Heidi Never Lets Actual Facts Interfere With Her Propaganda

ScreenHunter_211 Apr. 14 16.47

https://twitter.com/SteveSGoddard/status/455840334228905984

About stevengoddard

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

26 Responses to Heidi Never Lets Actual Facts Interfere With Her Propaganda

  1. Charles Nelson says:

    Heidi the declini.

  2. Morgan says:

    She’s just a typical denialist of global norming

  3. Brian G Valentine says:

    Something that has bothered me for a long time:

    Look at the temperature jump above the year 1997 giving a some 0.2 deg.C “anomaly.”

    What is “anomalous”? It is 0.2 degree increase over the 288 K “equilibrium radiation temperature” of the Earth and Sun.

    For this to happen, there would have to be a sudden 10% decrease in albedo (at least) that came about over the year 1997 and never returned to the previous value.

    No such albedo change has ever been reported (nor could it have some rational explanation) – the only way this “anomaly” could appear is a redefinition of baseline global temperatures after the year 1997

    i get more sick by the day with this

    • Gail Combs says:

      % change in Albedo Graph

      This graph is from the first draft before “adjustments’ (Earthshine Project -Big Bear Solar Observatory)

      • darrylb says:

        Gail, I printed your graph–thanks. Do you have a graph after adjustments?
        Also, do you have information on the (I like to call it ‘recipe for’) homogenization?
        I appreciate your contributions.

        • Gail Combs says:

          The orginal graph came from a WUWT article about a pre-publication paper:
          http://wattsupwiththat.com/2007/10/17/earths-albedo-tells-a-interesting-story/

          General paper with discussion of the measurements:
          http://www.bbso.njit.edu/Research/EarthShine/espaper/earthshine_proposal.html

          At the bottom is The Project Earthshine Bibliography can be seen here. clicking on here will take you to several papers.

          Earlier Paper

          Click to access Palle_etal_2004_ASR.pdf

          Later Paper DRAFT that the graph comes from:

          Click to access Palle_etal_2008_JGR.pdf


          See page 22 for the graph.

          Final paper in press:
          Inter-annual trends in earth’s reflectance1999-2007, E. Palle, P. Montanes-Rodriguez, P.R. Goode, Journal of Geophysical Research, 2008:

          Click to access Palle_Goode_2008_ASP.pdf

          See page 21 for the different graph.

        • darrylb says:

          Gail—wow, thanks for being so complete.
          I have been writing under (your view) in a local newspaper with a paper distribution of around 50,000 plus a larger audience online.
          Unfortunately, it is hard to get very technical with a general audience. I send info directly to the most ardent AGW crowd, state publicly that I have done so, and then encourage the exchange of info.- to which there is very little. Mostly, ‘Well, you know its happening because everybody says so’. The AGW crowd is mostly the college prof, non science type, with large and condescending egos, so I rather enjoy putting them on the spot.

        • Gail Combs says:

          Darryl, No problem. Like you I am just trying to inform. And like you I find it a bit difficult to get the information across to those without much science in their background because it is such a well put together scam and so pervasive.

          What is interesting is engineers, statisticians and geologists are the fields most inclined to be ‘Den!ers’ especially once they look at the information.

          BTW make sure you really read up on that material before you write anything. That way you will not get caught by a nit-picker who then uses a miner point to trash the rest which is all truth.

  4. Mike D says:

    WTF? She literally took one day of the month, then commented on the month? What does above average mean? Average for the last century? For recorded weather history?

    • gator69 says:

      “What does above average mean?”

      After 349 months, it means their average doesn’t include much worth mentioning.

  5. Andy DC says:

    Why ruin a $100 billion dollar industry with some stupid thing like the truth?

    • Brian G Valentine says:

      good point how many K street lobbyists, NGO’s, and assorted beltway bandits would suddenly be left with no source of illegitimate income.

  6. Psalmon says:

    Interesting again that over the whole period, a +0.3 deg C change, CO2 increased by 65 ppm, from 335 to ~400 today.

    The current trend is 20 ppm per decade, fairly linear, but maybe some acceleration with China and India opening coal plants every week.

    So by 2100, 85 years from now, that’s +170 ppm. For arguments sake let’s say it’s +195 ppm higher = 400+195 = 595, a bit under 600.

    Based on the observed trend so far, 3 x 65 = 195, so if linear that’s 0.3*3 = about +1 deg C by 2100.

    But we know that the CO2 greenhouse effect is not linear, it’s diminishing with concentration. So 1 degree C is AT MOST what we would see by the end of the century if there is any link at all, which we have observed in the past two decades, there is not any.

    Simple arithmetic debunks the crisis.

    • Gail Combs says:

      Do not forget the CO2 numbers are just as ‘Adjusted’ as the temperature records.
      note the cherry picking of values as outlined by Mauna Loa Obs.

      4. In keeping with the requirement that CO2 in background air should be steady, we apply a general “outlier rejection” step, in which we fit a curve to the preliminary daily means for each day calculated from the hours surviving step 1 and 2, and not including times with upslope winds. All hourly averages that are further than two standard deviations, calculated for every day, away from the fitted curve (“outliers”) are rejected. This step is iterated until no more rejections occur.
      How we measure background CO2 levels on Mauna Loa.

      An easy read on all the shenanigans with the CO2 numbers: link

      Dr. Jaworowski gave a much more rigorous presentation of this deception to the US Congress.
      http://www.warwickhughes.com/icecore/

    • Morgan says:

      You bring up a good point. From 280 ppm to 400 ppm, which is about half of a “doubling,” the warming supposedly increased by 0.7C so 1.4C for a doubling. But these idiots say climate sensitivity is 3 or 4 degrees. Morons.

      Now assume 1.4 degree climate sensitivity, which is high….we double it again from 400 ppm to 800 ppm and add another 1.4C. Double it again to 1600 ppm and add 1.4C. Double it again and get 3200 ppm.

      Now, CO2 is 3200 ppm which is 11 times pre-industrial level, and all we added was few degrees in many centuries or millennia and of course all the fossil fuels ran out long before then. Plants will be very green.

      Younger Dryas increased earth’s temps by 14 C in only 40 years. Corals did fine.

      There are no words to describe the idiocy of climate experts.

      • Andy Oz says:

        We need to invent some words to describe said idiocy, Morgan.

        I suggest:
        Climastrophology – the study of the idiocy of climate experts.
        Climastrophists – idiot climate experts
        Psychoclimatosis – the mental disease afflicting said idiots whose subsets are:
        Pagosophobia – fear of ice
        Anthrakaphobia – fear of carbon

        Any advances? 😀

        • R. Shearer says:

          Tom Cruz is a leading climate scientologist.

        • Wyguy says:

          I suggest horse manure

        • Gail Combs says:

          Wyguy, that is not nearly nasty enough. Pig and chicken are much worse but I hate insulting poor animals.

          If you did not read it, there is a great little vignette over at WUWT that describes CAGW to a T. (Make sure all food and liquids are safely tucked away before reading.)
          link

  7. Brian G Valentine says:

    Heidi Cullen says that “deniers” get their Communist cards taken away or something like that

  8. Louis Hooffstetter says:

    Heidi retains her crown and title of ‘Weather Bimbo’ (despite Katharine Hayhoe’s attempt to claim it)

  9. Since the graph starts at the minimum of early ’70s, it looks much worse than it really is.

  10. bobmaginnis says:

    The planet’s average March temperature was 57.9°F — 0.7°C (or 1.2°F) above the average temperature from 1951-1980 — behind only the March of 2002, 2010 and 1990, in that order. Data is still coming in that could change the temperature deviation from this March, but likely only a few hundredths of a degree in either direction, said climate scientist Gavin Schmidt, director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, which compiles the temperature data……
    http://www.climatecentral.org/news/march-was-fourth-warmest-on-record-globally-17304

    • Gail Combs says:

      AHHHhhh, So that is why my below freezing 6 inches of snow got changed to above freezing and rain…

    • Gail Combs says:

      The satellite data
      UAH Global Temperature graph to date for march 2014
      Values for last four years.
      YR… MON… GLOBAL… NH…… SH……TROPICS
      2014.. 3……. +0.170.. +0.337.. +0.002.. -0.002
      2013.. 3……. +0.200.. +0.333.. +0.067.. +0.243
      2012.. 03….. +0.108.. +0.128.. +0.089.. -0.108
      2011.. 3…….. -0.101.. -0.073.. -0.128…. -0.342

      RSS Temperature Lower Troposphere Graph

      Per John Christy, RSS and UAH anomalies are not comparable because they use different base periods, i.e., “RSS only uses 1979-1998 (20 years) while UAH uses the WMO standard of 1981-2010.”

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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s