Resisting Climate Hysteria

[wayneL]

basilio, Jesus! Every graph, every data series has been tortured into submission by vested interests.

Did you not realize that was the game? Remember the embarrassing 97% consensus which, like, wasn't?

Though slightly more subtle, you've done the exact same thing as the blog writer.

Poisonous.

 

[basilio]

While we are on the topic of lies and dribble in relation to climate change figures lets look at some of the rubbish that Tony Abbot sprouted during his term of office.

A research scientist did a paper dissecting the great climate change liar to empirically prove what most people already knew. Even the short story in The Guardian manages to explain just why Tony Abbott was so comprehensively wrong in his statement.

Tony Abbott's climate claims debunked: researcher dissects 2013 statement

Sophie Lewis was so annoyed about the way science was ignored in the political debate about climate change she went to work to disprove the myths


Saturday 23 January 2016 08.25 AEDT


Climate scientists are regularly infuriated by the things politicians say. But it’s not often they publish a scientific paper tearing a politician’s comments to shreds.

Sophie Lewis, from the Australian Research Council’s centre for excellence in climate science, has done exactly that, dissecting statements about climate records made by the former prime minister Tony Abbott in 2013.

Last week, temperature figures showed 2015 was officially the hottest year on record. Before that, 2014 was the hottest year on record. And scientists are expecting 2016 to once again win the dubious honour.

Heat records are being broken with wild abandon. Last year, 10 months broke temperature records.

Climate scientists say a rise in the average temperature caused by greenhouse gas emissions makes extreme heat records more likely.

In 2013, the UN’s top climate official, Christiana Figueres, linked bushfires in Australia to climate change. Abbott called such claims “complete hogwash” and said drawing links between broken records and climate change was a sign of desperation.

He went on: “The thing is that at some point in the future, every record will be broken, but that doesn’t prove anything about climate change. It just proves that the longer the period of time, the more possibility of extreme events.”

Superficially it seems to make sense: if you wait long enough, you’re bound to see records fall. Lewis suspected many people shared Abbott’s interpretation, and set out to show it was wrong.

Lewis says she was frustrated by the gap she saw between what the science showed and what some politicians said was happening.

http://www.theguardian.com/science/...-researcher-dissects-2013-statement-australia

It's all data folks.

 

[basilio]

basilio, Jesus! Every graph, every data series has been tortured into submission by vested interests.

Did you not realize that was the game? Remember the embarrassing 97% consensus which, like, wasn't?

Though slightly more subtle, you've done the exact same thing as the blog writer.

Poisonous.

No Wayne. It's not a game. When almost every scientist studying climate science uses similar figures to show we are in deep trouble we need to listen.

When rogues and charlatans cherry pick information to misled they are dishonest. The reason for what is called "peer reviewed" science is for fellow scientists to closely scrutinise each other and attempt to keep the scientific process honest and accountable. When people attempt to pass off doctored or dishonest data as representations of reality its just wrong.

You know; like doctored accounts, fake witness statements, dishonest CV's.

 

[wayneL]

No Wayne. It's not a game. When almost every scientist studying climate science uses similar figures to show we are in deep trouble we need to listen.

When rogues and charlatans cherry pick information to misled they are dishonest. The reason for what is called "peer reviewed" science is for fellow scientists to closely scrutinise each other and attempt to keep the scientific process honest and accountable. When people attempt to pass off doctored or dishonest data as representations of reality its just wrong.

You know; like doctored accounts, fake witness statements, dishonest CV's.

Oh dear>

I invite you to read beyond Cook's Crapola

 

[wayneL]

intersesting post http://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/01/21/another-impartial-look-at-global-warming/

 

[Logique]

Attacking Prof Bob Carter, now that he's gone and can't defend himself, Basilio quotes the blog Open Mind.

It's anything but, I'd say. Here is one of the many gems on this "Open Mind" blog - by an unknown author, I might add:

https://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/07/06/aligning-station-records/
Aligning Station Records - July 6, 2011 - author unknown

As some of you know, I devised a method for aligning temperature data records which I believe is better than the “reference station method” used by NASA GISS.

However, the difference is small and it doesn’t change the overall global result when small regions are averaged, then those regional results are area-weight-averaged to produce a global estimate. It’s an interesting, and possibly useful, refinement which doesn’t change the overall final answer...

...The temperature estimate for a specific location is the weighted average of nearby stations, with closer stations given greater weight by the weighting function. I ignored the weighting function altogether so that all stations in a given region can be equally weighted to compute a regional average.

My modification is therefore specifically tailored to produce a local estimate, whereas the Berkeley method is designed to include everything in one fell swoop and produce a global estimate...

 

[trainspotter]

Global warming? What global warming?

New York: A winter storm has dumped nearly 58cm of snow on Washington, DC, before moving on to Philadelphia and New York, paralysing road, rail and airline travel along the US east coast.
At least 10 states declared weather emergencies on Saturday, aiming to get a handle on highways made impassable by the drifting snow and to shore up coastal areas where the blizzard conditions raised the danger of flooding.

The worst appeared to be over for Washington, although moderate snow was expected to keep falling until late Saturday, with the deepest accumulation of 58 centimetres recorded in Poolesville, Maryland, north of the nation's capital.
"Records are getting close - we're getting into the top five storms," Gallina said.

http://www.smh.com.au/world/us-snow...g-blizzard-20160123-gmcpsj.html#ixzz3y80uFotg

Now before we burn up the keyboard in a retaliation of HYSTERIA that this is what global warming is all about that there will be record events of weather ie snow, heat, cyclones etc. you might want to check on some facts first:-

New York - The record high of 71cm of snow in the nation's capital was set in 1922

California - The official highest recorded temperature is now 56.7 C (134 F), which was measured on 10 July 1913 at Greenland Ranch, Death Valley, California, USA.

Antarctica - The lowest natural temperature ever directly recorded at ground level on Earth is −89.2 °C (−128.6 °F; 184.0 K), which was at the Soviet Vostok Station in Antarctica, on July 21, 1983

But nothing to fear .. NOAA is here ...

The combined average temperature over global land and ocean surfaces for July 2015 was the highest for July in the 136-year period of record, at 0.81 °C (1.46 °F) above the 20th century average of 15.8 °C (60.4 °F), surpassing the previous record set in 1998 by 0.08 °C (0.14 °F). As July is climatologically the warmest month of the year globally, this monthly global temperature of 16.61 °C (61.86 °F) was also the highest among all 1627 months in the record that began in January 1880. The July temperature is currently increasing at an average rate of 0.65 °C (1.17 °F) per century.

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201507

Is that right ? Per century eh? 0.65 degrees celcius ... no wait ... we might not be sure about that as we have to read the fine print ...

Using reference values computed on smaller [more local] scales over the same time period establishes a baseline from which anomalies are calculated. This effectively normalizes the data so they can be compared and combined to more accurately represent temperature patterns with respect to what is normal for different places within a region.

For these reasons, large-area summaries incorporate anomalies, not the temperature itself. Anomalies more accurately describe climate variability over larger areas than absolute temperatures do, and they give a frame of reference that allows more meaningful comparisons between locations and more accurate calculations of temperature trends.

Soooooooooooo they are making it up to fit their budgets now?

 

[basilio]

With all the heat around the adjusting of weather information I thought the following analysis might explain the how and why of the situation more clearly. It offers clear, excellent detail of many examples of adjustments to data, why they were done and the impact it has on final results.

Scientific Method / Science & Exploration

Thorough, not thoroughly fabricated: The truth about global temperature data
How thermometer and satellite data is adjusted and why it must be done.

by Scott K. Johnson - Jan 22, 2016 2:30am AEDT
706
Scott K. Johnson/Suzanna Soileau-USGS/Hanna-Barbera

“In June, NOAA employees altered temperature data to get politically correct results.”

At least, that's what Congressman Lamar Smith (R-Tex.) alleged in a Washington Post letter to the editor last November. The op-ed was part of Smith's months-long campaign against NOAA climate scientists. Specifically, Smith was unhappy after an update to NOAA’s global surface temperature dataset slightly increased the short-term warming trend since 1998. And being a man of action, Smith proceeded to give an anti-climate change stump speech at the Heartland Institute conference, request access to NOAA's data (which was already publicly available), and subpoena NOAA scientists for their e-mails.

Smith isn't the only politician who questions NOAA's results and integrity. During a recent hearing of the Senate Subcommittee on Space, Science, and Competitiveness, Senator Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) leveled similar accusations against the entire scientific endeavor of tracking Earth’s temperature.

“I would note if you systematically add, adjust the numbers upwards for more recent temperatures, wouldn’t that, by definition, produce a dataset that proves your global warming theory is correct? And the more you add, the more warming you can find, and you don’t have to actually bother looking at what the thermometer says, you just add whatever number you want.”

There are entire blogs dedicated to uncovering the conspiracy to alter the globe's temperature. The premise is as follows—through supposed “adjustments,” nefarious scientists manipulate raw temperature measurements to create (or at least inflate) the warming trend. People who subscribe to such theories argue that the raw data is the true measurement; they treat the term “adjusted” like a synonym for “fudged.”

Peter Thorne, a scientist at Maynooth University in Ireland who has worked with all sorts of global temperature datasets over his career, disagrees. “Find me a scientist who’s involved in making measurements who says the original measurements are perfect, as are. It doesn’t exist,” he told Ars. “It’s beyond a doubt that we have to—have to—do some analysis. We can’t just take the data as a given.”

Speaking of data, the latest datasets are in and 2015 is (as expected) officially the hottest year on record. It's the first year to hit 1 °C above levels of the late 1800s. And to upend the inevitable backlash that news will receive (*spoiler alert*), using all the raw data without performing any analysis would actually produce the appearance of more warming since the start of records in the late 1800s.

http://arstechnica.com/science/2016...ated-the-truth-about-global-temperature-data/

 

[trainspotter]

With all the heat around the adjusting of weather information I thought the following analysis might explain the how and why of the situation more clearly. It offers clear, excellent detail of many examples of adjustments to data, why they were done and the impact it has on final results.


http://arstechnica.com/science/2016...ated-the-truth-about-global-temperature-data/

Peter Thorne, a scientist at Maynooth University in Ireland who has worked with all sorts of global temperature datasets over his career, disagrees. “Find me a scientist who’s involved in making measurements who says the original measurements are perfect, as are. It doesn’t exist,” he told Ars. “It’s beyond a doubt that we have to—have to—do some analysis. We can’t just take the data as a given.”

Are you for real basilio??

So the raw data is open to analysis or as NOAA puts it ...

Anomalies more accurately describe climate variability over larger areas than absolute temperatures do, and they give a frame of reference that allows more meaningful comparisons between locations and more accurate calculations of temperature trends.

So we cannot use the raw data it must be analysed first and anomalies assumed to create a trend pattern rather than declaring the actual temperature or are my eyes painted on and my brain has shrunk to a size of a pea and just as mushy?

That would have to be the most creative BS I have ever read in my life !!

And to upend the inevitable backlash that news will receive (*spoiler alert*), using all the raw data without performing any analysis would actually produce the appearance of more warming since the start of records in the late 1800s.

Got any evidence on this or are the scientist now modelling down ? Surely it would serve them better to evidence raw data therefore creating more hysteria for the media and the masses to chow down on ?

"More warming" from raw data ....... what next? Polar bears in Antarctica face extinction ??

Taken from the link you supplied basilio ..

This problem is a terrifically tough nut to crack, and updates to techniques have routinely produced significantly different looking datasets—particularly for the UAH group. Its initial version actually showed a cooling trend through the mid-1990s. After a 1998 paper found that the gradual lowering of the satellites’ orbits was introducing a false cooling influence, UAH’s revisions accidentally broke its time-of-day correction, creating a new source of false cooling. That wasn’t figured out until Mears and a colleague published a 2005 paper. And just last year, another paper laid out evidence that insufficient corrections are still having a cooling influence on the data.

With that said, both satellite records do show slightly smaller warming trends for the troposphere than our surface records show, which is unexpected. “If you include the uncertainty analysis,” Mears explained, “I think that the data aren’t really good enough to say that it either is or isn’t following what you expect.”

“Some of the interannual wiggles are bigger in RSS, and since 1998 or something like that, we’re showing less [warming] than the surface datasets. I suspect that’s at least partly due to a problem in our dataset, probably having to do with the [time-of-day] correction. It could be an error in the surface datasets, but the evidence suggests that they’re more reliable than the satellite datasets,” Mears said.

So in other words they really don't know and need to analyse further and change their data sets and time of day correlation points and and and and and need I go on?

 

[orr]

With all the heat around the adjusting of weather information I thought the following analysis might explain the how and why of the situation more clearly. It offers clear, excellent detail of many examples of adjustments to data, why they were done and the impact it has on final results.


http://arstechnica.com/science/2016...ated-the-truth-about-global-temperature-data/

The delineation of the quoted politicians as (R-Tex) Republican Texas, would be equally descriptive as (T-Rex) dinosaurs.

And for the Fossil fool lobby;
Any legitimate evidence out there of cooling temperature? Early onset winters? Increased global glaciation? Migration toward the tropics of plant or animal species? Positive effects of increased oceanic acidification? A change in the decreasing trend of Arctic Ice cover? Permafrost areas increasing re-solidifying to trap its embedded methane?... There must be at least 2% of the scientific community that will concoct evidence to this end. Feel free to put it up. But before you do please make sure that you take off at least the red nose and the big shoes, clowns can have the effect of scaring the children.

 

[basilio]

Well TS I'm surprised you didn't see the graph highlighting how the raw data of weather around the world in fact indicates a higher level of warming.



Interesting isn't it ? For all the huffing and puffing and outrage at adjusted global temperatures it turns out the adjustments seem to reduce the amount of warming.

And as for the rest of the paper? You overlooked all the interesting ways that scientists had to account for the different ways water temperature were recorded - canvas buckets versus metal buckets, the use of water in engine room intakes which in itself was responsible for raising the indicated temperature by .6C.

You missed the differences in equipment, in the times that temperatures were taken, in the efforts to recognise the effects of creeping urban heat islands. These are all factors understood by scientists as affecting their apparent temperatures and requiring attention if they actually want the most accurate representation. In many cases the subsequent figures produced a cooling bias.

And the you remember the Berkley Earth team which was financed by the Koch brothers and decided to reconstruct all the temperatures again from their own calculations. Do you recall what the article said about that experience ?

NOAA, NASA, the UK Met Office, and the Japanese Meteorological Agency all produce surface temperature datasets using independent methods, but there is also some overlap in data sources or techniques. So motivated by skepticism of human-caused global warming, University of California, Berkeley physicist Richard Muller organized a well-publicized project to create his own dataset, built from the ground up. This “Berkeley Earth” team chose to handle homogenization a little differently.

Rather than make adjustments, they simply split records containing sudden jumps into multiple records. Records that gradually drifted away from neighbors were just given low weights in the final averaging. But despite a number of methodological differences and a larger database of stations, their results looked just like everybody else’s.

Did you appreciate the discussion on just how hard it was to accurately calibrate the figures arrived at by satellite measures of temperature? I won't try to paraphrase it . Let's just quote verbatum. I noticed you managed to just pick out one sentence.

As with the surface temperature datasets, there’s more to revealing the climate trend than just printing out the satellite measurements. There are two key corrections that have to be applied.

The first involves calibrating the instrument to keep the measurements from drifting over time. The satellite frequently takes a peek at deep space, getting a reading of the (well-known) Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation left over from the Big Bang””an almost absolutely frigid temperature of 2.7 kelvins. Then the instrument takes a microwave reading of a special block on the satellite itself that has a bunch of actual thermometers tracking its temperature, which varies as the satellite passes into and out of sunlight.

If the instrument had a simple linear sensitivity to temperature, you could just draw a straight line through those two known points and precisely work out the temperature of any other object. Unfortunately, there’s a slight curve to the sensitivity, and there are a number of slightly curved lines that can pass through two points. Use the wrong curved line, and the changing temperature of the calibration target on the satellite will influence your measurements. To figure out which curved line to use for each satellite, you have to carefully compare its measurements with those made by other satellites operating at the same time.

The second correction is the most important, and it has also caused significant confusion over the years. The satellites orbit the Earth from pole to pole, passing over each location at the same time of day each time. But many of the satellites don’t quite nail this rhythm and are progressively falling a little more behind schedule each day. Since temperature changes over the course of the day, your measurements for that location would slowly change over time even if every day were the same temperature. It’s as if you started checking the temperature at your house at 5:00pm each day but after a few years ended up checking at 7:00pm instead.

This problem is a terrifically tough nut to crack, and updates to techniques have routinely produced significantly different looking datasets””particularly for the UAH group. Its initial version actually showed a cooling trend through the mid-1990s. After a 1998 paper found that the gradual lowering of the satellites’ orbits was introducing a false cooling influence, UAH’s revisions accidentally broke its time-of-day correction, creating a new source of false cooling. That wasn’t figured out until Mears and a colleague published a 2005 paper. And just last year, another paper laid out evidence that insufficient corrections are still having a cooling influence on the data.

With that said, both satellite records do show slightly smaller warming trends for the troposphere than our surface records show, which is unexpected. “If you include the uncertainty analysis,” Mears explained, “I think that the data aren’t really good enough to say that it either is or isn’t following what you expect.”

So where did we end up ? It looks like all the global temperature records agree the increase in temperatures over the past 130/150 years. The upper atmosphere records have been repeatedly adjusted as scientists work with the inherent problems of exceptionally complex technology (unlike the simpler thermometers ) . In that context scientists have the placed the highest degree of uncertainty on these figures.

And yet... Because these UAH figures have indicated the least amount of global warming some people insist it is the source of all knowledge - that the 4,5,6 plus other world wide temperature records are faked, dodgy, unreliable, irrelevant.

Finally TS did you see the comment from Berkeley Earth's Zeke Hausfather? It's worth quoting in full because it goes to the heart of all the bluster by sceptics about dodgy figures.

"Back in 2010 or so, I put together some software that would download all the global temperature data, turn it into a global temperature estimate, and would let people play around with that," he continued. "A number of the skeptical folks created their own temperature reconstruction.

And low and behold, it turned out to pretty much be the same as [the Met Office Hadley Centre’s dataset]. In fact, actually slightly warmer than Hadley. I think when people who are acknowledged as skeptical of these things do the work themselves and see that, lo and behold, the results aren’t different, that ends up being a very powerful thing.”

And as Orr pointed out so eloquently you have to studiously ignore a million and one other facts on the ground to pretend that we are not seeing a major climatic change.

And the last two years have destroyed all climate records to date.

 

[wayneL]

Watching Neanderthal Apocalypse and the roll of climate change in their extinction.

Bastids should have stopped driving SUVs eh?

 

[explod]

Watching Neanderthal Apocalypse and the roll of climate change in their extinction.

Bastids should have stopped driving SUVs eh?

Watched it also and conclusion was a volcanic eruption.

Try the other foot.

 

[Logique]

So volcanos can be significantly affect climate! No matter how much the Neanderthals limited their carbon-based fuel consumption. Or imposed a firewood tax on themselves.

Meanwhile, if Basilio can reproduce un-attributed work, so can I.

Cyclical, post-ice age warming should not be conflated with the theory of AGW caused by man-made CO2. It is interesting that the alarmists "global warming", quickly morphed into "climate change".



Publisher: C3headlines@gmail.com ..On the above graph, from 1880 to current, check temp change in blue against CO2 levels in black (left and right axes).

Global Warming Science Facts: Climate Reality Intrudes, CO2 Has Little Impact On Long-Term Global Temperatures

Climate reality is confirmed by the actual global warming science facts - an analysis of HadCRUT global temperatures reveals that human CO2 has had little long-term impact

Prior to discussing the above chart, it is now irrefutable that modern global warming has disappeared over the last 15 years. This has been fully recognized by all climate alarmist scientists as they very publicly debate the reasons as to why their AGW models and predictions failed.

The plot above (Fig. A) represents the long-term temperature changes, with the monthly levels of atmospheric CO2 for context. Specifically, the temperature plot is the 30-year change in temperatures for each month since 1880. For example, the leftmost datapoint is the temperature change from January 1850 to January 1880 (360 months). For each month after January 1880, the 30-year change is plotted.

As the 30-year change plot indicates, there have been extended periods of both warming and cooling, regardless of the CO2 (ppm) levels. There are two distinct warming periods: the first starting March 1908 and ending December 1939; the second starting January 1974 and ending February 1998. Note the flattening and then downturn of 30-year temperature change after 1998, some 15 years ago.

The red curve represents the 5-year average of the long-term changes, leaving no doubt that the prior warming increase was just as "unprecedented" as the claimed modern warming after the mid-1970's.

What's the true climate reality? As is clearly depicted, the 5-year average shows no impact from the continuous, monotonous rise of CO2 levels after 1950. And modern global warming is not accelerating, nor unequivocal - in fact, the modern warming is pretty much like past warming periods.

In more detail (click to enlarge) the two similar warming periods are plotted in the above two charts. Figure B on the left is for the period stretching a total of 382 months, with a long-term temperature linear trend of 2.4 °C per century. Over this extended time period, CO2 levels only increased by 12 ppm from a very low point, reflecting relatively small human CO2 emissions prior to the modern consumer/industrial society.

Figure C represents the modern "unprecedented" and "catastrophic" long-term global warming as claimed by the climate alarmists. In reality, this modern warming lasted only 290 months and produced a global warming trend some 0.6 degrees less than the earlier period before collapsing after 1998. This "dangerous" warming occurred during a period of much higher atmospheric CO2 levels that quickly increased by 36 ppm (3 times more growth than early 20th century warming period).

Conclusions: The global warming science facts are unequivocal that long-term temperature change is not being significantly driven by higher human CO2 emissions, but ore likely a result of natural internal/external factors (ENSO, cosmic/solar, etc.). Climate reality is that the earlier 20th century warming (1908-1939) was more intense, producing a higher linear trend for long-term temperature change, and lasting considerably longer than the modern warming period (1974-1998). The stronger warming during the earlier 20th century took place despite CO2 levels being significantly below the alarmist's supposed "safe" CO2 levels of 350 ppm; and, the CO2 level increases during that period were one-third those of the modern warming.

 

[trainspotter]

Well TS I'm surprised you didn't see the graph highlighting how the raw data of weather around the world in fact indicates a higher level of warming.

Interesting isn't it ? For all the huffing and puffing and outrage at adjusted global temperatures it turns out the adjustments seem to reduce the amount of warming.

You must have missed it when I posted this tidbit ...

Surely it would serve them better to evidence raw data therefore creating more hysteria for the media and the masses to chow down on ?

Or this smattering of letters ...

So we cannot use the raw data it must be analysed first and anomalies assumed to create a trend pattern rather than declaring the actual temperature or are my eyes painted on and my brain has shrunk to a size of a pea and just as mushy?

Did you not read that as me asking the question as to WHY it would not be better for them (read scientists) to use the raw data evidencing the actual temperatures? HUH ?? Well did you or are you too blinded by the HYSTERIA around the business of climate change?

But this little gem did not get past me .. No Sir !!

This problem is a terrifically tough nut to crack, and updates to techniques have routinely produced significantly different looking datasets—particularly for the UAH group. Its initial version actually showed a cooling trend through the mid-1990s. After a 1998 paper found that the gradual lowering of the satellites’ orbits was introducing a false cooling influence, UAH’s revisions accidentally broke its time-of-day correction, creating a new source of false cooling. That wasn’t figured out until Mears and a colleague published a 2005 paper. And just last year, another paper laid out evidence that insufficient corrections are still having a cooling influence on the data.

So maybe you can see the scepticism ... "We will keep changing the model and updating techniques until it suits our mandate" is what I am reading.

After a 1998 paper found that the gradual lowering of the satellites’ orbits was introducing a false cooling influence,

If the Earth is getting hotter and the satellites are getting closer SURELY the temperature would go UP and not DOWN ?? Pretty simple I would of thought or does it get hotter the further out to space you go and cooler the closer to Earth you get? Just simple logic really.

And as for the rest of the paper? You overlooked all the interesting ways that scientists had to account for the different ways water temperature were recorded - canvas buckets versus metal buckets, the use of water in engine room intakes which in itself was responsible for raising the indicated temperature by .6C.

They also took water temps at midnight so to give the battleship they were steaming around in the Pacific in a chance to cool down. Does that not tell you something basilio? FALSE DATA that the scientists are trying to correct to fit the model or wheelbarrow they are pushing.

In 1880 (when records started apparently) they also used MERCURY thermometers which give higher or lower readings then the digital and tympanic thermometers we have available today that are currently being used in conjunction with satellite readings.

ALSO different brands of mercury thermometers also gave out different readings. SO basilio are you suggesting that the scientists have found out what BRAND of thermometer was used on the ships during the collection of data so they can effectively place this "data" in the model? REALLY?

ALSO different size ships and the material they were made from also caused variances in temperature readings. Did the scientists enter all this data in the model? How did they know to adjust the temperature by 0.6 degrees on the water intake for the engines in ALL of these ships? Surely the placement of the intake and the depth it drew the water from would have a significant effect on the readings? You know the deeper you go in the ocean the cooler it gets! Or it must be like space where it gets hotter the further you go out apparently

During World War II, a huge change-over took place as naval vessels swarmed the seas. Water temperature measurements were now made by thermometers in the engine cooling water intake pipe. That intake obviously led to a hot engine, raising the measured temperatures a bit. What’s more, ships of different sizes drew water from slightly different depths beneath the surface.

Also the different type of engine and how far the water intake is to the engine would also have an effect on the reading. Kero burning engines run cooler then diesel turbine engines and are you saying the scientists deduced that information to one figure of 0.6 degrees?? Also the The USS Missouri was built with four steam turbines and eight Babcock and Wilcox boilers on board, which means it was a steam turbine driven ship. I wonder what reading it gave cruising at 12 knots compared to WOT at 35 knots? Was this information of speed verses depth verses material verses time of day inputted into the model of EVERY ship or did they just take an ANOMALY like NOAA?

Anomalies more accurately describe climate variability over larger areas than absolute temperatures do, and they give a frame of reference that allows more meaningful comparisons between locations and more accurate calculations of temperature trends.

Hmmmmm ... YEAH my bad ... you are right basilio .. silly me for thinking I should question the "data".

 

[Ijustnewit]

So volcanos can be significantly affect climate! No matter how much the Neanderthals limited their carbon-based fuel consumption. Or imposed a firewood tax on themselves.

Meanwhile, if Basilio can reproduce un-attributed work, so can I.

Cyclical, post-ice age warming should not be conflated with the theory of AGW caused by man-made CO2. It is interesting that the alarmists "global warming", quickly morphed into "climate change".

View attachment 65634

Publisher: C3headlines@gmail.com ..On the above graph, from 1880 to current, check temp change in blue against CO2 levels in black (left and right axes).

Global Warming Science Facts: Climate Reality Intrudes, CO2 Has Little Impact On Long-Term Global Temperatures

At last a common sense approach to what is actually happening to our climate . It stands to reason that the climate does indeed have cycles , some warm , some cold. As we have seen we are currently in the grip of a 3 year grip of El Nino like conditions here in Southern Australia . So it would make sense that we have also seen 3 years of well above average temperatures. But when jobs, research grants and gathering taxes are at risk it is important to keep pushing the wagon to keep the C02 myth alive.

 

[Logique]

Thank you Ijustnewit,

but the the alarmists will be back. This is how they work.

 

[orr]

...silly me for thinking I should question the "data".

Unless you're able to give some sort of reference with regard your capacity to question the "data"; One might ask, legitimately, what if anything your assessment of that "data" would be worth. Your critique of those that do have a recognised ability in that regard may have some weight.... Care to give us all here a percentage of the global scientific community that that might entail? And then, if you care to name them and cite their published work in support of their theories ... People here will be able to make a better case for recognising you as silly or something else.

 

[trainspotter]

Unless you're able to give some sort of reference with regard your capacity to question the "data"; One might ask, legitimately, what if anything your assessment of that "data" would be worth. Your critique of those that do have a recognised ability in that regard may have some weight.... Care to give us all here a percentage of the global scientific community that that might entail? And then, if you care to name them and cite their published work in support of their theories ... People here will be able to make a better case for recognising you as silly or something else.

Glad you wrote theories and not factual, proven, unequivocal scientific thesis.

OK I will bite ... All the info I cited was taken from this website http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/...perature-data/ if you care to read it in full. You know the one basilio posted and you requoted for him. My capacity to question the "data" is based on logic.

The website below said

After a 1998 paper found that the gradual lowering of the satellites’ orbits was introducing a false cooling influence, UAH’s revisions accidentally broke its time-of-day correction, creating a new source of false cooling.

Logically you can deduce that the Earth is hotter than space so ERGO you must get hotter readings the closer to the Earth you get ipso facto the further out to space you travel the colder it will get (unless you are travelling towards the sun) LOGIC ! I understand the time of day correction facility in the model so PULEEEZE do not refer back to that chestnut.

I am sure I do not have to provide a link for that one eh?

Then for good measure the website throws up this bit of rough ...

During World War II, a huge change-over took place as naval vessels swarmed the seas. Water temperature measurements were now made by thermometers in the engine cooling water intake pipe. That intake obviously led to a hot engine, raising the measured temperatures a bit. What’s more, ships of different sizes drew water from slightly different depths beneath the surface.

It gets colder the deeper you go ?? Noooooooooo it cannot be true. Logic says so.

Cold water has a higher density than warm water. Water gets colder with depth because cold, salty ocean water sinks to the bottom of the ocean basins below the less dense warmer water near the surface. The sinking and transport of cold, salty water at depth combined with the wind-driven flow of warm water at the surface creates a complex pattern of ocean circulation called the 'global conveyor belt.'

http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/coldocean.html

Mercury thermometers and their false readings ... AHEM ... accuracy ...

We should also consider the accuracy of the typical mercury and alcohol thermometers that have been in use for the last 120 years. Glass thermometers are calibrated by immersing them in ice/water at 0c and a steam bath at 100c. The scale is then divided equally into 100 divisions between zero and 100. However, a glass thermometer at 100c is longer than a thermometer at 0c. This means that the scale on the thermometer gives a false high reading at low temperatures (between 0 and 25c) and a false low reading at high temperatures (between 70 and 100c) This process is also followed with weather thermometers with a range of -20 to +50c

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/22/the-metrology-of-thermometers/

My reference for ability to question the "data" is summed up best below ...



and finally ..

In general, bucket temperatures have been
found to average a few tenths of a ◦C cooler than simultaneous
engine intake temperatures. Field and lab experiments
demonstrate that cooling of bucket samples prior to
measurement provides a plausible explanation for negative
average bucket-intake differences. These can also be credibly
attributed to systematic errors in intake temperatures,
which have been found to average overly-warm by >0.5 ◦C
on some vessels. However, the precise origin of non-zero average
bucket-intake differences reported in field studies is often
unclear, given that additional temperatures to those from
the buckets and intakes have rarely been obtained. Supplementary
accurate in situ temperatures are required to reveal
individual errors in bucket and intake temperatures, and the
role of near-surface temperature gradients. There is a need
for further field experiments of the type reported in Part 2 to
address this and other limitations of previous studies.

http://www.ocean-sci.net/9/683/2013/os-9-683-2013.pdf

Brooks conducted an additional shipboard comparison
aboard the ocean liner SS Finland on a cruise between
San Francisco and New York in May 1928 (B28). Temperatures
from the main engine intake were found to average
0.8 ◦C warmer than those obtained by fast measurement
with a rubber-covered tin bucket of small volume
(1.7 L). Those from the refigerator intake in the refigerator
room averaged 0.2 ◦C warmer. Respectively, the engine intake
and refigerator intake readings were found to average 0.7
and 0.3 ◦C warmer than those from a specially-fitted intake
thermograph. While details of the engine intake thermometer
were not reported, the refigeration intake thermometer
was graduated in intervals of 2◦ F (∼ 1.1 ◦C). Temperature
change of the tin bucket sample pre-measurement was assumed
small, although cooling of 0.1 ◦C was noted in one
minute following collection under a wind speed of 9 m s−1
and SST-wet bulb temperature contrast of 6 ◦C.

Yep .. colour me silly alright.

 

[trainspotter]

Must be global warming / climate change ...

The storm ”” dubbed Winter Storm Jonas and "Snowzilla" ”” walloped a dozen states from Friday into early Sunday, affecting an estimated 85 million residents who were told to stay indoors and off the roads for their own safety.

The 68 centimetres of snow that fell in New York's Central Park was the second-highest accumulation since records began in 1869, and more than 56 centimetres paralysed the capital Washington.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-01-26/us-blizzard-billion-dollar-losses-washington-struggles/7114210

No wait .. the record was set in 1922 ...

The greatest snowfall for a single-day in Baltimore was 23.3 inches on Jan. 28, 1922.
Snowfall records date back to 1884 at Washington, D.C., and 1892 at Baltimore.
Record-breaking or not, the weekend blizzard will prove to be very disruptive over a broad area of the mid-Atlantic and perhaps part of southern New England as well.

http://www.accuweather.com/en/weath...lizzard-eclipse-historic-snow-storms/54910562