This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
"Hottest Year On Record?" Think Again! Meet 'Seasonally-Adjusted' Seasons
Day after day in modern macro-economics, investors are bombarded with 'odd' seasonal adjustments that spuriously lift (in the case of growth-related variables) or reduce (in the case of inflation-related variables) data to ensure a constant flow of "we must keep offering free/cheap money" narrative-confirming news.
However, as The Telegraph reports, it appears this "seasonal adjustment" smoke-screen has reached the just as bifurcated opinioned world of global warming trends and Climate-Gate...
Although it has been emerging for seven years or more, one of the most extraordinary scandals of our time has never hit the headlines. Yet another little example of it lately caught my eye when, in the wake of those excited claims that 2014 was “the hottest year on record”, I saw the headline on a climate blog: “Massive tampering with temperatures in South America”. The evidence on Notalotofpeopleknowthat, uncovered by Paul Homewood, was indeed striking.
Puzzled by those “2014 hottest ever” claims, which were led by the most quoted of all the five official global temperature records – Nasa’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (Giss) – Homewood examined a place in the world where Giss was showing temperatures to have risen faster than almost anywhere else: a large chunk of South America stretching from Brazil to Paraguay.
Noting that weather stations there were thin on the ground, he decided to focus on three rural stations covering a huge area of Paraguay. Giss showed it as having recorded, between 1950 and 2014, a particularly steep temperature rise of more than 1.5C: twice the accepted global increase for the whole of the 20th century.
But when Homewood was then able to check Giss’s figures against the original data from which they were derived, he found that they had been altered. Far from the new graph showing any rise, it showed temperatures in fact having declined over those 65 years by a full degree. When he did the same for the other two stations, he found the same. In each case, the original data showed not a rise but a decline.
Homewood had in fact uncovered yet another example of the thousands of pieces of evidence coming to light in recent years that show that something very odd has been going on with the temperature data relied on by the world's scientists. And in particular by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which has driven the greatest and most costly scare in history: the belief that the world is in the grip of an unprecedented warming.
How have we come to be told that global temperatures have suddenly taken a great leap upwards to their highest level in 1,000 years? In fact, it has been no greater than their upward leaps between 1860 and 1880, and 1910 and 1940, as part of that gradual natural warming since the world emerged from its centuries-long “Little Ice Age” around 200 years ago.
This belief has rested entirely on five official data records. Three of these are based on measurements taken on the Earth’s surface, versions of which are then compiled by Giss, by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and by the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit working with the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction, part of the UK Met Office. The other two records are derived from measurements made by satellites, and then compiled by Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) in California and the University of Alabama, Huntsville (UAH).
To fill in the huge gaps, those compiling the records have resorted to computerised “infilling” or “homogenising”, whereby the higher temperatures recorded by the remaining stations are projected out to vast surrounding areas (Giss allows single stations to give a reading covering 1.6 million square miles). This alone contributed to the sharp temperature rise shown in the years after 1990.
But still more worrying has been the evidence that even this data has then been subjected to continual “adjustments”, invariably in only one direction. Earlier temperatures are adjusted downwards, more recent temperatures upwards, thus giving the impression that they have risen much more sharply than was shown by the original data.
In reality, the implications of such distortions of the data go much further than just representing one of the most bizarre aberrations in the history of science. The fact that our politicians have fallen for all this scary chicanery has given Britain the most suicidally crazy energy policy (useless windmills and all) of any country in the world.
* * *
Seaonally-adjusted seasons? Sure, why not!
- 25487 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -



Biggest scientific scam ever!
Nothing but lies agreed upon.
And from this nonsense we get solar panels in Germany.
And buckling windmills in Ireland.
WWWWHHHHHHHHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAHHH!!
BUT IT'S GLOBAL WARMING!!!
WWWHHHAAAHHHH!! WHHHHHHHHAAAHHH!!
AND YOU'RE ALL CAUSING IT BREATHING TOO MUCH!!
#Stopbreathing ?
#BRINGBACKOURSANITY
The nexus of the battle is liberals vs liberal. (sorry for want of better terms to classify those groups of people.)/s
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=97849
If this article doesn't get Flakmeister back into the fray nothing will.
That bitch hsa been awfully silent lately.....
First look at this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qRFz8merXEA
All NOAA adjustments add 3% to the warming trend.
The conspiracy BS is grasping at straws by idiots who want to be wooed by charlatans.
some smarmy fuck telling us that that fudging the data was neccessary to correct it justifying all data fudging because " We're from the government and know better than you"
I believe ice melts from natural causes. Its idiots who think that glaciers are a static feature on the earths surace.
greatest show on earth, man made, is watching men fight water with wind.
why freak out the people? they dont need another reason to panic. yes, of course we nuked under the arctic, so what if a lot of fresh water did its thing? well, ok, it is a big deal, but.......again, why freak people out.
Data matters not as much as the methods behind its collection
Stupid people writing completely inaccurate articles to be consumed and cheered by even stupider people. Cheers to the mentally incompetent everywhere, the bullshit-peddling-industry job sustainers!
Reminds me of the anti-vaccine morons, can't point out basic facts to them because they're braindead + ignorant as fuck. And what's that lead to, a fucking measles outbreak!
I'm not sure what side of this argument you are on.
Mr. Cole feels the heat.
Thinking there is an 'argument' at this level is your first error. Just like with the anti-vaccine idiots there isn't an 'argument,' there is bullshit-peddling vs. facts and theory. If you can't tell which is which you need to revisit your science textbooks + read some of the real data out there.
I'm guessing you have trouble sussing out the difference between theory and fact
Hey! Theres a 38% chance he could be right!
Its practically, theoretically, kinda-sorta, almost, factual ;-)
So you believe this reporter when he tells you one graph is "raw" data and the other graph is "seasonally-adjusted" data (hint: it's not)? You should look into it a little more before you conclude what you believe to be true.
Nope. It's 2015, pull the reports the data and the Hadley data dump yourself and look inside.
No need to be told by the NY Times that the emails were sensationalised, the emails do that all themselves.
The scientists simply decided a Pascalian Wager - that the risks were too great to let normal people decide any other way than WE ARE ALL GONNA DIE, so they goal seeked the data and slurred and shamed critics.
Unfortunately they placed all science under skepticism and advocacy when they did this.
Scientific consensus is not Scientific fact.
Polar caps on other solar system bodies are shrinking. Must be all of those new cars in China and India...
You care to back the "my data is better than yours" with some actual data, and proof of chain of custody of your data?
Thanks in advance.
Mother Fucking Nature.
So a computer - using a program written by a human, that infills and homogenizes the raw data - is more factual than the original data itself?
Yes, especially if there is data from broken thermometers in there; an example of raw data being really wrong.
Definition of a broken thermometer: one that doesn't show a warming trend.
Sounds worse than a broken clock. We're doomed, I tell you!
"Thinking there is an 'argument' at this level is your first error."
The 52% ‘consensus’
http://judithcurry.com/2013/11/10/the-52-consensus/
About the author: Dr. Judith Curry, Professor and former Chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology and President (co-owner) of Climate Forecast Applications Network (CFAN). I received a Ph.D. in Geophysical Sciences from the University of Chicago in 1982. Prior to joining the faculty at Georgia Tech, I held faculty positions at the University of Colorado, Penn State University and Purdue University. I currently serve on the DOE Biological and Environmental Science Advisory Committee, and have recently served on the NASA Advisory Council Earth Science Subcommittee, National Academies Climate Research Committee and the Space Studies Board, and the NOAA Climate Working Group. I am a Fellow of the American Meteorological Society, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the American Geophysical Union."
------------
Verification, Validation, and Confirmation of Numerical Models in the Earth Sciences
Naomi Oreskes,* Kristin Shrader-Frechette, Kenneth Belitz
SCIENCE * VOL. 263 * 4 FEBRUARY 1994
Abstract: Verification and validation of numerical models of natural systems is impossible. This is because natural systems are never closed and because model results are always non-unique. Models can be confirmed by the demonstration of agreement between observation and prediction, but confirmation is inherently partial. Complete confirmation is logically precluded by the fallacy of affirming the consequent and by incomplete access to natural phenomena. Models can only be evaluated in relative terms, and their predictive value is always open to question. The primary value of models is heuristic.
http://courses.washington.edu/ess408/OreskesetalModels.pdf
------------
Part of a speech delivered by David Victor of the University of California, San Diego, at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography as part of the Special Seminar Series, Winter Quarter, 2014:
"First, we in the scientific community need to acknowledge that the science is softer than we like to portray. The science is not “in” on climate change because we are dealing with a complex system whose full properties are, with current methods, unknowable. The science is “in” on the first steps in the analysis—historical emissions, concentrations, and brute force radiative balance—but not for the steps that actually matter for policy. Those include impacts, ease of adaptation, mitigation of emissions and such—are surrounded by error and uncertainty. I can understand why a politician says the science is settled—as Barack Obama did…in the State of the Union Address, where he said the “debate is over”—because if your mission is to create a political momentum then it helps to brand the other side as a “Flat Earth Society” (as he did last June). But in the scientific community we can’t pretend that things are more certain than they are."
Re: Oreskes et al.
+inf The intractable math problems are well known to mathematicians, and I'd bet especially well by Mikie Mann's own programmers. The impossible math required to support worldwide political action on the basis of the coming ice age, global warming, and now climate change is damning and more than sufficient to call the "argument", in its entirety, a scam. I suppose there are no pop mathematicians out there who wish to go against the grain and speak the truth. Anybody wish to become a pop mathematician?
Maybe James is drunk - or perhaps a mercury-addled brain??
50 mcg per...sounds like dem der v'cscenes is havin the intended effect!
Plus after my quick read it seems like they left out ocean temps. Land + Ocean temps is the hottest for 2014. A lot of heat goes into the ocean, until it doesn't.
Using raw data is simply wrong. For example, I know my car thermometer is more accurate when the car is moving then when it's sitting still with the engine on.
Lots of factors involved, and it's funny how non-experts think they know more than those that dedicate their lives to studying this stuff.
An yep, the results being similar to why we are having a measles outbreak in America right now.
O gawd the time I've wasted trying to reason with the anti-vaccine people..
Here's another thing, according to NOAA, if they didn't adjust raw data, especially older data, warming would even appear more severe:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/faq/temperature-monitoring.php
Here's another thing, according to NOAA, if they didn't adjust raw data, especially older data, warming would even appear more severe
The thing is in any research all data needs to be adjusted to be more accurate, yet when it's convenient (i.e. issues industry is at odds with) the adjustments are always made out to be nefarious.
I looked up the author of the telegraph article and it's exactly what you'd expect, guy denies link between smoking / cancer, dangers of asbestos and is anti-evolution.. a real science heavyweight.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Booker
And who was the author of the Wiki article?
And Wiki, FFS?
You got it bad son.
p
"The thing is in any research all data needs to be adjusted to be more accurate, yet when it's convenient (i.e. issues industry is at odds with) the adjustments are always made out to be nefarious."
I know right?
When people ask me what time it is, I subtract 45mins to make the data more accurate.
Idiots get mad when they find out a i lied to them because they are too stupid to realise the real time would be misleading...
Let's say you wanted to discover the temp trend at your house over a ten year period. If you had a thermometer in your basement for the first five years and then moved the thermometer to your deck for the later five, would it make a lot of sense to look at the raw data without adjustment and consider that an accurate moving average?
Keep drinking your Fluoridated water James, healthy humans have one of the most extaordinary immune systems on the planet, and did just fine for the last 100,000 years without "vaccines". Just look around at all the brain dead zombies which have been pumped full of vaccines.
If you have a pair swinging between your thighs, watch this...peace.
"What is a Human Being"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ld1azzZrfGQ
I sense there might be a tiny bit survivorship bias in play here...
No, James, you have two different temperature data sets and you dont 'adjust' jack shit.
If you want to average the dat or whatever that is up to yhou as l ong as you give it as averaged data.
If you 'adjust' the data without telling the public you present it to, then report that as 'record setting' new data, then you are engaging in fraud.
I looked up the author of the telegraph article and it's exactly what you'd expect, guy denies link between smoking / cancer, dangers of asbestos and is anti-evolution.. a real science heavyweight.
The link between passive smoking and cancer, you fucking lightweight.
Lol but i can't tell if you're joking or serious.
It is somewhat more than 150 years ago that Macaulay told parliament: "Whenever there is a commercial interest at issue, the law of gravity is liable to be called into dispute" And that is why you are wasting your time addressing these people, since they have their heads jammed in the cash register, that is when they haven't got their heads jammed up their arses. There ARE some incredibly bright people posting on here from time to time, but most have absolutely no grasp of science, not least because it doesn't fit with their conditioned preconceptions, largely as a result of preconditioning by their media over the span of their lives to date. You can't beat the invincible combination of Fox News, CNN and purveyors of intellectual garbage such as Rush Limbaugh. In short, they're all of a piece with Canute.
Same as all those ignorants who question the nature of coin, credit and circulation.
Don't they know banksters do this for aliving and therefore know better???
Sheesh...
Guys, if this stuff hadn't been so completely coopted by politics, maybe more of us would be inclined to give it more consideration. In the 70s I was taught as a kid that the next Ice Age was coming. Now we're apparently going the other way. Warmest on record but the ice caps are at record levels.
AT BEST the models are utterly inadequate to explain the complexity of what's happening (at worst they're outright lies or scietific bogey man-chasing). The Earth has been both much hotter and much colder than it is now, but somehow it did't slide off the table one way or the other.
But let's say it's absolutely correct. Exactly like they say. THEN WHAT? Put it in the hands of governments to "fix" it? You want to talk about unitended consequences, the costs of "fixing" it will be multiples of pain worse than the warming itself could ever inflict.
I'd rather take my chances with Mother Nature than with people telling me what needs to change to stop it.
(No argument on the vaccine thing, though. They're morons.)
the ice caps are at record levels.
What else do we really need to know?
Global warming is a replacement religion.
Guys, if this stuff hadn't been so completely coopted by politics
I get why that makes a difference, but it shouldn't.
In the 70s I was taught as a kid that the next Ice Age was coming. Now we're apparently going the other way. Warmest on record but the ice caps are at record levels.
If you look it up you'll see why all of these can be true simultaneously. The main takeaway from current thinking on AGW imo would be rate of change, not 'change.'
But let's say it's absolutely correct. Exactly like they say. THEN WHAT? Put it in the hands of governments to "fix" it?
The research isn't necessarily prescriptive, it's there so we can better understand the issue. What can be done / should be done is complex. Can governments 'fix it'? Not these governments / people!
I'd rather take my chances with Mother Nature than with people telling me what needs to change to stop it.
If your local weather station told you they were confident a flood was approaching your area at a certain time, would be nice to know right? You could still 'take your chances' but you could also think about ways to mitigate damage.
There are lots of very real associated issues to AGW (pollution?) which can be knocked out with approaches to both as well.
Check out the flue gas recovery on the new clean coal generation that China is putting in. Sure , it's old technology; we all did the junior science experiment of blowing through a straw into a tube of lime-water to produce a precipitate of CaCO3.
China is producing useful amounts of fertiliser from its coal generation: makes economic sense.
No argument about pollution, but you seem to be aware that the science of AGW is at a very speculative stage. No chance of falsifying a null hypothesis in our present state of climate ignorance.
No argument about pollution, but you seem to be aware that the science of AGW is at a very speculative stage
There are a lot of unknowns in AGW, but there's also a lot that is well established. Ex. Arrhenius calculated greenhouse gas effect in 1896. I know you don't like wiki, but:
Arrhenius developed a theory to explain the ice ages, and in 1896 he was the first scientist to attempt to calculate how changes in the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere could alter the surface temperature through the greenhouse effect.
He later wrote Världarnas utveckling (1906) (German: Das Werden der Welten [1907], English: Worlds in the Making [1908]) directed at a general audience, where he suggested that the human emission of CO2 would be strong enough to prevent the world from entering a new ice age, and that a warmer earth would be needed to feed the rapidly increasing population
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius
No problem with any of that, but it doesn't advance the AGW discussion ,unless you have a Unified General Theory of Climate Regulation which says that when you up the atm. CO2 then the temp. goes up.
No such theory exists at this time.
No such theory exists at this time.
Many do, here's an example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan%E2%80%93Boltzmann_law
However, long-wave radiation from the surface of the earth is partially absorbed and re-radiated back down by greenhouse gases, namely water vapor, carbon dioxide andmethane.[6][7] Since the emissivity with greenhouse effect (weighted more in the longer wavelengths where the Earth radiates) is reduced more than the absorptivity (weighted more in the shorter wavelengths of the Sun's radiation) is reduced, the equilibrium temperature is higher than the simple black-body calculation estimates.
Explained in detail:
https://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2010/04/19/radiative-physics-yes-co2-d...
https://noconsensus.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/image0011.gif
"Guys, if this stuff hadn't been so completely coopted by politics, maybe more of us would be inclined to give it more consideration."
Absolutely!
Now... this was actually my specialty for about 5 years. I was one of those "evil climate scientists". Now no longer. But I spent a chunk of time deeply immersed in this debate.
For all that, however, I agree with you above; the co-opting of the debate by politicians has been obscene, and Al Gore is the most shameless of them all.
BUT...
Here's the thing. I got into the climate area after spending a few years in the Cascade mountains in Washington. I know those glaciers. And I hiked and climbed with people who had been in the mountains for 40+ years. Those glaciers have receded dramatically in the past century. Go look at the historical photos. Why? Same thing in Peru, where I have also spent some time, and where I have a good friend still doing on the ground research. The ice is disappearing. New Zealand, similar story. Then examine Greenland. Look at Kilimanjaro in Africa. Again and again, there are glaciers going away fast. I am fine with arguing that our temperature records are pathetic. But my experience of the areas above (most of them I have direct experience in, and a couple through photographic comparisons from historical to present-day at the same sites) shows me that ice is going away. Yes, the climate is very complex, yes there are many reasons for ice to come and go, but that much ice disappearing over such a broad cross-section of the globe is at the very least suggestive that there is a temperature component involved.
In other words, ignoring our "recorded temperatures" entirely, there is intuitive in-your-face evidence that ice is melting in a lot of places. Why? Simplest explanation would be that the planet is warming.
Now as to the causes of that warming, there I am much more open to questioning the official line. The "added CO2 is the cause for warming" argument does not work for me. Added greenhouse gases should contribute to warming, in theory. Fine. There's pretty good reason to think that. But there is a lot more going on than that, and simplifying it to such a simple storyline is good only for politicians and the get-rich-quick investors who have found a government-sanctioned honeypot in which to "invest" (I use that word very loosely!) their money and get rich for nothing more than their connections.
The climate of the planet is a very complex topic, obviously, and we all need to be careful not to oversimplify in either direction. It's not as simple as Gore makes it, but it's also not as simple as "there's nothing to see here, move on". There is shit going on here. It's just that - as you stated at the beginning - it has been so muddied now by the political meddling that the real story is very hard to see.
I leave again with the simple question: why are the glaciers receding?
recession?
Because it has been getting warmer on average since the end of the Little Ice Age?
You mean your research says there are no heavy metals in vaccines? Not even mercury? Interesting!
There is mercury in the air you're breathing right this very second. How do you feel about that?
If there were 50mcg per dose I'd fuckin' move! Dose matters in physiology, as does the ability to excrete certain minerals
Many of the Disneyland measles victims WERE vaccinated, dumbass! But hey, be first in line to get your ebola vaccine that they've had all of six or so months to "perfect".
Many of the Disneyland measles victims WERE vaccinated, dumbass!
Have you read nothing on this or what?
Oh sure, we've read the propaganda trying to make us ignore common sense, and we've measured it and found it wanting...just likr all your comments. Take your ad hominem elsewhere, we're jot buying it.
Maybe those people feel the same about you.
When I was a kid, I got the mumps. Every male friend of mine was encouraged to come visit me so they'd get it before it would be a threat to the family jewels. Seemed to work quite well.
Vaccines, like so many things in the present world sound like a good idea, but in many cases don't really help.
Some kids will die from diseases, some from vaccines.
When I was sharing the mumps, I didn't add in any animal proteins, mercury or aluminum.
This year, even CDC is saying the Flu vaccine is useless, but someone's still selling it.
Don't reason, be happy. It's not your task to convenience everyone of your viewpoint. Go some where you're happier. Unless, you're a politician.
You eating alphabet soup and writing it down?
ss123
"Using raw data is simply wrong. For example, I know my car thermometer is more accurate when the car is moving then when it's sitting still with the engine on."
What kind of logic is that. Your engine temperature when sitting is one temperature and when the car is moving it may or may not be another temperature. One reading is not more accurate than another.
Is that you Al Gore? Need another $9 million dollar home in tony Montecito?
First look at this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qRFz8merXEA
All NOAA adjustments add 3% to the warming trend.
The conspiracy BS is grasping at straws by idiots who want to be wooed by charlatans.
Hey there Mr. Namecaller, that so-called measles outbreak has been traced back to one vaccinated person!
http://news.sciencemag.org/health/2014/04/measles-outbreak-traced-fully-...
Mr. Cole, you may also be surprised to learn the real unemployment rate isn't 5.6%.
Correlation vs. Causation. Moar empirical data pleze?!?
Will you be making a point anytime soon? Please get to it FFS. Life is too short for your doomporn.
Solar panels and windmills. We are like Charlie Brown here in the USA, all we get are Al Gore's carbon credits. :)
2nd biggest, after macro-evolution. Global warming gives government moral permission to regulate human activity without regard to local self-determination, macro-evolution gives government moral permission to re-shape man himself as the ruling class sees fit, without regard to any "archaic" conceptions that man is a created being, endowed by his Creator with unalieanable rights. http://www.amazon.com/Localism-Philosophy-Government-Mark-Moore/dp/0692257101/ref=tmm_pap_title_0
There's no such thing as macro-evolution. Just evolution.
Line up fossils from deep strata layers to shallow one and a linear progression of features appear.
Human remains & tools have been regularly found in ground strata dated back millions of years. Countless findings of remains of giants have been described by The NY Times about 100 years ago.
Linear/series progression of evolution is false. Or, fittingly for this thread, only true when the data is manipulated by state grant funded "scientists". You're going to need a new pseudo-science religion.
Generally I wonder about the ability of archeologist to date evidence based upon geologic stratum, which is subject to several forces of nature (volcanoes, floods, quakes, etc.)
Just how old is Pottbelly Hill in Turkey?
I have it on impeccable sources that the human species is now not a player in natural evolution. Our knowledge and technology have allowed us to transcend the game of chance and survival. Of course we still must tweek our emotional behavior a bit.
I would like to amend this statement. Evidence has arisen of micro-devolution. We like to call it Washington D.C., Sacramento...feel free to add your state Capitol as needed.
And yet the the useful idiots programmed by the government controlled Institutions of Higher Learning will piously stick to their flat earth dogma and defend it AND demand that the heretics be pummeled into submission.
The vested interests behind the telegraph would print this story no matter the inaccuracies.
We only need to look at the fall in ice cover in the arctic and the East Siberian Arctic Shelf mehan hydrate releases to appreciate that Climate Change is real and a larger threat to us than a financial collapse could ever be.
"We only need to look at the fall in ice cover in the arctic and the East Siberian Arctic Shelf mehan hydrate releases to appreciate that Climate Change is real and a larger threat to us than a financial collapse could ever be."
I love how the Global warming cultist begin their line of bullshit with "we need only" and when that line of horse shit is proven flawed they find another "we need only" line of shit.
and by the way, you have personally observed this how?
These fuckers won't be happy till we have another Ice Age apparently, did wonders for the Vikings! There was a much warmer period during the so-called "Dark Ages", which BTW should be called "The Enlightened Ages"...so warm in fact that great Vineyards thrived in Briton...yes BRITON. Briton produced the finest Wines back in the day, therefore, France declared War on Briton.
Neo , we did not even KNOW about undersea methane hydrates ntil aout fifteen years ago . How the heck can they possibly understand this extremely complex system ? offgassing may be a totally natural occurance for all we know. P.S. I do understand the implied danger of all the methane hydrates vaporizing all at once....that could be a problem....just sayin..
This scam has been ongoing since the early 90's. Here's how some inaccuracies originated. The "climate scientists" think up these grand models, but when the C++ code gets banged out that actually processes the model it is written by some junior entry level BSCS staffer. I was working on my MSCS and visited one of our prestigious National Laboratories where a friend of mine was employed doing just that. We compared notes and I was looking over the code when, having studied meterology (the study of weather not climate), I asked "So how do you account for clouds?" The answer shocked me. I was told "We don't know a lot about clouds." Now if you read up on Greenhouse gases you will see that that the most abundant greenhouse gas is; anyone, anyone? Water vapor! aka clouds. So the whole climate change model does not even take into account, as it is called in meterology "the planets air conditioning system." It is all so much humbug.
Do please try and get your facts right. Global warming is something I became aware of during the Intertnational Geophysical Year 1957 and was reported in an early issue of New Scientist that I read at the time. Water vapour actually mops up stuff such as infra-red component in solar radiation and accounts, at least in part for the albedo value of the planet, which also reflects a proportion of incoming light. The average for the earth is 0.35, but this does vary according to factors such as topography. Your so-called argument is a complete nonsense.
Follow the money. Mucho billions for JPM etc. in trading carbon credits.
But they need that tax money to keep the ponzi going.
Solyndra
global warming
Imagine that---we are being misled!
Perhaps it is time to Ms. Behave?
Again, only look at the raw data, draw your own conclusions. That's what scientists do. Everything else is evil smelly bullshit.
scientists are whores. they're like economists, give them a dollar and they'll make charts to tell you what you want to hear.
buzz - not all scientists are whores. >30000 signed a petition in 2006 (including me) saying that the data and theory were not compelling and urging congress not to sign the Kyoto protocols. not covered in mainstream media.
Thank You for having the balls to stand up
i'm glad you kept your integrity
Keep those petitions rolling, call it operation papercut.
If they are for sale, they are not doing science. Economics is certainly not science. And "climate science" is not science. It should be called climate studies. Like social studies.
Terrorist!
/s
I left The environmental field (under a NOAA funded program) after fighting hard against the data manipulation. You grt black listed quick. But funding for programs is only available IF one is finding data that fits the mantra.
It's the old 'never let a good crisis go to waste' idea, even if you have to create the crisis first.
Climate change is a given and not preparing for the consequences is dumb, whether it is caused by humans or not.
Just because someone uses something for their own ends does not neccessarily mean it's not happening.
My thought on this, though, is that humans have fucked up the land and the seas, so why the fuck would the atmosphere somehow be exempt from human damage?
Doesn't really matter in the big scheme of things. If the denyers are wrong, they'll be dead before it matters.
If the proponents are right, same goes for them.
Nature will do what nature does.
Natural selection has no feelings.
Seriously, who downvoted this?
Economists like to defend the idea that they're also scientists. I have to agree with them. But that agreement would be based on your observation, and not their definitions. Neither care for much of anything, except for the argumentum that creates the ad populum.
Economics can't be a science, it's based on flawed premises.
I believe that's what i said in jest. But by relating them with economists, I also implied that the modern version of scientist, especially in the context of climate science, like the economist, believes they are also scientific. Neither are scientific, but are instead scientistic.
Winston Smith's post above makes the scientifically correct call: basically, we can predict nothing but shit on this subject for the time frames and surface areas of interest, therefore I'd add that as a corollary any attempt to change a civilization's use of energy on this basis is most surely not science. It does however, qualify as lying.
Why is that so surprising? They're only human after all.
Gore needs it for the carbon credits exchange.
this has been "known" for quite awhile, but is just now starting to make more press.
it is instructive to go directly to the GISS website and download the "official world database for temperatures".
the official records get archived, and you can download the latest version, and one from a few years ago, and
pull them into a spreadsheet and look at the delta. they have been consistently lowering temperatures from early
in the 20th century, smoothing out all the wrinkles and adding an upwards trendline. i haven't been able to find
any scientific reasoning for these "adjustments"...but the changes are there nevertheless.
(also - these modified temperatures don't look at all like the satellite temps, which don't agree on hottest, etc.,
and the satellites were launched because the land records were deemed insufficient, but now they ignore the satellites.)
Just think about the variation in measurement methodologies and technology in the past 100 years.
They argue about a 1-2 degree variation meaning "global warming" when meaurement accuracy is +/- 3-5 degrees, especially when you consider 150 years ago, 250 years ago, and the time before that being largely speculation.
Auferre, trucidare, rapere, falsis nominibus imperium; atque, ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
-Tacitus
plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose.
youtube.com/suspicious0bservers
Check out the C(lie)mate playlist. The gentlemen does an excellent job of explaining the link between solar flaring and the warmer earth at the close of the 20th century
Your bias is showing - if all scientists are whores, why would you trust this one and not another?
Because I don't care about the person/scientist, I care about the data.
Listen just how much CO2 does nature produce? The way scientists and the news talk about it is like we are the only major contributors. This is so wrong, WRONG! Nearly all CO2 comes from respiring creatures, weird activity in the ocean, volcanoes, fault-lines and fissures in the earth's crust, and it fluctuates to. So even if we cut down CO2 emissions to zero, just the nature of these fluctuations would render this pointless.
This is going to harm science in general for dozens of years, because they made it political and idealogical. Developing and third world countries are being thrown under the bus for the sake of using "green" technology. Let these countries industrialize, let them cut down the rainforests, strip mine the land and farm the rest. America and the European countries have all done it. Fucking hypocrisy.
CO2 does not warm anything. There is absolutely zero evidence of this. In fact, CO2 has a cooling effect as it radiates heat. Oxygen and Nitrogen don't have emissive properties though so if any molecule is to blame for trapping heat there you have it. If CO2 "trapped" heat then the atmosphere would have to be warmer than the surface in order for the "backradiation" theory to be correct. The whole world would be one big inversion. But it is not the case that it is warmer at the top of Mt. Everest than it is in Death Valley. Common sense is lost on the alarmists.
Where's MDB defending this fraud?
It's nothing more than a scam.
OMG! You're actually talking about emissivity and heat tranasfer by radiation! Better watch out...the moon-landing-hoaxers will come after you too since you actually understand physics and engineering.
You've been warned.
LOL..... Where's the proof we landed on the moon? Remember, they 'accidently' taped over all the original footage. Gee, too bad, but we still have all the copies :))
The mirror they left up there?
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/debunking-myth-that-moon-landing-was-hoax-1457501
The Moon surface itself is highly reflective, no mirrors required.
Don't bother, BigJim, whatever you say, they have a prepared response even though they understand nothing.
Ad Infinitum....
Like the guy above who thinks reflectivity equals directionality. But try explaining the difference between the moon's lambertian surface and a corner cube to these "gullible sages".
Rusty Shorts? Try not peeing in your pants.
Yeah we just jumped in a rocket every six months and flew to the Moon, rightey oh mate. Show me the Ascent Module crash sites, of course the Ascent Module "Snoopy" still orbits the Sun (LMAO) and then maybe we can talk about mirrors.
Apollo Lunar Landings Multiscreenhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrKHtXxYlkk
Apollo Lunar Ascents Multi Screenhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GJHqP6qObCo
Agree.
And what heats the planet? Why, the Sun does, but the global warming nut jobs don't mention solar cycles.
They also take attention away from pollution, which is a much bigger problem that we do have control over.
There are lies, Damn Lies, and climate statistics!
Goodbye to you my trusted friend
I’ve heard your shit since we were nine or ten
Together we've nuzzled hills and trees
Learned to hate all SUV's
Claimed cell phones killed honeybees
Goodbye Al Gore, it’s hard to lie
When all the birds are singing in the sky
Now that truth is in the air
Escalades are everywhere
Cash for clunkers, and I'll be there
We had joy, we had fun
Blamed our seasons on cow dung
But the charts, as they climbed
Were adjusted on our dime
Terry Jacks was acting against pollution a very long time ago, before it was fashionable. I am thankful for his efforts.
I think I heard about that during a Casey Kasem year-end countdown as a youngster.
I have an obvious affliction: an insatiable drive to produce song parodies, designed to a) offer a humorous slant on post topics; b) spur inevitable reminiscences based on one’s age at the release date. While no one favors pollution, I assume the ZH consensus is that ends, however noble, are never justified by manipulative means, and that agendas are for project management meetings, not scientific study.
Love your tone on Little Village.
Your assumption is correct, at least for me it is.
Its about centralized world control and taxation.
Here is a great interview by Greg Hunter of Lord Monckton, who believes he has scientifically proved the global warming math is wrong
http://usawatchdog.com/climate-change-is-global-communist-tyranny-lord-c...
http://www.climatedepot.com/
The US, Canada, Western Europe, New Zealand, Australia are falling for this book, line and sinker. What a way to hobble industry! China, India and Brazil will cut down down forests, burn coal and pollute fresh water sources without a care in the world. After all, all of the problems were created by those nasty Europeans, right????
Wrong , few in NZ believe this shit. The government certainly doesn't least of all our climate change minister ; he knows that it's all about the money . So we play the game . The IPCC pretends to do science ; we pretend to agree.
Last year, the Australian gov't killed their Carbon Tax, which the previous gov't had put in place...
Well, if Paul Homewood says so...
Gee Wally,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Why would the bad guys lie though??
But if it's that obvious...
Wouldn't everyone know they were just making it up?
Would it matter? While brazen, hiding in plain-sight is effective, particularly when the "consensus" is that the "science" is "settled".
"Homewood"
"Wormwood"
They ought to meet soon enough...
Eh?
The global warming agenda is just that: an agenda.
I still like the idea of personal solar and wind power, but mostly just to stick it to the utility conglomerates (especially those state monopolies).
Same here. It's just a shame that it costs so much. But with utilities screwing the consumers the payback time keeps getting shorter .
And then there is the unreliability of the network to consider; maintenance . . . they never heard of it. Wait till it breaks .
How short is "shorter?" 1 year? 1,000, 000 years?
10-15 years depending on capacity/utilisation
Those same charts are used to show Venezuela recovery (by Maduro).
I hear it is getting hotter in Ukraine.
Ukrainian Government: “No Russian Troops Are Fighting Against Us”. Sanctions against Russia based on Falsehoodshttp://www.globalresearch.ca/ukrainian-government-no-russian-troops-are-...
Ukraine’s top general is contradicting allegations by the Obama Administration and by his own Ukrainian Government, by saying that no Russian troops are fighting against the Ukrainian Government’s forces in the formerly Ukrainian, but now separatist, area, where the Ukrainian civil war is being waged.
Here is a screen-print of a google-chrome auto-translation of that statement:
===================
US President Obama stated that the United States took an active part in the February 2014 coup in Ukraine, which installed pro-Western authorities.
http://sputniknews.com/europe/20150201/1017625288.html
MOSCOW, February 1 (Sputnik) – The United States took an active part in the February 2014 coup in Ukraine, which installed pro-Western authorities, US President Obama told CNN Sunday.
"And since Mr. Putin made this decision around Crimea and Ukraine — not because of some grand strategy, but essentially because he was caught off-balance by the protests in the Maidan and [Ukraine's then-President Viktor] Yanukovych then fleeing after we had brokered a deal to transition power in Ukraine," Obama said in an interview.
Yanukovych's decision to not sign association agreement with the European Union in late 2013 triggered a mass wave of protests across Ukraine, which culminated in the February coup. Following the February events and the rise of agressive nationalism in the country, Crimea seceded from Ukraine and joined Russia in March 2014, following a referendum, in which 96 percent of voters were in favor of reunifying with Russia.
=============
In fact the most 'studied' global warming areas are conflict zones known for drug, arms and human smuggling as well as money laundering. Go Figure...Seems to be a lot of environmental groups (NGO's) working hand in hand with the renewable energy shell and shelf LLC's in those same areas.
The only thing HOT in Ukraine is their women.... Unfortunately their men aren't too bright...
Are the hot women brighter?
Climate change is 100% real, dummies. 8,000-10,000 years ago, the Sahara was a tropical rainforest, and the American southwest was a sun-blasted dunescape. We can argue about exactly how and why all day. But the Earth's climate has always been undergoing changes, and it's not going to stop just because you're the smartest dummies around on this asylum.
Yes it was and how were humans creating CO2 then? A few camp fires? The climate is changing, of course it is changing because it always changes whether we are here or not.
The UN's Climate controllers are about political climate control not natural climate control. If you cannot see that then you need glasses.
And about the same time 2 miles of ice covered where I sit in New England. Prior to that it was quite tropical then there were other ice ages and warm spells.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/08/130807134127.htm
Yes, the climate changes but there is no way in hell that AGW has any validity, except to enrich cronies, start false religions that unjustly steal from their worshipers and everyone else, and stir up shit all over the globe. The sun, earths orbit, cosmic radiation and other factors such as volcanism are the cause of change. The only way the arrogant worshipers of AGW could change climate is launch an alll out nuclear war. Then any remaining survivors would have to endure a few years of very cold temps and a mini ice age of sorts.
Toss out all the temperature data you like. Doesn't matter. Doesn't change the fact that glaciers are melting at a unprecedented rate all over the world.
Seems obvious to me that humans pumping monumental amounts of chemical shit into the atmosphere over the last 100 years is going to change something.
The changes are to be complex and hard to understand. Doesn't help that most everybody wants to form a quick opinion, pick a side and then fight tooth and nail to be "right".
Hey Binko watch this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fE7r0gk5nmw
and read this
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Climategate-CRU-emails-hacked.htm
and maybe they should learn some math.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy
Climate Change is political bull shit and a control mechanism. End of Story.
"Top Indian physicists have concluded Himalayan glaciers show little sign of retreat – in one of the largest studies of its type ever carried out.
I. M. Bahuguna et al, publishing in Current Science [PDF, issue index], studied changes to 2,000 glaciers in various Himalayan regions between 2001 to 2011. They conclude that 1,700 were stable, showing the same surface area and no change of direction.
248 glaciers exhibited a retreat, and 18 an advance. The scientists estimate a net loss of glacier area of about 10,000 km2 – that's a 0.2 per cent decrease (+/- 2.5pc), and an average retreat of 2.1 metres annually.
India stepped up its own scientific research after shoddy work was exposed in the 2007 IPCC AR4 report into climate impacts. That report claimed the Himalayan glaciers would disappear entirely by 2035, leading to widespread drought, starvation and migration. It was rubbish, as the unapologetic IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri, was forced to admit."