NOAA Data Debunks NOAA Lies

Criminals at NOAA are claiming that sea level in the San Francisco Bay is rising to catastrophic levels.

2015-10-31-11-46-532015-10-31-11-48-18National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration: Sea level rise problems to accelerate in Bay Area |

Their own data shows that there has been no change in San Francisco Bay sea level for decades.

9414750 (1)Sea Level Trends – State Selection

NASA says that Antarctica is gaining ice.

2015-10-31-10-37-09NASA Study: Mass Gains of Antarctic Ice Sheet Greater than Losses | NASA

Greenland is gaining record amounts of ice


Greenland Ice Sheet Surface Mass Budget: DMI

In summary. There has been no sea level rise in the San Francisco Bay, and no source of melting ice to raise sea level. The NOAA claims are 100% fraudulent, are not based on any science, and only exist to push the White House political agenda.

About stevengoddard

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

28 Responses to NOAA Data Debunks NOAA Lies

  1. Andy DC says:

    They are banking that the public is too stupid to know the difference.

    • rah says:

      They are right. BUT a large segment of the public doesn’t have to know the data or particulars. They have lived their lives with the weather and season and know what is normal within their own experience and what is unusual and don’t give a hoot about what is happening in most of the rest of the world but know that what they are being told is happening where they live just simply is not in their corner of the world.

      The really sad thing is that if you asked most of the college age kids that believe the BS the reasons for the change in the seasons they wouldn’t have a clue!

  2. Climate change deniers always leave out the fine print, cherrypicking what YOU’D LIKE reality to be. There is still a net increase in the ocean sea level rise of .23 inches, AS NOTED in the article. READ MUCH? It’s just not coming from Greenland like they thought it was. “SOME OTHER CONTRIBUTION TO SEA LEVEL RISE THAT IS NOT ACCOUNTED FOR.” UNSCIENTIFIC to leave that out.

    And trends reveal that in a few decades, compared to a accumulation of 10,000 years, the net losses will be greater than the net gains. OVERALL picture=BAD:

    “But it might only take a few decades for Antarctica’s growth to reverse, according to Zwally. “If the losses of the Antarctic Peninsula and parts of West Antarctica continue to increase at the same rate they’ve been increasing for the last two decades, the losses will catch up with the long-term gain in East Antarctica in 20 or 30 years — I don’t think there will be enough snowfall increase to offset these losses.”

    ” The good news is that Antarctica is not currently contributing to sea level rise, but is taking 0.23 millimeters per year away,” Zwally said. “But this is also bad news. If the 0.27 millimeters per year of sea level rise attributed to Antarctica in the IPCC report is not really coming from Antarctica, there must be some other contribution to sea level rise that is not accounted for.”

    The only thing this demonstrates is that there IS a sea level rise rise, but mistakenly attributed to Antarctica. Climate change cherry pickers are still in denial, just want to post the data that fits their narrative.

    That is not scientific, that is religious in nature. It is a religion to believe in something that the science contradicts. That in a nutshell is climate change denialism.

    • Correction:
      “..Antarctica is… taking 0.23 millimeters per year away,” Zwally said.

      There’s STILL a …” 0.27 millimeters per year of sea level rise attributed to Antarctica in the IPCC report…”

      BTW, this is what fact-based reporters do–CORRECT errors of fact, instead of doubling down on myths, wishes and hopes (AGW denialism).

      • Endless spam from the same moron

        • Apparently you are too unintelligent to post contrary evidence. Your ad hominem attacks equal 100% FAIL.

          HABEAS CORPUS.
          PRODUCE YOUR EVIDENCE. Science demands it. Scientists do not call names, they look up proof to either support or disprove the theory. If you are truly science-based you will do so. If you are global cooling theory is religion, I guess you will continue to call names. Who does that make a moron??

    • Gail Combs says:


      Notice the area where Roman sea ports are inland is tectonically stable according to NASA.
      List of Roman Sea Ports found inland
      (Has great pictures and maps.)

      For the areas occupied by the Romans it was pretty close to zero or actually sinking! “..the pivot point is rather abrupt; Scotland is still rising due to the rebound effect which is correspondingly sinking England 2 millimetres into the North Sea each year.”

      A NASA model of current surface elevation change due to post-glacial rebound and the reloading of sea basins with water. Canada, Northern Europe, and Antarctica are all currently rebounding at a rate of a few millimetres per year. More water in the oceans as a result of ice sheet melting is slowly depressing sea basins. Satellites are used to observe differences over time.

      STUDY #1
      Mid to late Holocene sea-level reconstruction of Southeast Vietnam using beachrock and beach-ridge deposits

      ….backshore deposits along the tectonically stable south-eastern Vietnamese coast document Holocene sea level changes…..reconstructed for the last 8000 years….The rates of sea-level rise decreased sharply after the rapid early Holocene rise and stabilized at a rate of 4.5 mm/year between 8.0 and 6.9 ka. Southeast Vietnam beachrocks reveal that the mid-Holocene sea-level highstand slightly above + 1.4 m was reached between 6.7 and 5.0 ka, with a peak value close to + 1.5 m around 6.0 ka….

      Translation the sea level was up to 1.5 meters higher than today in a tectonically stable area ~5000 years ago to 2000 years ago.

      STUDY #2
      Sea-level highstand recorded in Holocene shoreline deposits on Oahu, Hawaii

      Unconsolidated carbonate sands and cobbles on Kapapa Island, windward Oahu, are 1.4-2.8 (+ or – 0.25) m above present mean sea level (msl)…we interpret the deposit to be a fossil beach or shoreline representing a highstand of relative sea level during middle to late Holocene time. Calibrated radiocarbon dates of coral and mollusc samples, and a consideration of the effect of wave energy setup, indicate that paleo-msl was at least 1.6 (+ or – 0.45) m above present msl prior to 3889-3665 cal. yr B.P, possibly as early as 5532-5294 cal. yr B.P., and lasted until at least 2239-1940 cal. yr B.P

      This study shows a sea level highstand ~1.6 meter above the present level from ~5500 years ago to 2000 years ago.

      STUDY #3
      Late Quaternary highstand deposits of the southern Arabian Gulf: a record of sea-level and climate change

      …..It has therefore been necessary to infer the ages of these sediments by a comparison of their stratigraphy and elevation with deposits known from other parts of the world. We regard this approach as valid because the southern Gulf coastline lacks evidence for significant widespread neotectonic uplift,…….
      …..Widespread evidence exists for a Holocene sea level higher than at present in the southern Arabian Gulf, indicating that it peaked at 1–2 m above present level, c. 5.5 ka bp……. sp(DOT)

      This study shows a sea level highstand ~1 to 2 meters above the present level about ~5500 years ago.

      STUDY #4
      The Quaternary Geological History of the Santa Catarina Southeastern Region (Brazil) 1999

      The first part discusses drilling in several locations and analyzing samples. They mention dating prior to that was guesses. “…. A drilling campaign done in the domain permitted the sampling of material for 14C datings, and the obtained data confirmed some previously assumed ages. The sequence of events, that originated the Holocene deposits, has been also reconstructed through drilling and 14C dating of the collected peat and shell samples…”

      In the body of the text is this:

      Partially abutted against the Pleistocene barrier island/lagoonal system III, there is the Holocene depositional system. This unit is attributable to the Santos Transgression of Suguio & Martin (1978), along the State of São Paulo coastline, or to the Last Transgression of Bittencourt et al. (1979) along the State of Bahia coastline, being similar to the barrier island/lagoonal system IV of Villwock et al. (1986), along the State of Rio Grande do Sul coastline.

      This system is related to the post-glacial transgressive episode whose culmination stage was attained about 5.1 ky BP, when a barrier island alignment was formed parallel to the shoreline, while drainage net was drowned. The subsequent regressive episode promoted the barrier island progradation following the lagoonal basin silting.

      The paleoshorelines limited by ancient cliffs carved within Pleistocene terraces, presently representing the inner limit of the Holocene terrace, shows that this sea-level reached about 4m above the present one. Several terraces situated in different altitudes, and truncation of past morphological features nowadays observed on Holocene deposits, as well as along present lagoonal margins suggest that small scale sea-level oscillations occurred during the last 5 ky….

      This study shows a sea level highstand ~ 4 meters above the present level about ~5000 years ago. With sea level oscillating since then. Not only has the sea levels have dropped since the Holocene Optimum the evidence shows that “warmer paleotemperatures were favourable for great proliferation of mollusks in the area”
      Santa Catarina brazil is at latitude 27.2500°S and is tectonically stable.

      STUDY #5
      Holocene sea-level change and ice-sheet history in the Vestfold Hills, East Antarctica

      A new Holocene sea-level record from the Vestfold Hills, Antarctica, has been obtained by dating the lacustrine–marine and marine–lacustrine transitions that occur in sediment cores from lakes which were formerly connected to the sea. From an elevation of ∼7.5 m 8000 yr ago, relative sea-level rose to a maximum ∼9 m above present sea-level 6200 yr ago. Since then, sea-level has fallen monotonically until the present….

      The above is a RELATIVE sea level. The area is not tectonically stable because the area has isostatic uplift in response to deglaciation from the Wisconsin Ice Age. The same applies to the following study.

      STUDY #6
      A new Holocene relative sea level curve for the South Shetland Islands, Antarctica

      The curve shows a mid-Holocene RSL highstand on Fildes Peninsula at 15.5 m above mean sea level between 8000 and 7000 cal a BP. Subsequently RSL gradually fell as a consequence of isostatic uplift in response to regional deglaciation….

      STUDY #7
      Ice free Arctic Ocean, an Early Holocene analogue

      Extensive systems of wave generated beach ridges along the North Greenland coasts show that these areas once saw seasonally open water. In addition to beach ridges, large amounts of striated boulders in and on the marine sediments from the same period also indicate that the ocean was open enough for ice bergs to drift along the shore and drop their loads. Presently the North Greenland coastline is permanently beleaguered by pack ice, and ice bergs are very rare and locked up in the sea ice. Predictions of the rapidly decreasing sea ice in the Arctic Ocean generally point to this area as the last to become ice free in summer. We therefore suggest that the occurrence of wave generated shores and abundant ice berg dropped boulders indicate that the Arctic Ocean was nearly free of sea ice in the summer at the time when they were formed. The beach ridges occur as isostatically raised “staircases”, and C14-dated curves for relative sea level change show that they were formed in the Early Holocene. A large set of samples of molluscs from beach ridges and marine sediments were collected in the summer of 2007, and are presently being dated to give a precise dating of the ice free interval. Preliminary results indicate that it fell within the interval from c. 8.5 to c. 6 ka – being progressively shorter from south to north. We therefore conclude that for a period in the Early Holocene, probably for a millenium or more, the Arctic Ocean was free of sea ice at least for shorter periods in the summer….

      STUDY #8
      Temperature and precipitation history of the Arctic

      …. Solar energy reached a summer maximum (9% higher than at present) ~11 ka ago and has been decreasing since then, primarily in response to the precession of the equinoxes. The extra energy elevated early Holocene summer temperatures throughout the Arctic 1-3°C above 20th century averages, enough to completely melt many small glaciers throughout the Arctic, although the Greenland Ice Sheet was only slightly smaller than at present. Early Holocene summer sea ice limits were substantially smaller than their 20th century average, and the flow of Atlantic water into the Arctic Ocean was substantially greater. As summer solar energy decreased in the second half of the Holocene, glaciers re-established or advanced, sea ice expanded

      STUDY #9
      A new approach for reconstructing glacier variability based on lake sediments recording input from more than one glacier January 2012

      …. A multi-proxy numerical analysis demonstrates that it is possible to distinguish a glacier component in the ~ 8000-yr-long record, based on distinct changes in grain size, geochemistry, and magnetic composition…. This signal is …independently tested through a mineral magnetic provenance analysis of catchment samples. Minimum glacier input is indicated between 6700–5700 cal yr BP, probably reflecting a situation when most glaciers in the catchment had melted away, whereas the highest glacier activity [growth] is observed around 600 and 200 cal yr BP. During the local Neoglacial interval (~ 4200 cal yr BP until present), five individual periods of significantly reduced glacier extent are identified at ~ 3400, 3000–2700, 2100–2000, 1700–1500, and ~ 900 cal yr BP….

      The highest glacier growth started 600 years ago prior to that most glaicers had melted away.

      STUDY #10
      Sea Level Changes Past Records and Future Expectations

      For the last 40-50 years strong observational facts indicate virtually stable sea level conditions. The Earth’s rate of rotation records an [average] acceleration from 1972 to 2012, contradicting all claims of a rapid global sea level rise, and instead suggests stable, to slightly falling, sea levels.

      Have they corrected for the 18.6-yearly Luna Nodal cycle? Linear trend lines on sinusoidal curves are very time dependent.
      The Dutch who are the most concerned about actual sea level rise have found the cycle.

      Local Relative Sea Level
      To determine the relevance of the nodal cycle at the Dutch coast, a spectral analysis was carried out on the yearly means of six main tidal gauges for the period 1890–2008. The data were corrected for atmospheric pressure variation using an inverse barometer correction. The spectral density shows a clear peak at the 18.6 -year period (Figure 1). The multiple linear regression yields a sea-level rise (b1) of 0.19 +/- 0.015 cm y-1 (95%), an amplitude (A) of 1.2 +/- 0.92 cm, and a phase (w) of -1.16 (with 1970 as 0), resulting in a peak in February 2005 (Figure 2). No significant acceleration (inclusion of b2) was found.
      Coastal management requires estimates of the rate of sealevel rise. The trends found locally for the Dutch coast are the same as have been found in the past 50 years (Deltacommissie, 1960; Dillingh et al., 1993). Even though including the nodal cycle made it more likely that the high-level scenarios would become apparent in the observations, no acceleration in the rate of sea-level rise was found. The higher, recent rise (van den Hurk et al., 2007) coincides with the up phase of the nodal cycle. For the period 2005 through 2011, the Dutch mean sea-level is expected to drop because the lunar cycle is in the down phase. This shows the importance of including the 18.6-year cycle in regional sea-level estimates. Not doing so on a regional or local scale for decadal length projections leads to inaccuracies.

      The Effect of the 18.6-Year Lunar Nodal Cycle on Regional Sea-Level Rise Estimates
      Fedor Baart†,‡, Pieter H. A. J. M. van Gelder†, John de Ronde†,‡, Mark van Koningsveld†,§, and Bert Wouters†

      Linear trend lines on sinusoidal curves are very time dependent.
      “Cooling…German Springs Arriving 20 Days Later Than 28 Years Ago!”
      Darn good read for those interested in such matters. And another example of official government lies.

    • Hey, “agwisreal3000”, you do realize that sea levels have been much lower, and MUCH HIGHER, than anything seen in modern history, right? That during an interglacial, it’s NORMAL for sea levels to rise, right up until the descent into cold? That the AVERAGE temperature of the earth over the millennia is a full 12C HIGHER than today, with occasional plunges into colder times, like today? Do I really need to point you to the geological history charts, or can you look these things up for yourself when you put down the NYTimes? BEFORE MAN, much more extreme sea levels, and much more extreme temperatures, were “natural”. What ISN’T natural is your cry of panic in a world that simply moves to a different drumbeat than you want it to. It’s innumerate, irrational and uneducated imagination, “cherry picking” the data from recent times to conceal the true natural variability of the rock we live on, and how little we control any part of it.

      • Post your evidence. If there is any debate at all about global warming it will be based only on evidence, and only pertinent evidence taking into account all other evidence for the phenomenon. If you are a science oriented you should understand this.

        • Gail Combs says:

          Here is why NOAA is spouting nothing but propaganda to confuse people:

          The Troposphere straight from SS

          Notice how nice and straight the line is in the troposphere showing temperature change is proportional to the elevation.

          It can be mathematically formulated too:

          The rate of adiabatic temperature change in an ascending air parcel (also termed the adiabatic lapse rate and denoted Γd) is constant:

          Γd = – ΔT / ΔZ = 9.8 °C/km

          A saturated parcel cools more slowly than a dry parcel. The moist adiabatic lapse rate is typically about 6.5 °C/km (compare to 9.8° in a dry parcel). Unlike the dry adiabatic lapse rate the moist one is not constant, because the dependence of saturation on temperature is exponential.

          The liquid-vapor phase transition in water takes up (or gives out) 540-600 calories/gm (= 2.25 to 2.5 x106 Joules/kg) (the exact amount depends on temperature). This heat is known as the latent heat of vaporization/condensation. At the sea-air boundary, water coexists as vapor and liquid. Unless the air is saturated, water evaporates continuously from the liquid side of the interface. This process draws heat from the evaporating liquid [and surrounding air] and cools it.

          Alternatively, if vapor condenses (as in clouds), the surrounding air is warmed. The heat required to melt ice into water is much less than that required to turn water into vapor. In melting water we need 80 calories/gm (so called the latent heat of melting). This heat is returned in the process of fusion (when water freezes).

          Water vapor can also be in equilibrium with ice. In this case, molecules of water can cross the boundary between the ice surface into the air, just as they do over a water surface. The transition between the solid phase and the vapor phase is called sublimation. When ice turns directly into vapor (sublimation) the heat required per gram of ice is the sum of the latent heat of melting and the latent heat of vaporization – a total of 620-680 calories/gm.

          The above is why spotty measurements of the temperature of less than 30% of the land mass are a really really rotten measure. [See retired scientist Ben Johnson’s new research] Satellites at least have much better coverage and are not as influenced by UHI or local RH.

          Temperature is an extrinsic property and very much dependent on the moisture content of the air at the time of measurement.

          A property that is not essential or inherent is called an extrinsic property. For example, density is a physical intrinsic property of any physical object, whereas weight is an extrinsic property that varies depending on the strength of the gravitational field in which the respective object is placed.

          Map created from the data at the NASA / GISS web site by E.M. Smith uses a 250 km ‘smoothing’.

          ..I’d have liked to have used a 0 km smoothing so you could see just how small an area is really covered, but GISS only let you do 250 km at the smallest. Notice how much of this map is grey. We just don’t have the data. Notice too that you can clearly see the Canadian warmth is in an arc around the population centers and down toward the warmer south. The “in fill” has to come from somewhere… BTW, that arctic red is questionable at best (they use interpolated estimates from ice estimates in the Arctic) but at least we can see that Northern Canada is empty as is much of Africa and the heart of South America. Oh, and notice all those yellow island spots? Those are the airports on each of those islands…

          Here is a look at the actual stations used (vs the stations tossed) for Canada. Canada is 3.5 million square miles – or 6.7% of the land area of the earth, and covering latitudes from 45N to 85N. Notice the stations tossed are those in the far north. “..the most obvious ‘hole’ is the lack of stations above latitude 60N. Yukon, Nunavut and Northwest Territories make up 39% of Canada, but between them have only four stations: Dawson and Whitehorse (Y), Eureka and Coral Harbour (NT)…” — Verity Jones

          Black triangle are stations in use:

          From over 600 individual temperature series and more than 540 combined series with records of more than 20 years, the thermometer record in Canada peaked in approx. 1975 (see map, above), but has since been decimated by station dropout. By 2009 there are less than 30 locations reporting temperature that are used by the Global Historical Climate Network (GHCN) prepared by the U.S. National Climate Data Center (NCDC); this data is also used as the input to NASA’s GIStemp program.

        • Gail Combs says:

          “… the scientific justification for each adjustment is” being torn to shreds by REAL scientists.

          Here is just ONE example:
          Paul Homewood talk to Trausti Jónsson, a senior climatologist at the Icelandic Met Office, who wrote Paul Homewood in 2012, ““The GHCN “corrections” are grossly in error in the case of Reykjavik”. GISS made Reykjavik’s warm 1940 period disappear by reducing the real temperatures by up to nearly 2 degrees. Jónsson wrote that he was unaware that NOAA made corrections to Iceland’s historical data, did not agree with them, and refused to modify Iceland’s own historical temperature records.

          Zeke Hausfather stated @ Judith Curry’s
          “Back in the 1940s virtually all the stations used liquid-in-glass thermometers, which read about 0.6 degrees warmer in max temperatures (and about 0.2 degrees colder in min temperatures) than the new MMTS instruments introduced in the 1980s. This means that actual max temperatures (as measured by MMTS instruments) would have been ~0.6 degrees colder, and contribute part of the reason for adjusting past temps downwards.” This was based on one very limited study that I already covered a couple months ago.

          Klaus Hager carried out a study comparing MMTS and Glass thermometers side by side for a period of 8.5 years and found that the MMTS gave a mean difference that was 0.93C warmer. Klaus Hager is a 44-year veteran German meteorologist and wrote a peer-reviewed paper on his findings.

          Another peer-reviewed study Sensor and Electronic Biases/Errors in Air Temperature Measurements in Common Weather Station Networks by Lin et. al. concluded:

          Therefore, the RSS errors in the MMTS are from 0.31° to 0.62°C from temperature -40°C to -50°C (Fig. 5)… For the HO-1088 sensor, the self-heating error is quite serious and can make temperature 0.5°C higher under 1 m/s airflow, which is slightly less than the actual normal ventilation rate in the ASOS shield (Lin et al. 2001a).

          In the peer reviewed study “Air Temperature Comparison between the MMTS and the USCRN Temperature Systems” Hubbard et. al. concluded:

          Although the MMTS temperature records have been officially adjusted for cooler maxima and warmer minima in the USHCN dataset, the MMTS dataset in the United States will require further adjustment. In general, our study infers that the MMTS dataset has warmer maxima and cooler minima compared to the current USCRN air temperature system.”

          Now Dr. Bill Johnston a retired scientist has found the same problem with Australian MMTS temperature records and a lot more…
          On the quality of Australia’s temperature data by Dr. Bill (WH) Johnston.
          (Former NSW Department of Natural Resources Senior Research Scientist.)

          Finally the problems with the MMTS is graphically represented by the incident at at Heathrow Airport.

          [E]lectronic thermometers record transient temperature that is not captured by traditional thermometers. The UK’s record July temperature this year alongside the runways at Heathrow Airport – by around 0.1 deg C – and widely PR’d by the Met Office was seperately checked and analysed in detail in the Met Office records.

          That found that there was a temperature spike of 0.9 deg which lasted just 2 minutes before dropping back to the previous hour’s temperatures. The met Office records temperatures at 2 minute intervals. Further research into this showed a wind direction change for just a few minutes during this heat spike and the found that coincidentally a Boeing Dreamliner was maonoevering on the taxiway adjacent to the thermometer.

          Given how determinedly warmist the Met office is it is not surprising that they did not find it all curious that the temperature rose by 0.9 deg C for a two minute period – and equally so that they would, with not the least scientific embarrassment claim this to be a New Record and Proof of ‘Global warming’.

          Any true scientists would have been highly sceptical of a jump in temp of 0.9 deg C lasting just 2 minutes – but it seems that Met Office climate ‘scientists’ don’t fit into that category. — Roger @ Jo Nova’s


  3. Comments in the local press here in the Bay Area indicate a sea change rise in skepticism.

  4. Steve Case says:

    See my 8 day old comment at the link to the ABC 30 Action News story above

  5. Wondering if my science based post will get through the religious babble being posted here…???

    • Gail Combs says:

      What Religious based babble? YOU are the one who has fallen for the Cult of Global Warming. I have too much science background as a professional scientist to fall for the nonsense spewed by third rate hacks working for the criminals now occupying the government. (I am not a Republican and I am not a Christian either.)

      • Science is not equivalent to religion. It is based on evidence that fits realistic theories. Religion is 100% hearsay although there may be some facts in the religion. The facts in the religion do not prove the rest of the claims and hearsay is real.
        Facts or evidence that seemingly point to global cooling–which apparently contradict the overwhelmingly proven global warming–do not constitute proof or sufficient evidence of global cooling.

        I think what we are witnessing with your thinking is you believe, like a religion in global cooling and in the failure of global warming theory. You find tiny things to support your theory but you completely ignore the overwhelming preponderance of evidence against it.

        That, honey, is known as a religion. You believe in something only because you believe in it previously and other opinion leaders believe in it. People who fit your way of thinking you approve of their ways of thinking. Regardless whether science and evidence is involved. That’s a religion.

        If evidence you claim to have found supporting global cooling is so strong, why hasn’t it been supported in the scientific journals and by the IPCC? It’s because the science isn’t good enough to support it or isn’t overwhelming enough to upend the overall theory.

        I don’t think you understand the nature of science. I think you should read up on the scientific method. Science is always being upended and changed–but only if the evidence is strong enough to do so.

        • Gail Combs says:

          I AM a scientist!
          I spent close to forty years running chemistry labs. I have had to make sure all of our equipment was calibrated, INCLUDING THERMOMETERS, test methods were written and followed and data archived. I got stuck conducting government inspectors (FDA and FAA) on plant tours explaining what we were doing and why. I was in charge of retained samples and THE DATA. If I pulled the crap NOAA has I would have ended up fired at best or behind bars.

          I also had the great misfortune of working with government scientists, and I use that term very loosely. They were all about playing politics and not about science.

        • Gail Combs says:

          Speaking of retaining samples and archiving data, this is exactly what the UN (FAO and OIE) and the WTO demanded that farmers do when they wrote the Draft Guide to Good Farming Practices. link (The draft is long gone though I have a copy.)


          In Australia BOM admitted this year that no one can replicate their work, and they will not help anyone do it either.
          The BOM said it was too complex and required too much “operator intervention”, and was a “supervised process”. Their decisions cannot be written down and published even in a peer reviewed journal for fellow experts. Therefore it is not possible to replicate their methods.

          Phil Jones of CRU claims that his precedessor destroyed the raw data in the 1980s. However Jone DOES say in the Climategate emails that he had planned to destroy any data/information rather than actually accede to a FIOA request….

          Across the world some of the old records have been saved.

          … the technocrats would like to change some of this, and pretend that Australia’s climate was once benign.

          So, as Graham Lloyd explains on page 5 of today’s Weekend Australian, the Australian Bureau of Meteorology have discarded the first 40 years of the temperature record for Bourke. This includes the hottest ever temperature recorded in a Stevenson screen for, I think, anywhere in Australia. A rather hot 51.7 degree Celsius was recorded in a new Stevenson screen in the yard of the Bourke post office on 3rd January 1909.

          Mr Lloyd writes:

          THESE Bourke records have assumed a new significance in light of concerns about how historic data is being treated at many sites around the country. The records are also important in an ongoing row that frustrates Mr Cole….. link

          The BOM has discarded all the data from before 2000 yet Mr Cole WATCHED his father record that data.

          AS a child, Ian Cole would watch his father Neville take meticulous readings from the Bureau of Meteorology thermometer at the old post office in the western NSW town of Bourke and send the results through by teleprinter.

          The temperature was recorded every three hours, including at night when the mercury sometimes plunged to freezing, and the data was logged in handwritten journals that included special notes to help explain the results.

          For Mr Cole it is a simple matter of trusting the care and attention of his father. “Why should you change manually created records?” Mr Cole said. “At the moment they (BOM) are saying we have a warming climate but if the old figures are used we have a cooling climate.”
          Thank goodness someone saved the original notes:

          The Stevenson Screen went to the dump and, but for fate, the handwritten notes could have gone there too. But without instruction, the records were kept and are now under lock and key, held as physical evidence of what the weather was really doing in the mid-20th century…. link

          That is only one of many times records are hidden from independent researchers or destroyed.

          <b.If it is not REPEATABLE, and VERIFIABLE it AIN'T SCIENCE!
          (Remember Cold Fusion?)

  6. About the greenland Ice Sheet is to add that the annual ice loss through calving is not included in thr graphs and illustrations. The yearly average net loss of Greenland Ice is about 250 Gigatonnes per annum and contributes to the sea level rise with about 0.7mm.

    Even the Danish Meteoroligic Institute has no own accounting for calving and relies on NASA.

    NOAA shows the ICE loss in this graph.

    Except the high melting in 2012, The ice loss is the same for 12 years now.2014 it cam just back to normal.

    • Those numbers are meaningless, and were derived from the same methodology which was used to generate the flawed Antarctica numbers – which NASA just debunked.

      • I’m warmist, but we depend on data to some idea. NOAA data may have some bias, but they show that even if there is some ice mass loss it is not catastrophically accelerating.

        If we citeData from the DMI, we should also add that they said they depend on the Satellite data to get the full picture.

        In climate discussion there is not only Black/White but a lot of grey between.

    • AndyG55 says:

      they also coincide with the upward leg of the AMO index.

      That AMO index has now reversed and over the next decade or so Arctic sea ice will continue to increase.

      You can base the Arctic Sea Ice fraud on just a small period from 1979, or you can do a bit of research and realise that at the moment it is anomalously HIGH compared to the first 3/4 of the Holocene, when zero summer sea ice was the norm. That’s because the Earth’s temperature is only a small amount above the coldest period in the last 10,000 years.

    • Gail Combs says:

      Why ever should we believe NOAA when they are notorious for adjusting the data to suit the CAGW narrative and have just flipped the finger at Congress when asked to support those adjustments.

      If I pulled the crap that NOAA does, the FDA would have had my ass in jail and tossed the key!

      • Yes they adjust the data out of some reason, but do we have any better? Even the adjusted data show nothing dramatic.

        Greenland ice melt according to the NOAA data is about 0.7mm per year minus 0.23 from added Antarctic ice is less than 0.5 mm sea level rise per year. For over hundred years the observed average sea level rise is about 1.5mm/year. Nothing dramatic is happen.

        The picture may change as the AMO/PDO are eversing than even Greenland is melt will stop finally.

        When we use NOAA and NASA data to prove something, we cannot refuse the rest we don’t like. That also would be kind of Cherry picking.

  7. Ron Clutz says:

    There are at least six good reasons not to buy the hyped alarm about Greenland melting.

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