How NOAA Creates Heatwaves In A Cooling World

The US is cooling, but political agendas require heatwaves.

So NOAA solves the problem by adjusting US maximum temperatures upwards at a rate of four degrees per century.

ScreenHunter_529 Jun. 17 07.39

The raw data shows cooling, so they reverse that into a sharp warming trend. Enron accountants would blush at seeing what NOAA does to the US temperature data.

ScreenHunter_532 Jun. 17 08.08

About stevengoddard

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

104 Responses to How NOAA Creates Heatwaves In A Cooling World

  1. philjourdan says:

    Eventually we will be freezing to death in record heat waves.

  2. Gail Combs says:

    “Enron accountants would blush at seeing what NOAA does to the US temperature data.”

    No they would not.

    Enron, joined by BP, invented the global warming industry. I know because I was in the room.

    Buy me a beer and I will regale you with tales of reporters from Newsweek and the Washington Post desperately seeking assistance to spin, respectively, Enron as having urged Bush away from the Kyoto agenda as opposed to having crafted it, and Enron’s global warming activism as its one redeeming feature. [Now doesn’t that sound familiar?]

    The basic truth is that Enron, joined by other “rent-seeking” industries — making one’s fortune from policy favors from buddies in government, the cultivation of whom was a key business strategy — cobbled their business plan around “global warming.” Enron bought, on the cheap of course, the world’s largest windmill company (now GE Wind) and the world’s second-largest solar panel interest (now BP) to join Enron’s natural gas pipeline network, which was the second largest in the world. The former two can only make money under a system of massive mandates and subsidies (and taxes to pay for them); the latter would prosper spectacularly if the war on coal succeeded.

    Enron then engaged green groups to scare people toward accepting those policies. That is what is known as a Baptist and bootlegger coalition. I sat in on such meetings. Disgraceful….

    The only reason a corporation or a gazillionaire for that matter, doesn’t use “Creative Accounting’ is because they ALREADY had all their loopholes written into the tax codes by their tame politicians.

    Laws and regulations nowadays are longer than ever because length is needed to specify how people will be treated unequally. For example, the health care bill of 2010 takes more than 2,700 pages to make sure not just that some states will be treated differently from others because their senators offered key political support, but more importantly to codify bargains between the government and various parts of the health care industry, state governments, and large employers about who would receive what benefits (e.g., public employee unions and auto workers) and who would pass what indirect taxes onto the general public….

    By taxing and parceling out more than a third of what Americans produce, through regulations that reach deep into American life, our ruling class is making itself the arbiter of wealth and poverty. While the economic value of anything depends on sellers and buyers agreeing on that value as civil equals in the absence of force, modern government is about nothing if not tampering with civil equality. By endowing some in society with power to force others to sell cheaper than they would, and forcing others yet to buy at higher prices — even to buy in the first place — modern government makes valuable some things that are not, and devalues others that are. Thus if you are not among the favored guests at the table where officials make detailed lists of who is to receive what at whose expense, you are on the menu. . Eventually, pretending forcibly that valueless things have value dilutes the currency’s value for all….

    Even more significantly, these and other products of Democratic and Republican administrations and Congresses empower countless boards and commissions arbitrarily to protect some persons and companies, while ruining others. Thus in 2008 the Republican administration first bailed out Bear Stearns, then let Lehman Brothers sink in the ensuing panic, but then rescued Goldman Sachs by infusing cash into its principal debtor, AIG. Then, its Democratic successor used similarly naked discretionary power (and money appropriated for another purpose) to give major stakes in the auto industry to labor unions that support it. Nowadays, the members of our ruling class admit that they do not read the laws. They don’t have to. Because modern laws are primarily grants of discretion, all anybody has to know about them is whom they empower.

    America’s Ruling Class

    • _Jim says:

      re: Gail Combs June 17, 2014 at 3:22 pm
      “Enron accountants would blush at seeing what NOAA does to the US temperature data.”

      No they would not.

      – – – –

      I think you’re mixing together apples and oranges; even Enron had the good sense to ‘bury’ bad financial transactions off the main company books and onto Off-Balance Sheet ‘entities’:

      http://www.investopedia.com/articles/analyst/022002.asp

      “How Cooking the Books Works”
      http://money.howstuffworks.com/cooking-books4.htm

      • Gail Combs says:

        _jim they still would not “Blush.”

        Crooks is Crooks.

        The smartest Crooks get the government to give them a license to steal. Curlyque light bulbs, health care, r R-22 Refrigerant Replacement…. The list is endless and it is all part of the Broken Window Fallacy Economic Model. Destruction of wealth so someone with connections can profit from replacing that which has been destroyed.

        For the well connected it is a net gain in wealth. For the rest of us it is a net loss. For society as a whole it is also a net loss because the labor and resources that would have been used to build something new are instead used to replace that which was destroyed before the end of its useful life.

        The Broken Window Fallacy Economic Model type of thinking can be seen in these quotes from the article.

        …The Economist said, “While big hurricanes like Katrina destroy wealth, they often have a net positive effect on GDP growth, as the temporary downturn immediately after the storm is more than made up for by the burst of economic activity that takes place when the rebuilding begins.”

        And the New York Times said, “Economists point out that although Katrina has destroyed a lot of accumulated wealth, it ultimately will probably have a positive effect on growth data over the next few months as resources are channeled into rebuilding.”

        After last year’s California fires, we heard this from Alan Gin, a University of San Diego economist: “In the odd nature of economic accounting, this will probably be a stimulus. There will be a huge amount of rebuilding in the next couple of years, financed by insurance payments.”

        And CBS Marketwatch said, “Economists have noted the perverse reality that in the wake of disasters, reconstruction spending helps the economy, even as people are still struggling to recover from their personal losses.”

        Note that personal loss here is deemed rather irrelevant compared with the beneficial macroeconomic results.….

        CAGW is a HUGE broken window.

        • _Jim says:

          Enron still had the ‘good sense’ (/sarc) to bury debt in Off-Balance Sheet ‘entities’; NASA does it out in the open. Maybe that point did not come across.

          You also seem to be tossing in elements of ‘crony capitalism’; can we try and limit the subject we cover in any one post to one?

          S. McIntyre used to call this “coat-racking” I think it was, taking debate in another direction and trying to point out or cure all the world’s ills in one post.

          .

        • Jason Calley says:

          If the talking heads and economists really, really, believed what they say about the Broken Window, they would advocate a nuclear first strike on the US by our own military. “Gosh! Think how prosperous we will be now that we have to rebuild New York, Boston, Washington DC, Chicago, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Atlanta, St Louis, Miami, and Kansas City! Yippee! Happy days are here!”

          They know they are talking trash. They know they are liars. But they get a nice check for it…

          There is a sad joke… “What is a common thief?” Answer: “A common thief is a sort of criminal who did not have enough capital to form a corporation.”

  3. Jayden Smith says:

    Yeees…all of these heatwaves the Earth is experiencing is just because scientists are altering data. Or perhaps we’re experiencing them because they’re actually happening. The complete lack of the ability to discern information, and the amazing talent in coming up with completely illogical conclusions is what I love about conspiracy theorists.

    • The Earth has always had heatwaves. Most of Earth’s history averaged 10-12C warmer than the present.

      Your lack of knowledge on the subject has led you to a place of spectacular stupidity.

      You won moron of the day award
      https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/06/19/moron-of-the-day-award-goes-out-early-today/

      • Jayden Smith says:

        Yeees…always had heatwaves, but now heatwaves are getting more severe and are lasting longer. It’s true that the globe has been warmer in the past, but not while we’ve been around.

        Your lack of context on the subject has led you to a place of spectacular absurdity.

        • Do you have difficulty understanding this graph from the EPA? Heatwaves were much more severe during the 1930s.

          Your belief system is based on hearsay and rumors, which makes you unable to discuss the topic intelligently.

        • philjourdan says:

          yes while we have been around (if you are referring to Man). The Minoan, Roman and Medieval Warm periods that we absolutely know about.

          Live your life like a scared little rodent cowering from every imagined bogey man. The rest of us will enjoy the gifts that god (or nature) gave us – i.e. intelligence as a way to modify our habitat to live an easier and longer life.

    • usJim says:

      re: Jayden Smith June 19, 2014 at 11:35 am
      Yeees…all of these heatwaves the Earth is experiencing is just because scientists are altering data. Or perhaps we’re experiencing them because they’re actually happening. The complete lack of the ability to discern information, and the amazing talent in coming up with completely illogical conclusions is what I love about conspiracy theorists.

      I choked on this: “The complete lack of the ability to discern information, ” What the heck does that mean? I’ll tell you what it is, it’s what is known as a “word salad” where the poster throws in some juicy looking words he/she thinks will act as ‘garnish’ in his (or her) post …

      Fail.

      .

      • Jayden Smith says:

        I’m sorry, I didn’t realise I needed to comment for a Year Three comprehension level.

      • Jayden Smith says:

        I’m sorry, I didn’t realise I needed to criticise you at a Year Three level too.

        You have a smelly poo bum. Is that better? Does that make this interaction a more comfortable/relatable experience?

        I like it when someone makes an irrelevant comment to tell someone else that they’ve made an irrelevant comment. The hypocrisy is amusing.

  4. Jayden Smith says:

    Actually, my understanding is based on science. Not just looking at a graph and seeing that there have been heatwaves in the past and then use that as an excuse to put my head in the sand and ignore that the EPA also says this:

    “Heatwaves and other extreme weather events (e.g., floods, droughts, and windstorms) directly affect millions of people and cause billions of dollars of damage annually. There is a growing consensus that the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events will likely increase over coming decades as a consequence of climate change.”

    It’s nice getting to just pick and choose which bits of science you listen to. If it doesn’t fit your conspiracy theory, just ignore that part of science.

    • There is no such consensus, and no indication that it is happening. That is an opinion by an author. The graph is actual temperature data. and shows no correlation between CO2 and heatwaves.

      You are incapable of discerning between propaganda and science.

      • Jayden Smith says:

        Says the guy who studied Geology (http://reallysciency.blogspot.com.au/p/who-is-steven-goddard.html). I’m no climatologist, but I’ve at least studied university subjects on the topic. I’d say that almost every climatologist, university and legitimate scientific organisation constitutes as a consensus.

        You are incapable of discerning between your conspiracy theorist fantasies and reality.

        • _Jim says:

          Wow … ‘jump to confusions’ much?

        • Latitude says:

          ……, but I’ve at least studied university subjects on the topic.

          Then you know how wrong they are……

        • You are incapable of understanding that your beliefs are based entirely on your imagination. You imagine that scientists agree with you, but have no evidence to back that up other than hearsay.

          Science is not done by superstition or Democratic Party hearsay.

        • B says:

          There are three major reasons why climate change believers have no credibility in my eyes:
          1) Rent seeking.Too many paychecks depend on it.
          2) Control freakism. They know the right way (other) people should live.
          3) The rule of experts. They dismiss anyone who isn’t a member of the club for not having the right degrees.

          You’ve just deployed #3. The simple fact is that anyone who has intelligence as opposed to being schooled or trained, can take the skills he learned in one field and easily apply them to another. The entire climate change topic is at its heart about data and how said data is analyzed. This means that anyone from any science or engineering background has the skills necessary to make their own analysis from the data. Even people in the heavy math market analysis side of finance and actuarial fields could do it if they wanted to.

          But here’s the problem, engineers, geologists, etc don’t have a paycheck depending on seeing warming. They don’t have a career in that field to protect. In every field of modern so-called science it’s the intruders from other fields that expose the frauds, expose the political weight of the status quo sending things in the wrong direction.

          Of course 99% of climate scientists agree on what keeps them employed. It’s not shocking. Without “climate change” the world wide market for climate scientists would be tiny, we might need what, a dozen of them plus professors? And they would be poorly paid because there would be far more supply from the universities than demand.

          Rule by expert is something that comes out of the early 20th century robber baron ideas of how society should be structured. But it’s not rule by experts to improve humanity. It’s rule by experts as a power structure. In this system there is no such thing as independent funding. The funding is controlled by the government, the foundations, and corporations. All of which are intertwined. In this system those who don’t play along can be easily eliminated from the field and their careers destroyed.

          This way there is a compliant group of state intellectuals which justify what ever the political power structure wants. The curve ball of course is field crossing independent self funded/unfunded intellectual activity. That’s where the public must be convinced that an electrical engineer can’t graph temperature data. And since the general public is ignorant the con usually works. However those doing what it takes for their careers know exactly what a threat people from other fields peering in are, hence doing everything possible to prevent it and discredit it.

        • philjourdan says:

          next time pay attention in class.

        • Chip Bennett says:

          Says the guy who studied Geology …

          [Filed under appeal to authority]

          While you’re busy with university classes, can you take one that covers argumentation and logical fallacy?

        • Chip Bennett says:

          I’m no climatologist, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

          FTFY

          I’d say that almost every climatologist, university and legitimate scientific organisation constitutes as a consensus.

          Well, yes, such a collection may well constitute a consensus; but:

          1. No such “consensus” exists. The actual 97% represents an extremely small sample of a population of white papers, and includes some papers for which the conclusion was over-stated, assumed, or even mis-stated.

          2. Even if the “consensus” were legitimate, it would be irrelevant. Science is not a discipline of consensus. In every way, the Religion of Climate Change proves that it has nothing to do with scientific endeavor.

      • Jayden Smith says:

        Just keep living in your own fantasy world Steven. Scientific analysis demostrates that it’s true. The problem is that no matter what ‘evidence’ I provide you with, you’ll find some ridiculous non-sensical conspiracy theory reason to reject that evidence. I’ve argued with enough climate deniers to know that their beliefs are nothing more than ideology.

        • philjourdan says:

          The barbie string pull – you proved you have no clue about science. You refuse to produce any facts, data or evidence. You have demonstrated a gross ignorance of the scientific method.

          In short, you accusing anyone of not knowing science is a compliment. You have proven you do not.

        • Chip Bennett says:

          I’ve argued with enough climate deniers to know that their beliefs are nothing more than ideology.

          [Filed under projection]

    • _Jim says:

      re: Jayden Smith June 19, 2014 at 12:06 pm
      Actually, my understanding is based on science. Not just looking at a graph and seeing that there have been heatwaves in the past and …

      Oh brother … graphs are a form of presentation of (often) otherwise abstract data. Simply looking at tabular data may not instant;y indicate trends, and if there is a tremendous amount of data fine details or sub even ‘trends’ can be seen when the data is shown in a graphical presentation.

      In short, YOU are coming up ‘short’ in the claim to be basing your understanding on so-called ‘science’ when you can’t separate out the use of various ‘presentation’ forms for showing data to interested others from any other ‘phase’ of the research activity …

      .

      • Jayden Smith says:

        Oh, you want data visualisation Jim?



        • _Jim says:

          No, that’s no the subject of the discussion at present.

          Jayden – “Oh look – a squirrel!”

          Jayden – “Oh look – a shiny thing!”

          Focus Jayden. Come down to earth …

        • Jayden Smith says:

          So you’re asking for data visualisation for events that haven’t happened yet? Well, I’m not sure if you realise this, but there’s a difference between what has happened, and what will happen. I forget I need to bring things down to a Year Three level.

          Here’s a graph to explain how the temperature will shift as the globe warms:
          http://www.southwestclimatechange.org/figures/temperature-shift

        • philjourdan says:

          No, just bring your level up. Apparently all you know is year 2 as your petty insults demonstrate.

        • Latitude says:

          When do you predict the warming will start?

        • Jayden Smith says:

          Latitude, we’ve already had almost a degree of warming.

        • philjourdan says:

          Actually, we have had a lot more than that. And we have also had “degrees” of cooling. Your ignorance of climate is now complete.

        • Dougmanxx says:

          Hey, nice graphs! Do you know the “average temperature” of ANY year in even one of those graphs? You know, the “average temperature” that was used to calculate the “anomaly” it shows? Do you? Because your “anomaly” graph shows an abstraction, not actual “data”. So…you aren’t visualizing “data”, you are visualizing an abstraction created from some unknown underlying “average temperature”. What is it? Any clue? Any idea? Do you know what it was last year? 2011? 2007? 2001? 1999? Because dude, those pesky temperatures from the past are hard to pin down, they keep changing! So riddle me this: what was the “average temperature” in 1936 from your second graph? What was the “average temperature” in 1936 in 1998? Were they the same? I suspect they weren’t. Only in the world of “Climastrology” does the past weather keep changing!

        • Latitude says:

          We’ve already had almost a degree of adjustments…

        • Jayden Smith says:

          Hey Dougmanxxx, nice comment! Do you know the “point” you’re trying to make of ANY of the sentences in any of that long paragraph? Why don’t you try to make that same comment to the climatologists at NASA and see how they respond? I think they’d laugh at you.

        • philjourdan says:

          Hey Jayden – still talking to yourself? Don’t you know how to respond to someone else?

          I think you are failing your year 2.

        • Latitude says:

          as long as we’re all having a good laugh…..
          The claim is CO2 levels have gone up almost 50%….
          …and they’ve only been able to adjust less than 1 degree rise in temps

          and everyone knows that CO2 levels and temps are not coupled…
          …so the higher CO2 levels get, the less effect it has on temps

          And CO2 levels have been rising at about the same rate…
          …and temps stopped rising at all

        • Dougmanxx says:

          Ah. I see you can’t answer my simple question. I’ll ask it again in small words: what is the “average temperature” used to calculate ANY of the graphs you link to? If everything is so simple, you’ll know that simple little piece of information, right?

        • Jayden Smith says:

          Dougmanxxx, your argument is nothing more than: “Haha, you don’t have the information I’m asking you for! You’re an idiot for believing in the conclusions of the information that other people have! How can you believe in information that you haven’t personally witnessed and worked out yourself?”

          …I don’t need to have the information to know that qualified scientists are using that data to determine reality. Do you know how many transistors are on your mother board? No, but thankfully someone who is qualified does know, otherwise you wouldn’t have your functioning computer to ask me stupid questions.

        • philjourdan says:

          yes, you DO need to have the information. How did you arrive at an intelligent decision without it? Even morons seek information.

          If you have no information, then how do you know what you say is correct? You have shown a propensity to lie, do you think you are the only one who does that? Desmog always does. As does real climate and SS.

          You are a mass of contradictions and talking points. And absolutely NO facts or information. Such a child.

        • philjourdan says:

          See the plateau at the end? Even NASA recognizes the pause. Everyone but jayden does,

          And you say you know science? How to spell it? That is all you have indicated.

        • jimash1 says:

          “http://climate.nasa.gov/system/content_pages/main_images/co2Graph11-cropped.jpg

          http://climate.nasa.gov/system/resources/detail_files/9_c365-2-l.jpg

          Think about it Jayden.
          You are saying that 1ºF above an arbitrary normal is bad news.
          Do you think that the 1ºF below the arbitrary normal was good ?
          Were those famines and Black Plague and wars over land and food, good things ?
          And that is accepting the arbitrary normal and the 1º rise, neither of which are that certain.
          And the CO2 graph.
          Most of that time was spent Glaciered over. Is that what you think would be good ?

      • Chip Bennett says:

        …I don’t need to have the information to know that qualified scientists are using that data to determine reality.

        How refreshing! You actually admit that you have no need or desire to think for yourself, or to use any form of critical analysis – opting instead to be spoon-fed information.

        You truly are a microcosm of the Religion of Climate Science faithful.

    • Holy crap. SG posts DATA and you respond with OPINIONS ABOUT FUTURE EVENTS, as if the latter are facts and the former don’t exist. Holy crap.

      • Jayden Smith says:

        Holy crap. I didn’t realise opinions that are based on mis-interpreting data has more weight than scientific modelling and analysis! Wow, you’ve really showed me Lane Core Jr.

    • philjourdan says:

      Based on science???

      “likely” “growing” “in the future”?

      Unless your science is fortune telling, all you have done is prove you have no clue about science.

    • Chip Bennett says:

      Actually, my understanding is based on science…
      There is a growing consensus…

      That’s cute how you think that science and growing consensus belong in the same argument.

      …the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events will likely increase over coming decades as a consequence of climate change.

      Any 100-level engineering class worth its salt will teach the principle that data cannot be extrapolated.

  5. gator69 says:

    Jayden Smith says:
    June 19, 2014 at 12:06 pm

    “Actually, my understanding is based on science. Not just looking at a graph and seeing that there have been heatwaves in the past and then use that as an excuse to put my head in the sand and ignore that the EPA also says this”

    No, your ‘mis’-understanding is based upon government propaganda. You have no idea what the actual science says.

    See: ‘Useful Idiot’.

    • Jayden Smith says:

      Last time I checked, science has very little to do with the government. And I actually do have an idea of what the science says, since it seems I’m the only person here commenting that has studied the subject.

      • gator69 says:

        I was a geology student during the ice age scare, and a climatology student right before the great global warming swindle. There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our current global climate, or how we got here. Natural variability can explain everything we are seeing. You are an idiot.

        • Jayden Smith says:

          Yeees…and there’s so many scientists who agree with you. Wait, I mean pretty close to none.

        • philjourdan says:

          More ignorance. You are supposed to LEARN in school Jayden. Apparently you still do not know that.

        • _Jim says:

          Pointless.

          Just, you know, go away. I’m sure you’ve been shooed away before, by friends, family, faculty staff etc … you know the drill then.

          .

        • Jayden Smith says:

          Thanks Jim, I will go away. I’ll go away with comfort in the knowledge that the entire scientific community is on my side, and that you guys are just a bunch of “interesting people” with “interesting views” wearing tin-foil hats.

        • philjourdan says:

          Delusions of significance. A shrink would have a field day with you.

        • Chip Bennett says:

          …you guys are just a bunch of “interesting people” with “interesting views” wearing tin-foil hats

          That’s rich, coming from a dyed-in-the-wool Religion of Climate Change adherent who believes, against the entire body of observed data, that CO2 has any meaningful impact on climate, and that human contributions to CO2 will have immediate and dangerous impact on climate.

          It takes some pretty interesting people to come up withinteresting views such as that global heat is hiding at the bottom of the ocean, and that record ice on the Great Lakes is indicative of a near-record warm winter.

      • philjourdan says:

        Check again. Where do you think the grant money comes from?

        You get what you pay for.

        • Jayden Smith says:

          You mean how the Koch Brothers funded a climate skeptic to discredit global warming, but after thorough research, not only renounced his skepticism, but took a position that anthropogenic climate change is worse than most predict?

        • philjourdan says:

          What a baboon! No, I am talking about the billion dollars a day that Alarmists get from governments! You get what you pay for! The Kochs killed Christ, destroyed Rome and burned paris. But they do not care about Global warming, so they are not paying anyone to destroy the world.

      • Chip Bennett says:

        Last time I checked, science has very little to do with the government.

        I realize you have admitted that you lack the desire for critical thinking, but: just who do you think NOAA, NASA, and IPCC are?

  6. _Jim says:

    One at this point might be prone to ask this so-called ‘Jayden’ person if he has worked through Steve McIntyre’s decomposition and analysis of the techniques used by Michael Mann to create his hockey stick … but I’m thinking this Jayden bloke is only 10 years old and incapable of anything more than ‘cut and paste’ and ‘hit and run’ techniques.

    Maybe when he grows up he will come back and we can have an adult conversation.

    .

    • Jayden Smith says:

      No, I generally get my science from scientists, not from mathematicians who work for the mining industry.

      • _Jim says:

        … or like patent clerks working at the Patent Office even? (Albert Einstein.)

        You’re a real winner.

        Come back when you have grown up and are able to address anything of substance. So far, you haven’t, because you probably can’t. Your competition is stiff in the category too, up against such greats as Steven Mosher and Zeke of BEST.

        .Run along now back to Climate Etc or wherever …

        • Jayden Smith says:

          Oh look, I can find an example of someone who became a scientist from humble beginnings. I don’t see Steve McIntyre receiving any accolades. Especially not from anyone who has any idea about climatology. Often referred to as a “persistent amateur” in the climate science community.
          http://www.desmogblog.com/steve-mcintyre

        • philjourdan says:

          You do not see it because you are not looking. And linking Desmog is the final straw. You have no facts. Just your sheep instructions from the pigs.

          Congratulations, you are proof of Orwell’s Animal Farm – but that is probably insulting to the sheep.

      • AndrewS says:

        Here’s a scientist who did his homework.

      • philjourdan says:

        mathematicians are scientists Jayden. And you do not get any information apparently. You get indoctrination. Or you would not make such stupid statements.

  7. gator69 says:

    Jayden Smith says:
    June 19, 2014 at 1:03 pm

    “Yeees…and there’s so many scientists who agree with you. Wait, I mean pretty close to none.”

    Exactly what an idiot would say.

    Please provide even ONE peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes. This should be easy, considering the science is settled! Right? 😆

    • Jayden Smith says:

      They don’t need to refute it, because it’s well understood that natural variability isn’t the cause. I don’t argue with your mum and tell her that she shouldn’t make you think about things when it clearly isn’t happening in the first place.

      • gator69 says:

        Nuh-uh is not scientific. You are an idiot. NV has never been disproven.

        Please provide even ONE peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.

        Failure to provide refutation of NV is a massive fail.

        You get an F, just like your flunkie zealot climate priests of doom.

        • Jayden Smith says:

          Perhaps you didn’t understand the logic behind my mocking of you.

          You asked for a paper which discredits natural variability as a cause of global warming. But it doesn’t need to be discredited, because all climate scientists accept that natural variability is a contributor (obviously), but not the cause of the anthropogenic climate change we’re experiencing now. So your request doesn’t make any freaking sense to someone who isn’t brain damaged.

        • philjourdan says:

          All climate scientists do not accept that. You are a liar. And yes, even if 100% did “believe” it, that does not change science. Science 101 – the null hypothesis must be disproven first. Even Trenberth admits that.

          Did you ever have a brain?

        • gator69 says:

          Perhaps you don’t understand that the alarmists don’t have a clue about NV. Perhaps you are unaware that they have ignored NV, as the IPCC was charged with finding man as the ultimate cause of climate change. Perhaps you do not understand that we still do not know all of the contributing forcings and their participation rates. Perhaps you did not read ‘2.9.1 Uncertainties in Radiative Forcing’, from AR4. Perhaps you do not understand that when it comes to understanding climate drivers, 13 out of 16 forcings are listed as ‘low’ to ‘very low’ in AR4.

          I can claim to make the Sun rise and set. I can claim I have ruled out the Earth’s rotation. Wouldn’t you want to see my work?

          You are an idiot.

        • Jayden Smith says:

          You’re living in some alternate dimension gator69. I don’t even know how we’re communicating. Am I Haley Joel Osment from The Sixth Sense?

        • philjourdan says:

          Delusional now.

          Are you reincarnate of Cleopatra too?

        • gator69 says:

          As I had determined already, you have not read any of the actual science. You are an idiot.

        • Chip Bennett says:

          But it doesn’t need to be discredited, because all climate scientists accept that natural variability is a contributor (obviously), but not the cause of the anthropogenic climate change we’re experiencing now.

          No: clearly you don’t have even the first clue how science works.

          You’re just a good little propagandist acolyte in the Religion of Climate Change.

      • philjourdan says:

        Yes they do. Science 101 (for the babies). The null hypothesis must be disproven before any alternate hypothesis can be advanced.

        Still waiting for you to provide the proof that the null has been disproven.

      • Chip Bennett says:

        They don’t need to refute it, because it’s well understood that natural variability isn’t the cause.

        Do you have even the first clue how science works?

  8. Gail Combs says:

    Jayden Smith says: @ June 19, 2014 at 1:15 pm

    Thanks Jim, I will go away. I’ll go away with comfort in the knowledge that the entire scientific community is on my side, and that you guys are just a bunch of “interesting people” with “interesting views” wearing tin-foil hats.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Now there is the type of person who makes me wish he is very young (less than 25) and Ma Nature whacks him upside the head with a nice Ice Age to wake him up. Nothing like a glacier sitting on Chicago, Boston and NYC to get a point across.

    You see Jayden, Ma Nature could care less if you have the “entire Climastrologist community” on your side.

    The Quaternary Science community, who is in no ones pocket, says we are over due for glaciation and the drop is not gradual as was previously thought. The last paper suggesting the Holocene would go long (aka “double precession-cycle”) was a modeling paper – Loutre and Berger, 2003.

    That paper was soundly trounced by the landmark paper by Lisiecki and Raymo – “A Pliocene-Pleistocene stack of 57 globally distributed benthic D18O records”Paleoceanography, Vol. 20, PA1003, doi:10.1029/2004PA001071, 2005)
    In the decade since then no paper has refuted this paper.

    …Recent research has focused on MIS 11 as a possible analog for the present interglacial [e.g., Loutre and Berger, 2003; EPICA community members, 2004] because both occur during times of low eccentricity. The LR04 age model establishes that MIS 11 spans two precession cycles, with 18O values below 3.6 o/oo for 20 kyr, from 398{418 ka. In comparison, stages 9 and 5 remained below 3.6 o/oo for 13 and 12 kyr, respectively, and the Holocene interglacial has lasted 11 kyr so far. In the LR04 age model, the average LSR of 29 sites is the same from 398-418 ka as from 250-650 ka; consequently, stage 11 is unlikely to be artificially stretched. However, the June 21 insolation minimum at 65N during MIS 11 is only 489 W/m2, much less pronounced than the present minimum of 474 W/m2. In addition, current insolation values are not predicted to return to the high values of late MIS 11 for another 65 kyr. We propose that this effectively precludes a “double precession-cycle” interglacial [e.g., Raymo, 1997] in the Holocene without human influence.

    So it really does not matter what the activist scientists like Mikey Mann and Jimmy Hansen say. A 9% decrease in solar energy since the Holocene Optimum, 30.6 W/m–2, trumps the puny Anthropogenic CO2 forcing between 1850 and 1990 which was only 1.5 W/m 2 [Reid, 1997].

    But the people who want to tax the air you breath aren’t about to tell you that. Nor are the Climastrologists with tax payer funded ‘Politically Correct’ jobs and generous pay checks. It is a very rare person indeed who is willing to get blackballed and permanently lose a career over a question of honesty. As a Lab manager I found a heck of a lot more will cheerfully lie if it makes their lives easier and makes those paychecks and promotions keep coming.
    ….

    So how fast is the drop?

    Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution several years ago put it this way:

    Abrupt Climate Change: Should We Be Worried?
    … ignores recent and rapidly advancing evidence that Earth’s climate repeatedly has shifted abruptly and dramatically in the past, and is capable of doing so in the future.

    Fossil evidence clearly demonstrates that Earth vs climate can shift gears within a decade….

    But the concept remains little known and scarcely appreciated in the wider community of scientists, economists, policy makers, and world political and business leaders. Thus, world leaders may be planning for climate scenarios of global warming that are opposite to what might actually occur…

    Another paper talking of the ending of the last interglacial says “…The onset of the LEAP occurred within less than two decades, demonstrating the existence of a sharp threshold…” – [Sirocko and Seelos]
    What that threshold value is has not yet been determined but it seems to be somewhere ~ 500 W m−2 (MIS 13) or less for the June 21 insolation minimum at 65N.

    So your only hope for an equitable climate is the Ruddiman hypothesis which says “early anthropogenic greenhouse gas emission prevented the inception of a glacial that would otherwise already have started….” Even Joe Romm agreed with the Ruddiman hypothesis that mankind’s releas of CO2 back into the environment is keeping the earth out of glaciation and so does this paper:
    Lesson from the past: present insolation minimum holds potential for glacial inception (2007)

    Because the intensities of the 397 ka BP and present insolation minima are very similar, we conclude that under natural boundary conditions the present insolation minimum holds the potential to terminate the Holocene interglacial. Our findings support the Ruddiman hypothesis [Ruddiman, W., 2003. The Anthropogenic Greenhouse Era began thousands of years ago. Climate Change 61, 261–293], which proposes that early anthropogenic greenhouse gas emission prevented the inception of a glacial that would otherwise already have started….

    But carry on Jayden, I am sure the elite will remember you and your children kindly as you freeze or starve to death supporting their agenda of reducing the Earth’s population by crippling Western Civilization. After all their goal is to see to it their children live in luxury not yours.

    • Jayden Smith says:

      If all of this warming we’re experiencing somehow magically changes to a sudden dramatic shift towards rapid cooling. I’ll build a giant igloo mansion for you Gail.

      • Latitude says:

        You said “the predictions are coming true”….

        Which predictions are coming true?

        • Jayden Smith says:

          If you have to ask that question, you’re too stupid for me to bother answering it.

        • philjourdan says:

          childish ad hominem.

        • _Jim says:

          “the predictions are coming true”

          He doesn’t know; that phrase comes up every fourth or fifth string pull, like the Barbie doll who says “Math is tough” … “Want to go shopping?”

          .

        • Jayden Smith says:

          What’s the point in answering the question when you’re just going to find some right-wing op-ed article that says the opposite of what my peer-reviewed science-based article will say? In the end we’re going to believe the same as what we do now. Me forming my opinion on the latest science, and you informing your opinion on a mathematician who works for the mining industry (no conflict of interest there?) and Steven Goddard, some fringe no-body who makes stuff up and posts it on his internets blog.

        • philjourdan says:

          The point is the difference between facts and opinions. So far, no one has produced any opinion except you. But several have produced facts and peer reviewed papers (you have not).

          And the point is to demonstrate you know what you are talking about. You are proving you do not.

        • _Jim says:

          Squawk – “the predictions are coming true”

          Squawk – “the predictions are coming true”

          Squawk – “the predictions are coming true”

          Broken record syndrome; sign of a broken mind. Literally, “stuck on stupid.”

          .

        • jimash1 says:

          This is sad.

        • Chip Bennett says:

          If you have to ask that question, you’re too stupid for me to bother answering it.

          Are you an adolescent, or do you just play one on the internet, due to a lack of skill in logical argumentation?

      • philjourdan says:

        What warming little girl?

        And Gail gave you what you wanted – peer reviewed papers proving you are full of the brown stuff.

  9. Jayden, is this a school-assigned project?

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