The Hiatus Shell Game

ScreenHunter_2225 Jun. 03 23.58

Climate science has devolved to an angels dancing on the heads of pins discussion, with NOAA trying to claim now that their never was a hiatus.  It is a meaningless and idiotic propaganda point. The important fact is that temperatures are far below climate model forecasts, and they are attempting to distract from that discussion.

About stevengoddard

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

18 Responses to The Hiatus Shell Game

  1. Andy DC says:

    According to unadjusted data away from cities, there never was any meaningful warming. Just cooling from 1940 to 1979 and warming back to around 1940 normals between 1980 and 1998. Then flatlining ever since.

  2. omanuel says:

    All physical sciences were sanitized and Stalinized after frightened world leaders united nations (UN) and national academies of science (NAS) into a giant, worldwide Orwellian Ministry of Consensus Science Truths on 24 Oct 1945.

    Four false consensus models hid our benevolent reality from humanity:

    1. The Standard Solar Model
    2. The Standard Nuclear Model
    3. The Big Bang Cosmology Model
    4. Anthropogenic Global Warming

    The real universe is remarkably simple and alive because . . .

    1. Rest mass (m) and energy (E) are reversible converted:

    _ a.) Rest mass (m) becomes energy; m => E as the universe expands

    _b.) Gravitational energy becomes rest mass as the cosmos collapses; E => m

    2. The universe consists entirely of two forms of only one fundamental particle:

    _ a.) The compacted electron-proton pair we call a neutron

    _ b.) The expanded electron-proton pair we call the hydrogen atom

    3. The free neutron has 0.08% more rest mass than the free hydrogen atom, and the neutron rest mass increases because of NEUTRON REPULSION when neutrons are confined to the cores of heavy atoms, some planets, ordinary stars and galaxies.

  3. Billy Liar says:

    A co-author of the ‘Report’ writing on The Conversation said:

    There were a number of proposed explanations for the hiatus, including natural variability and heat accumulating in the oceans. Although these studies are still equally valid, we expect our finding to provide additional clarity and answers to this question.

    Two paragraphs down he produced a graph entitled ‘No Slow Down in Global Warming’:

    I think NOAA must be suffering a bad case of ‘doublethink’. They are holding in their heads opposing views, both of which they think are valid.

  4. Dave says:

    “It is a meaningless and idiotic propaganda point. The important fact is that temperatures are far below climate model forecasts, and they are attempting to distract from that discussion.”

    In truth its meaningless and idiotic, but its going to help them. The news media and general public will buy the latest news on climate change. Politically its a brilliant stroke, preparing for the upcoming Paris summit. The public will be behind Obama signing climate change agreements.

  5. Jason Calley says:

    I am paraphrasing here, but the following (minus the peculiar slant toward honesty) is roughly what I hear on the radio about the new report. This is not quite verbatim…

    “So, yeah, we looked at the global temperature average (whatever that means) and saw that there was no real change to speak of over the 21st Century so far. So we were like, “WTF? Aren’t we supposed to be getting warmer?” And then someone said, “What about the oceans? Aren’t they supposed to be getting warmer? There’s an awful lot of ocean out there… Let’s check the ocean again!” Wow! Good idea — and then someone remembered that we had made a bunch of buoys to put in the ocean ’cause ships don’t go in a lot of the ocean much and besides, the buoys would be more accurate. And we checked the buoys and zilch. No warming. But then someone said, “Hey, you know, the ships usually showed the water as warmer than what the buoys show. Why don’t we just use the ship’s readings instead of the buoys?” And we were all, like, “No… Not a bad idea, but remember, we put the buoys out there because they were more accurate. I mean, the ships were, like, always too warm in their readings. It’s like, you know those big engines they have on those ships? Those really huge engines that burn up all that fuel and make all that CO2? They’re like 20,000 horse-power or something. They have these metal pipes that go into the engine room and bolt on to those really hot diesel engines. They have to have the pipes for the engines ’cause the pipes take sea water to the engines to cool ’em down. Well, that’s where we had the thermometers, built right in to the pipes. Geez! It’s no wonder the ships always gave readings a little bit too hot!” And the guy who was pushing the whole let’s-use-the-ship-readings said, “YEAH! That’s just what I mean! Let’s use the ships readings!” So someone else said, “We can’t just swap everything over to the ship’s readings It would really look kind of, you know… How about we just sort of mix some of the high readings in with the buoys and call it an adjustment?” Well, you get the idea, that sounded like it might work. And then someone said “How much should we adjust?” and we all just laughed a little and then some guy in the back of the room answered, “However much it takes!””

    • daveandrews723 says:

      Thanks for the chuckle. 🙂 And then I cried because it is all so sad. 🙂

      • Jason Calley says:

        Hey Dave! I expect that any day now the CAGW crowd is going to discover “dark heat”. The press release will say, “We are sure that the Earth is heating up, but so far our thermometers have been unable to observe the rise in temperatures. We think that the missing piece of the puzzle is a new phenomenon, something we are calling “dark heat.” Dark heat is not directly observable, which is to say that thermometers are not affected by dark heat, but careful measurement of a whole set of models has shown that not only does dark heat exist, it is accumulating at an unprecedented rate here in our atmosphere. The cause of that accumulation? Carbon!”

        • omanuel says:

          Total darkness: Dark heat, dark energy, dark matter.

        • bit chilly says:

          roflmao 🙂

        • Ted says:

          Dark heat. Brilliant observation, Jason. That entirely sums up the current state of climate science.

          The whole concept of dark matter/energy is a scientific copout. It’s the equivalent of “God did it.”* Right or wrong, it’s scientifically useless, and ends the discussion prematurely. It has no place in physics, and needs to be removed. If your theory requires ten times more mass than you can account for, the correct response is to come up with a better theory. Physics has gone nowhere for over a generation. That’s what happens when the fudge factors build up to the point where they utterly dominate the underlying theories. I can’t say I’ve read most of Omanuel’s work, but he’s absolutely right about the level of deception in modern science.

          * I actually have no problem with the “God did it” argument. It may, in fact be correct. But it provides us with no useful insight, unless it’s followed up with questions like, “why did God do it,” and more importantly, “how did God do it?” If there is a God, I prefer to believe that He created us with the ability to, someday, become His equal. Maybe even surpass Him. That requires us to search for answers to every question, and solutions to every problem. Fudging data and theories won’t get us there.

        • Elaine Supkis says:

          This is what burned down Baltimore.

        • Keitho says:

          Perhaps the gang at the LHC could step in to help.

  6. Scott allen says:

    This is very ironic, Obama says global warming is the greatest threat to man kind/woman kind/people kind. Obama then says the cold weather is responsible for a .7% drop in the GDP.
    Maybe we should hope for global warming

  7. Brian H says:

    Cooler than predicted.

  8. Alec aka Daffy Duck says:

    Isn’t this an admission that ARGO doesn’t work, has never worked and they wasted billions of dollars on it?

    The reason for the adjustment is to justify spending more money on a system they just ‘scientifically proved’ doesn’t work!

  9. Caleb says:

    The one amazingly stupid trick they employ in this paper, which even I can see through, is that they use land-based temperatures over the Arctic Sea. In other words, if it is 75° over tundra baked by 24-hour-a-day sunshine, they extend that reading out over the ocean, which is basically ice water, and which never experiences temperatures much above freezing, (except perhaps 100 yards from shore), and certainly never experiences temperatures of 75°.

    If they were going to employ this trick they should have used temperatures 250 feet above the surface, or some other devise that can’t be easily checked, and can’t be easily refuted. As it is they are insulting the intelligence of everyone.

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 )

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