are talking about here not the visible, but the infrared wavelengths – the correct name of the parameter is optical depth) leads to constrained greenhouse effect and constrained greenhouse surface temperatures because cooling (exactly because of this transparency) is possible on the required level.”

    In laypersons terms, this means that Earth’s atmosphere is a balanced system at equilibrium. This is demonstrated by the simple and unavoidable fact that we still have an atmosphere. If the system could not find an equilibrium, the air we breathe would have been long gone millions if not billions of years ago when CO2 and other greenhouse gasses were at levels far greater than they are today. The correctness of his math is proven by his models; they match nearly exactly the actual vertical temperature readings we have recorded on earth. What’s more, because his math and physics are correct, this model can also be applied to Mars temperature data. When you have a model that matches the data, and can be applied over the whole system and get a match, you have the correct theory.

    E=MC2 is an equally true theory, and once scientists could perform the experiments needed to prove it, Einstein was hailed as a Genius and hero. In climate science, the theory is proven with computer models and real measured temperatures. Until Dr. Miskolczi solved the equation, no theory fit all the data. Dr. Miskolczi is today’s Einstein in Climate Science.

    To put this in even simpler terms, consider a child’s teeter totter. On one side you have Greenhouse gasses such as CO2. On the other you have the single greatest greenhouse gas on earth, Water Vapor. As you increase the CO2 level, the water vapor side goes down. If CO2 levels drop, the water vapor side increases. This see-saw effect is referred to as equilibrium. The error in the mathematics used by MIT and other IPCC climatologists is in the base of this see-saw, “in the historic approximation of the basic transfer equation. Having the exact solution, the energy balance conditions can be correctly established and the work of the opposite powers to maintain the equilibrium can be precisely described.” according to Dr Zagoni. This is a drastic oversimplification, but it is descriptively accurate. Because they cannot precisely describe the basic energetic agencies of the teeter totter,

    “they [believe] it can be it can be permanently turned up or down. But Miskolczi proved that any imbalance our CO2 emissions caused was effectively countered by about 1 per cent decrease in the water vapor amount, and the system still fluctuates around its theoretical equilibrium value. His calculations on the NASA / NCAR atmospheric database proved that the Earth’s greenhouse effect does not show any steady increase, regardless of our CO2 emissions.”

    CO2 cannot cause global warming.

    Science describes things accurately as they are, not as one wants them to be.

    The IPCC is coming up with different numbers because they are using an incorrect model.

    I asked Dr. Zagoni: “Is there a simple explanation as to why CO2 is more or less irrelevant? Is it simply because the existence of so much water on earth, and there by so much water vapor, that CO2 is simply overwhelmed by it?”

    Dr. Zagoni replied, “Not overwhelmed, but dynamically controlled by the practically infinite reservoir of water vapor in the surface of the oceans. The system need not ‘wait’ for our CO2 emissions if it had the possibility to warm. There is the tool at its hands to do that at any time. So it has been working on its energetically possible maximum for long before our emissions.”

    Water vapor is in reality, the greatest heat source and heat sink on earth. 71% of the surface of the earth is water. Water can absorb energy and become vapor. It can release energy and fall as rain, which by definition is cooler than the vapor it condensed from – releasing heat. When you boil water, it becomes steam as it cools it condenses again into water.

    When the earth warms, water vapor is released by the liquid sources that make up the majority of our planet. That water vapor will then condense, releasing that heat into the upper atmosphere and space as infrared radiation, and then falls back to earth as rain or snow. This is the very basic engine of our climate, and Dr.’s Zagoni and Miskolczi have mathematically proven it, they have solved the equation.

    As Dr. Zagoni put it: “The earth is cooling on its possible maximum rate, [the] greenhouse effect of any further GHG [Green House Gas] release is countered by minor (almost immeasurably little) changes in the hydrological cycle.” The atmosphere corrects itself. If it were not capable of doing so, life would not have evolved on this planet.

    The Earth, and her very great abundance of water, is quite literally a planet sized air-conditioner. And it’s been running for billions of years, through vast planet wide volcanic activity releasing much more green house gasses than man has ever released in his combined history, through massive asteroid strikes large enough to cause mass extinctions, even with such enormously catastrophic events the planet has the ability to return to equilibrium. Man’s emissions can effect no change in this fundamental defining quality of the planet. The Earth cannot warm up because of Greenhouse gasses.

    Dr. Miskolczi may well have saved the people of this planet untold misery by finding and correcting this error. He has made it possible to accurately model not only our atmosphere, but that of Mars as well. That is how accurate his calculations are.

    We could double our emissions of Carbon Dioxide, and the Earth’s climate will maintain its equilibrium. We are after all talking about a planet sized system, 1.39 Billion cubic Kilometers of water, that’s 1.35 x1018 metric tons of water. If the Earth wanted to have a runaway greenhouse effect, water would be the way to do it, it is far more important and influential in the earth’s system than anything else. Including CO2, including Man.

    Dr Zagoni’s website, dedicated to Miskolczi’s new results can be found here: http://miskolczi.webs.com At this site, you can find all of Dr. Miskolczi’s equations, graphs, and conclusions.

    All of this being said, man can have an impact on climate, deforestation, and the wide scale removal of green plant growth which converts the sun’s energy into sugars, can cause warming. When the sun’s energy hits the solid ground it heats it up. And so ironically enough, increasing CO2 can cool the globe by increasing plant growth.

    Another issue to consider is the sun’s output, which right now is about 1% less than normal, as the sun continues in a stage of very low sunspot activity. Tuesday we will look at NASA’s report on the lack of sunspots and the very large impact this has on our climate. It cools things off, and sometimes very significantly.

    Also on Tuesday, we will take a look at how this issue affects the civil rights of all Americans. We will take an honest look at why the Scientific Community, The UN, the IPCC and the Government of the United States are ignoring this breakthrough. It starts with money and it ends in congress. Legislation is being considered with the stated purpose of “saving the environment”, The supporters of this legislation are using faulty science, and the average person’s lack of knowledge about climate science in passing legislation that will 1) not affect the climate in the least and 2) will cost every American man woman and child billions of dollars for no purpose other than to line the pockets of the Government.

    The terrible economic depression which will result will take many years to recover from. The ramifications of legislating according to bad science is enormous.

    For more info: GREENHOUSE EFFECT IN SEMI-TRANSPARENT PLANETARY ATMOSPHERES, Dr. Miskolczi’s Studies http://miskolczi.webs.com, Researcher: Basic Greenhouse Equations “Totally Wrong”
    A very special note of thanks to Dr. Miklos Zagoni, with out his assistance and input, this article would not be what it is.

    Continue reading on Examiner.com Einstein-like breakthrough in Climate Science (Part 1) – Portland Civil Rights | Examiner.com http://www.examiner.com/civil-rights-in-portland/einstein-like-breakthrough-climate-science-part-1#ixzz1cQP2MUIP


    Report this

    00

  • #
    hunter

    Jo,
    Thanks for the link to the ice age stuff.
    The AGW believers deny (ha1) the reality of the 1970′s scare, but I was there and I was paying attention.
    It is great to read how the fear mongers of yesterday converted to the fear mongers of today.
    I think some research would show that Hansen was involved in the ice age scare, by the way.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      • #
        BobC

        RE: Tristan’s “argument” @ 64.1:

        So, there wasn’t a consensus then and there isn’t a consensus now — and this proves what, exactly? It doesn’t challenge any of the facts in Jo’s article.

        And, it didn’t keep high profile atmospheric scientists like Steven Schneider from warning us about the coming (anthropogenically generated) ice age:

        However, it is projected that man’s potential to pollute will increase 6 to 8-fold in the next 50 years. If this increased rate of injection… should raise the present background opacity by a factor of 4, our calculations suggest a decrease in global temperature by as much as 3.5 °C. Such a large decrease in the average temperature of Earth, sustained over a period of few years, is believed to be sufficient to trigger an ice age.
        (Rasool,Schneider “Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Aerosols: Effects of Large Increases on Global Climate”, Science 173, 138–141, 1971. )

        Coincidently, the “solution” then was exactly the same as the “solution” to AGW today — shut down industrial energy production. Makes you think there might be some kind of underlying agenda.

        BTY Tristan: I’d like to know how you pick which parts of the peer-reviewed literature to believe and which parts to ignore. It appears to be simply what agrees with the opinions you already hold. If it is anything more sophisticated than that, perhaps you could enlighten us. Simply quoting which parts you believe in has no more information content than simply declaring your beliefs — although it is consistent with the level of discussion you generally engage in.


        Report this

        00

      • #
        Tristan

        Yadda yadda.

        If you don’t like the article, which quantifies the scientific position on the ‘cooling scare’ (a few barely cited papers compared to a vast majority of ‘warmist’ papers) back in the 70s, address its methodology.


        Report this

        00

        • #
          BobC

          If you don’t like the article, which quantifies the scientific position on the ‘cooling scare’ (a few barely cited papers compared to a vast majority of ‘warmist’ papers) back in the 70s, address its methodology.

          Sure. The ‘methodology’ is a poll of scientific opinion. This has no scientific relevance whatsoever.

          However, that Steven Schneider (and other prominent climate scientists — I have lived in Boulder — home of NCAR — for over 4 decades and have heard them speak numerous times) was first a Global Cooling alarmist, then became a Global Warming alarmist is a documented fact, which is consistent with Jo’s article.

          Yadda yadda.

          Perfect example of a Tristan “agrument”.


          Report this

          00

        • #
          Tristan

          The statement to which I object and therefore challenged, which obviously attempts to allude to the current scenario:

          It’s shocking, unthinkable – the consensus of experts was wrong

          To which I provide a paper countering the claim, to which you respond:

          The ‘methodology’ is a poll of scientific opinion. This has no scientific relevance whatsoever

          .

          Yet that opinion is exactly what I’m referring to.

          I feel ‘yadda yadda’ is an appropriate response to your suspicion of an ‘underlying agenda’ and your attempts to denigrate my ‘level of discussion’ and literature critique.


          Report this

          00

          • #
            BobC

            As late as 2001, even the IPCC thought that global temperatures had dropped between 1945 and 1975. What could be more indicative of a “consensus” that that? Of course, the BEST “reconstruction” now eliminates that embarrassment, thus guaranteeing its inclusion in the next IPCC report.

            I feel ‘yadda yadda’ is an appropriate response to your suspicion of an ‘underlying agenda’ and your attempts to denigrate my ‘level of discussion’ and literature critique.

            Thanks for confirming my opinion of your ‘level of discussion’.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Tristan

            Frank

            The issue at hand is what the climate scientists were predicting in the 70s. By and large they were predicting an upwards trend, despite acknowledging that the period from 45-75 showed decreasing temps.


            Report this

            00

          • #

            @Tristan

            - No, Hansen indeed used temperature graphs as an argument that CO2 needed attention etc. This happened in june 1988 to a congress meeting, remember?

            - And yes, The warming itself basiclly is predicted due to belief in (undocumented) warming effect – just as temperature stagnation/cooling is basically predicted due to solar changes and oceanic changes.

            K.R. Frank


            Report this

            00

        • #

          @Tristan, you say
          “…the article, which quantifies the scientific position on the ‘cooling scare’ (a few barely cited papers compared to a vast majority of ‘warmist’ papers) back in the 70s, address its methodology.”

          Tristan you are wrong which I have already told you. Are you listening?

          Here is a complete walk through of all papers on temperature trends releaased before 1985:
          http://hidethedecline.eu/pages/posts/the-perplexing-temperature-data-published-1974-84-and-recent-temperature-data-180.php

          On the basis of the general consensus in 1985, lets quote Phil Jones 1985:

          “No satisfactory explanation for this cooling exists, and the cooling itself is perplexing because it is contrary to the trend expected from increasing atmospheric CO2 concentration. Changing Solar Activity and/or changes in explosive volcanic activity has been suggested as causes… but we suspect it may be an internal fluctuation possibly resulting from a change in North Atlantic deep water production rate.”

          Here are Jones 82 NH Vs. recent Jones Crutem3 NH:
          http://hidethedecline.eu/media/PERPLEX/fig42big.jpg

          K.R. Frank


          Report this

          00

    • #
      Robert

      I was there too. I remember the magazine covers, I remember my mother (who believes anything in the mainstream media) going on and on about how cold things were going to get, I also remember her flip-flop to the same recitations of the AGW meme when it became the “in thing.”

      Tristan can claim all he wants that the climate “scientists” were predicting “an upward trend” in the 70′s, those of us that were actually alive then know better.


      Report this

      00

  • #

    I read that book,the COOLING.Written by Lowell Ponte in 1978/1979.

    It is a good book for reading about research and history.

    People seems oblivious to the fact.That we have been sliding into the next glacial period for a few thousand years now.The ice cores at both poles show the downward cooling trend.

    I made a simple post on this two years ago:

    We are already sliding into the next cold ice age

    It is a shame that I am having difficulty finding past Ice age articles to post in my White Earth part of my forum.If we knew more about the 90,000/10,000 year cycles better……….


    Report this

    00

  • #

    sunsettommy #65 The precursor of all present Kyoto Protocol evil is; because of the Skeptic’s past GLOBAL warmings / ice ages. They were not GLOBAL = you are not just misleading the people, but yourself also. Temperature in the atmosphere doesn’t go up and down as a yo-yo! It is good if you and similar learn some physics; instead of confusing the honest sceptical people.

    those books and other literature that you have being reading / brainwashing yourself; most have being written by people that are in the Warmist’ camp. When was the last ice age (you are referring)was in Europe /USA – NOT GLOBAL. At that time, the southern hemisphere was warmer – to keep the balance. Similar as the last 3 years in January, only on a larger scale. Before you keep wasting your valuable time on those stupid / misleading charts; here are some facts that you shouldn’t avoid:::

    1] When was glaciers in Europe / USA persisting in summer months for 12 000 years- the air above was colder 2] colder air shrinks 3] if it was colder on both hemispheres = the whole troposphere would have shrunk – would have intercepted less coldness – in one day the atmosphere would have saved enough heat; to melt the ice.

    4] therefore, glaciation was only on the N/H. Air in the Northern hemisphere shrunk – lots of air from the S/H went north (to prevent vacuum) = on the southern hemisphere with less air = days were much hotter. (That’s when Australia turned into desert) Because the leading Warmist know the reliability of those Paganistic believes you rely on – they are proceeding with their propaganda. (they have no mature opponents).

    the laws of physics are controlling /regulating the temperature; not the shonky science. Oxygen + nitrogen are transparent to the sunlight; but when they warm up, for any reason – they expand up. Up there is minus – 90C. Same as when you warm up – instantly deep your arm into an ice bucket. Your leg is warmer, but your arm is colder = overall same temperature. slowly your blood distributes the coldness / so do the winds in the troposphere.

    Great harm is done to the truth by doo-gooders like you and similar. Have in mind that: a] at that time were same laws of physics b] with your phony past GLOBAL warmings cannot prove that is not going to be warming in 2100. c] You are dealing with professional liars in the Warmist’ camp.

    therefore: extra heat or coldness in the troposphere is not cumulative. Because: oxygen + nitrogen expand INSTANTLY /appropriately, when they warm up by 0,00000000001 degree – intercept extra coldness up, to equalize. Only that extra coldness intercepted falls some other place far away = that’s what confuses the shonky science. If the troposphere cannot warm up extra by 0,000000001 degree overall, how can warm up by many degrees?!?!?! think, think!!!

    To make chart for individual place – getting warmer / colder, is cool. To make charts for the whole atmosphere; without having data for every cubic metre / for every few minutes; is misleading / naive / self destructive. If one can monitor the whole troposphere on every cubic metre, for every few minutes = would show that is same temperature every hour of every day / year and millennia. If you don’t believe in the laws of physics, say it. If you do, don’t waste your time on crappy discoveries; go to my website: http://globalwarmingdenier.wordpress.com


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bob

    Jo, have you intentionally offset the y-axis 0′s in your first figure to prove a point? It appears to me that the point you prove is that you have a clear agenda here, regardless of the “facts”.. The RUTI analysis is clearly whacky..


    Report this

    00

    • #

      Bob,

      1. I didn’t do the graph. Frank Lansner did, and,
      2. it’s all OK. The two scales are matched – which matters. The off set of the zero point is irrelevant. Frank has presumably lined up the RUTI line in the 1930′s to run coincident with the BEST line to see how the adjustments after that cause any divergence in the trends (they do).

      The “agenda” is to find out what happened in the raw data compared to the adjusted one.

      We would most appreciate it if you can point us to any government funded study that graphs raw rural data equivalent to RUTI. Good luck with your search.


      Report this

      00

  • #

    Frank #64.1.2.3 The data that you are dishing to the people comes from the leading Warmist. 2] they don’t even have 0,0000000000000000001% of the data ESSENTIAL to know what was the OVERALL temperature; but that doesn’t stop you using it to con the ignorant. I understand, you spent lots of your time scrutinizing it; so you cannot let go… But why are you doing the Warmist’ dirty job? That data is COMPLETELY MISLEADING. Instead of telling that to the Warmist, you are dishing it to the people that prefer the truth. Unless you have for every cubic kilometre / for every 10 minutes of the troposphere – you only have treads to bigger and bigger lies.

    Look around yourself, when you are outside. Vertical wind goes up from those rocks – goes down towards the pond – goes up from the red soil – goes down towards the rice paddy – goes up from the roofs / walls, goes down towards the river. Warm air goes up – cold air goes down = on the radious that you can see is as 10000 lines highway in both directions, cold and hot air. Reason I mentioned, the people with hang-gliders can teach you. Vertical winds are much more active and powerful, than the horizontal winds – even though you don’t feel them on the ground. When gets warmer on the ground – they speed up, when cools, they slow down. similar as water from your car engine to the radiator. Nobody knows what was the temperature in the atmosphere last year – nobody is monitoring on enough places for every 10 minutes. In the 70′s were lying about Nuclear Winter, GLOBAL warming is the same. Why are you doing Warmist dirty job?! They thrive on people like you. Unless you have correct temperature for every cubic kilometre, for every 15 minutes over Pacific /Antarctic oceans… you are doing Warmist misleading. TRAGIC


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Stephan the Denier writes this confusing rant,

    sunsettommy #65 The precursor of all present Kyoto Protocol evil is; because of the Skeptic’s past GLOBAL warmings / ice ages. They were not GLOBAL = you are not just misleading the people, but yourself also. Temperature in the atmosphere doesn’t go up and down as a yo-yo! It is good if you and similar learn some physics; instead of confusing the honest sceptical people.

    ???

    You are not making sense here.

    I did not discuss the the following in my simple report:Kyoto Treaty.The physics.I did not once say it was global.

    those books and other literature that you have being reading / brainwashing yourself; most have being written by people that are in the Warmist’ camp. When was the last ice age (you are referring)was in Europe /USA – NOT GLOBAL. At that time, the southern hemisphere was warmer – to keep the balance. Similar as the last 3 years in January, only on a larger scale. Before you keep wasting your valuable time on those stupid / misleading charts; here are some facts that you shouldn’t avoid::

    I mentioned only one book and you make a sweeping statement about my reading books and other literature.LOLOLOLOL!!!

    Did YOU read the book?

    You have no idea what books I have read or what I have in my home.You are being absurd here.

    I presented Ice core data based charts that shows BOTH polar regions on a long term cooling trend. I did not bring up the tropics region.Because the temperature does not change much there.The mid latitudes were not included because they are more variable regionally.They are the battleground between the warm tropics and the cold polar regions.

    I did not claim that Glaciers will expand all over the world at all.It only has to expand in the Northern hemisphere to make it global.Since Antarctica is ALREADY covered with glaciers.It has been covered with snow and ice for most of the last 14 million years.Glaciers did expand in the Southern Hemisphere.In the Andes,Australia,Tasmania,Indonesia and New Zealand.

    From Wikipedia:

    Glaciation of the Southern Hemisphere was less extensive because of current configuration of continents. Ice sheets existed in the Andes (Patagonian Ice Sheet), where six glacier advances between 33,500 and 13,900 BP in the Chilean Andes have been reported.[19] Antarctica was entirely glaciated, much like today, but the ice sheet left no uncovered area. In mainland Australia only a very small area in the vicinity of Mount Kosciuszko was glaciated, whereas in Tasmania glaciation was more widespread.[20] An ice sheet formed in New Zealand, covering all of the Southern Alps, where at least three glacial advances can be distinguished.[21] Local ice caps existed in Irian Jaya, Indonesia, where in three ice areas remnants of the Pleistocene glaciers are still preserved today.[22]

    LINK

    This one is from Science:

    Approximately 13,000 years ago, as the last ice age was winding down, Earth’s Northern Hemisphere reverted to a near-glacial period called the Younger Dryas. Temperatures dropped by 15˚C, and giant ice sheets again advanced south from the Arctic. But things were much different in the Southern Hemisphere. New data reveal that the globe’s bottom half continued to warm its way out of the ice age, even as the north temporarily plunged back into a another deep freeze.

    bolding mine

    LINK

    1] When was glaciers in Europe / USA persisting in summer months for 12 000 years- the air above was colder 2] colder air shrinks 3] if it was colder on both hemispheres = the whole troposphere would have shrunk – would have intercepted less coldness – in one day the atmosphere would have saved enough heat; to melt the ice.

    4] therefore, glaciation was only on the N/H. Air in the Northern hemisphere shrunk – lots of air from the S/H went north (to prevent vacuum) = on the southern hemisphere with less air = days were much hotter. (That’s when Australia turned into desert) Because the leading Warmist know the reliability of those Paganistic believes you rely on – they are proceeding with their propaganda. (they have no mature opponents).

    Your “facts” are unsupported.You never specified on how much this supposed shrinking occurs.Nor have you explained how air can quickly flow from one hemisphere to another.

    Australia is mostly a Desert NOW. During the current interglacial.

    During the last(?) Glacial phase.You say it became a desert because of the northern glacial phase.Does this mean you believe it will ALWAYS be a desert into the future? Since it can be a desert in both epochs.

    You are again making claims about what I believe in.Again you are being absurd.You have no idea what I have been doing behind the scenes for years.Your sweeping statements are foolish.

    the laws of physics are controlling /regulating the temperature; not the shonky science. Oxygen + nitrogen are transparent to the sunlight; but when they warm up, for any reason – they expand up. Up there is minus – 90C. Same as when you warm up – instantly deep your arm into an ice bucket. Your leg is warmer, but your arm is colder = overall same temperature. slowly your blood distributes the coldness / so do the winds in the troposphere.

    Ok,

    now try explaining how it contradicts what I wrote in the simple report.

    Great harm is done to the truth by doo-gooders like you and similar. Have in mind that: a] at that time were same laws of physics b] with your phony past GLOBAL warmings cannot prove that is not going to be warming in 2100. c] You are dealing with professional liars in the Warmist’ camp.

    Now I am one of the “doo-gooder’s”.

    LOL.

    You are quite a funny guy.

    Unfortunately.You are now into babbling phase.Because the FIRST chart in my simple presentation.Shows the large warm periods.That are historically supportable.They match up with the ice core temperature data quite well.They are labelled by name for the time period it occurred in.This is the Greenland Ice core temperature data.

    The temperature swings were large in the Greenland region.While they were not in Antarctica.Why would that be Stephen?

    therefore: extra heat or coldness in the troposphere is not cumulative. Because: oxygen + nitrogen expand INSTANTLY /appropriately, when they warm up by 0,00000000001 degree – intercept extra coldness up, to equalize. Only that extra coldness intercepted falls some other place far away = that’s what confuses the shonky science. If the troposphere cannot warm up extra by 0,000000001 degree overall, how can warm up by many degrees?!?!?! think, think!!!

    Why are you telling me all this?

    To make chart for individual place – getting warmer / colder, is cool. To make charts for the whole atmosphere; without having data for every cubic metre / for every few minutes; is misleading / naive / self destructive. If one can monitor the whole troposphere on every cubic metre, for every few minutes = would show that is same temperature every hour of every day / year and millennia. If you don’t believe in the laws of physics, say it. If you do, don’t waste your time on crappy discoveries; go to my website:

    He he…

    I never once claimed that we have perfect temperature data.I posted some ice core temperature data.Immediately it is superior to your temperature data you never provide in your ranting reply to me.

    I have visited your blog before.It is full of rants with ZERO references or source data provided.I am not going to waste my time trying to fathom what you are talking about.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    sunsettomy #68 As soon as you start referring warmings / coolings as GLOBAL – I know what you know. Those localized warmings / coolings have being wrongly declared as Global; to impress the students. Now is different victims – the western world. GLOBAL warmings are disproved by the laws of physics. Billions of people have to cope it. We are trying to prove the truth that: the whole atmosphere cannot get warmer / or colder for more than few minutes – because the laws of physics don’t allow that. Instead, the Warmist point to people like you and Frank – supporting the Paganist data.

    Giving names to phony GLOBAL warmings / coolings; doesn’t make them real. Santa and Rudolf have real names in literature also. January / February for the last 3 years have given imprint as glaciation – but under the laws of physics, indirectly produced extra heat in the S/H. You double check if Argentinian / New Zealand / Tasmanian glaciers coincided with European / USA. Because you are quoting from same misleading books as the rest of the Warmist- no need to guess what you know.

    In few paragraphs is impossible to substantiate that all the paganist GLOBAL warmings were localized. But if you did read what I have – it’s all proven. Unfortunately, because I don’t brag about the phony medieval phony GLOBAL warmings / sunspots – people like you are scared if not their familiar ground. The hell with millions of people getting ripped-off for billions of dollars’ on the bases of phony GLOBAL warmings. In other words; I know what you know, but am saying again: nothing of that fits the laws of physics = you don’t know what I know.

    People should know the truth. You are referring ”rant” for me pointing the truth. Because you don’t know what I have – cannot compare. All you have is; the brainwashing names / data, concocted by former Warmist / Coolist; without any knowledgeable how the self adjusting regulation the troposphere has. Because some place was warmer at some time = declaring that the whole planet was warmer, is same as saying: the planet is warmer at lunch time by 12 degrees, than before sunrise. Not helpful for the truth.

    Yes, temperature in Oceania fluctuates a lot. When those ”high” dry cold winds blow from Antarctic – they cover the area 15 times larger than Europe. Most of the time those winds don’t touch the ground, but 150m altitude is part of the same globe – not a single thermometer there monitoring. Europe can get warmer by 10degrees – Oceania needs to get cooler by 0,1 degree, planet to have still same temperature.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    sunsetommy, if you read what is in PDF form, you would have known that: the amount of ice on Antarctic / Greenland has nothing to do with the temperature – but with the amount of raw material available to renew itself. Because is constantly melted from below, by the thermal heat. Permafrost get to minus – 60C below zero, but no ice. In that text I pick on prof. John Church; but all of you are operating on the same model. Those two big landmasses have average temperature much colder than in your deep freezer. Learn how it all functions, first. Warmer up there it means more ice, not less. SURPRISED?

    If you read what is in PDF, you will see that all the knowledge you have obtained, is not just wrong – but is ALL back to front also. USA / Europe will have worse and worse winters – the high winds are fast – they equalize – to avoid vacuum; power of vacuum is laws of physics, not fairytale – that’s why is not familiar to you. Australia will have record heat with less air as shield – all because the Paganistic believes are preventing the followers as you, John Church and other; to face the reality.

    Extreme can be prevented; how, it’s all there. I was criticising you constructively, because I know the lyrics you know – they are self destructive. They are misleading – non of it can be supported by the laws of physics. would be fair to the others, if you present them as fairy-tales, not as factual; just because have been given names


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Crakar24

    I need your help.

    Can someone please post a comment on this thread as i am testing the “notify me of follow up” function.

    first one to reply gets a big thank you.

    Cheers

    Crakar


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Crakar24

    Thankyou Tristan for being a very integral part of my fault finding exercise.

    Just so you all know i used to get emails when people commented as i would always check the box below “post comment”. It was all working fine until yesterday when the emails stopped. It would make complete sense if i got none (ie something is broken) but i am getting them spasmodically for some reason.

    I thought maybe the “Hung” thread link was dodgy so i found an old thread i had not commented in (this one) and made the above post and i checked the box. Unfortunately Tristan your post did not come through to my in box so whatever the problem is it is across all threads. Has anybody experienced this kind of thing?

    Once again thanks Tristan for your help.

    Cheers

    Crakar24


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Jose_X

    I wrote this earlier to someone else, but it makes sense having it here close to the source.

    *****
    Concerning heavier than normal thermometer adjustments of 1970 and this graph http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/temperature/global-temps-1970_-04.58.jpg (point 3), note that the older records before 1960s were not changed as much (if allegations are true) but the error bars for those old dates are rather large. In contrast, from the 60s-70s period onward, the error bars almost disappear. That precise calibration was possible because of satellite data appearing around that time. As for the picture of the dropping temperature in the middle of the last century, look, for example, at the large drop between about 1945 and 1955 and later extended to 1970. That difference is at most about .65 degrees Fahrenheit. This translates to about .35 Celsius. [Did you forget to translate?] If you look at the BEST graph for that same time period, you’ll find a spread of almost exactly that much. In fact, the drop on the BEST graph appears to be a dash greater! Lot’s of smoke, no fire.


    Report this

    00

Leave a Reply

  

  

  

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>