Something That Continues To Astonish Me

Years later, some skeptics still believe that substances don’t freeze when temperatures are below their freezing point.

About stevengoddard

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

25 Responses to Something That Continues To Astonish Me

  1. JustAnotherPoster says:

    Nick Stokes has just rather oddly confirmed every single adjustment graph you have published.

    Click on each state, 1930 get adjusted down massively. Present day much less.

    • The Griss says:

      According to GISS, there has been something like 0.8C warming in the last 100 or so years (give or take)

      According to Nick Stokes, there has been 0.8C adjustment since 1940.

      One can ONLY conclude that the apparent warming is due TOTALLY to the adjustments. !!!

      • In 20 years all the experts will be saying, “Of course we all knew they were adjusting too much. That’s why the mainstream of science never endorsed Global Warming, unlike all you deniers.”

  2. g2-9ed9acc685824c6663c51c5b093476cc says:

    That’s because you don’t BELIEEEEEEEVE IN SCIENCE!!!

  3. Brad says:

    Haven’t you learned anything? It’s not temperature, it’s pressure. Got it? Good. Whew, glad we settled that one.

  4. wulliejohn says:

    It’s called super-cooled water. But just let one snow-flake drop …….
    As an aside confirming the Global Warming problem in Antartic regions – warm water freezes quicker than cold water. The Mpemba effect.
    Surprised the Warmists haven’t latched on to this

  5. Ben Vorlich says:

    Snow forecast in high Alps 2000+ metres and Pyrenees 1800+ metres by Meteo France for next couple of days.

  6. Angech says:

    Steven, I have had an issue over at the Blackboard where no one will give the exact number of real original stations left in the USHCN out of 1218. Zeke hand waves the number off, Mosher says to look it up oneself as he does not know and Nick says vaguely on his site that 20- 30 percent had dropped out . Is there any site to download the number and have you any idea of the exact number
    Zeke suggested a figure of only 650 when blogging with you a couple of weeks ago though around 833 stations reported in March and April, these may be all the real stations but the number of original ones might be much less as some where replaced.

  7. Ben Vorlich says:

    Here’s a linkt to skiing in the Alps July 2014

  8. cg says:

    Reblogged this on Catholic Glasses and commented:
    They ought to live in Michigan or Wisconsin. It wouldn’t take long for them experts, to wise up !

  9. Eliza says:

    They really getting desperate at BEST. I think,like WUWT, Curry’s been had as welli over the adjustment story. At the current state of things it would not surprise me that NOAA, NASA, USCHN, NCDC etc have chosen BEST as spoke person, so no one really notices and the problem will just go away
    It would appear at first glance that most commenters are not falling for it

    • Dan W. says:

      Zeke writes:

      “The alternative to this would be to assume that the original data is accurate…”

      I believe there is a simple explanation why Zeke and others do not want to assume this. It is easier to lie about the past. Even though there are headlines and observations and record books showing the past was warmer it is easy for a scientific journal to claim otherwise. The intrepid reader will notice history is being rewritten but most people won’t.

      What is not easy is to claim the temperature today is 2 degrees warmer than it really is. First of all it is too easy to measure temperature and there is no monopoly on doing it. If NOAA was to claim it was 90 at the airport and the local weatherman says it is 88 eventually someone is going to notice the discrepancy. Second you can’t claim it is 34 degrees and simultaneously observe water freezing. So you can’t lie about the current temperature. But you can lie about the past and that is exactly what they are doing.

      • Gail Combs says:

        “… Second you can’t claim it is 34 degrees and simultaneously observe water freezing….”

        Yes you can. Jeff Masters did exactly that. My town in mid NC had snow and temperatures cold enough to produce 2 inches of ice in my stock tanks on Feburary 12 2014, but the “official” report showed temps above freezing and rain until I called him a liar on his blog. He then went back and “Corrected” the data to show 0.37 inches of snow. Yeah,right the snow was deep enough to completely cover my feet to the ankle.

      • Jason Calley says:

        Granted, you cannot have large amounts of ice form with air temps above freezing, but I have often seen ice form (while out with my telescope on clear, cool nights) even though the air temperature was in the mid to upper thirties Fahrenheit. Radiative cooling to a clear sky will work wonders!

  10. Bob Greene says:

    Which substances and what conditions?
    Pure water at 32°C or less should freeze once the heat of crystallization is removed. That doesn’t explain the 20 minutes I spent one day trying to get my truck up a slight ice-covered incline that was in the sun and the air temp was 10°F.

  11. geran says:

    “…some skeptics still believe…”
    Maybe they aren’t really “skeptics”.

  12. Anthony S says:

    Freezing-point depression describes the process in which adding a solute to a solvent decreases the freezing point of the solvent.

  13. wyoskeptic says:

    I guess my position in this has to do with the fact that no one in all the explaining and demonstrating of why all these “adjustments” are occurring and why they should be occurring do not address the issue of how much bias does these adjustment add and in what direction?

    Pick out some sites that are well represented by data, run good quality analysis on those sites over the time periods available (so that you do not have to compare station A to station B, instead the data is compared to itself over time so that problems with the site resolves itself over the course of the examination) and then once the analyzing is done, then look at how all of the chosen sites compare to one another. If you need to adjust, you do so in the final analysis, not the initial. And you document what adjustments you use to do so, rather than ad hoc adjusting all of the data at once.

    Secondly my position is that AGW, human derived climate change (or whatever the most recent politically correct aphorism du jour might be) is nothing more than a hypothesis to explain artifacts found within the historical weather records. It has not been proven to exist any place outside of that data, so until someone can demonstrate its existence within the real world by some means other than massaging the data which created the hypothesis in the first place, more data massaging is only a waste of time and effort.

    As far as data massaging goes, I have put together a short show and tell why data only does so little to impress me as a way of resolving most any issue.

    There is an old saying: “Figures never lie, but liars can sure figure!” Comes right down to it, data massagers (data masseuses?) can put liars to shame any day of the week.

  14. Anti-freeze, what a scam. 😉

  15. Brian G Valentine says:

    Evidently anything can be cooled below the freezing point (subcooled liquid), but not in a stable condition, obviously.

    Just about any perturbation will freeze it suddenly

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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