Global Warming: still the ‘Greatest Scam in History’


Grover
#811
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morgan View Post

If their deliberate and planned program of misleading (essentially defrauding) the global scientific community and getting caught isn't obvious enough for ya'll, then we don't have much to talk about.

They did?

If so I assume someone was convicted and the "community" has now reversed their opinion of AGW.

I have found no evidence of either.
 
captain morgan
#812
You should contact Matlock immediately... He'll fix this for ya
 
EagleSmack
#813
Quote: Originally Posted by Locutus View Post

Howya doin' Grievous?

Another one who can't pull away?
 
Locutus
#814
Quote: Originally Posted by EagleSmack View Post

Another one who can't pull away?

or pull out.

Petros and Bear will love this.
 
Grover
#815
Lol....says the dude who spends everyday on here.

Just drooped in see what the bullies were up to, nothing has changed.

.....and it's Avro btw dumbass.

This my favourite part of the rules.

Off-limits: Personal attacks, cursing, anything 18+, adult-themed comments. Follow the forum rules.
This is a place for everyone. Ignoring these guidelines will result in a lengthy ban.

What utter BS.....it only applies to some.
 
Locutus
+1
#816
Quote: Originally Posted by Grover View Post

Lol....says the dude who spends everyday on here.

Just drooped in see what the bullies were up to, nothing has changed.

.....and it's Avro btw dumbass.

This my favourite part of the rules.

Off-limits: Personal attacks, cursing, anything 18+, adult-themed comments. Follow the forum rules.
This is a place for everyone. Ignoring these guidelines will result in a lengthy ban.

What utter BS.....it only applies to some.


oh well...
 
EagleSmack
#817
Quote: Originally Posted by Grover View Post

Lol....says the dude who spends everyday on here.

Says the dude who spent every day on here until he got bounced.

Quote:

Just drooped in see what the bullies were up to, nothing has changed.

.....and it's Avro btw dumbass.




Quote:

What utter BS.....it only applies to some.

Still... you miss us.
 
Locutus
#818
Steve Goddard ‏@SteveSGoddard

University professors sitting in their offices, believe that Greenland is melting down at -12C http://www.summitcamp.org/status/webcam/

 
SLM
+2
#819
Quote: Originally Posted by Grover View Post


.....and it's Avro btw



I knew it!
Quote:

AKA- dumbass.

Quote:

Yeah......more personalities than Sybil.....not anywhere near as interesting though.
 
Glacier
#820
Quote: Originally Posted by Locutus View Post

Steve Goddard ‏@SteveSGoddard

University professors sitting in their offices, believe that Greenland is melting down at -12C

I guess you've never heard of sublimation, eh?
 
Blackleaf
+1
#821
Are climate scientists doom-mongering? Bulk of research on impacts of ocean acidification is FLAWED, new study finds



Scientists at the University of Western Australia have reviewed 465 studies on ocean acidification and found just 27 used 'appropriate experimental design'.


Are climate scientists doom-mongering? Ocean acidification research is FLAWED | Daily Mail Online
 
Blackleaf
#822
BBC ‘environment analyst’ explodes on Twitter as BBC presenter mocks Met Office’s climate prophecies

119 comments
6 August 2015
Damian Thompson
The Spectator


Daily Mail's Quentin Letts


Climate change is the subject of a complex debate in which, increasingly, experts disagree with each other. Nearly all of them believe in man-made global warming, but they’re not sure how bad the problem is or how to tackle it. Meanwhile, the ‘sceptics’ are no longer dominated by scientifically illiterate amateurs. Many of them believe in anthropogenic global warming, though they don’t think it’s happening today.

So you’d expect the BBC’s ‘Environment and Energy Analyst’, Roger Harrabin, to proceed with caution. Not so. Here are two tweets he sent out yesterday (links here and here):






Quentin Letts is the Daily Mail‘s parliamentary sketchwriter and theatre critic, celebrated for his sometimes caustic but more often gentle wit. He also presents a Radio 4 slot called What’s the Point of…? in which – says the Beeb – he ‘casts a critical but amicable eye across institutions at the heart of British life’. His targets, if you can call them that, have included the National Trust, the Methodists and the great British pub. Yesterday he chuckled his way through an episode about the Met Office.

‘Amicable’ is just the right word. Letts spoke to an old farmer with an accent straight out of the Archers who prefers to look at the sky rather than trust the wireless; to Angus MacNeil MP, the SNP chairman of the Commons Energy and Climate Change Committee, whose seafaring constituents would drown if the Met Office gave them bad advice (which it doesn’t); and to retired BBC weatherman John Kettley about the knitted sweaters he was sent by fans.

Letts paid tribute to the secret work the Met Office does in advising the Armed Forces and told us that, whatever you may think, its short-term forecasting has got better. But he didn’t like its ‘sexed-up press releases’ or nannyish advice to carry an umbrella in case of rain. Still less did he appreciate the apocalyptic warnings to jump into the nearest Ark in the event of flooding.

‘With trepidation’, he tackled the subject of climate change – unavoidably, given the way the Met Office bangs on about it. First he spoke to Labour MP Graham Stringer, a former analytical chemist who sat on the Commons Science and Technology Committee until May and is standing for re-election. Stringer told him that the Met Office’s short-term forecasting was reliable but that its medium- and long-term projections were ‘pretty random’.

The point was reinforced by Peter Lilley MP, a physics graduate who describes himself as a ‘lukewarmist’ – i.e., he thinks CO2 emissions can warm the planet but not by very much. Lilley recalled the 2004 Met Office prediction that temperatures would rise by a catastrophic 0.3°C by 2014. The actual increase? ‘Zilch’, said Lilley. So he’s fed up with Met office lobbyists demanding ‘even more money for even bigger computers so that they can be even more precisely wrong in future’.

Letts asked Helen Chivers, Met Office head of news, about the 2004 global warming prediction. She said that knowledge of earth systems was still evolving ‘and things change over time’. There was no attempt to defend the 0.3per cent prophecy – and Chivers even seemed to agree that the Met Office can be a bit alarmist at times.

The programme’s conclusion was that the Met Office is jolly good at short-term forecasts, saving lives in the process, but that its comically inaccurate attempts to predict climate change are dangerously close to political lobbying. Letts didn’t advocate privatising the outfit, but he didn’t see why the option shouldn’t be discussed. A final trademark chuckle and that was that.



Cue an entirely predictable outburst from The Guardian. Richard Black, director of the Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit and former BBC science correspondent, observed that both Stringer and Lilley are trustees of Lord Lawson’s moderately sceptical Global Warming Policy Foundation. Fair point; perhaps Letts should have made it. But Black’s argument that Radio 4 breached BBC editorial guidelines by interviewing one climate change sceptic (Stringer), one ‘lukewarmist’ (Lilley) and one believer (MacNeil) was a bit rich.

Not so long ago the Beeb spewed out ‘warmist’ propaganda as news and treated any dissident as a Right-wing nutjob (unfairly – only some of them were). Still, that’s what you pay for when you buy The Guardian.

Harrabin, on the other hand, is paid by us – the licence payers. And he’s employed by the corporation that made What’s the Point of the Met Office? Yet, judging by his Twitter feed, his views are even more partisan than those of Black. When he’s not plugging a Guardian conspiracy theory involving US Republican sceptics and BP, he’s wringing his hands at the cut to wind subsidies or lamenting the lack of civil servants to enforce ‘smarter’ environmental laws. Also, he feels the need to add ‘@GeorgeMonbiot’ to many of his tweets, so the great man doesn’t miss them.

Yesterday – see above – he went into overdrive. ‘Accusation’, he declared, as he linked to Black’s attack on Letts. The sceptics got ‘their’ programme when the BBC allowed Quentin Letts to raise an eyebrow at the Met Office’s alarmist and utterly false claim that thermometers would shoot up between 2004 and 2014.

Don’t get me wrong: Roger Harrabin is a highly respected science writer. He doesn’t set out to deceive his readers. But, as Letts might put it, What’s the Point of a supposedly impartial ‘environment analyst’ who – apparently – takes offence at his bosses allowing another journalist to offer views different to his own?


BBC 'environment analyst' explodes on Twitter as BBC presenter mocks Met Office's climate prophecies - Spectator Blogs
 
JLM
+1
#823
Could get worse, just found out tonight there could be rogue planets approaching our solar system which could slow down/speed up/alter the course of the earth's orbit throwing climate patterns out of whack. Always some f**king thing!
 
Locutus
#824
Steve Goddard ‏@SteveSGoddard

The Greenland melt season has ended, with a gain of 300 billion tons of ice over the past year

http://realclimatescience.com/2015/08/greenland-melt-season-is-over/ …



annnnnyway...
 
IdRatherBeSkiing
#825
Quote: Originally Posted by JLM View Post

Could get worse, just found out tonight there could be rogue planets approaching our solar system which could slow down/speed up/alter the course of the earth's orbit throwing climate patterns out of whack. Always some f**king thing!

You gotta stop believing everything you see on TV.
 
JLM
#826
Quote: Originally Posted by IdRatherBeSkiing View Post

You gotta stop believing everything you see on TV.

I don't recall saying anything about T.V.
 
IdRatherBeSkiing
#827
Quote: Originally Posted by JLM View Post

I don't recall saying anything about T.V.

My mistake. You gotta stop believing anything your read or hear on the internet (or source of this particular nugget).
 
JLM
#828
Quote: Originally Posted by IdRatherBeSkiing View Post

My mistake. You gotta stop believing anything your read or hear on the internet (or source of this particular nugget).


Are we in danger from a rogue planet? - Bad Astronomy : Bad Astronomy

The chances of it happening on any given day are pretty slim.
 
Locutus
+3
#829
Halfway to Hell? – Alarmists are Growing Desperate in Their Efforts to Influence Public Opinion

Halfway to Hell? – Alarmists are Growing Desperate in Their Efforts to Influence Public Opinion | Watts Up With That?


sad and pathetic alarmists. sad and pathetic.
 
taxslave
#830
cry wolf long enough..........
 
Glacier
#831


As can be seen from the graphic above, there is a strong correlation between carbon dioxide increases and adjustments to the United States Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) temperature record. And these adjustments to the surface data in turn result in large divergences between surface data sets and satellite data sets.

In the post with April data, the following questions were asked in the conclusion: “Why are the new satellite and ground data sets going in opposite directions? Is there any reason that you can think of where both could simultaneously be correct?”
Professor Robert Brown of Duke University had an excellent response the this question here.

To give it the exposure it deserves, his comment is reposted in full below. His response ends with rgb.

Rgbatduke June 10, 2015 at 5:52 am

The two data sets should not be diverging, period, unless everything we understand about atmospheric thermal dynamics is wrong. That is, I will add my “opinion” to Werner’s and point out that it is based on simple atmospheric physics taught in any relevant textbook.

This does not mean that they cannot and are not systematically differing; it just means that the growing difference is strong evidence of bias in the computation of the surface record. This bias is not really surprising, given that every new version of HadCRUT and GISS has had the overall effect of cooling the past and/or warming the present! This is as unlikely as flipping a coin (at this point) ten or twelve times each, and having it come up heads every time for both products. In fact, if one formulates the null hypothesis “the global surface temperature anomaly corrections are unbiased”, the p-value of this hypothesis is less than 0.01, let alone 0.05. If one considers both of the major products collectively, it is less than 0.001. IMO, there is absolutely no question that GISS and HadCRUT, at least, are at this point hopelessly corrupted.

One way in which they are corrupted with the well-known Urban Heat Island effect, wherein urban data or data from poorly sited weather stations shows local warming that does not accurately reflect the spatial average surface temperature in the surrounding countryside. This effect is substantial, and clearly visible if you visit e.g. Weather Underground and look at the temperature distributions from personal weather stations in an area that includes both in-town and rural PWSs. The city temperatures (and sometimes a few isolated PWSs) show a consistent temperature 1 to 2 C higher than the surrounding country temperatures. Airport temperatures often have this problem as well, as the temperatures they report come from stations that are deliberately sited right next to large asphalt runways, as they are primarily used by pilots and air traffic controllers to help planes land safely, and only secondarily are the temperatures they report almost invariably used as “the official temperature” of their location. Anthony has done a fair bit of systematic work on this, and it is a serious problem corrupting all of the major ground surface temperature anomalies.

The problem with the UHI is that it continues to systematically increase independent of what the climate is doing. Urban centers continue to grow, more shopping centers continue to be built, more roadway is laid down, more vehicle exhaust and household furnace exhaust and water vapor from watering lawns bumps greenhouse gases in a poorly-mixed blanket over the city and suburbs proper, and their perimeter extends, increasing the distance between the poorly sited official weather stations and the nearest actual unbiased countryside.

HadCRUT does not correct in any way for UHI. If it did, the correction would be the more or less uniform subtraction of a trend proportional to global population across the entire data set. This correction, of course, would be a cooling correction, not a warming correction, and while it is impossible to tell how large it is without working through the unknown details of how HadCRUT is computed and from what data (and without using e.g. the PWS field to build a topological correction field, as UHI corrupts even well-sited official stations compared to the lower troposphere temperatures that are a much better estimator of the true areal average) IMO it would knock at least 0.3 C off of 2015 relative to 1850, and would knock off around 0.1 C off of 2015 relative to 1980 (as the number of corrupted stations and the magnitude of the error is not linear — it is heavily loaded in the recent past as population increases exponentially and global wealth reflected in “urbanization” has outpaced the population).

GISS is even worse. They do correct for UHI, but somehow, after they got through with UHI the correction ended up being neutral to negative. That’s right, UHI, which is the urban heat island effect, something that has to strictly cool present temperatures relative to past ones in unbiased estimation of global temperatures ended up warming them instead. Learning that left me speechless, and in awe of the team that did it. I want them to do my taxes for me. I’ll end up with the government owing me money.
However, in science, this leaves both GISS and HadCRUT (and any of the other temperature estimates that play similar games) with a serious, serious problem. Sure, they can get headlines out of rewriting the present and erasing the hiatus/pause. They might please their political masters and allow them to convince a skeptical (and sensible!) public that we need to spend hundreds of billions of dollars a year to unilaterally eliminate the emission of carbon dioxide, escalating to a trillion a year, sustained, if we decide that we have to “help” the rest of the world do the same. They might get the warm fuzzies themselves from the belief that their scientific mendacity serves the higher purpose of “saving the planet”. But science itself is indifferent to their human wishes or needs! A continuing divergence between any major temperature index and RSS/UAH is inconceivable and simple proof that the major temperature indices are corrupt.

Right now, to be frank, the divergence is already large enough to be raising eyebrows, and is concealed only by the fact that RSS/UAH only have a 35+ year base. If the owners of HadCRUT and GISSTEMP had the sense god gave a goose, they’d be working feverishly to cool the present to better match the satellites, not warm it and increase the already growing divergence because no atmospheric physicist is going to buy a systematic divergence between the two, as Werner has pointed out, given that both are necessarily linked by the Adiabatic Lapse Rate which is both well understood and directly measurable and measured (via e.g. weather balloon soundings) more than often enough to validate that it accurately links surface temperatures and lower troposphere temperatures in a predictable way. The lapse rate is (on average) 6.5 C/km. Lower Troposphere temperatures from e.g. RSS sample predominantly the layer of atmosphere centered roughly 1.5 km above the ground, and by their nature smooth over both height and surrounding area (that is, they don’t measure temperatures at points, they directly measure a volume averaged temperature above an area on the surface. They by their nature give the correct weight to the local warming above urban areas in the actual global anomaly, and really should also be corrected to estimate the CO_2 linked warming, or rather the latter should be estimated only from unbiased rural areas or better yet, completely unpopulated areas like the Sahara desert (where it isn’t likely to be mixed with much confounding water vapor feedback).

RSS and UAH are directly and regularly confirmed by balloon soundings and, over time, each other. They are not unconstrained or unchecked. They are generally accepted as accurate representations of LTT’s (and the atmospheric temperature profile in general).
The question remains as to how accurate/precise they are. RSS uses a sophisticated Monte Carlo process to assess error bounds, and eyeballing it suggests that it is likely to be accurate to 0.1-0.2 C month to month (similar to error claims for HadCRUT4) but much more accurate than this when smoothed over months or years to estimate a trend as the error is generally expected to be unbiased. Again this ought to be true for HadCRUT4, but all this ends up meaning is that a trend difference is a serious problem in the consistency of the two estimators given that they must be linked by the ALR and the precision is adequate even month by month to make it well over 95% certain that they are not, not monthly and not on average.

If they grow any more, I would predict that the current mutter about the anomaly between the anomalies will grow to an absolute roar, and will not go away until the anomaly anomaly is resolved. The resolution process — if the gods are good to us — will involve a serious appraisal of the actual series of “corrections” to HadCRUT and GISSTEMP, reveal to the public eye that they have somehow always been warming ones, reveal the fact that UHI is ignored or computed to be negative, and with any luck find definitive evidence of specific thumbs placed on these important scales. HadCRUT5 might — just might — end up being corrected down by the ~0.3 C that has probably been added to it or erroneously computed in it over time.
rgb


See here for further information on GISS and UHI.

In the sections below, as in previous posts, we will present you with the latest facts. The information will be presented in three sections and an appendix. The first section will show for how long there has been no warming on some data sets. At the moment, only the satellite data have flat periods of longer than a year. The second section will show for how long there has been no statistically significant warming on several data sets. The third section will show how 2015 so far compares with 2014 and the warmest years and months on record so far. For three of the data sets, 2014 also happens to be the warmest year. The appendix will illustrate sections 1 and 2 in a different way. Graphs and a table will be used to illustrate the data.

Section 1

This analysis uses the latest month for which data is available on WoodForTrees.com (WFT). All of the data on WFT is also available at the specific sources as outlined below. We start with the present date and go to the furthest month in the past where the slope is a least slightly negative on at least one calculation. So if the slope from September is 4 x 10^-4 but it is – 4 x 10^-4 from October, we give the time from October so no one can accuse us of being less than honest if we say the slope is flat from a certain month.
1. For GISS, the slope is not flat for any period that is worth mentioning.
2. For Hadcrut4, the slope is not flat for any period that is worth mentioning.
3. For Hadsst3, the slope is not flat for any period that is worth mentioning.
4. For UAH, the slope is flat since March 1997 or 18 years and 4 months. (goes to June using version 6.0)
5. For RSS, the slope is flat since January 1997 or 18 years and 6 months. (goes to June)

The next graph shows just the lines to illustrate the above. Think of it as a sideways bar graph where the lengths of the lines indicate the relative times where the slope is 0. In addition, the upward sloping blue line at the top indicates that CO2 has steadily increased over this period.



When two things are plotted as I have done, the left only shows a temperature anomaly.

The actual numbers are meaningless since the two slopes are essentially zero. No numbers are given for CO2. Some have asked that the log of the concentration of CO2 be plotted. However WFT does not give this option. The upward sloping CO2 line only shows that while CO2 has been going up over the last 18 years, the temperatures have been flat for varying periods on the two sets.

Section 2

For this analysis, data was retrieved from Nick Stokes’ Trendviewer available on his website. This analysis indicates for how long there has not been statistically significant warming according to Nick’s criteria. Data go to their latest update for each set. In every case, note that the lower error bar is negative so a slope of 0 cannot be ruled out from the month indicated.

On several different data sets, there has been no statistically significant warming for between 11 and 22 years according to Nick’s criteria. Cl stands for the confidence limits at the 95% level.

The details for several sets are below.

For UAH6.0: Since October 1992: Cl from -0.009 to 1.742
This is 22 years and 9 months.
For RSS: Since January 1993: Cl from -0.000 to 1.676
This is 22 years and 6 months.
For Hadcrut4.3: Since July 2000: Cl from -0.017 to 1.371
This is 14 years and 11 months.
For Hadsst3: Since August 1995: Cl from -0.000 to 1.780
This is 19 years and 11 months.
For GISS: Since August 2003: Cl from -0.000 to 1.336
This is 11 years and 11 months.

Section 3

This section shows data about 2015 and other information in the form of a table. The table shows the five data sources along the top and other places so they should be visible at all times. The sources are UAH, RSS, Hadcrut4, Hadsst3, and GISS.
Down the column, are the following:
1. 14ra: This is the final ranking for 2014 on each data set.
2. 14a: Here I give the average anomaly for 2014.
3. year: This indicates the warmest year on record so far for that particular data set. Note that the satellite data sets have 1998 as the warmest year and the others have 2014 as the warmest year.
4. ano: This is the average of the monthly anomalies of the warmest year just above.
5. mon: This is the month where that particular data set showed the highest anomaly. The months are identified by the first three letters of the month and the last two numbers of the year.
6. ano: This is the anomaly of the month just above.
7. y/m: This is the longest period of time where the slope is not positive given in years/months. So 16/2 means that for 16 years and 2 months the slope is essentially 0. Periods of under a year are not counted and are shown as “0”.
8. sig: This the first month for which warming is not statistically significant according to Nick’s criteria. The first three letters of the month are followed by the last two numbers of the year.
9. sy/m: This is the years and months for row 8. Depending on when the update was last done, the months may be off by one month.
10. Jan: This is the January 2015 anomaly for that particular data set.
11. Feb: This is the February 2015 anomaly for that particular data set, etc.
16. ave: This is the average anomaly of all months to date taken by adding all numbers and dividing by the number of months.
17. rnk: This is the rank that each particular data set would have for 2015 without regards to error bars and assuming no changes. Think of it as an update 25 minutes into a game.

SourceUAHRSSHad4Sst3GISS
1.14ra6th6th1st1st1st
2.14a0.1700.2550.5640.4790.75
3.year19981998201420142014
4.ano0.4830.550.5640.4790.75
5.monApr98Apr98Jan07Aug14Jan07
6.ano0.7420.8570.8320.6440.97
7.y/m18/418/6000
8.sigOct92Jan93Jul00Aug95Aug03
9.sy/m22/922/614/1119/1111/11
SourceUAHRSSHad4Sst3GISS
10.Jan0.2610.3670.6880.4400.82
11.Feb0.1560.3270.6600.4060.88
12.Mar0.1390.2550.6810.4240.90
13.Apr0.0650.1750.6560.5570.74
14.May0.2720.3100.6960.5930.76
15.Jun0.3290.3910.7280.5800.80
SourceUAHRSSHad4Sst3GISS
16.ave0.2040.3040.6850.5000.82
17.rnk4th6th1st1st1st
If you wish to verify all of the latest anomalies, go to the following:
For UAH, version 6.0 was used. Note that WFT uses version 5.6. So to verify the length of the pause on version 6.0, you need to use Nick’s program.
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu...lhmam_6.0beta2
For RSS, see: ftp://ftp.ssmi.com/msu/monthly_time_...cean_v03_3.txt
For Hadcrut4, see: http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/h...hly_ns_avg.txt
For Hadsst3, see: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/te...HadSST3-gl.dat
For GISS, see:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/ta...LB.Ts+dSST.txt

To see all points since January 2015 in the form of a graph, see the WFT graph below. Note that UAH version 5.6 is shown. WFT does not show version 6.0 yet.
 
Locutus
#832
The hidden but important IPCC foundation for Obama’s Clean Power Plan | Fabius Maximus website
 
MHz
#833
Quote: Originally Posted by Locutus View Post

hockey schtick ‏@hockeyschtick1
hockey schtick retweeted ClimateCentral

Man-made CO2 only makes toxic plants grow bigger & faster:



https://twitter.com/ClimateCentral/s...42837485744128

What to do? Cut them down and experience 02 starvation. All in all that isn't much of a 'cure'.
 
petros
#834
We get our O2 from diatoms not plants.
 
MHz
#835
Some not all.
What happens if the waters become too acidic as in acid rain from forest fires and the ash it creates.
 
petros
#836
All. Plants are neutral.
 
Locutus
#837
Steve Milloy ‏@JunkScience

So it is written in the Gore-an. Praise be to Al. http://goo.gl/3sWvgn

 
eh1eh
-1
#838
 
EagleSmack
+2
#839
If I photo shop a photo and make a meme then global warming is real.
 
petros
+1
#840
How do you ignore a natural phenomenon?
 

Similar Threads

1749
60
Global Capitalism; Greatest Scam in History
by darkbeaver | Oct 19th, 2018
2910