Just Hit The NOAA Motherlode

I spent the evening comparing USHCN V1 and V2 graphs, and discovered a huge discrepancy between their V1 and V2 adjustments.

This is their current US graph. Note that there is a discontinuity at 1998, which doesn’t look right. Globally, temperatures plummeted in 1999-2000, but they didn’t in the US graph.

ScreenHunter_64 Jan. 19 00.08

Climate at a Glance | Time Series

It doesn’t look right, because they made a huge change going from USHCN V1 to V2.

In V1 they adjusted recent temperatures upwards (thin line below) and made little adjustment to older temperatures.

ScreenHunter_48 Jan. 18 18.14

GHCN Global Gridded Data

But when they switched to V2, they started adjusting older temperatures downwards, and left post-2000 temperatures more or less intact. This created a huge jump (greater than one degree) downwards for all years prior to 2000. You can see what they did in the animation below.

Blue line is thermometer data.  Thin red line is V1 adjusted. Thick red line is V2 adjusted. Thermometer data and V2 data are normalized to the last five years, creating a small offset on the Y-axis. They created a significant warming by reversing polarity of the adjustment in the pre-2000 years. How did a peer-reviewed positive adjustment suddenly become a negative adjustment?

USHCNV1V2Error

A big clue has been right in front of my eyes all along. Note that measured data below shows that by 2008, temperatures were back down to the 1989 level. But in the NCDC data, 2008 is half a degree warmer than 1989.

ScreenHunter_67 Jan. 19 00.51

Bottom line is that there is clearly a huge error in the USHCN adjustments which has added a non-existent one degree hockey stick warming to the official US temperature record, and I now know just where to look for it in their code.

FOIA time.

This is what the adjusted temperatures would look like, without the error. Ignoring the fact that the adjustments themselves are probably not valid.

ScreenHunter_66 Jan. 19 00.37

NOAA made a big deal about 2012 blowing away all temperature records, but the temperature they reported is the result of a huge error. This affects all NOAA and NASA US temperature graphs, and is part of the cause of this famous shift.

According to USHCN 1 docs, the total adjustment is supposed to be about 0.5F upwards, and flat after 1990.

ts.ushcn_anom25_diffs_urb-raw_pg

ts.ushcn_anom25_diffs_urb-raw_pg.gif (650×502)

But in USHCN2, the adjustments are much larger, downwards, and actually accelerate after 1990. The USHCN2 adjustments are supposed to be similar to USHCN1, and the TOBS adjustment is supposed to be identical.

This graph shows the USHCN1 (red) and USHCN2 (blue) adjustments at the same scale and offset. Note that the adjustments went from being positive in V1 to being negative in V2. Also note that in V1, the adjustments went flat after 1990, and in V2 they rise exponentially after 1990.

ScreenHunter_189 Jan. 21 09.36

RSS satellite temperatures show that by 2008, US temperatures had cooled down below what they were during all of the non-volcano years of the 1980’s and 1990’s.

ScreenHunter_68 Jan. 19 06.51

RSS does not show the NCDC discontinuity, and NCDC is diverging from RSS at almost 1C/century

ScreenHunter_83 Jan. 19 11.50

Here is an animation of the complete set of USHCN2 adjustments, which turn a 90 year cooling trend into a warming trend.

Visualizing How USHCN Hides The Decline In US Temperatures | Real Science

According to the USHCN2 docs, the TOBS adjustment is supposed to be almost identical to USHCN1. But in the actual data, it isn’t even close. Points to a software bug.

ScreenHunter_78 Jan. 19 08.02

ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ushcn/v2/monthly/menne-etal2009.pdf

There are additional problems evident in the docs. The USHCN2 docs show TOBS continuing up after 1990, but the USHCN1 docs show TOBS going flat after 1990. USHCN1 showed 2ºF TOBS, but USHCN2 shows 2ºC TOBS.  It is supposed to be the same adjustment, and according to USHCN1 docs should have gone flat after 1990 – but is almost double the USHCN1 adjustment.

ts.ushcn_anom25_diffs_pg (1)

ts.ushcn_anom25_diffs_pg.gif (650×502)

ScreenHunter_99 Jan. 20 05.21

The next graph shows the actual implementation of V2 TOBS vs. the spec. The implementation (thick blue line) is offset down from the specification (thin red and blue lines) by about a quarter of a degree. How did a positive adjustment after 1980 turn into a negative adjustment? Fuzzy math?

ScreenHunter_95 Jan. 19 15.14

The actual TOBS adjustment above was calculated by subtracting  the raw temperatures ushcn.tavg.latest.raw.tar.gz from the TOBS adjusted temperatures ushcn.tavg.latest.tob.tar.gz.

Bottom line is that the NCDC US temperature record is completely broken, and meaningless. Adjustments that used to go flat after 1990, now go up exponentially. Adjustments which are documented as positive, are implemented as negative.

About these ads

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

303 Responses to Just Hit The NOAA Motherlode

  1. cg says:

    Reblogged this on Catholic Glasses and commented:
    Good job!

  2. welldoneson says:

    It’s not an error. It’s a cheat.

  3. Chewer says:

    I’d bet the FOIA request will go unnoticed by everyone in the media along with the tax funded scientific data source code hidden well behind mountains of Marxist bureaucracy.
    I’d say this latest discovery is a full body slam to the USHCN thieves.

    • No the FOIA request will not go unnoticed because the Congress has enough members who are both knowledgeable and conscientious enough to press for corrections.

      The question must be: How to get this published?

      • Drewski says:

        You will have a very long wait if you want Steve to actually publish anything that will make its way into a scientific journal or to be properly peer-reviewed.

        • I hear that terminating journals which publish skeptics papers is all the rage in the climofascist community.

        • Yes, yes, I finally see the problem. The temperatures as measured by the thermometers were never peer-reviewed. That makes them wrong. Only peer-reviewed truth is real, as revealed by the word of the prophet.

        • jeremyp99 says:

          Irrelevant. Do you contest what Steve has written above?

        • Drewski says:

          “Climofacists” — aren’t they the group that Superman’s alter ego fights on planet Bizarro? Or are you talking about another fantasy world?

          What about it Steve? Looks like you have created some really heavy ammunition here. I am sure that there are truth-seeking scientists all around this world who would love the chance to peer review a properly done paper on climate data manipulation. What is stopping you?

          Why don’t you publish — I mean, only if you are really serious about halting this “climate fraud” you are so convinced of.

          Are you serious Steve?

        • Tell me what really impressed you about this material.

        • Eric Barnes says:

          A good analogy for Drewski is …

          Steve goes into his basement and finds a group of climate scientists engaged in a D&D circle jerk. Steve points out to our climate scientist friends that they aren’t elves/wizards/etc. and rolling a 19 on the 20 sided die will not make climate sensitivity 4.0C per doubling of CO2. Drewski complains to Steve that he hasn’t passed smoked enough dope to arbitrarily change the rules without first passing it by the climate round table.

        • Drewski says:

          Yes Eric,
          I can see where your thoughts wander to.

          Seriously though, scientists make a name for themselves by overturning orthodoxy. All one has to do — Steve, in this case — is properly frame their study/arguments and then provide ample evidence to back it up.

          The evidence, of course, has to withstand scrutiny from experts in that particular field so getting it peer-reviewed and then published in a respected journal is really important. You know, the same way Anthony Watts proved his argument about how poorly sited temperature stations falsified NOAH’s and NASA’s temperature record.

          Oh wait. . . .

        • Eric Barnes says:

          Drewski. What a tool. Overturning the orthodoxy of million dollar do nothing grants that warn of an impending disaster that will occur after all of our children are dead. It should be so easy shouldn’t it. You only have to convince the pigs at the trough to stop eating the slop and get real jobs.

        • Drewski says:

          Eric,
          I see — you think someone or something is stopping honest scientists from publishing alternative AGW evidence and thus preventing peer review – right?

          Some mysterious group of people who have infiltrated all levels of scientific endeavor across all the countries of the world (even to the Vatican) — the “SSSSS” (Super Secret Society of Subverted Scientists). Shazaam thinks the NSA is behind it all. Personally, I think it is Lord Voldemort.

        • philjourdan says:

          Drewski – Not “think”, KNOW. How do we “know” they are preventing alternate data to be published? They TOLD us in the CG I and CG II emails.

          Try reading some of them, http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/22/bishop-hills-compendium-of-cru-email-issues/

          And lay off the kool aid. It is only making you appear to be more ignorant.

        • Eric Barnes says:

          Moron, I mean Drewski, name something concrete climate science has done for humanity (other than shake it down for more cash).
          You want give the honest answer of nothing, so why don’t you go away and do something positive for a change?

        • Drewski says:

          So Steve,
          Your proof that there is a worldwide conspiracy to stop review of contrary views on AGW is by showing me ONE scientist’s email discussing his disdain for the quality of 2 papers (one by Ross McKitrick and Pat Michaels, and another paper by Eugenia Kalnay and Ming Cai) that in actual fact were discussed in detail in chapter six of the Working Group I report of the AR4 (IPCC Fourth Assessment Report)?

          Is this your only reason for not publishing?

        • philjourdan says:

          Wrong strawman moron. No one talked about a “world wide” anything except you. Your challenge, was:

          you think someone or something is stopping honest scientists from publishing alternative AGW evidence and thus preventing peer review – right?

          Steve published the EXACT email that proved EXACTLY that! Then you try to change it to include your grandmother? You are not only a tool, you are a moronic tool

        • Drewski says:

          Phil,
          Steve DID NOT show an example of anyone being denied their work reviewed. All Steve did was to point to one person talking in disdain and derision about two papers that, in fact, were fully reviewed. And, as Phil Jones is not a publisher, he would have been incapable of stopping these papers from being published in any case.

          In regard to the “worldwide” comment – in today’s world, Steve has the option of being published almost anywhere he wishes. There is absolutely no reason (real or imaginary) that Steve could not put forward a properly framed paper for peer-review and, if credible, into a “real science” journal.

          After all, Anthony Watts was able to be published (although his conclusions were not what he expected). If Steve was truly serious about derailing these “climofacists” (his words), then, don’t you think, he should start acting seriously and present his work for peer review?

        • philjourdan says:

          Drewski – you have been Shown TWICE now where a “conspiracy” to deny work being published was both planned, and executed. So do not lie. The evidence is NOT some whacko far out moonbeam stuff. it is the words of the conspirators themselves. it is not a “statistical trend that indicates”, it is the actual statement that the works would not be published.

          So your pathetic lamentable protestations are merely the whimpering of a cur that has been beaten with his own tail. You got pwned by Steve. You are just not smart enough to understand it.

          And you are not familiar enough with me (nor will be due to your blind obedience to your masters) to call me by my first name. Use my name as written, I do not hide behind a blanket of anonymity like you do.

        • Drewski says:

          Phil,
          What I have been shown – ALL THAT I HAVE BEEN SHOWN – is one email that talks in derisive tones about preventing papers from making it through peer review by a person who would be incapable of making that happen. And which didn’t happen in any case.

          If this is the ONLY reason Steve is afraid to put his work up for peer review and thus give it it’s due importance, then you have chosen a very dubious leader for your cause.

        • philjourdan says:

          Prove it did not happen. Let’s see the evidence that it never occurred.

          What you have here is the conspiracy. Your challenge was to find such a conspiracy. It has been proven to you. So the ball is in your court. You can claim nothing happened, but you have presented absolutely no evidence it has not happened.

          You do not think much do you?

        • Drewski says:

          Sorry for the delay Phil,
          Let me get this straight – you want me to prove that some climate scientists did NOT prevent other scientists from publishing their own climate science studies. And this is because you have shown me Steve’s previous example of this unethical behavior NOT happening as well as other Climategate emails where this also did not happen?

          Breathtakingly ridiculous.

          And did you happen to consider, that with today’s technology, literally anyone can communicate to the entire world, so if someone was barred from publishing in a reputable journal, they could still get their message out.

        • philjourdan says:

          No, Drewski, I want you to prove your allegations. You have provided no proof of your allegations, Steve has proven his facts. if you are clueless on how to prove your allegations, here is a clue. Stop making them.

          You were proven wrong, Now you want to move the goal posts. But you have to pay for the move. With proof. So as they say, put up or shut up.

          The only thing ridiculous is your feigning ignorance of the written word.

      • Shazaam says:

        It will not get published. The NSA has enough dirt on the congress-critters to keep them in line. So I would not expect ANYTHING useful or productive from congress.

        However, the actual climate will provide the wooden stake into the heart of the CAGW myth.

        The people don’t believe the CAGW prophets anymore…. Indeed, they are flipping tired of having their earnings taxed away to support government parasites….. Enough is enough.

        • Drewski says:

          So Shazaam,
          You are saying that the NSA is using Congress to stop the publishing of anti-AGW climate studies — right?

          On the list of unbelievable hoaxes, yours has just shot to number 1.

        • Shazaam says:

          Ya know “Drewski” you may wish to work on your reading comprehension skills.

          Note that I was replying to:
          No the FOIA request will not go unnoticed because the Congress has enough members who are both knowledgeable and conscientious enough to press for corrections.

          The question must be: How to get this published?

          And if you read carefully (take your time, sound-out the hard words if you have to, we’ll wait), you will note that I stated that I do not expect any useful or productive actions from congress in this matter. I did not say that the NSA would prevent publication.

          Not clearly stated is that in the Liar-in-chief’s march to a “Carbon Tax”, the NSA information could be used to keep the congress-critters toeing the CAGW line for more taxes.

          I’ll admit that my note may not have been drafted precisely, yet I do not believe that grants you the right to essentially put words in my mouth (so to speak).

        • Drewski says:

          Shazam,
          My mistake – I thought that when you said “The NSA has enough dirt on the congress-critters to keep them in line. So I would not expect ANYTHING useful or productive from congress.” that you meant that the NSA had enough dirt on congressmen to keep them in line and therefore “It [Steve's graphs] will not get published”.

          You can see, I hope, how easy it was to confuse what you said with what you said.

          Right?

        • philjourdan says:

          The only thing confused is you. If you ever learn how to write, perhaps we can get you a class in reading comprehension as well.

        • Drewski says:

          “m If you ever learn how to write, perhaps we can get you a class in reading comprehension as well.”

          Says the man who can’t comprehend the meanings and actual intentions of the climategate emails.

        • philjourdan says:

          Says the man who understands the meaning of the word is. There is no “interpretation” of the emails. They are in plain English to any who understand the language. Which leaves you out apparently.

        • Drewski says:

          Yes Phil plain English,
          I think I know now why you are having trouble with understanding them.
          But, luckily, we have those MANY official investigations and those independent newspaper investigations from both sides of the Atlantic to help you understand.

        • philjourdan says:

          I am not the one having trouble understanding anything. I am also not the one having trouble responding (I am not Shazaam, nor is he me). So perhaps you should stop trying to be cute and learn how to read and write.

          Before projecting your own problems onto others, it is best to understand why you have those problems. You are not even at that stage yet.

  4. hazze says:

    Of coz they adjust it back tomorrow when they see this little lapse :-)

  5. Awesome Steve! Maybe it was an honest mistake all along.

    The warming trend is gone and the signal is clearly cyclical. Just think of how incredible such a confirmation would be! NASA and NOAA corrects its mistakes and regains street cred!

    Think of the possibilities… In a perfect world, the Climate Industrial Complex will say thank you and shut down. The rest of the world will start preparing for the coming cooling. Jim Hansen will be piloting a coal train in West Virginia, and Bill McKibben will be welding pipe on the KXL, in a plaid onesie! Alarmists and skeptics will have a big party and work on whether climate sensitivity is 0.2 or 0.4°C after feedbacks. Mike Mann will start playing goalie for the Penguins with a HUGE hockey stick, and he’ll be GOOD at it! GE will abandon its windmills and start making quality appliances and jet engines! Renewable subsidies will be eliminated. Students will learn that the processed data actually SHOULD resemble the raw data! Barack Obama will have actually accomplished something! The annual savings is going to be staggering. The impact on science will be monumental.

    Halfway joking (badly), but if it is that simple, it does a lot of things, including leaving the promoters a way out (while collapsing the whole enterprise).

    I hope you locate that line of code. Fine sleuthing indeed, Steve! Do you think it carries over to world temps?

  6. DocTor says:

    This is not an innocent mistake. It goes to our saying “hvis du tar denne, så tar du denne!” (“If you can take this one, you will also take that one!”).

  7. Scarface says:

    David and Goliath comes to mind. You definetely can and will make history.

    Keep fighting the good fight, Steve. Victory is near.

  8. QV says:

    Whether its a genuine mistake of deliberate, I wouldn’t expect them to admit it.
    Expect a cover up, at least until those involved are long gone.

  9. David A says:

    Where s Mosher to rationalize all this away?

  10. R. de Haan says:

    google search: climate change Communism
    About 1,359,380 results (0.27 seconds)
    Online courses for Educators from American Museum of Natural History
    Climategate, Global Warming, Climate Change, Al Gore Communist …
    http://www.commieblaster.com/climategate/
    Climategate Global Warming – Communist, Socialist, Progressive, Marxist Fraud Plot to Redistribute Wealth.
    UN climate chief declares communism best for fighting global …
    http://www.hotair.com/ archives/ 2014/ 01/ 16/ un-climate-chief-declares-communism-best-for-fighting-global-warming/
    2 days ago … As if on cue, the very communist nation hailed by the UN climate … on the way China “does climate change right” by selling smog as a benefit.
    Global Warming Is A Back Door To Socialism – As Even The United …
    news.investors.com/ ibd-editorials/ 011614-686713-climate-change-a-back-door-to-communism-and-the-united- nations-admits-it.htm
    2 days ago… word for it. Listen to the climate change boss at the U.N.. … Communist China has had one pollution crisis after another for decades. It’s also …
    UN Climate Chief Says Best Way to Fight Climate Change Is …
    http://www.rightwingnews.com/ climate-change/ un-climate-chief-says-best-way-to-fight-climate-change-is-communism/
    UN Climate Chief Says Best Way to Fight Climate Change Is…Communism. Written By : Duane Lester January 17, 2014. Well, I for one have been saying for …
    UN Climate chief – Climate Change Dispatch
    http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/ un-climate-chief-communism-best-for-fighting-global-warming.html
    2 days ago … The Communist system actually encourages air and water pollution, not to mention the burning of as much fossile fuel, as fast as possible in the …
    UN climate chief: Communism is best to fight global warming | The …
    http://www.dailycaller.com/ 2014/ 01/ 15/ un-climate-chief-communism-is-best-to-fight-global-warming/ – View by Ixquick Proxy – Highlight
    3 days ago … UN climate chief Christiana Figueres said that democracy is a poor political system for fighting global warming. Communist China, she says, …

    Now watch this video posted at Fox: Pauchari say’s Communism best system to fight AGW:
    Communism is the McDonald of mass murder: http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/the-five/article/2014/01/17/un-climate-chief-communism-best-fight-global-warming

    Now that doesn’t this all fit like a glove with UN Agenda 21 and Obama spreading the Wealth….

    Fight back….. Freeeedooooom………..

  11. R. de Haan says:

    Now watch this video posted at Fox: Pauchari says Communism best system to fight AGW:
    Communism is the McDonald of mass murder:
    http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/the-five/article/2014/01/17/un-climate-chief-communism-best-fight-global-warming

    Now that doesn’t this all fit like a glove with UN Agenda 21 and Obama spreading the Wealth….

  12. NikFromNYC says:

    Pierre Revue strikes again. Take zat, brats!
    http://s23.postimg.org/ecu6qvpmj/Pierre_Revue.jpg

  13. Kiwi7 says:

    I think this should be called the “Warmergate” scandal

  14. Bob Greene says:

    I spent a while trying to understand the nature of the adjustments. I believe I understand the rationale of putting all data on the same time of observation. I don’t quite understand the number (limited, I believe) of stations used to make the correction algorithm and the total number of stations with different times of observation. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/ushcn/ushcn.html . Version 2 seems to take this a bit farther and also seems to try to improve siting problems. Version 2 also seems to add more stations (COOP). NOAA also doesn’t fully explain the adjustment procedures for siting and uses the Reno data as an example. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/ushcn/ . However, Anthony Watts used the Reno Airport as an example of how not to site a surface station http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/01/10/how-not-to-measure-temperature-part-46-renos-ushcn-station/ . Also, I don’t understand how the monthly(?) rehomogenization of the the V2 data does anything. Is this continually recorrecting a corrected data set? Why would you do that? Also, the correction for past data always seems to be down.

    This post has resulted in an interesting Sunday morning read. I came across the Deep Climate hit piece http://deepclimate.org/2012/06/21/heartlands-james-taylor-hits-new-low-with-defamatory-false-accusations-against-noaa/ and, more interestingly Dr. Spencer’s latest RSS summary: http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/ Qualitatively, this looks more like Steve’s uncorrected data plots than the corrected plots. It’s also global and not lower 48 US.

    It certainly looks as though a FOIA is in order if a good explanation of the change is not forthcoming.

    • Homogenization is a bad thing… It spreads the crap to the good stations. Reminds me of a cartoon I drew a week or two ago…

      http://t.co/TWNT2myGTX

      An analysis I wanted to do was take every station with data, every day, and grid it so that lines drawn from the current station to (maybe 6) nearby stations intersected the grid edges. The temperature at that edge point would be the intersection of the line between the “in-grid” station temp and the “extra-grid” station point. You would do this for every combination of inner and outer grid stations, with distance ratings as the inverse square of the distance. Grid blocks with multiple in-grid stations would be arithmetic average for the day, plus the effects of outer stations. This would automatically adjust for missing data every day, and do minimal blending, but some. Then you take the average of all the area-weighted blocks once each is calculated for USA. Some of the local data would get a little smeared, and the grid temp would change a little when different local stations were picked due to missing data, but the other effects should be minimal.

      I put a lot of hours into that, using Excel VBA as a front-end to download data and store locally in a more usable format for the grid analysis, but I couldn’t get excel to pull data for more than about 6 hours non-stop without bombing out. Didn’t feel motivated to continue. There are much better ways to do that anyway, like R, but I don’t know that language yet…

  15. Eric Barnes says:

    Awesome work! Thanks!

  16. gator69 says:

    Nicely done! That goes in my ‘Data Tampering’ file. Just don’t expect the likes of matayaya to offer you props, the sheep will just continue bleating.

  17. markstoval says:

    Well played Steve.

    The eternal problem is that truth means little to the main stream media and the man in the street will never hear of this nor understand its implications. The government agencies won’t give a rat’s rear since the media is always on their side. In the end, the fraud of cAGW strengthens the control of government over the slaves (you and me) and so the state will support the fraud.

    “Dr.” Mann should be in prison but gets paid big bucks to speak on the circuit. And so it goes.

    • Jeff says:

      Negative PDOs cause major droughts in California. It’s not the worse of the century; it’s the worse since the 1970s, when California had major droughts as well, also the last time PDO was negative.

  18. Clankster says:

    Depressing. Enlightening. Predictable. Don’t stop this incredibly important work Steve. The truth will win out one day, though it is nearly impossible to believe given the enormous lucre driven media corruption.

  19. Steve Well done. I think you should try to repost this as a guest post at WUWT,Climate Depot and Joanna Curry’s CE site .Get Morano to get this out on Fox and Limbaugh under the title “fiddlegate “or something else catchy.

  20. Latitude says:

    damn……You’re good!
    really good!!

    • Jeff says:

      I agree this will be like Climategate. But remember that the press and most people ignored Climategate at first. It took a couple of years before it became known in most places. I have a feeling this will be the same. We need to get it out to other skeptic sites first and get everyone on our side talking about it and understanding what happened here.

  21. I will repeat the comment I made on this site back on September 17, 2013:

    “I didn’t take notice of the global warming debate until late 2009, and within a year (perhaps as early as spring, 2010), I had become aware that the alarmist climate scientists had actually only correlated CO2 with temperature from 1976 to around 2000, and had clearly tried to extend that correlation as if the temperatures in that period were representative (and also clearly ignoring the cooling from 1880 to 1910, and from around 1940 to 1975–criminal behavior, in science). I have gotten no feedback on this, so people don’t seem to care, or refuse to believe it (although, as I said, to me it soon became obvious from the graphs being presented to the public, here, for example).

    “But now, looking at the before [V1] and after [V2] graphs for the US you present here, it very much looks like they (no doubt Hansen and his buddies in the field) may have originally focused upon the temperature variation from just 1976 to 1989-90, and drew the entire global warming fraud of the last 20 years from that short period–notice how the trend over that small section of time remains the same in the “before” and “after” graphs, while they had to adjust the 1990-2000 temperatures to come into line with the 1976-1990 trend. You heard it here first–the whole temperature fraud is based upon the temperatures in just the 14 (or 15) year period, 1976-1990.”

  22. squid2112 says:

    Very nice work Steve! … HUGE hat tip!

    Now, get this information OUT THERE! … It will do you no good unless it is spread far and wide… The rest of should (will) do our part to assist you with this task.

  23. minarchist says:

    Needs to go viral, Steve. Agree with Dr. Page’s comments above. Good work.

  24. SMS says:

    I’m seething. I’ve known the CAGW theory is crap for a long time. When I see definitive proof “again”, like the above post, I want to shove James Hansen’s pointy head up Al Gore’s rear.

    Just sent this link to my senators and congressman. Lot of good it will do sending to Udall and Bennett. Their heads are so far up their butts (self inflicted) they are almost as criminal as NOAA personnel.

  25. Robertv says:

    But remember CO2 is still killing our oceans. So it is still one of the useful tools for the ongoing power grab of governments..

      • Yea, quite the interesting video – let me say this about that . . .

        Friday, January 31, 2014
        “Dr. Richard Lindzen, scientist as fiction writer”
        Check it out over at whatsupwiththatwatts {} blogspot dot com

        • gator69 says:

          What have you been smoking?

        • hahaha, very funny. I could ask the same of the disjoined, reality disconnected stuff I’ve read over here.

          But, since you seem curious, here’s a little of my intro – it’s applicable to much of silliness presented over here:
          ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

          Friday, January 31, 2014
          “Dr. Richard Lindzen, scientist as fiction writer”
          http….whatsupwiththatwatts{}blogspot{}

          Or, Science By Rhetoric As Opposed To Science By Evidence and Learning.
          Based on the YouTube video short “Lindzen – Why you should not worry”

          After watching this video, I went through the comments and discovered that Dr. Lindzen and the fiction writer Michael Crichton were pals. What an interesting insight, the cynical scientist and the master of science fiction story telling. Given Lindzen’s performance in this video, and every other one I’ve watched, I can see how the pupil learned his lessons well.

          Look at this, or any other, YouTube performance of Dr. Lindzen mocking climatologists and you will see echoes of rhetoric over evidence reinforced by drama substituting for substance. Hallmarks of the successful science fiction fantasist.

          But, Dr. Lindzen, what does that have to do with understanding what is happening within our atmosphere and the greater global heat distribution engine?

        • gator69 says:

          OK, got it, it’s crack.

        • That’s the sad thing about you folks, you think it’s all a joke that can be dismissed with insults and ridicule. But, the real world outside your window follows the laws of physics. And all your ego-centric rhetorical tricks (such as the one-sided misrepresenting of the how and why of temperature record adjustments) and your insults – don’t do a thing to change that.

        • Ooops. Temps are below zero emissions scenario C. It is a joke.

        • stevengoddard writes: “Ooops. Temps are below zero emissions scenario C. It is a joke.”
          ~ ~ ~
          What joke? What are you taking comfort in? Can you explain?

          To me it seems like a bunch of belly button gazing (aka cherry picking)
          considering all the realities you folks keep choosing to ignore.
          Such as the stuff reviewed here:

          This week’s top six rebuttals to David Rose’s “warming has stopped” claim
          http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2012/10/this-weeks-top-six-rebuttals-of-david-roses-warming-has-stopped-claims/
          ~ ~ ~
          Or “The new IPCC climate report”
          http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/09/the-new-ipcc-climate-report/
          ~ ~ ~
          Oh yea, then there is this compilation of information. ;- }
          http://www.climatechange2013.org
          ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

          Here’s an example of the type of approach that impresses me – rather than just attacking, it attempts teaching and explaining:
          The Beginner’s Guide to Representative Concentration Pathways
          By G. P. Wayne
          http://www.skepticalscience.com/rcp.php?t=1
          ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

          Misrepresenting uncertainty and statistics doesn’t trump what’s happening out there in the real world.

          Please, person who goes by stevengoddard, can you explain why you take comfort in your above claim? What do you think you’ve proven, or disproven?
          What lesson do you think we should learn from your claim?

        • Global warming is a joke, as are its proponents.

        • That the best you can do? :- |

          You know, it sounds like an emotional thing for you –
          rather than any rational, let’s discuss the science and learn from it
          sort of thing.

        • Your scam has run its course. Time to move on to the next scam.

        • philjourdan says:

          YOu have yet to even mention the science. Your schtick has consisted mainly of ad hominems, insults, fabrications and argumentum ab auctoritate

        • Go visit: WhatsUpWithThatWatts – blogspot – com
          You’ll find I am quite willing to support my thoughts with the science, although I’ll admit I do favor the work of actual scientists who are involved in these questions full-time and have their work survive the gauntlet of the global community of Climatologists and other Earth Scientists.

        • gator69 says:

          You mean the gauntlet of tunnel vision?

          “The Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute (KNMI) is concerned about the IPCC’s focus. See their document titled Submission by The Netherlands on the future of the IPCC. Under the heading of “The IPCC needs to adjust its principles”, KNMI begins:
          We believe that limiting the scope of the IPCC to human-induced climate change is undesirable, especially because natural climate change is a crucial part of the total understanding of the climate system, including human-induced climate change.”

          Odd, doesn’t seem as if there is this broad agreement to which you seem to be referring. Sounds like a handful of blindered alarmists, and a bevy of politicians.

        • philjourdan says:

          No, you are promoting your failed blog. Period. Successful blogs do not need to play on other blogs as you did. If you had anything substantive to say, you could post it here, without the juvenile ad hominems and infantile insults. You could do so in a factual, rational and logical manner. None of which you have used yet.

          instead, you have bombed this thread with your lies, vitriol, pettiness and spite. In short, I insult mice when I compare them to you. You are no better than a virus.

        • philjourdan says:

          Quoting yourself as a source? Talk about circular logic.

        • philjourdan says:

          Rocky Mountain high – a new weed variety.

        • Andy Oz says:

          Yawn. Another Fabian troll shows up.

        • gator69 says:

          “citizenschallenge says:

          That’s the sad thing about you folks, you think it’s all a joke that can be dismissed with insults and ridicule”

          Seriously crackhead? You call Lindzen a fiction writer because he was friends with a fiction writer, and then make that statement above? Nice to know you lunatics are still capable of projection while higher than a kite.

        • I call Lindzen a liar, slander and he belongs in front of a judge every bit as much as Mark Steyn, the National Review and CIE deserves it.
          ~ ~ ~

          PS.

          Wednesday, January 29, 2014
          “Surely you’re joking Mr. Weingarten!”
          whatsupwiththatwatts{}blogspot{}com

          “If you are trying to understand the “right wing” approach to learning about critically important climate science issues and the concept of an “even playing field” – here’s an article that highlights the right-wing’s contempt for a civil and honest exchange of information. It relates to Dr. Mann’s lawsuit against author Mark Steyn, the National Review and Competitive Enterprise Institute for claiming he’s guilty of scientific fraud. In response to another ruling in the plaintiff’s favor, one Ben Weingarten wrote an artfully crafted plea for sympathy, wherein he transforms the perpetrator(s) into the victim(s). But, do his claims stand up?

          Here’s my review, along with links to further information. …”

          ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

        • Hopefully you will get your turn in front of the judge for libeling Lindzen.

        • What libel? Please be specific . . .

        • gator69 says:

          “citizenschallenge says:
          February 2, 2014 at 2:11 am
          I call Lindzen a liar, slander and he belongs in front of a judge every bit as much as Mark Steyn, the National Review and CIE deserves it.”

          And Richard Muller too!

        • Clovis Marcus says:

          Would you address the point at issue.

          What is the reason for the adjustment curve? Why negative adjustments at the start and strong positive adjustments later. I’m genuinely interested to know the justification.

          I don’t see the queue to defend it.

  26. lorne50 says:

    Reblogged this on leclinton and commented:
    Well done Steve ;>)

  27. Maybe I’m misunderstanding something. The way you describe chart 3 in words, the difference (V2-V1) should be a flat line of around -1 at the left, which shifts to 0 at 1998. What you describe could be a software error.

    But what we see in your new chart 8 (since last night), you show basically a horizontal -1° to 1950, then a blend (slope up) to current year, then a random variable added to hide it. (no big shift at 1998). I think I was too optimistic. This is too complicated to be an error, it’s points to deception. I was hoping for a pivot as described before, it gave me hope for NOAA.

    • The biggest problem (of many) is that the V1 adjustments were small positive, and the V2 adjustments are large negative. They are supposed to be made with approximately the same algorithm.

  28. Shazaam says:

    Great catch there.

    Next, NOAA will be revising all the record highs and lows to match their data tampering. Better archive that data too!!

    Just another day with the criminally incompetent knaves and fools working for NOAA & NASA as “climatologists”.

    • leo driscoll says:

      What about ave world temps ? Would by that give a more accurate pic of what is happening ?

      • What does that have to do with errors in the US temperature record?

        • Hugh K says:

          ‘Deflection’ from the “Motherlode” you have brilliantly unearthed Steve.
          Obviously most rational thinkers understand this, but it does me good to once again get it off my chest — It is always the same game-plan with the miseralists; Regardless of the argument, don’t respond to the point being made by your opponent. Sans souci (without worry), simply divert to a benificial talking point utilizing psycho-babble as clearly outlined in Lakoff’s Little Blue Book….for leftists. http://pjmedia.com/zombie/2012/07/09/the-little-blue-book-quotations-from-chairman-lakoff/
          Sad we have come to this. I can understand the usefullness of this devious tactic in politics, but not in the world of what was once called science. Unfortunately, the two are becoming increasingly homogeneous.
          For our leftist lurkers that disagree with any of the above, first explain why the cAGW crowd has changed the narrative from global warming, to climate change to climate chaos. But you won’t. The Little Blue Book tells you not to engage the point but to reframe the intrinsic nature of the point.

        • Dave N says:

          “For our leftist lurkers that disagree with any of the above, first explain why the cAGW crowd has changed the narrative from global warming, to climate change to climate chaos”

          ..and “global weirding”. Sadly, alarmists are incapable of distinguishing what is happening now with what has already happened in the past, so anything at all becomes weird.

        • DaveN, you forgot “Climate/Weather Disruption”.
          All those descriptor apply.
          I think you also missed Extreme Weather.

          You see, our climate is virtually a closed global heat distribution engine,
          with the sun providing most of the energy.
          Atmospheric greenhouse gases create an insulating layer – society is dramatically increasing that insulating layer, this in turn is warming that global heat distribution engine. This in turn will energize the climate system to levels it hasn’t experienced in hundreds of thousands of years. That will be reflected in the weather patterns and storm systems of our planets. As is currently observable.

          Simple physics so matter how much you try to ignore it !
          The information is out there here’s a start:
          http://www.c2es.org/newsroom/articles/scientific-american-series-extreme-weather-climate-change
          http://www.skepticalscience.com/extreme-weather-global-warming-intermediate.htm

        • gator69 says:

          Crackhead, when your Chicken Little priests rule out natural variability, feel free to come back. Until then, you have nothing to offer.

      • David Sinfield says:

        No statistically significant rise for 10-15 years according to the met office. Until someone decides to re-write the global records as well

        http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/media/pdf/q/0/Paper2_recent_pause_in_global_warming.PDF

        • Glornt says:

          For the Chicken Little “global weirding” crowd: You know what’s the absolutely strangest thing the climate could do? Answer: Remain exactly the same.

      • Andy Oz says:

        There’s a family guy skit for every situation.

      • The hurried-er I get the more typo’s I makes.

        sorry

  29. milodonharlani says:

    If the Team at GISS weren´t hiding the raw data & their “adjustments” thereto, ie were actually practicing science, it wouldn’t require world class sleuthing to get their data & algorithms.

  30. milodonharlani says:

    And that goes double for NOAA.

  31. I.H. Someone who actually opened that link, and read the report. says:

    Figure 1, and Page 994 explain that they use a whole new set of stations. Figure 4 applies to only TOB adjustment, but their other bias adjustments are brand new; a “pair-wise algorithm” as explained on pages 997 on. This algorithm is to remove weaknesses of the v1 model, accounts for changes in equipment, location (microclimate) and urbanization around the station. Figure 7 shows how their adjustments _after_ TOB are lowering the estimates prior to cca 1980 and raisingthem after 1980. Figure 11 explicitly compares v1 and v2 estimates and shows you that the changes are in minimum temperatures,, and indeed there is the change as you discovered. (As they state in the beginning, minimum temperatures are more sensitive to equipment, location, and urbanization that affect the microclimate during sunrise). THE WHOLE POINT of the v2 is that they feel they found a better way (better algorithm) to adjust for the changes in the measurement network – better than they had in v1.

    Do I know whether these adjustments are reliable, valid, or even reasonable? Not at all. This also, as you correctly point out, is not a peer-reviewed article, but a gov’t report. However, you made some deliberate skipping in the text and figures to make your — false — argument.

    • Impressive how you managed to ignore about 97% of the post and create a tangential straw man argument.

      • I.H. says:

        Really? His point is that the data is invalid, because v2 and v1 do not agree and this shows covert manipulation of the data. Did I miss something?

        • I pointed out numerous specific problems, and you muddled that into something I didn’t say. You are projecting your own dishonesty, not discussing the article.

    • Hugh K says:

      Another fine example of the Lakoff method of debate (which has no place in science). Thanks for proving the point.

      • I.H. says:

        Not sure, I understand your point.

        • Hugh K says:

          See my comment above the one you are referencing (@ 6:25). Then follow the link – it should become clear in understanding all of the deflection, deception, word-change, etc employed by the miseralists/alarmists/leftists leading to a better understanding of my comment you addressed. IMO – The link is quite enlightening.

        • philjourdan says:

          Not surprising since you apparently do not understand the article either.

    • SMS says:

      And they still don’t adjust for UHI.

    • DirkH says:

      I.H. Someone who actually opened that link, and read the report. says:
      January 19, 2014 at 5:51 pm
      “THE WHOLE POINT of the v2 is that they feel they found a better way (better algorithm) to adjust for the changes in the measurement network – better than they had in v1. ”

      OF COURSE they “felt” it to be much better. As ALL adjustments, cooling the past, warming the present some more keeps up the CO2AGW scare and keeps the government money tap wide open.

      Have you ever wondered why they ALWAYS talk about anomalies? When we warm by 2 deg C we’re all gonna die? They NEVER say, once we reach 17.3 deg C avg temperature we’re all gonna die? Why don’t they? They’re scientists; they should be able to tell, no?

      They don’t because they would be nailed down to it. And they have always given the most contradictory statements about current real average temperature when asked by TV journos in interviews. Today, all journos have been conditioned to never ask THAT question.

      • Jeff says:

        It’s not about conditioning with journalists, it’s just that they are leftists too. Global warming has become the new worldview of the worldwide left. It use to be socialism, but with the collapse of the Soviet Union and the fact that no socialist country had ever been successful that became problematic. It’s no surprise that global warming, as philosophy and way of life, emerged after communism collapsed. It’s no surprise that the leftists behind this AGW scam are now showing their true colors by praising the Chinese government and attacking American democracy even though China’s environmental policies are ridiculous and America leads the world in reducing their carbon footprint. The whole scam of AGW is falling apart before our eyes. You can tell from watching the alarmists, they are scared.

    • Paul Clark says:

      @I.H.
      So, it’s just a coincidence that all such adjustments bolster the AGW warming scare, never detract from it? Truly amazing “science”!

  32. Gail Combs says:

    Steve, Well done!

  33. Steve’s latest post illustrates very clearly one of the main reasons why the Global SST data is the best metric for climate change. It is now also obvious from the deviation of the real world data from the IPCC model forecasts that a new forecasting method is needed. For forecasts of the coming cooling based on the simple working hypothesis that the recent warming peak was a synchronous peak in the 60 and 1000 year periodicities in the temperature data and that the recent sharp decline in solar activity also presages a cooling trend in the near future see several posts at
    http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com

  34. Cheshirered says:

    Dellingpole, Booker, Rose, Bishop Hill et al over here in the UK – are you guys onto this?
    Deserves widespread distribution.

    Great work (as ever) Steve.

    • Gail Combs says:

      I absolutely love to read Dellingpole. He is my favorite journalist and I have four (still alive) in the family. ( fifth generation)

      I like the rest too.

  35. If you don’t like NCDC’s approach, you can always use Berkeley Earth’s data, which starts with the raw data and cuts records at breakpoints: http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/regions/united-states

    Oddly enough, it ends up with pretty much identical results to NCDC, despite quite different approaches. We did a poster in 2012 at the AGU looking into this in more detail, including tests with synthetic data to make sure that both methods would equally effect warm and cold biases: http://rankexploits.com/musings/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/AGU-2012-Poster.png

  36. Noblesse Oblige says:

    With NOAA/NCDC, the past climate is as hard to predict as the future climate.

  37. geran says:

    Busted! Again, and again, and again, and again, and again…but, the zombies keep coming….

  38. rw says:

    It’s interesting that that’s the same discontinuity that the troposphere records show. But if this one is bogus …

  39. Hew Manatee says:

    Now if you can just put a spin on this that it is all part of some conservative old white male conspiracy to deprive a bunch of fatherless black welfare recipients of their food stamps, then the press corpse will be all over it like a cheap suit.

  40. sasha says:

    You should do an am a on reddit. That sometimes gets attention. And not sure if you are on twitter?

  41. ThinkingScientist says:

    Great work.

    And it still beats me why the corrections in the data have always had a systematic warming trend. There appears to be no obvious physical explanation as to why this should be the case. Ashl

    • Thisisgettingtiresome says:

      It is that rosy glow of nostalgia that has to keep being corrected for. It was colder than we remember it, really.

  42. MisterMoney says:

    Solid Scientific Proof that it is getting COLDER.
    It used to be a lot warmer in the world when I was younger living in Florida.
    Now it is a lot colder in the world since I am living in Michigan.

  43. ntesdorf says:

    Great work again here, Steve!
    You better keep an eye on the old record high and low temperatures records too, in case they turn their attention to corrupting them too. Those record complete the exposure of their manipulations. I am sure that at least you have it all archived.
    I would love to see this exposure hit the mainstream media like a ClimateGate episode. NOAA & NASA are like major “climate” criminal organisations.

  44. Peter Miller says:

    In today’s world of climate science, only the future is certain, the past is subject to constant ‘correction’.

    “The science is settled” only applies to future temperature statistics, not to those of the past.

  45. I support Steve’s conclusion that the historical temperature record is being fraudulently depressed in order to generate a spurious warming trend in recent decades: http://endisnighnot.blogspot.co.uk/2013/08/the-past-is-getting-colder.html and http://endisnighnot.blogspot.co.uk/2012/03/giss-strange-anomalies.html
    THEY ARE FIDDLING THE FIGURES

  46. Darkstar says:

    Well, that could go to explain why all the high temperature records were set in the 30s a lot better then “CO2 done did it, we sure of it!” does

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/14/newly-found-weather-records-show-1930s-as-being-far-worse-than-the-present-for-extreme-weather/

    …otherwise we are still stuck in the “believe what we tell you, not what you can see” loop

  47. Why bother looking for an error if the results fit the purpose of the research?

    /sarc

  48. Jim says:

    Just enter the words “Climate Gate” into a search engine and you will get the last word on rigging the data.

  49. Terrahertz says:

    Nice work!
    Also note, there’s a difference between software bug and software buggery.
    The latter seems more likely to be the case with these ‘adjustments’.

  50. Rick K says:

    Keep at it Steve! You do this better than anyone!

  51. Earthling says:

    Will the saga end here?
    It’s doubtful, our catastrophist friends won’t give in that easily.

  52. Eugene WR Gallun says:

    A few good men can defeat all the forces of evil.

  53. ThinkingScientist says:

    I wonder what would happen if you fed the adjustment algorithm with driftless (stationary) random noise, with suitable sections missing, drop outs etc to emulate station moves, closures, missing data? What would the corrections look like and how would the “adjusted” temperature then appear after massaging? If it was no longer driftless it would be strong evidence of the inappropriatenss of the adjustment algorithms.

    • HankH says:

      Yes, if the result were no longer driftless it would indicate that the model has high sensitivity to the short term trend just prior to data dropout, assuming the model incorporates only an autoregressive function. If it includes an integrative term (differencing) the result will be stationary if properly parameterized even if the spatial / weighting functions of the model are off. In such case, the next step is you would want to also include a spatial and weighting component to the test to see if they produce a non-stationary output due to faulty spatial and weighting functions. Just my thoughts.

  54. I will not pretend this all registered. In fact, it boggled my brain! That being said, I am NOT surprised that Sundance uncovered proof of data manipulation in regard to “global warming” which is the biggest hoax ever perpetrated on the world. And, of course, the kool-aid drinkers bought it hook, line and sinker.

  55. Norman says:

    This report plus the comments listed show that “you cannot fool all the people all of the time”

  56. Robert of Ottawa says:

    It’s a very clever stratagem to create a temperature increase by cooling the past, which can’t be directly verified while leaving current temps as is, which can be verified.

    It is also extremely dishonest.

  57. Susan M. says:

    Scientists lying because they are too stubborn to believe in God. They think they are SOOO smart, but they are just little liars.

  58. Reblogged this on Power To The People and commented:
    NCDC US Temperatures are “completely broken and meaningless. Should not be used as a basis for making decisions on climate protection policies that will waste billions of dollars of futile efforts to regulate the climate.

  59. Ben Vorlich says:

    XXVI

    But the Consul’s brow was sad,
    And the Consul’s speech was low,
    And darkly looked he at the wall,
    And darkly at the foe.
    ‘Their van will be upon us
    Before the bridge goes down;
    And if they once may win the bridge,
    What hope to save the town?’

    XXVII

    Then out spake brave Horatius,
    The Captain of the gate:
    ‘To every man upon this earth
    Death cometh soon or late.
    And how can man die better
    Than facing fearful odds,
    For the ashes of his fathers,
    And the temples of his Gods,

    XXVIII

    ‘And for the tender mother
    Who dandled him to rest,
    And for the wife who nurses
    His baby at her breast,
    And for the holy maidens
    Who feed the eternal flame,
    To save them from false Sextus
    That wrought the deed of shame?

    XXIX

    ‘Hew down the bridge, Sir Consul,
    With all the speed ye may;
    I, with two more to help me,
    Will hold the foe in play.
    In yon strait path a thousand
    May well be stopped by three.
    Now who will stand on either hand,
    And keep the bridge with me?’

    Thomas Babington Macaulay, Lord Macaulay

    Horatius

  60. hawkeye13 says:

    They will continue with the lies, just because that is where the money is. That is why Gore did his movie, just to get things headed in the direction he needed to make a ton of money with carbon credits. Grants for man made global warming will continue until we get Obama out.

  61. Ed says:

    “Those that control the past control the future” Thy will just put this dow the memory hole again and hope it goes away if we don’t keep pushing for accountability.

  62. NikFromNYC says:

    This needs distillation. It’s just abuncha charts, WUWT style. A scale here, an overplot there. Not yet vigorous. Lots of sound and furry, merely. No real target to shoot for, NASA is now innocent since some over zealous no name fuck overweighted the puck in cubicle K?

  63. Brian H says:

    Calculated adjustments in °F, implemented in °C?

  64. Brian H says:

    Maybe Inhofe needs to hear about this.

  65. Mervyn says:

    Before publicly listed corporations release information, they must ensure it is not misleading or deceptive in any way or they can face the consequences of the arm of the law should it be subsequently found that the corporations and their directors engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct.

    What a pity similar legal standards applicable to corporations do not apply to NOAA and its temperature data. There should be a legal requirement for the temperature data to be audited by a team of independent scientists and an independent auditors report issued.

  66. tomwys says:

    Yes, Brian: Inhofe knew or suspected it for years, but finally Steve supplied the numbers!

    Yet the “Temperature Shift” chart (6th down from the top) has been out for some time and actively ignored by our “heads in the sand” MSM, MSNBC, and NYT. Time for Marc Morano to get into high gear!!!

  67. Stephen C says:

    Steve,
    I wish you would have a look at Australian Climate data. I have seen a few articles about how the BOM (Bureau of Meterology) have inconsistently homogenised results but it was a few years ago. Recently the BOM had adverts on TV saying that Australia had the hottest year ever this year but did not say but how much.

  68. Richard says:

    Back in the days before the internet really got going the whole scam of agw was around the world before the truth had got its trousers on.

    The internet came along and slowly the skeptic sites arrived, Steve, WUWT, Jo Nova etc these sites are out performing the alarmist sites. The newspapers are either closing down their environment desks or cutting back on the stories, it is going to take a while longer for the general public to realize that there is nothing unusual happening but slowly, story by story, it is happening.

    • gregole says:

      Mainstream media has degenerated into full-fledged propaganda and marketing and in America it is dying. According to the article below, most journalism graduates go directly into marketing and PR and avoid becoming journalists at all. The practice of journalism is dying, as it is currently practiced.

      http://consortiumnews.com/2014/01/01/happy-news-year-decline-of-the-news/

      After 2009 and the Climategate debacle, I monitored news magazines and was convinced someone, anyone, would pick up this juicy story. Aside from a little bit in Forbes, and a little at the WSJ; and a little horribly obviously biased stuff in Newsweek, (Newsweek now defunct…) there was nothing. Then I got wise; cancelled every subscription. I realized they simply were not reporting the truth about Climate Science and started wondering what else they were lying about.

      Looking back, I have to laugh at my naivety. I am confident more people will wake up as more of the facts get out.

  69. catswold says:

    Great information confirming what most of those who are not easily beguiled have known since this whole leftist folderal began.

    Sadly, it will not make a difference. CAGW is a religious tenet of the left, not a scientific theory or principle. Facts do not affect their belief.

    The CAGW alarmists are
    1. The cynical who use it to gain power,
    2. The cynical, who use it to assure their future livelihood (the so-called climate “scientists,” and 3. The gullible, who have bought the mythology and are the rank-and-file true believers–the mindless soldiers in the battle to impose the “Green” (Marxist/despotic) agenda.

    Short of a sudden, cathartic upheaval in their lives caused by the failure of their beliefs, no amount of factual information will alter their beliefs.

    • catswold says:

      Oh yeah, and when scientist begin “correcting” their data regardless of the reasoning, it’s time to head for the hills.

      When the raw data don’t fit the models, then let the “correcting” begin.

    • What happens in the bubble chamber stays in the bubble chamber
      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~
      Science in a vacuum is no way to learn about the world around us.

      As for CAGW suppose what’s happening over in the UK is just a sunday picnic disrupting rain shower?

  70. Sean McHugh says:

    I am genuinely here to ask assistance, not to pick fault. The USHCN V2 is years old and Steve’s toggling plot (6th down), labeled “U.S. Temperature” and “Temperature Anomaly”, was being used as ammunition by me in 2012. How do Steve’s presumably ‘new’ discoveries differ from the old in identity, significance and political clout? Thanks in advance.

  71. Omar says:

    Slow down a bit. From what you have posted, it does indeed seem that something is off. However, you are not being terribly precise or thorough in your language and your analysis.

    A ‘huge jump’ is not the same as a discontinuity. The latter word has a precise mathematical definition, but generally speaking, a graph is continuous if there are no breaks, and a discontinuity is a region in which there is a break. Given that the graph is formed by connecting many sample points, the graph itself is continuous by definition. The sample data, on the other hand, is by definition not continuous because they are snapshots; if you plotted just the snapshots and not any inferences, there would be breaks in the intervals between the samples. Given that this is completely irrelevant to the point you’re trying to make, you should not use this word as it will cause the scientists to examine the wrong thing.

    Additionally, layering both images on top of each other isn’t quite convincing. The graphs don’t seem to use the same scale and it is difficult to tell if your layering resolves that. What you should do instead is to re-plot the data points from both graphs on a unified graph to remove all doubt.

    Lastly, as someone who doesn’t usually concern myself with these matters (I simply have other interests), it would be great if you could explain what the difference is between USHCN V1 and V2, or at least provide a reference where you or someone else explained it. If an adjustment was made erroneously, it is probably a result of flawed methodology and not malice. Understanding what changed between v1 and v2 may shed light on why any adjustment was made at all, and why perhaps it is wrong.

    Please consider posting an update with these comments in mind. If you’re right, I’d want the data to be corrected. However, if you simply submit this as is to journalists, the people that matter aren’t going to take you seriously.

  72. Thank you for all this work. Much appreciated!!!

  73. John Robertson says:

    I think E.M Smith (Musing from the Chiefio) did some digging into these numbers a couple of years ago.
    His march of the thermometers or comparison of the spread of global warming to a disease was very entertaining.
    The Harry Read Me file from climate gate seems to match your findings as well.
    I too recommend you slow down and make this as coherent an explanation as you can. I see the shape but need the bones highlighted, so I can club an alarmist with facts, not speculation.
    I am predisposed to doubt the honesty of our bureaucrats come scientists as they have changed written history.
    They may have believed they have the best reasons to do so, but they have joined the ranks of those who change the past, to suit their own beliefs.
    When asked to chose who to assign credibility to, a weather station operator from 1936, or an activist data massager of 2001, I have to go with the reader of the thermometer.
    Of course as a worker in the electrical field, I find the claimed temperature trend, in the temperature data, indistinguishable from noise.

  74. philjourdan says:
    January 31, 2014 at 9:41 pm
    Quoting yourself as a source? Talk about circular logic.
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Silly, I’m sharing my thoughts – why not try reading them and give them a moments of you’re consideration.

    • philjourdan says:

      The mouth that squeaked. You are not sharing thoughts. You are projecting your own faults. And spewing a lot of invective and childish ad hominems as well.

      It takes no thought to toss around insults. When you grow up, you will learn that.

      • OK, please let’s go back to that short video of Lindzen’s.
        Please show me one place in that talk where Lindzen is not
        “spewing a lot of invective and childish ad hominems”

        Please point out the serious science in Lindzen’s talk.

        • philjourdan says:

          He squeaks again with his vile invectives and infantile ad hominems.

          Show me a post of yours that has not been that way. You only see it because you only spew it. You have no accomplishments, no life, and no facts. So you nip at the ankles of greats trying to get them to trip and fall into the gutter, so they are at your level.

          Squeak, squeak little mouse.

  75. excuse the typo

    for “your consideration”

  76. GregM says:

    You must consider HOBS, Height of Observer Bias. One hundred years ago, people were much shorter. Hence their angle when reading thermometers was wrong, so they always read 1 degree too high. This is pioneer reviewed research.

  77. stevengoddard says: 
February 2, 2014 at 8:39 pm 

    “Global warming is a joke, as are its proponents.
”
    ~ ~ ~
    citizenschallenge says: 
February 2, 2014 at 9:27 pm
    
”That the best you can do? :- |
You know, it sounds like an emotional thing for you -
rather than any rational, let’s discuss the science and learn from it
sort of thing.

”
    ~ ~ ~
    stevengoddard says: 
February 2, 2014 at 9:30 pm 

    “Your scam has run its course. Time to move on to the next scam.”
    ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

    Oh boy, now I got a scam going.
    What is it?
    Being willing to challenge you face to face?
    Trying to ask you some simple questions?
    Pointing out what an un-scientific performance Lindzen made?

    What’s wrong with thinking about how we live within a virtually closed climate system?
    What’s wrong with thinking about the geophysical reality of what greenhouse gases are doing in our atmosphere and how that impacts the entire global heat distribution engine?

    I’ll be honest, to my way of thinking all these contortions over V1 / V2, now that’s a pretentious joke – All your high brow technical talk, is little more than biased science in a vacuum to an uncritical crowd of believers. You dismiss fully educated professionals with such dripping contempt – it’s no wonder you don’t think you can learn anything from them. It also frees you up from having to meet difficult professional standards.

    But, where does that leave us when we are supposed to ignore the real experts?

    Tell us “stevengoddard” have you produced any constructive science?
    Can you offer links to some useful explanations regarding what’s going on within our biosphere?

    Because it seems to me, It’s like your crowd is all about tunnel focusing on the dings in the paint job, as if that’s what makes the vehicle take us places.

    • Latitude says:

      the sound of one hand clapping…

    • gator69 says:

      What paint job?

      You alarmists have never disproven natural variability. You have nothing but models! :lol:

      • Gator, it’s a LIE to claim global warming “alarmists”* don’t know about climate variability and it’s different sources.
        Your comment is exactly what I’m talking about when I say your community is dependent on the repetition of verifiable lies, as though the knowledge weren’t out there.

        And even though you can read about it, you continue pretending the knowledge isn’t out there:
        ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
        Working Group I: The Scientific Basis
        1.2.2 Natural Variability of Climate
        Internally and externally induced climate variability
        http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/042.htm
        ~ ~ ~
        IPCC
        Climate Change 2007: Working Group I: The Physical Science Basis
        9.1.1 What are Climate Change and Climate Variability?
        ~ ~ ~

        PS “stevengoddard”

        Monday, February 3, 2014
        A conversation with “Real” Science’s “stevengoddard”
        WhatsUpWithThatWatts – blogspot – com
        happy learning
        ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
        *And yes our situation is getting danged alarming !

        • gator69 says:

          The verifiable lie is that they can measure natural variability.

          Just destroyed your verbosity in one sentence.

          You are welcome.

        • philjourdan says:

          It is not a lie squeaky. They proved it. Go argue with the idiots that proved you wrong.

      • OK, let me look at this again:
        “You alarmists have never DISproven natural variability. …”
        I read it too fast the first time.
        That’s sort of like a trick question, ain’t it.

        Of course, no one has “disproven” natural variability !
        As I showed you, all climatologists know about variabilities.
        So there is nothing to disprove.

        So what are you trying to prove?

        Please think about it,
        all the CO2 we are putting into the atmosphere is “natural”,
        sun and the carbon cycle put these fossil fuels into the ground,
        an “organism” (us) has now come along
        and is injecting huge quantities of this carbon back into the atmosphere,
        CO2 that took millions and millions of year to accumulate is being
        releasing in decades,
        all very “natural”.

        This increases our planet’s atmosphere greenhouse gases,
        all very “natural”.

        Increasing our planet’s atmosphere greenhouse gases warms the planet,
        all very “natural”.

        This warming of the planet’s climate system intensifies weather patterns,
        all very “natural”.
        ~ ~ ~

        Gator, please excuse my misunderstanding – now that I got you straight; could you please explain what the above non-claim is supposed mean, or to tell us? What am I supposed to learn from that question?

      • And just how accurate are you expecting those measurements to be?

      • Oh and what’s wrong with using models to learn about how our planet’s climate operates?

        Guess you don’t appreciate that “models” are used throughout the sciences and most developments would be impossible without their aid. So why the demonizing?

        • The models are good for 72 hours, not 100 years

        • philjourdan says:

          Not around here. They are about 50% for 48 hours. Less for 72.

        • Shazaam says:

          Oh and what’s wrong with using models to learn about how our planet’s climate operates?

          Why absolutely nothing is wrong with using models to approximate a system in order to understand how it operates.

          What is wrong with the so-called climate experts and their “models” is that they assume that their models are much more accurate than reality. Pronouncing that one can predict the next 100 years based on a short-term modeling exercise is about as criminally arrogant as it gets.

          Guess you don’t appreciate that “models” are used throughout the sciences and most developments would be impossible without their aid. So why the demonizing?

          Because you will never find an engineer who will trust any model more than reality (thus the prototyping phase).

          And that is simply because all>/b> models are simply approximations. And the best of approximations always have flaws. Period. No one responsible would be foolish enough to build something upon which lives depend, based solely on the results of computer models.

          And yet, the so-called “climatologists” want to control the world economies based upon the results of their climate models. If they built cars or aircraft based upon such models alone, they would be judged criminally irresponsible at best.

          This, I find it fitting to ridicule the climatology field based upon the tactics they employ.

        • So you believe scientists are supposed to be able to model a Earth system with the same accuracy they can model a bridge with?
          ~ ~ ~

          Shazaam: “Because you will never find an engineer who will trust any model more than reality”

          Hmmmm,
          Out of curiosity, how would you classify computer aided design?
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_777
          The 777 was the first commercial aircraft designed entirely on computer.

        • philjourdan says:

          So the Boeing 777 is a scientific theory now? Shazaam! I thought it was an engineering design!

          So now engineering is really science and science is really engineering? Who would have thought it! Only Squeaky.

        • Oh jeez, Shazaam you don’t actually believe this do you?

          “And yet, the so-called “climatologists” want to control the world economies based upon the results of their climate models.”

          Have you ever considered, scientists might just be presenting the evidence as it’s being observed, and that this is important information for business, political leaders and supposedly the public to become familiar with – in order to understand the real geophysical situation we are in?

        • philjourdan says:

          Then why did the IPCC omit over 200 papers that did not support their predefined conclusion?

          You think maybe they are just after the money? Try again squeaky. You are digging your hole deeper.

        • Gail Combs says:

          Even the IPCC states models are useless beyond a short time period.

          They said:
          QUOTE
          “in climate research and modeling we should recognise that we are dealing with a complex non linear chaotic signature and therefore that long-term prediction of future climatic states is not possible”
          Ipcc 2001 section 4.2.2.2 page 774
          UNQUOTE

          Also the IPCC states they were NOT formed to study climate but to determine ” impacts and options for mitigation and adaptation”

          QUOTE
          The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was established by the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) in 1988 to assess the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant for the understanding of human induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for mitigation and adaptation.
          http://www.ipcc-wg2dotgov/
          UNQUOTE
          So the last 25 years of ‘science’ was never about understanding climate.

          I suggest you look up Chaos Theory and ‘Strange Attractors’
          Dr Robert Brown (Physics @ Duke University) stated:
          There is no good reason to average chaos. It is a mathematical nonsense to do so because the law of large numbers does not apply to chaotic time series. There is no mean around which the data can be expected to converge.

          In chaotic systems you have attractors, which might be considered local means. When you use standard statistics to analyze them, you appear to get good results while the system is orbiting an attractor, but then it shoots off towards another attractor and makes a nonsense of your results.

          So the idea that you can improve your results by taking longer samples of chaotic systems is a nonsense. The longer a chaotic system is sampled, the more likely if will diverge towards another attractor, making your results less certain not more certain.

          This is the fundamental mistake in the mathematics of climate. The assumption that you can average a chaotic system (weather) over time and the chaos can be evened out as noise. That is mathematical wishful thinking, nothing more. Chaos is not noise. It looks like noise, but it is not noise and cannot be treated as noise if you want to arrive at a meaningful result.

        • philjourdan says:

          Wrong question. You can use a model of an outhouse to try to build the Eiffel Tower. But like the climate models, it will be useless.

          At the very least climate models should be able to mimic the past. So far, none have. And they are totally useless for projecting the future squeaky.

      • now you’re getting silly,

        good night.

        • Cartesius says:

          Citizenschallenge
          “Have you ever considered, scientists might just be presenting the evidence as it’s being observed…?”

          The trouble is that there is a small vociferous band who call themselves “Climate Scientists” who do not allow for any dissenters be they climate scientists, geologists, physicists, biologists statisticians, chemists, meteorologists, engineers dendrologists, anthropologists or other (have I left anyone out?) scientists. These self-selected “Climate Scientists” do not deign to use the raw data but prefer to pass it through sieves until it agrees with their pre-determined hypothesis. (Note the singular – manmade CO2 is responsible for most if not all modern global warming).

          When someone comes along, as Steven Goddard has done with an incontrovertible piece of work, to show that their numerous adjustments are designed invariably to aid their conjectures rather than to detract from them, these “Climate Scientists” rely on an army of camp followers to dispute the findings rather than attempt to justify their own “homogenisation” of the data.

          In fact, I seem to remember that the leading “Climate Scientists” were so dubious of their own adjustments that, as Climategate confirmed, they conspired to prevent much of that data being made available for verification on the grounds that those statisticians and scientists who were seeking it would only use it to prove them wrong.

          No wonder that so many of us are dubious of their right to still call themselves scientists.

  78. stevengoddard says: 
February 2, 2014 at 2:19 am 

    “Hopefully you will get your turn in front of the judge for libeling Lindzen.


”

    citizenschallenge says: 
February 2, 2014 at 6:01 pm 

    “What libel? Please be specific”
    ~ ~ ~

    Still waiting for specifics.

  79. Gail Combs says:

    Okay, lets take the problem from the top.

    The oceans are not only 70% of the earth’s surface, but they influence the atmospheric temperature over land. So lets look at the oceans.

    IR can only impact the thin surface layer of the ocean and also IR is low energy compared to UV or EUV.

    It is Sunlight especially the visible light range and above that penetrates the oceans: graph 1 and graph 2

    Even if CO2 is bouncing IR back towards the oceans it is only in certain wavebands and it is insignificant compared to the energy from the sun. graph 3 This graph gives the relative energy of ‘earthshine’ vs ‘sunshine’

    On top of all that Mankind is only responsible for three percent of the CO2 in the atmosphere.

    Then you can add in the changes in albedo:
    graph 4 from the “Earthshine Project” at the Big Bear Solar Observatory.

    And also the changes in the composition of the sun’s TSI
    NASA SOLAR IRRADIANCE (Gives changes in sunlight for different wave lengths of solar energy)

    NASA: Solar Variability and Terrestrial Climate

    …Of particular importance is the sun’s extreme ultraviolet (EUV) radiation, which peaks during the years around solar maximum. Within the relatively narrow band of EUV wavelengths, the sun’s output varies not by a minuscule 0.1%, but by whopping factors of 10 or more. This can strongly affect the chemistry and thermal structure of the upper atmosphere….

    Indeed, Gerald Meehl of the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) presented persuasive evidence that solar variability is leaving an imprint on climate, especially in the Pacific. According to the report, when researchers look at sea surface temperature data during sunspot peak years, the tropical Pacific shows a pronounced La Nina-like pattern, with a cooling of almost 1o C in the equatorial eastern Pacific. In addition, “there are signs of enhanced precipitation in the Pacific ITCZ (Inter-Tropical Convergence Zone ) and SPCZ (South Pacific Convergence Zone) as well as above-normal sea-level pressure in the mid-latitude North and South Pacific,” correlated with peaks in the sunspot cycle.

    The solar cycle signals are so strong in the Pacific, that Meehl and colleagues have begun to wonder if something in the Pacific climate system is acting to amplify them. “One of the mysteries regarding Earth’s climate system … is how the relatively small fluctuations of the 11-year solar cycle can produce the magnitude of the observed climate signals in the tropical Pacific.”

    Anthropogenic CO2 just doesn’t have the energy to affect the climate in the way CAGW supporters say it does. You are talking three percent of a microsmidgen of energy. A waveband in the UV to EUV is HUGE in comparison to a co2 waveband as this graph shows.

    NASA has found changes of solar radiation during a solar cycle of:
    Solar Radiation —— Energy Flux — Solar Cycle — % Change
    MUV (200-300 nm) — 15.4 W/m2—0.17 W/m2 —— 1%
    FUV (126-200 nm) — 50 mW/m2—15 mW/m2 —- 30%
    EUV (0-125 nm) —– 10 mW/m2 —- 10 mW/m2 — 100%

    These changes affect ozone production and destruction.

    … ozone is produced by short wavelength solar ultraviolet radiation and destroyed by radiation at somewhat longer wavelengths. Because the amplitude of solar cycle variability is greater in the far ultraviolet (see Section 5.2) ozone production is more strongly modulated by solar activity than its destruction and this leads to a higher net production of stratospheric ozone during periods of higher solar activity. Observational records (Figure 29a) suggest a peak in ozone response of about 2% over the solar cycle in the upper stratosphere, with a secondary maximum in the lower stratosphere, although the restricted length of the data series means that these results are not yet statistically robust. Ozone column (Figure 29b) shows 0.5 – 4% higher values in ozone columns at 11-year cycle maximum relative to minimum….
    http://solarphysics.livingreviews.org/open?pubNo=lrsp-2007-2&page=articlesu11.html

    Ozone then affects the position of the polar jets. See the Brewer-Dobson Circulation and Rossby Waves.

    Steve has already show that the Laurentide Ice Sheet has a strong resemblance to the shape of the Polar Vortex.

    The Solar Wind also affects the atmosphere.
    NASA: Solar Wind Loses Power, Hits 50-year Low

    • Gail Combs says:
      February 4, 2014 at 3:10 am
      “Anthropogenic CO2 just doesn’t have the energy to affect the climate in the way CAGW supporters say it does.
      [cc- then this non sequitur….] You are talking three percent of a microsmidgen of energy. A waveband in the UV to EUV is HUGE in comparison to a co2 waveband as this graph shows.”
      ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
      Well that was interesting,
      so with a bunch of handwaving and pointing at various facts in a discombobulated manner, leaving out huge gaps – you’ve just proven a hundred years of science evidence supported “consensus” is false.

      Talk about not looking at the other side of science – give me a break.
      Then again, when you’ve written and submitted your paper to be reviewed by actual experts please do let me know. ]

      In the mean I’ll trust the real experts and their considered opinions, you know that demonized “consensus” sort of thing.
      ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

      To learn more about your chosen topic –

      http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/greenhouse-gases

      http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/02/06/the-earths-energy-budget-part-one/

  80. Gail Combs says:

    to add to my above comment (still in moderation)

    Low-Energy Ion Escape from the Terrestrial Polar Regions
    29
    Polar wind
    The polar wind, named after its similarities to the solar wind, was theoretically predicted by Axford (1968) and Banks and Holzer (1968) by arguing that the light ions in the ionosphere attain enough energy to escape the Earth’s gravitational field. The outflow is driven by the gradient in the electron pressure, which makes the electrons move upward. To maintain charge neutrality, an ambipolar electric field is built up and the ions are dragged upward along with the electrons. Thus, a larger outflow of electrons automatically gives rise to a larger outflow of ions. This is evident for example in the polar wind on field lines connecting to the sunlit ionosphere, where the outflows are significantly larger than on the nightside, due to escaping photoenergized atmospheric electrons (Yau and André, 1997; Moore et al., 1999a). Also, if the plasma electrons are heated, energy ….

    Total balance
    …..Oxygen escape accounts for the largest mass loss, while hydrogen is lost in largest amounts. The escaping hydrogen atoms originate mainly in the oceans, releasing oxygen into the atmosphere. Over the past billion years this reaction has caused the sea level to decline by a couple of meters globally (Hanslmeier, 2007)…..

    OBSERVATIONS OF COLD PLASMA
    The first direct measurements of the outflows in the polar region was achieved in the late 1960’s by Explorer 31, which found H+ outflows at 500 and 3000 km with velocities up to 15 km/s (Hoffman, 1970). ISIS 2 confirmed the outflow of H+ , and also found evidence for outflows of He+ and O+ . Oxygen was shown to be the dominant ion species at the satellite altitude (1400 km) during magnetically quiet times….

    Factors controlling plasma outflows
    ….we should note that the outflow properties are dependent on the altitude of the energy input that drives the outflow. The theory of stellar winds states that if energy is added in the subsonic region the outward mass flux will increase, whereas if it is added in the supersonic region it is instead the outward velocity that increases (Leer and Holzer, 1980)….

    The polar wind is mainly varying with solar UV flux, since it controls the ionization rate and photoelectron production in the ionosphere. Therefore the polar wind is sometimes referred to as photothermal outflow (Moore and Hor- witz, 2007). The auroral outflows, on the other hand, are enhanced during active times, when the solar wind-ionospheric coupling is strong. Since the solar wind energy input shows larger variability than the solar radiation, the auroral wind is much more variable than the polar wind. Nsumei et al. (2008) have shown that solar illumination controls the plasma density over the polar caps mainly at low altitudes (below 2.5 RE ), whereas it is controlled by the geomagnetic activity at higher altitudes (above 4 RE )…..

    In ionospheric outflow studies, the F10.7 index is often used as a measure of the solar UV flux producing photoionization in the Earth’s ionosphere. The outflow flux is strongly dependent on the F10.7 index, as has been shown in numerous studies (e.g. Yau et al., 1988; Cully et al., 2003a; Paper V). The outflow velocity seems to be little altered by the F10.7 level (Abe et al., 2004; Paper V), which indicates that the increased flux for high F10.7 mainly is due to the enhanced ion density and elevated photoelectron production. This is consistent with the theory of stellar winds cited above, as UV ionization and heating predominantly affects lower altitudes.….

  81. gator69 says:

    Challenged Citizen says:
    “Hmmmm,
    Out of curiosity, how would you classify computer aided design?
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_777
    The 777 was the first commercial aircraft designed entirely on computer.”

    This comment shows exactly how ignorant some people are about the level of understanding man has regarding Earth’s climate. Airplanes are man made, we know the exact weight and size if every part of the aircraft including the paint. We know the thrust capacity of the engines and the drag of the fuselage.

    Warmists believe their high priests are gods, who designed the heavens and earth, and therefore know it as well as an engineer knows a bridge. This is lunacy, with a tanker load of ignorance.

    Consider ‘the pause’, which noone can explain, and which was also not forecast by any of the dozens of models. Consider that even before ‘the pause’, the IPCC admitted that they only kind of understood about 20% of identified climate forcings. Also worth consideration is that all of the climate models have failed.

    Maybe a challenged citizen would want to ride on a plane designed by cave men, but us pragmatists would prefer to walk.

    The stupidity of the warmists is strong.

    • You forgot about the important first question I asked:

      Do you believe scientists are supposed to be able to model a Earth system with the same accuracy they can model a bridge/plane with?

      ~ ~ ~
      Incidentally,
      would you fly in a plane that has a 1% or 2% chance of falling out of the sky?

      • You have greater than 90% probability of being in an auto accident at some point in your life. Best never leave your bathroom.

        • philjourdan says:

          The bathroom is the most dangerous room in the house. He best not leave his bed.

          But then most people die in their bed, so he is just screwed.

      • gator69 says:

        Challenged Citizen, you are the fool defending climate models, and comparing them to airplanes. Just a reminder! :lol:

        • No, actually this is exploratory discussion, trying to reach some comprehension of how the logic works around here. And in such a discussion it’s better to stick to the issue than trying to project into my mind and talking for me, that crosses over in manipulation.

          But, I realize by ignoring half my questions and imagining what I’m thinking rather than honestly discussing the important questions you are upholding a long denialist tradition:

          ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
          Let’s try again, to see if anyone care to offer a serious response:

          Do you believe scientists are supposed to be able to model a Earth system with the same accuracy they can model a bridge/plane with?
          ~ ~ ~
          Would you fly in a plane that has a 1% or 2% chance of falling out of the sky?

        • gator69 says:

          Yes, let’s try again.

          All of the models built using the CAGW hypothesis have crashed and burned. Would you fly on a plane that crashes and burns every time? (Please say ‘yes’) :lol:

        • philjourdan says:

          All your questions are either stupid, or childish. And are irrelevant. Ignoring them saves time as you are too old to spank.

        • Yea, sure does seem like folks like that name calling over dialogue.
          And when the name calling don’t work, the threats start…
          http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2014/02/scottishsceptic-threatening-me.html

        • gator69 says:

          More projection, still no science.

          You have yet to address natural variability. That must happen before silly thoughts about Man’s tiny contribution to CO2 levels occur.

          Get busy, and quit your childish whining.

        • Guess you haven’t been paying attention, you’ll find the science I rely on explained here:
          http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2014/02/scepticview-scottishsceptic.html

          It’s a funny claim you make. Where did you folks come up with the notion that “natural” climate variability cancels out the gigatons of greenhouse gases we have injected into our atmosphere.

          And take about disingenuous: Hmmm, how can a few ppms have such profound impacts?
          And you imply I’m science illiterate. hahaha

        • gator69 says:

          Challenged Citizen, it is impossible to quantify the climate impact of man’s minuscule contribution to the CO2 budget, until we can quantify all forcings.

          Please let me know when you are able to prove this recent climate change is not natural, until then you cannot blame man made CO2.

          If you do not understand this, I really do feel sorry for you.

        • philjourdan says:

          You have continually shown that the “science” you rely on is your own opinion. So no one needs to visit a parody blog that lacks any content or intelligence.

        • philjourdan says:

          Insulting what you say is not insulting you. I guess you never learned that. But if you want to believe in fairies and unicorns, we are free to say those beliefs are stupid. It is not an insult. it is an accurate description.

          I suggest you go back to school and learn the difference.

  82. Gail Combs says:

    Connection of the Polar Wind, Solar Wind, and Ozone to the Jet Stream

    A 2012 research paper by Francis & Vavrus shows a 14 percent drop in the speed of upper level winds since 1979. They contend it is BECAUSE northern latitudes warmed up the fastest.

    They seem to have cause and effect backasswards as they try mightily to link CAGW to the jet stream.

    From NASA the counter argument:

    Dawn of a New Ozone Hole
    September 17, 2001: ….Each year around this time, the ozone hole begins to open as light from the springtime Sun triggers the chemistry of ozone destruction. It’s an annual event. The hole widens in mid-August, then contracts again in December — a cycle shaped by south polar weather.

    Last-year’s ozone hole was a record-setter: it grew to be three times larger in area than the entire land mass of the United States. The hole was so far-reaching it exposed towns in southern Chile and Argentina to elevated levels of ultraviolet sunlight.

    This year’s hole has been opening since mid-August, and it appears to be another big one. “Right now it’s too early in the season to say anything definitive about how [the 2001] hole will come out. But we can say that it will be a big ozone hole, like it has been the last few years,” says Paul Newman, an atmospheric physicist at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center.

    This year’s ozone hole is already larger than Antarctica….

    Ice crystals within the clouds provide a surface for chemical reactions that transform benign chlorine compounds into ozone destroyers. Colder winters, which make more extensive polar stratospheric clouds, set the stage for vigorous springtime ozone destruction. Indeed, last year’s record hole followed a particularly frigid Antarctic winter.

    Winds are also important. During the winter there’s a huge “whirlpool” of fast-moving air circling Antarctica called the “Antarctic vortex,” which effectively insulates the continent from the rest of the atmosphere. Warm ozone-laden air from the tropics can’t get in, so the temperature inside the vortex plunges even lower. More and more ice-crystal clouds form in the freezing air, triggering even greater ozone losses….

    Like I said backasswards. Also Solar Cycle 23-24 was at a record low minimum from ~2006 to ~2001 GRAPH

    Grand maxima of solar activity
    … The sunspot number was growing rapidly between 1900 and 1940, with more than a doubling average group sunspot number, and has remained at that high level until recently… Therefore the modern active sun episode, which started in the 1940s, can be regarded as the modern grand maximum of solar activity, as opposed to a grand minimum (Wilson, 1988b).

    Is such high solar activity typical or is it something extraordinary? While it is broadly agreed that the present active sun episode is a special phenomenon, the question of how (a)typical such upward bumps are from “normal” activity is a topic of hot debate…

    A quantitative analysis is only possible using proxy data, especially cosmogenic isotope records. Using a physics-based analysis of solar-activity series reconstructed from 10Be data from polar (Greenland and Antarctica) archives, Usoskin et al. (2003c, 2004) stated that the modern maximum is unique in the last millennium. Then, using a similar analysis of the 14C calibrated series, Solanki et al. (2004) found that the modern activity burst is not unique, but a very rare event, with the previous burst occurring about 8 millennia ago. An update (Usoskin et al., 2006a) of this result, using a more precise paleo-magnetic reconstruction by Korte and Constable (2005) since 5000 BC, suggests that an increase of solar activity comparable with the modern episode might have taken place around 2000 BC, i.e., around 4 millennia ago.….

    Here is another paper that happily links ozone to Antarctic jets because they can blame ozone depletion on humans (and not on the destruction and formation of ozone by different wavelengths of UV from the sun) Ozone depletion trumps greenhouse gas increase in jet-stream shift “Depletion of Antarctic ozone is a more important factor than increasing greenhouse gases in shifting the Southern Hemisphere jet stream in a southward direction, according to researchers.”

    Again NASA says not quite:
    Peering into the Ozone Hole: Concentrations of ozone-destroying gases are down, but the Antarctic ozone hole is bigger than ever. It turns out there’s more to ozone destruction than just CFCs.
    Remember ozone is three oxygens

    From a NASA pointer: The Importance of Being Magnetized
    ….Our nearest planetary neighbors, Mars and Venus, have no oceans or lakes or rivers. Some researchers have speculated that they were blown dry by the solar wind, and that our Earth escaped this fate because its strong magnetic field deflects the wind….
    Each of the three planets is losing roughly a ton of atmosphere to space every hour. Some of this lost material was originally in the form of water

    “Right now the rates for the three planets are about the same for certain ions,” Luhmann says. “No one is debating that.”

    Other ions besides oxygen have been measured escaping into space, such as ionized carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide molecules, which also include oxygen. Hydrogen ions are also being lost, but they are difficult to distinguish from solar wind protons. Even so, researchers assume that approximately two hydrogens escape for each oxygen. (The reasoning is that if this were not the case, the atmosphere would have long ago turned highly oxidative or reductive). The net effect is the loss of H2O molecules.

    Giant Breach in Earth’s Magnetic Field Discovered “..”The opening was huge—four times wider than Earth itself,” says Wenhui Li, a space physicist at the University of New Hampshire who has been analyzing the data. Li’s colleague Jimmy Raeder, also of New Hampshire, says “1027 particles per second were flowing into the magnetosphere—that’s a 1 followed by 27 zeros. This kind of influx is an order of magnitude greater than what we thought was possible.”…”

    I just had to include this NASA article: The Day the Solar Wind Disappeared “For two days in May, 1999, the solar wind that blows constantly from the Sun virtually disappeared — the most drastic and longest-lasting decrease ever observed… This severe change in the solar wind also changed the shape of Earth’s magnetic field and produced an unusual auroral display at the North Pole….Earth’s outer electron radiation belts dissipated and were severely depleted for several months afterward.”

    Now what was that about the Sun being constant so we could completely dismiss it’s effect on the climate?

  83. Gail Combs says:

    And even more. Well you did ask!

    Is solar variability reflected in the Nile River? linking “Egyptian records of annual Nile water levels collected between 622 and 1470 A.D” with “auroral activity during the same time period in northern Europe and the Far East. People there routinely and carefully observed and recorded auroral activity, because auroras were believed to portend future disasters, such as droughts…” link They have “variations in common – one with a period of about 88 years and the second with a period of about 200 years.” aka the 88 year Geissberg cycle and the 208 year Suess or de Vries cycle.

    The Cause of Auroras
    Auroras are caused by high energy particles from the solar wind that are trapped in the Earth’s magnetic field. As these particles spiral back and forth along the magnetic field lines, they come down into the atmosphere near the north and south magnetic poles where the magnetic field lines disappear into the body of the Earth.

    The delicate colors are caused by energetic electrons colliding with oxygen and nitrogen molecules in the atmosphere. This excites the molecules, and when they decay from the excited states they emit the light that we see in the aurora.
    link

    Back to the modern age:
    Maunder Minimum. Predicted?

    NASA: Drop in Sun’s Activity Expected
    …Hill is the lead author on one of three papers on these results being presented this week….
    “We expected to see the start of the zonal flow for Cycle 25 by now,” Hill explained, “but we see no sign of it. This indicates that the start of Cycle 25 may be delayed to 2021 or 2022, or may not happen at all.”

    In the second paper, Matt Penn and William Livingston see a long-term weakening trend in the strength of sunspots, and predict that by Cycle 25 magnetic fields erupting on the Sun will be so weak that few if any sunspots will be formed. Spots are formed when intense magnetic flux tubes erupt from the interior and keep cooled gas from circulating back to the interior. For typical sunspots this magnetism has a strength of 2,500 to 3,500 gauss (Earth’s magnetic field is less than 1 gauss at the surface); the field must reach at least 1,500 gauss to form a dark spot.

    Using more than 13 years of sunspot data collected at the McMath-Pierce Telescope at Kitt during Cycle 23 and now in Cycle 24. They also observed that spot temperatures have risen exactly as expected for such changes in the magnetic field. If the trend continues, the field strength will drop below the 1,500 gauss threshold and spots will largely disappear as the magnetic field is no longer strong enough to overcome convective forces on the solar surface….

    “If we are right,” Hill concluded, “this could be the last solar maximum we’ll see for a few decades. That would affect everything from space exploration to Earth’s climate. ”Peak in Arizona, Penn and Livingston observed that the average field strength declined about 50 gauss per year….

  84. Gator yet another quotable example of grossly misrepresenting what climate scientists actually say, think!

    “Warmists believe their high priests are gods, who designed the heavens and earth, and therefore know it as well as an engineer knows a bridge. This is lunacy, with a tanker load of ignorance.”
    ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

    The successful rhetorical sleight of hand you folks have pulled off on the public is that…

    You have fabricated this expectation that scientists need to be able to describe and account for Earth processes with the same exactitude and mathematical precision, that engineers employ to build a bridge. Quite dishonest when you think about it a little.

    Youz guys have also managed to twist “reality” through some logic-algorthym that unless it can be exactly accounted for down to a few decimal points of accuracy, you can assume it doesn’t exist. And that imagining a doubt is as good as proving a doubt, if it works for your political agenda.

    Seems like a blind way to travel into the future.

    Also somehow youz guyz have managed to remain oblivious to the dramatic geophysical changes that have occurred these past four decades and don’t appreciate that our climate has huge inertia and that we are just at the beginning of this trajectory that is being forced by our reckless massive injections of proven greenhouse gases into our atmosphere.
    ~ ~ ~

    But the decades pass by faster than any of us appreciates and the runway that’s behind us doesn’t do us any good.

    1.6 The IPCC Assessments of Climate Change and Uncertainties
    http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch1s1-6.html
    ~ ~ ~
    Communicating uncertainty in climate science
    http://talkingclimate.org/guides/a-guide-to-communicating-uncertainty-in-climate-science/

    • gator69 says:

      Well why didn’t you say so in the first place? This explains everything! It explains why you continue to defend as fact a failed hypothesis, upon which any model that is built fails! Genius! :lol:

    • Shazaam says:

      You have fabricated this expectation that scientists need to be able to describe and account for Earth processes with the same exactitude and mathematical precision, that engineers employ to build a bridge. Quite dishonest when you think about it a little.

      What is really dishonest is the so-called “climatologist” clowns who claim they can predict temperature trends for the next 100 years from their computer model runs when they openly admit that they cannot yet account for, nor accurately model the effects of cloud cover. <—- Now that is dishonest!!!!

  85. Let’s try again, to see if anyone else cares to offer a serious response:

    Do you believe scientists are supposed to be able to model a Earth system with the same accuracy they can model a bridge/plane with?
    ~ ~ ~
    Would you fly in a plane that has a 1% or 2% chance of falling out of the sky?

    • gator69 says:

      Yes, let’s try again.

      All of the models built using the CAGW hypothesis have crashed and burned. Would you fly on a plane that crashes and burns every time? (Please, please say ‘yes’)

      • Gail Combs says:

        The last company I worked for would be very please to build the engine parts for him. Of course three crashes were traced back to the company…

    • Gail Combs says:

      I offered a serious response at:
      February 4, 2014 at 3:10 am
      February 4, 2014 at 2:28 pm
      February 4, 2014 at 2:31 pm

      All the comments were long and had links so they got booted into the ether by WordPress.

  86. Gamecock says:

    “Do you believe scientists are supposed to be able to model a Earth system with the same accuracy they can model a bridge/plane with?”

    We are spending a billion dollars a day because of their models. Excusing scientists for their lack of accuracy doesn’t cut it. Prison time for those who represented it as accurate.

    • Gail Combs says:

      Never happen.

      Six Phases of a Project
      1. Enthusiasm,
      2. Disillusionment,
      3. Panic,
      4. Search for the guilty,
      5. Punishment of the innocent,
      6. Praise and honor for the nonparticipants.

      “..The list was used in computer science in the early 1970s, and quickly spread to engineering and government projects. Ephraim R. McLean called this the “all-too-true life cycle of a typical EDP system” in 1972…”
      from“Entry from September 16, 2011
      Six Phases of a Project (“Enthusiasm, disillusionment, panic…”)”

      Notice how the IPCC, Al Gore and Obama got Nobel prizes and NOT the scientists….

  87. Gail Combs says:

    Bob Greene says: @ January 19, 2014 at 1:23 pm
    I spent a while trying to understand the nature of the adjustments. I believe I understand the rationale of putting all data on the same time of observation……….
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Time of Observation is a BIG RED HERRING.

    Six’s thermometer, a registering thermometer which can record the maximum and minimum temperatures was invented by Englishman James Six in 1782; the same basic design remains in use. (WIKI)

    One of the guys at WUWT said these thermometers have been in use since the 1800s. All Tobs can do is shift one reading to a different day. It means nothing when looking at monthly averages.

  88. Gail Combs says:

    Something to look at when considering all the data manipulation is KRIGGING.

    Geostatistics: From human error to scientific fraud
    http://www.geostatscam.com/index.htm

    Happy reading. (Grin)

    • So has this morphed into a mining blog?
      “Statistically challenged experts talk confidently about confidence without limits. Applied statistics does give unbiased confidence limits for metal contents of mined ores and mineral concentrates. I have done so for Barrick Gold. It can be done not only for metal contents and grades of ore reserves but also for proven ore within inferred resources. Borehole Statistics with Spreadsheet Software shows how to derive 95% confidence intervals and ranges for masses of metals in volumes of in-situ ores. It’s high time to set up an ISO Technical Committee on reserve and resource estimation. But Barrick Gold, BHP Billiton, Rio Tinto and Vale prefer stochastic mine planning with voodoo variances.”

      And in the end it turns out to be an ad for the guy’s own product.

      And what part of that applied to climatology, pray tell?

      • So has this morphed into a mining blog?

        says the idiot who keeps wanting to talk about airplanes & bridges.

        What part of that applied to climatology, pray tell?

        • Well I was trying to get around to discussing the difference between Earth Science and Engineering. And the dishonest expectation that Earth Sciences are supposed to meet Engineering standards before we can draw valid conclusions from them.

          But that would have required a good-faith dialogue.

        • philjourdan says:

          You destroyed your good faith with your insults and ignorance.

        • Shazaam says:

          Oh please do discuss the differences between the so-called “earth sciences” and the hard sciences. I’d love to know why you feel that the earth sciences should be held to a much lower standard in their data handling. Especially since you stated that expecting honesty, accuracy and transparency in the handling of data is somehow “dishonest”.

          In particular, I’d love to know why the “earth sciences” feel such a compulsion to “adjust” their raw data. In the hard sciences, one does not touch the raw data. If the observations and measurements do not fit the theory, then it is time to re-think the theory.

          If your bank altered your deposits to a lower figure (to compensate for stock market trading losses due to a bad theory for example) would you be OK with that? Or would you prefer that the deposits you make (raw data) not be altered to benefit the bank?

      • You mean the good faith part where a “signal” of 0.6° is underlain by 4° of adjustments, & that’s okay by you because climate science isn’t engineering?

  89. Gail Combs says:

    Krigging is the method used for coming up with the global temperature anomaly. Temperatures from as far away as 200 km are used to ‘modify’ or even fill in the data.

    If the temperature in my town SOUTH by 25 miles is 7 °F COLDER than the ‘Official Station’ then how in heck can this a$$eS state the temperature anomaly is good to 0.0X°C ?

    They can not even get the approximation for my town or the towns 30 miles to the west and east of me correct.

    The underlying A$$umptions are the same. The Climastrologists A$$ume the temperature is exactly the same over a 200km X 200 km square just as the geologists in mining who use krigging A$$ume the underlying rock structure is uniform.

    That assumption implies that the errors are small and the numbers have an accuracy that is entirely unwarranted.

    Heck the ‘Temperature’ can not be as accurate as they want us to believe because temperature is confounded with the heat of vaporization of water. Water in the atmosphere varies all over the place and from year to year so no way in heck can you get a 0.0X°C global temperature anomaly and use it as an estimate of the heat energy of the earth.

    • Shazaam says:

      And don’t forget boys and girls…..

      The “K” in temperature Krigging is silent!!!

    • And furthermore. . . why do you believe we need an absolutely accurate temp number out to a few decimal points? There is plenty of non-thermometer Earth observation based evidence demonstrating that our planet is experiencing dangerous warming – you just gotta poke around.

      It just seems really weird listening to folks who understand a fraction of the science and math second guessing everything full time pro do. Thinking you can use mining knowledge (from a questionable source, at that) to second guess climatologists is plain weird. The questioning ain’t so bad – it’s your conviction that everything these genuinely knowledgeable professionals are doing is underhanded and intentionally inaccurate. Or that everything you don’t understand is proof of their wrong doing. What happen to a little self-skepticism???

      And even worse, that conviction that your wild guesses and suspicions about these complex mathematics is more authoritative than the educated experts findings.

      But, you folks seem to have wrapped yourselves in a cocoon of your own machinations. And you’ve convinced yourselves that everything outside your cocoon is evil. And thus we stumble forward towards our self created nightmare. Hey, how about that water situation in California – disrupting weathers patterns… no biggie, eh?

      But, god help any one who is openly skeptical of your (collective) game:
      http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2014/02/scottishsceptic-threatening-me.html
      http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com.au/2014/02/climate-scientist-dr-richard-lindzen.html

      • gator69 says:

        The current California drought is mild by historical standards. But then alarmists prefer hysterical standards.

        There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our current climate, or how we got here. The fact that you do not understand this shows your complete ignorance of the real science.

        • Here we go, the God’s Eye view – Yes California has had decades long drought before, no biggie, that we have a society stretched to its limits of sustainability, no biggie.

          Climate has changed before eliminating species and radically altering eco-systems – which then took thousands of years to repopulate, no biggie.

          All part of the planet’s evolution. Swallow massive insults, wipe out unfit species, spend millennia reestablishing a new biospheres and species that have adapted to the new conditions.

          All part of God’s day… no biggie.
          ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

        • gator69 says:

          Raving lunatic, what I pointed out is scientific fact, and you have responded with crazed ramblings again. Are you insinuating that a carbon tax will tame nature?

          Study both sides of the argument, and then come back in a few years.

      • Gail Combs says:

        Oh, you mean like the USA running out of rock salt to the roads and propane to heat schools?

        You mean a 50% increase in arctic ice and record breaking Antarctic Sea Ice?
        Or perhaps stories like these that never make it into the US news?
        2007
        First major snow in Buenos Aires since 1918

        2008
        Severe snowstorms batter China

        2009
        In Canada, several all-time snowfall records were set
        worst cold outbreak of the current decade for the northern plains down to Florida

        2010:
        Feb 13th 2010 – Snow in all 50 U.S. states
        20 million farm animals may die in Mongolia before spring as the fiercest winter in living memory grips the country,
        Record Snowfall for Baltimore
        Freak snow storm covers southern France
        Freak snow falls in Spain strands 6000.
        Scotland records coldest winter
        Temperatures were glacial across Europe over the weekend, kills 22 across Europe
        Snowfall in St. Petersburg [Russia] breaks 130-year record
        2012:
        Low temps in Peru – Death toll rises to 31
        Freak cold in the Andes kills hundreds
        Cold Blast Claims Over 600 Lives Across Eastern Europe/Russia…”Death Toll Keeps Rising…State Of Emergency”
        Coldest January on record for parts of Alaska
        2012 the coldest July on record in Anchorage Alaska
        Shortage of food in Uzbekistan city due to snow
        The First Time Occurred, Snow Storm Hits West Sumatra, Indonesia on Wednesday, March 28.
        Snow record broken in South Africa
        Johannesburg marvels at rare snowfall
        Unprecedented cold in Morocco
        Heavy snowfall in Tunisia, Roads in Ain Draham blocked by 31 inches (80 cm) of snow

        2013
        Record cold in Cape Town, South Africa
        Rare snow in Atacama desert
        Brazil – Snow in over 80 cities – Roads and schools closed
        Worst cold spell in 80 years hammers Chile fruit crops
        More than 25 000 animals killed in southern Peru
        “Extraordinary” cold and large snowfall for southern Brazil
        Lao Cai Province [Viet Nam] alone, an unusual snowfall early this week caused an estimated loss of around VND10 billion
        Jerusalem hit by worst snowstorm for TWENTY YEARS as eight inches fall across Holy City
        Wintry blast to hit New Zealand
        July frosts reduce Brazil wheat, coffee
        Tibetan nomads in Ladakh call out for help, Thousands of livestock perish

        2014
        Record snowfall (almost 7 ft) in northern Iran
        Temperatures up to 40 degrees below normal in the [US] High Plains
        Slovenia paralyzed by snow and ice
        Southern Austria on highest avalanche alert after heavy snow – A meter of snow in two days – Valleys and roads cut off
        Serbia – 1,000 evacuated from cars, buses and trains – Snow drifts 3.5 meters high
        Poland – Heavy snowfall and blizzards
        Heavy snowfalls and blizzard hammer southern Romania

      • There is plenty of non-thermometer Earth observation based evidence demonstrating that our planet is experiencing dangerous warming – you just gotta poke around.

        There’s plenty of evidence that the predictions of an ice-free Arctic by 2013 are too conservative. We could see the North Pole ice-free as early as 2008.

        • S D says:
          February 6, 2014 at 8:04 pm
          There is plenty of non-thermometer Earth observation based evidence demonstrating that our planet is experiencing dangerous warming – you just gotta poke around.

          There’s plenty of evidence that the predictions of an ice-free Arctic by 2013 are too conservative. We could see the North Pole ice-free as early as 2008.”
          ~ ~ ~
          Pray tell where was that claim made? I don’t you didn’t offer a source. You know, {yo Gator this is for you too} – in any attempted serious sciency conversation you should support your claims with the authoritative sources that you’ve build your opinion upon.

          If you don’t understand how that works, here’s an example to study and learn: http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2014/02/scepticview-scottishsceptic.html

        • philjourdan says:

          No, your blog is made up. The sourced facts by the others are simply that. You just do not like them so you ignore them. Kind of like a child hiding his eyes hoping the bogeyman will not get him.

      • philjourdan says:

        There are NO (none, nada, zilch, nichts) indices showing the temperature is warming dangerously. “Dangerously” is a subjective term that does not belong in a scientific discussion (something you are totally unfamiliar with). The “science” tells us if the planet is warming or colling, and by how much. Idiots then run around like the chickens with their heads cut off clucking about the sky is falling for not understanding what the “science” is saying.

        You do a good imitation of the chicken.

        You failed your IQ tests, right?

  90. That ‘what me worry’ attitude sounds quite short sighted.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/wp/2014/01/16/explosion-in-extreme-drought-in-california/

    The U.S. Drought Monitor reports a dismal state of affairs for much of the state:
    Water-year precipitation in most of the [extreme drought] area was now less than 20 percent of normal, with locales from the southern San Joaquin Valley to the Pacific Coast reporting less than 10 percent of normal. Mountain snowpacks in the Sierra Nevada continued to dwindle as well, with [snow water equivalent] averaging between 10 and 30 percent of normal (10th percentile or lower, with many locations now in the bottom 5th percentile). Soil moisture across the northern two-thirds of California remained in very short supply…
    … “As the winter progresses with no break from last year’s parched conditions, concern is mounting that California may be headed for a replay of the big drought of the late 1980s through the early 1990s, or even worse, 1977,” the Times piece notes. …
    ~ ~ ~
    … The drought is linked to a huge ridge of high pressure over the West Coast which has acted like a giant shield against incoming weather systems. The jet stream has steered weather systems up and over this ridge, also helping to direct cold air out of Canada towards the central and eastern U.S. …
    [and with a slightly different set up, that pattern could drown the state in torrential down pours
    http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/megastorms-could-down-massive-portions-of-california/ ]
    ~ ~ ~

    Hopefully, three months of forecasted dry weather will be wrong and they do get some rain.
    Do you ever stop to think of the cascading consequence of what we have set in motion?

    Mount Shasta Photos Show How Bad California’s Drought Is
    http://www.weather.com/sports-rec/ski-conditions/mount-shasta-california-drought-20140128

    • gator69 says:

      That ‘what me study’ attitude is what makes you look stupid…

      “Severe Ancient Droughts: A Warning to California

      BEGINNING about 1,100 years ago, what is now California baked in two droughts, the first lasting 220 years and the second 140 years. Each was much more intense than the mere six-year dry spells that afflict modern California from time to time, new studies of past climates show. The findings suggest, in fact, that relatively wet periods like the 20th century have been the exception rather than the rule in California for at least the last 3,500 years, and that mega-droughts are likely to recur.

      The evidence for the big droughts comes from an analysis of the trunks of trees that grew in the dry beds of lakes, swamps and rivers in and adjacent to the Sierra Nevada, but died when the droughts ended and the water levels rose. Immersion in water has preserved the trunks over the centuries.

      Dr. Scott Stine, a paleoclimatologist at California State University at Hayward, used radiocarbon dating techniques to determine the age of the trees’ outermost annual growth rings, thereby establishing the ends of drought periods. He then calculated the lengths of the preceding dry spells by counting the rings in each stump.

      This method identified droughts lasting from A.D. 892 to A.D. 1112 and from A.D. 1209 to A.D. 1350. Judging by how far the water levels dropped during these periods — as much as 50 feet in some cases — Dr. Stine concluded that the droughts were not only much longer, they were far more severe than either the drought of 1928 to 1934, California’s worst in modern times, or the more recent severe dry spell of 1987 to 1992.”

      • gator69 says:

        Once again, we see everything is well within the bounds of natural variability.

        Have you learned anything yet, or do you wish to keep posting weather reports? :lol:

      • Gail Combs says:

        Confirms the South West Drought that drove out the Anasazi.

        There is some indications that a diet of corn plus over hunting led to anemia and cannablism.
        http://www.canyonsworldwide.com/chacocanyon/p25.htm

        • You link to a page that has some glaring inaccuracies, though I only have time for some of it.
          ~~~~~~~~~~
          “(LeBlanc) – My research indicates that the Chaco Canyon Anasazi developed strategies for producing large surpluses of corn which led to an extended period of relative peace, but eventually led to increased population, depletion of available dietary iron (local wildlife populations) and eventually increased warfare.”
          ~ ~ ~
          Funny that – There’s no evidence for corn cultivation in Chaco Canyon – in fact, the going theory is that Chaco was a ceremonial center and never was a city per se.
          About the corn cultivation : http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC240753/

          “This article demonstrates that maize, a dietary staple of southwestern Native Americans, was transported over considerable distances in pre-Columbian times, a finding fundamental to understanding the organization of pre-Columbian southwestern societies. In addition, this article provides support for the hypothesis that major construction events in Chaco Canyon were made possible because maize was brought in to support extra-local labor forces.”
          ~ ~ ~
          Their graph listing eight sites: “Reported Anemia % at selected Anasazi Sites”
          does not include any evidence for cannibalism.
          ~ ~ ~

          To the best of my knowledge there are two instances documented as evidence for Cannibalism: 8 disarticulated bodies at Small House, in Chaco Canyon.
          http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8372934
          ~ ~ ~
          Then, there’s the Cowboy Wash area near Mesa Verde.
          http://www.catherinedold.com/portfolio/feature-articles/american-cannibal/
          “The excavators of Cowboy Wash, however, propose a new theory. The cannibalism that occurred there, they say, was an act of prehistoric terrorism.”

          – sort of what might happen when people are under extreme stress such watching one’s families starving.
          ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
          Gail, why would do you believe a conjecture that anemia is evidence for cannibalism?
          Why would you believe this anemia/cannibalism conjecture allows you to ignore the evidence for and the profound impacts of the long droughts that visited the southwest over past millennia??

          This is another case of youz folks believing that if it can imagine it – you can give it the same weight as actual evidence. Intellectually quite a dishonest approach !
          ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

          Here try a taste of reality, bitter though it may be:
          “The adage in the American Southwest is that water flows uphill toward money.”

          “In the Southwest today, roughly 60 million people live amid a region strewn with the ruins of civilizations that may have been brought to their knees by severe droughts of a type experienced frequently in the region over the last 2,000 years.

          Such droughts serve as stark reminders of just how inhospitable the American Southwest can be. And the previous catastrophic droughts occurred in times free from the influence of global warming and the increasing aridity that many scientists predict it will bring.

          Plus, the Southwest faces another threat that will complicate all resource issues, but particularly the challenge of making water flow uphill toward money: mushrooming and unpredictable energy costs.”
          http://cis.org/southwest-water-population-growth
          ~ ~ ~
          Megadrought in U.S. Southwest:
          A Bad Omen for Forests Globally
          http://e360.yale.edu/feature/megadrought_in_us_southwest_a_bad_omen_for_forests_globally/2665/
          ===============================================

          PS, this disingenuous diversion is deserves this plug:
          The Fruits of ScottishSceptic’s Threats
          http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2014/02/fruits-scottishsceptic-threats.html

  91. sorry delete the “is”

  92. February 4, 2014 at 5:54 pm philjourdan says: he squeaks… vile invectives… infantile ad hominems…. 
Squeak, squeak little mouse…
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Whatever phil.
    Why not go after the claims rather than boring me with what you think of me.
    Just skip over our opinions of each other and get to the heart of the issue?

    Can you do that? You know, like focusing on the issue itself ?

    >>> Show me a post where I don’t support my claims.

    You still haven’t produced any specifics regarding your charges.

    Science by insults and threats is a joke !

    Shouldn’t the evidence come before the conviction?

    Where do you believe my claims, or evidence???

    • philjourdan says:

      Show me a post where you do support your claims! You have supported nothing! You have merely tried to hype your miserable excuse for a comedy blog! Gail and the others have thoroughly destroyed your opinion (which is all it is without support), and you then spew childish ad hominems at them in return! Like a small little rodent, you scurry around trying to steal morsels from others to boost your fragile ego!

      Squeak, squeak squeak says the little mouse. Look at me, I can spell funny! Unfortunately you cannot even spell that correctly.

      You are a caricature of a caricature! The sad part is you do not realize that your masters are playing you like a harp from hell, so you eagerly return to their trough for your next command, which you slavishly put forward without understanding a single thing you are saying, and without the tools to prove it even to yourself.

      Should you EVER post a rational comment that is sourced, and has even a smidgen of intelligence, I will gladly destroy it for you. But I do not try to engage in adult conversations with mice who demonstrate no intelligence.

    • Send Al to the Pole says:

      Did you flip both your wrists while you wrote this?

  93. Where do you believe my claims, or evidence, is wrong ???

    • Chewer says:

      AGW as a “working hypothesis” is where you go wrong.
      You do understand the difference between established “scientific theory” and a money seeking “working hypothesis”, don’t you?
      The only piece of science where centrists and liberal disagree is the hypothesis of AGW, all other fields of science are truly settled.
      The disturbed and somewhat neurotic liberal scientists and their like-minded followers are having a rough time trying to explain their predictions associated with AGW (X3 feedback mechanism) and have zero idea how the planet moves from an inter-glacial condition to a glacial condition and visa versa.
      They also have no intent in learning the interactions between the driver of climate changes, our oceans, the seven spheres held within our planets core dynamo (The Magnetosphere) or the many conditions and stimulus that cause these changes.
      C02 is not a driver and is most certainly a byproduct of geo-physical and solar influences.

    • philjourdan says:

      You have no evidence. But any fool can make claims. Some fools even get one right once in a while (you have not). Even a blind squirrel finds a nut now and then.

  94. Well, first of all, you keep going on about the drought in the desert. You know that global warming is about climate and droughts are not climate, they are weather. Deserts are climate, and California is a desert. They get droughts.

    Just for starters.

  95. GregM says:

    Global warming means increasing deserts? No. Not at all. Established atmospheric physics says it´s the other way around. See for example:
    http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/07/090731-green-sahara.html

    • GregM says:

      Drought in SW US depends, as I have understood, strongly on what is going on in the Pacific Ocean. El Nino, la Nina and their follower PDO. Natural phenomena who are still poorly understood.

  96. sabretruthtiger says:

    Wow Drewski is incredibly naive and his puny brain cannot grasp the simple concept of those with the money have the control. A top down hierarchical structure where one member influences each cell seems outside of the Drewski’s intellectual capacity.
    Of course the bankers who own the Federal reserve, and the mega corporations and governments created this scam. Of course they control, the mainstream media ans scientific institutions, THAT’S HOW THEY GET THEIR FUNDING DERP!!!

    Peer review is thus via logical deduction and observation, corrupted.

  97. John Stalvey says:

    So Goddard, given that you’ve made countless incorrect interpretations and calculations with data, leading you to retraction, why should any of us pay attention to your claims?

    • In other words, you are scared shitless about the stuff I am exposing.

    • Ben says:

      RE : John Stalvey

      So Hansen/Mann/Jones/Viner/Karl/Stroeve/Serreze/Schneider, given that you’ve made countless incorrect interpretations and calculations with data, leading you to retraction, why should any of us pay attention to your claims?

      I fixed it for you.

  98. All good stuff… don’t forget to google Hurricane Erin and 9/11 – look at the path very carefully. Is there something being covered up? Who am I to say….

  99. OK, I’m late coming in to this, but I have a question. It looks to me like Drewsky is saying that Steve may have found something interesting and all he has to do is get it published and have a positive peer review. Then it will be true and fully acceptable. Otherwise it’s rot.

    Someone please correct me if I’m wrong.

    Still, I wonder how that would have worked out for Galileo. It certainly didn’t work out for Semmelweis, and he was also correct. However, his “peers” were offended, so they belittled and marginalized him.

    This whole peer review model assumes that the peers are all, all honorable men; but they, like Brutus and Cassius, have proven themselves otherwise.

    • Hmmm, you know Mr. White,

      that same sort of logic can applied to those dreaded Climate Models.

      Just because Climate Models can’t give us every detail to exacting accuracy,
      is it OK to think the phenomena they describe doesn’t exist?

      • rickandbeth says:

        Call me thick, but I’m not sure I’m making the connection that you are. But never mind. The models pretend to predict the global average temperature to a tenth of a degree. Are the actual thermometers that accurate? How often are they calibrated? Have their environments changed?

        Of course, none of that matters in the least. The shamans “correct” the raw data, nearly always upward, until it satisfies their needs. It has more in common with reading entrails than it does with real science. And yet they are still baffled by the flat or declining temperatures of the last 15-17 years.

        Anyway, the models don’t describe phenomena; the models’ designers’ assumptions about climate describe the models. And the assumptions don’t — and can’t — take everything into account and quantify them accurately. Even Hansen, Mann, Jones, Schneider and company don’t have the hubris to claim that they understand all the factors affecting climate and that their models have accounted for them and their myriad interactions correctly. There is so much that is unknown that it’s impossible to say what we don’t know.

        And all of this is silly at a very basic level. The climate change we have experienced in the last 50, 100, 200, 1000 years — you pick the period; it really doesn’t matter — is well within the normal, ordinary, historical climate variability. The likelihood that human activity has any measurable influence on it is vanishingly small.

        But what if I’m wrong? (I was, after all, wrong once last year.) What then? There is not the slightest chance that even the most draconian policies that are proposed will have any meaningful effect on atmospheric CO2. They will, on the other hand, have disastrous effects on people, and, as always, the poor and powerless will suffer most.

        Besides, what is the “right” temperature for our planet? One fact that no one disputes is that it has been both much warmer and much colder than it is now. And warmer is far better for plants, children and other living things. Even today, cold kills more people every year than heat does. A glacier is, after all, a desert, and we don’t like deserts. A warm earth is a wet earth, too, thanks to a faster water cycle. And more of the water is fresh water, having been distilled from the oceans, lakes, rivers and streams (this is elementary school science). And let’s not forget that CO2 is a powerful fertilizer and helps green things grow.

        Just sayin’.

  100. QV says:

    It is a myth to say that the models all predict the same thing,
    Some predict temperatures at the high end of the range, some predict at the low end.
    To get an overall prediction they take an average (the multi-model mean).
    This averages out the errors but no individual model predicts the average.
    Its like running 20-30 models to calculate the trajectory of a space vehicle and taking the average.
    If the science was certain, they would only need one model.

  101. NP says:

    Steve, you deserve a Nobel Prize.. They should take back the one given to Gore and the Indescribable Panel for Climate Change and give it to you..

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s