This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

Resisting Climate Hysteria

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.
 
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.


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

It's all data folks.
 

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
 
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:

 
Global warming? What global warming?


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 ...


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 ...


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


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 ..



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?
 

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.
 
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 ?




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.


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.


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

Bastids should have stopped driving SUVs eh?
 
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.
 
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.
 

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 !!


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.


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


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".
 

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.
 
Thank you Ijustnewit,

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

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 ...


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


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

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


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 ..


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


Yep .. colour me silly alright.
 
Must be global warming / climate change ...


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 ...


http://www.accuweather.com/en/weath...lizzard-eclipse-historic-snow-storms/54910562
 
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...