Note that JMA has erased the global cooling they reported in 1974, which was going to destroy a “generation of peace”


10 Feb 1974, Page 108 – at Newspapers.com

About stevengoddard

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

25 Responses to #TemperatureFraudMatters

  1. Chaam Jamal says:

    Temperature data are “inherently chaotic” (IPCC) and that makes OLS trends unstable, unreliable, and easily manipulated with slight changes to influential observations.

  2. AndyG55 says:

    McGibbon should have a talk to Gavin , tell him to stop the “adjustments”, because the only warming there has been for 18+ year, a Schmidt et al FABRICATION..

  3. How about just #DataFraud … ?? After all … Twitter is just 140 characters..

  4. Martin Smith says:

    Your graph doesn’t show surface temperature, Steven. It shows the temperature in the lower troposphere. You can’t compare surface temperature with lower troposphere temperature. Also, McKibben’s graph plots the October global average temperatures. The RSS graph shows yearly temperatures. Thirdly, The X-axis on McKibben’s graph runs from 1890 to the present. The X-axis on the RSS graph runs from 1996 to the present. And finally, the two graphs have different y-axes as well. You made four (4) errors in your comparison, which show that your blog post is dead wrong.

    • The surface is in the lower troposphere, Marty boy. The thermometers used in weather stations don’t measure the surface either, they are usually around chest-high, about 5 feet above the surface, which is in the lower troposphere.

      Gotta ask you, why did the Octobers get so much warmer from 1910 to 1940? Was is the model T Fords that were doing nothing to the CO2 levels? http://www.hyzercreek.com/fossilfuels1950.jpg

      • Martin Smith says:

        Morgan, you should know that in the troposphere, temperature decreases as altitude increases. You can read about that here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troposphere#Temperature
        And here is the explanation of the problem of comparing surface temperature with tropospheric temperature: https://www.skepticalscience.com/satellite-measurements-warming-troposphere.htm
        In fact, the different records do agree. And here are three versions of the explanation for the rapid warming from 1910 to 1940: http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-early-20th-century-advanced.htm
        You are allowed to look these things up on your own. The explanations are usually easy to find. Thanks for the opportunity to clarify these points for you and everyone else here.

        • AndyG55 says:

          And no scientist EVER uses Wiki for citations.

          You are an ignorant , brain-dead Gore-bot.

        • AndyG55 says:

          Your every post PROVES that you have basically ZERO understanding of science or anything to do with science.

          I’n sure everyone reading can see just how much DAMAGE you are doing because of your idiocy.

          I’m more and more convinced you are a ‘plant’ by someone to cast alarmists as amongst the stupidest people in the world.

          Its working well. 🙂

        • PeterK says:

          Marty my boy, skepticalscience blog and Wikipedia are not proof of anything. Can you reference real science papers by real scientists to support any of the garbage you post…thought not.

          I do have to admit though, you remind me David Appell, another dimwit. He always makes me chuckle and so do you. I’ve suggested to David that he should become a standup comedian because he makes me laugh. I think you’ve missed your calling too, and should become a standup comedian, because you make me laugh, also!

        • Martin Smith says:

          Peter, the papers are linked in the Skeptical Science articles, so unfortunately, you will have to load those pages and read them to get the information you demand. Also, your opinion of Skeptical Science is an invalid argument. Actually, it isn’t an argument at all.

        • AndyG55 says:

          SkS is a JUNK PROPAGANDA site… End of story.

          But if its all you have , Martin.. hey.. keep making a FOOL of yourself.

        • David Smith says:

          Skeptical Science?
          Ha ha ha ha!
          They like to play “Himmler dress-up” games. They’re really weird.

      • AndyG55 says:

        Again, there’s the brain-dead twerp thinking anything from SkS is worth a piece of crap..

        IT ISN’T !!!

        You have fallen for every piece of bogus propaganda they have presented..

        So sad to seem a mind so numb !!

        Please get yourself checked for early stages of dementia.

      • AndyG55 says:

        “Morgan, you should know that in the troposphere, temperature decreases as altitude increases.”

        Got you. Your ignorance traps you again.

        Now you have to prove that the lapse rate has changed in the last 15 years.

        Have fun with that, child-mind.

        Oh wait…. you are so ignorant you have absolutely no idea what I mean , do you. ! 😉

        Such fun, playing with brain-dead trolls. 🙂

    • AndyG55 says:

      The child-mind returns. !!

      NOTHING before 1979 is worth a crap, the data is all massively corrupted by mal-adjustments outside earlier error bands.

      Didn’t you do ANY maths in your BS degree, you seem monumentally ignorant?

      There is NOTHING wrong with any of SG’s graphs.

      You just don’t like them. Well bad luck, little brain-dead Gore bot…,

      … We all know you can’t cope with REAL DATA.

    • David A says:

      Martin Smith says,,,
      “1. You can’t compare surface temperature with lower troposphere temperature. 2. Also, McKibben’s graph plots the October global average temperatures. The RSS graph shows yearly temperatures. 3. Thirdly, The X-axis on McKibben’s graph runs from 1890 to the present. 4. The X-axis on the RSS graph runs from 1996 to the present. 5.And finally, the two graphs have different y-axes as well. 6.You made four (4) errors in your comparison, which show that your blog post is dead wrong.
      Poor Martin, wrong on every point. 1. Of course one can compare the lapse rate, and the difference between the surface and the rest of the troposphere. It has not changed yet the divergence between the satellites, admitted by NOAA to be the most accurate record, and the surface stations has increased well beyond any error bars for the satellite record, and, as the lapse rate has not changed, are a physical impossibility. The surface record is FUBAR. 2. The RSS computes monthly changes, see the squiggles. 3.and 4. Well Martin, A who said the graphics were of equal duration, and since the both cover 1996 to present, what is the relevance of you stating something irrelevant? 5. Again, this is cogent how? Who said the y-axes was identical? The surface record shows 2015 warmer then 1998 by about .2 degrees where as the far more accurate satellite graphic shows 1998 warmer then 2015 by a peak of almost .4 degrees. The difference is a physical unreality well beyond the error bars of the satellite record and the surface record has been adjusted beyond their own published error bars, with an ever greater percentage of the planet in-filled through homogenization, i.e. not even actual T readings as well as a false adjustment for UHI. Poor Martin, wrong on every point of his assertion, and irrelevant to boot.

      • AndyG55 says:

        There are three temperature data sets in the world that attempt to get even, consistent, data.

        They are UAH, RSS and USCRN

        The trend in these three data sets match very closely, all showing a slight cooling trend since 2005, thus verifying the satellite data.

        The products from NOAA, and anything else that uses their highly corrupted and manipulated GHCN data, deviate massively from this trend.
        They are a PROPAGANDA LIE aimed at creating a false trend for the general brain-washed, gullible public like Martin to lap up.

        • AndyG55 says:

          Missed a bit

          The trend in USA data in these three data sets match very closely, all showing a slight cooling trend since 2005, thus verifying the data extraction of the satellite data.

    • Gail Combs says:

      Here is why Martin Smith 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.

    • Dave N says:

      “You can’t compare surface temperature with lower troposphere temperature”

      Please cite proof of this claim. Also explain why the trend of lower troposphere temps is irrelevant.

      You really have zero clue.

    • catweazle666 says:

      “You made four (4) errors in your comparison, which show that your blog post is dead wrong.”


  5. Jason Calley says:

    I urge all sceptics to visit Bill McKibben’s official web site. http://www.billmckibben.com/

    It is one of the more bizarre climate-porn, fear infused sites you can find.

  6. David Smith says:

    Bill McGibbon calls a trend of 0.64 degC/century “off the charts”?
    My god, he really is getting his knickers in a twist about nothing.
    I’ve got a bog-standard thermometer here in my classroom. I show my students how big a rise of 0.64C is on the scale and they laugh. It’s barely discernible!
    Young people like my students have very quickly begun to see through the CAGW scam.

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