Biggest Fraud In History – Perpetrated By Tom Karl And Gavin Schmidt

Earth’s atmosphere has not warmed for decades, as shown by both satellites and radiosonde data.

2015-11-24-04-50-35

cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/ftp/trends/temp/angell/global.dat

2015-11-24-04-39-53

uahncdc_lt_6.0beta4.txt
RSS_TS_channel_TLT_Global_Land_And_Sea_v03_3.txt

However, the White House is desperate to create a fake climate legacy, and had their employees at NOAA and NASA tamper with temperature data – so that 100% fraudulent headlines like this could come out ahead of the Paris conference.

2015-11-25-09-14-492015-11-25-09-17-39

Global heat records falling like dominoes as world heads to Paris | National Observer

The only record being broken is the amount of data tampering going on at government agencies.

2015-11-25-08-08-36

2015 version: Fig.A.txt
2001 version : FigA.txt

2015-11-25-09-16-53

2015-11-09-02-27-39

Until the latest massive fraud push ahead of Paris, NASA and NOAA both made it clear that Earth was not warming significantly this century.

2015-11-10-23-07-56

www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/bams-sotc/climate-assessment-2008-lo-rez.pdf

Satellite temperatures make it clear that the NASA/NOAA graphs are nonsense.

2015-11-25-09-49-37

Wood for Trees: Interactive Graphs

Here in the US, we have been having progressively less hot weather – with  the last three years being among the least hot on record.

2015-11-23-16-53-13

The NASA and NOAA graphs do not have anything to do with the actual temperatures on Earth. Their only purpose is to confuse people into believing that they do.

But the illusion is much worse than it seems. Even after all of the data tampering. temperatures are tracking right at Hansen’s zero emissions Scenario C. Meaning that their models and theory have completely failed.

2015-11-25-10-12-14

2015-11-25-10-02-21

2015-11-25-10-11-54

www.klimaskeptiker.info/download/1988_Hansen_etal.pdf

About stevengoddard

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

294 Responses to Biggest Fraud In History – Perpetrated By Tom Karl And Gavin Schmidt

  1. Jason Calley says:

    Tony, thanks so much for all the extraordinary work you have done in collecting, analyzing and graphing information about the CAGW scam. It is beyond me how anyone can look at the chart showing GISS alterations to their own data just since 2001, and not see a clear indication of fraudulent actions. Does anyone really think that the few years around 1970 just happened to get their readings correctly — or that all before them read too high, and all after them read too low?! It boggles the mind.

    • Latitude says:

      Good point….

    • Martin Smith says:

      >It boggles the mind.

      I can see how that would happen, when you don’t bother to understand why each change was made.

      • AndyG55 says:

        You don’t understand why.. otherwise you could explain every example of data mal-adjustment that SG and others have shown here..

        BUT YOU CAN’T

        and neither can the people doing the adjustments.. in fact they do everything they can to HIDE the reasons.. because they know that they are totally UNJUSTIFIED, and for political purposes only.

        That is FRAUD..

        … and the likes of Marty the Goreboy SUPPORT THIS FRAUD to the very depth of their rotten souls.

      • Hey Marty, we all understand why each adjustment was made…to cool the past and warm the present for political purposes. Since the earth stopped warming around the end of last millennium, you fraudsters fudged the data. Simple as that.

        • Martin Smith says:

          Jason, it is not true that all the adjustments cool the past and warm the present. I proved that to you earlier. None of the changes was done for political purposes. You and Steven are again making claims of fraud without supporting them with any evidence. In this case, Steven is again trying to represent surface temperature using tropospheric temperature. They are not the same. They can’t be used interchangeable. He is again also claiming fraud by showing that data have been adjusted. That isn’t fraud. Steven has not even shown that any specific adjustment is incorrect. He has to do that before he can begin to try to justify his accusation of fraud. You can’t prove an adjustment is incorrect by showing the adjustment.

        • AndyG55 says:

          You haven’t proved anything to anyone.

          You have provided ZERO proof.. because you don’t have any.

          The only person NOT understanding the TRUTH of the zero trend of the tropospheric temperatures and that the GISS et al surface data bears basically zero relationship to reality, is YOU.

          It is not physically possible for the surface and tropospheric temperatures to diverge the way they without one of them being massively WRONG, and the satellite data has been totally validated by the only pristine, evenly spaced untainted surface data.

          GISS and its stablemates are a LIE and a FABRICATION based on massive data fabrication, tamperaing and mal-adjustment.

          And there is absolutely nothing the childish WHINING of an ignorant, insignificant worm of a Goreboy can do about that FACT.

      • Gail Combs says:

        Martin Smith says: “>It boggles the mind.

        I can see how that would happen, when you don’t bother to understand why each change was made.”

        Oh we are well aware of why “each change was made.”
        First the Climastrologists cherry picked the world wide stations tossing those in rural areas or with cooling trends as I have already showed you more than once.

        Then as Steven said:

        USHCN2 uses a three step process to cool the past and warm the present. Going from the actual measured daily data to “raw monthly” reduces the decline. The TOBS adjustment flips the trend from cooling to warming, and then a final mysterious adjustment creates a strong warming trend. Whatever the final mysterious adjustment is, it has to include UHI – which would do the exact opposite of what we are seeing.

        Here is the MOTIVE for the FRAUD in one simple to understand graph from a year ago.

        “Our algorithm is working as designed” — Recent NCDC press release

        Raw: ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ushcn/v2.5/ushcn.tavg.latest.raw.tar.gz
        Final: ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ushcn/v2.5/ushcn.tavg.latest.FLs.52i.tar.gz

        For those with no math background the meaning of r^2, The correlation coefficient, r, and the coefficient of determination, r ^2

        With an r^2 = 0.988, an almost perfect correlation, the adjustments are DESIGNED to MAKE the temperature record MATCH the CO2 RECORD. That is mathematical proof of FRAUD! This is especially true when every reason for the ‘adjustments’ when looked at closely proves as bogus as a kid blaming the dog for lack of homework.

        …The coefficient of determination, r ^2, is useful because it gives the proportion of:
        *— the variance (fluctuation) of one variable that is predictable from the other variable….

        *— The coefficient of determination represents the percent of the data that is the closes to the line of best fit. For example, if r = 0.922, then r 2 = 0.850, which means that 85% of the total variation in y can be explained by the linear relationship between x and y (as described by the regression equation). The other 15% of the total variation in y remains unexplained.

        *The coefficient of determination is a measure of how well the regression line represents the data. If the regression line passes exactly through every point on the scatter plot, it would be able to explain all of the variation. The further the line is away from the points, the less it is able to explain.

        So the rise in CO2 explains ALL of the adjustments to the temperature record. QED

      • Gail Combs says:

        One of the topics that has come up is why no lawsuit? After all Mikey the Mann has sued twice.

        First Mikey sued over Ad. Homs

        Second Mikey never followed up with allowing Discovery. Therefore the lawsuits were just a way of punishing people.

        Third Mikey’s suits were against an employed Phd and a newspaper. In the eyes of the public monetary ‘peers’ at minimum.
        …..

        So what is different this time?
        First Steven is a sometimes employed poor as a churchmouse vegetarian environmentalist who uses a bike or public transportation and never heats or cool his living space in Maryland. Even worse he was part of getting EPA passed as a teenage witness for Carter. In other words he LIVES the live style of a Green, unlike Mikey and the rest.

        If a wealthy ClimAstrologist like Hanson ($1.6 million in dodgy and illegal outside, direct cash income in five years while working at GISS) should go after him, it will make him look like a Bully and the Press would have a field day. If NOAA does it is even worse. A real David and Goliath moment.

        Second Steven is calling the DATA fraudulent and he has tons of evidence to back up that call. The last thing NOAA wants is for the press to start airing WHY Steven is calling the data manipulation fraud.

        Therefore they are left with mud slinging.
        An example

        …Heartland Institute’s James Taylor who used his regular column in Forbes magazine to accuse the NOAA of “doctoring real-world temperature data”. According to Taylor, the “alarmists” at NOAA “simply erase the actual readings and substitute their own desired readings in their place”.

        But it turns out that Taylor’s source is none other than hapless climate blogger Steven Goddard, who recently leveled incoherent and unsupported false accusations against James Hansen and NASA’s Gistemp record, as well as NOAA. Goddard also relies on the same reviled NOAA data in his botched attempt to buttress his case that NASA is “hiding” an 80 year cooling trend. Never mind that the U.S. “lower 48” represents less than 2% of the Earth’s surface area in any event, or that past attempts to show U.S. cooling have been proven utterly wrong.

        If Forbes has a shred of integrity, this sorry episode will surely result in an abject retraction and apology to NOAA, along with the banishment of Heartland from the magazine’s pages. And it’s also high time reputable commentators in the mainstream media called out the irresponsible behaviour of Forbes and other right-wing media.

        James Taylor’s rant is a swift descent into weirdness, paragraph by paragraph….

        Nice Ad Hom. isn’t it?
        ……………………..

        Infilling Is Massively Corrupting The US Temperature Record

        …The raw data is green. It shows a small warming since 1990, all of which occurred before 1998. The final adjusted data is blue, and shows much stronger warming. The fabricated data (temperatures marked with an “E”) shows a very strong warming, and is the component of the final data which creates almost all of the difference between final and raw.

        According to the USHCN V1 documentation, there is no additional adjusting needed after 1990, and according to the USHCN V2 documents they use the same TOBS algorithm as V1. So other than infilling, final should match raw after 1990….

        I really really doubt NOAA wants that sort of information to make it into the public domain and they certainly do not want to direct the curious to this website where we would be happy to educate new comers.

      • Rico L says:

        Why would there be a need to make any changes to historic data? How is it possible to even calculate accurately that the temperature recorded at a particular location 20 years ago was out by 0.5DegC – and even if it was, who cares. The fact that we need to go to 2dp to start seeing trends is just plain stupidity. Humans, animals and plants can survive in a very broad temp range. Even as much as a 4DegC swing would be completely unnoticeable. Coupled together with the fact the daily temp range can be 20DegC, even talking abut 2 – 4 DegC is irrelevant. I live in Sydney, yesterday it was 38DegC, today it is 24DegC – think about it!

        • Gail Combs says:

          Rico L,

          The 1918 Meteorology: A Text-book on the Weather point blank states on page 68 “.. a thermometer in a Stevenson screen is correct to within a half degree.” It is most in error on still days, hot or cold. “In both cases the indications of the sheltered thermometers are too conservative.”

          on Page 70
          “The Ventilated thermometer which is the best instrument for determining the real air temperature, was invented by Assman at Berlin in 1887…will determine the real air temperature correctly to a tenth of a degree.”

          The author also states there are 180 to 200 ‘regular weather stations’ run by professional and ordinarily in the larger cities, 3600 to 4000 coop stations run by volunteers and 300 to 500 special stations.

          …The observations of temperature taken at a regular station are the real air temperature at 8am and 8pm, the highest and lowest temperatures of the preceding 12 hours, and a continuous thermograph record…. [Richard Freres thermograph] ….these instruments are located in a thermometer shelter which is ordinarily placed 6 to 10 feet above the roof of some high building in the city. At a Cooperative station the highest and lowest temperatures during a day are determined, and also the reading of the maximum thermometer just after it has been set. The purpose of taking this observation is to make sure that the maximum thermometer has been set and also to give the real air temperature at the time of observation….

          The Six thermometer is also mentioned and he says the accuracy was not good so the US weather service used the two thermometers.

          Instructions were written and given out to the volunteer observers in 1882. There were two thermometers, one max (mercury) and one min. (Alcohol)

          For the maximum thermometer the instructions state:
          “…When a maximum thermometer is not read for several hours after the highest temperature has occurred and the air in the meantime has cooled down 15° or 20°, the highest temperature indicated by the top of the detached thread of mercury may be too low by half a degree from the contraction of the thread….”

          That would indicate the max thermometer should be read just after the heat of the day and any adjustment for reading at the wrong time of day should RAISE the maximum temperature not lower it! —- OOOPS! NOAA LOWERS the reading.

          To get an idea of how careful these ‘amateur’ observers were, here is a paper in The American Meteorological Journal, Volume 8 from 1891. It also mentions the Richard Freres thermograph

          An Account of the “Leste,” or hot wind of Madeira
          by H. Coupland Taylor, M. D. F. R. Met. Soc.

          Being an invalid, I must beg for the indulgence of the Society for the irregular times of obervation and the other defects the Fellows may discover in the following paper.

          I must first state that my insturments are placed in a regulation Stevenson screen…. The maximum and minimum thermometers are by Casella, and duly tested at Kew….I also have had in use for some months a self-registering hair hygrometer by MM. Richard Freres of Paris, and likewise a thermograph by the same makers but no very severe Leste has occurred since I had them.

          This “Leste” is a very dry and parching wind and sometimes very hot,….

          These people were scientists and careful in their observations. They were given detailed instructions and as one son said, his father would be horrified at the cavalier treatment his careful and meticulous observations received.

        • Rosco says:

          I wonder what happened to all of the potentially coldest temperature measuring stations in the northern hemisphere after the collapse of the Soviet Union.

          How many cold stations simply disappeared ?

          I’d guess a lot – the Soviets were sticklers for stuff like this but who would report without incentive and to whom ?

      • Jason Calley says:

        Hey Martin! You say: “I can see how that would happen, when you don’t bother to understand why each change was made.”

        Martin, I have tried to treat you respectfully, but here you are just being an obvious troll. You have claimed repeatedly that all the adjustments are fully explained. Here you hector me for not bothering “to understand why each change was made.” You have failed to show any documentation of how the changes are justified. The links you have supplied consistently fail to show what you claim they do. When I asked you to explain just one single year’s adjustment (the changes done to the start point, 1880) you responded that you were unable to do so.

        On the increasingly unlikely chance that you are actually honest in your opinions but suffering from some mental dissonance, I ask you to consider this: you fault me for not understanding why the changes were made, but you yourself tell us that you are unable to explain even one of the changes. Do you not see how totally incoherent your statements are? Are you experiencing a mental blind-spot — or are you knowingly dishonest? Is there a third explanation possible for your self contradictory comments?

        • Martin Smith says:

          Jason, first, the term “troll” is verb, not a noun. Second, you claim to know the adjustments are fraudulent, but you apparently haven’t read the explanations for the adjustments. Third, I don’t have to show you the documentation of the adjustments. It is publicly available. You should already have read at least some of it, and you certainly should know where to find it. You and Steven can’t prove fraud or even prove incorrectness by showing data have been adjusted. Yet that is all you have done. You and Steven claim satellite data is more accurate, but it isn’t more accurate. It isn’t even temperature data. Temperature is inferred from the satellite data using a model. Fourth, I don’t have to explain the adjustment for 1880. Nor did I say I can’t. It simply isn’t something I have to do for you. I’m not making claims about 1880. You and Steven are. You have to support YOUR claims that the adjustment is wrong because you are making the claim. I accept the explanation for the change, you don’t. I don’t have to prove anything to you. You are claiming not only that the data are wrong but that ALL the scientists who did the research that resulted in the adjustment, and ALL the scientists who reviewed the explanation for the adjustment and the adjustment itself, are part of a conspiracy to deliberately deceive the rest of the world. But you have not shown any evidence to support your radical claim.

          Fifth, I don’t fault you for not understanding the why the changes are made. I fault you for claiming the changes are wrong and fraudulent without supporting your claims with any evidence other than the obvious fact that the changes have been made. That is all you and Steven have done, and it proves nothing except the fact that the changes have been made. Big deal. And finally, I am able to explain why the changes are made. I do this by looking for the explanations and finding them and reading them.

        • catweazle666 says:

          Martin Smith: “Jason, first, the term “troll” is verb, not a noun.”

          As usual, you are totally wrong.

          A troll is a supernatural being in Norse mythology and Scandinavian folklore.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll

          Alternatively, In Internet slang, a troll (/ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, often for their own amusement.

          Which describes you to utter perfection.

          You just can’t get anything right, can you?

        • gator69 says:

          The liar lies again…

          troll 1a. Noun
          One who posts a deliberately provocative message to a newsgroup or message board with the intention of causing maximum disruption and argument.

          http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=troll

          Marty is a know-nothing, and this is why he cannot justify adjustments, because he does not know why they were made. Hell, Marty said more than once that AR5 ruled out natural variablility, and that it also identified and quantified all climate forcings, and then he lied about what he said…

          Martin Smith says:
          November 25, 2015 at 11:46 am
          .No, I didn’t say that. I said Steven Goddard has not shown any evidence of fraud. Neither have any of you minions. And no, I don’t think the IPCC has identified all the climate forcings. The IPCC doesn’t actually do the science; the IPCC just gathers and publishes all the science. And no, I don’t claim that all the climate forcings have been found. However, we do know about the greenhouse forcings, and the current global temperature is consistent with the predicted effects of those forcings and the feedbacks they cause. OTH, you have no competing theory. You have no alternative cause or causes that can explain even most of the data, let alone all of it.

          gator69 says:
          November 22, 2015 at 3:41 pm
          …And since you failed so misearbly the last time, let’s review some basic climate science again.
          1- List all climate forcings, order them from most to least effectual, and then quantify them all.
          2- Please provide even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.
          There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our climate, or how we got here. For 4,500,000,000 years climates have always changed, naturally. This means there has been a set precedent, and the burden of proof falls on natural climate change deniers like yourself.

          Martin Smith says:
          November 22, 2015 at 3:48 pm
          Thank you for repeating your questions yet again, gator. Here is the answer to both of them yet again:https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/

          gator69 says:
          November 22, 2015 at 4:03 pm
          You really should read links before posting them, because you posted the wrong link, again.
          If you believe the answer is in that link, you will need to attempt to show everyone where it is, because it isn’t there.
          Are you really as dumb as you pretend?

          Hello Marty!
          Where did you go?😆
          I asked you once again to show me where in you silly IPCC link we can find answers to these…
          1- List all climate forcings, order them from most to least effectual, and then quantify them all.
          2- Please provide even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.
          There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our climate, or how we got here. For 4,500,000,000 years climates have always changed, naturally. This means there has been a set precedent, and the burden of proof falls on natural climate change deniers like yourself.
          You wouldn’t be fibbin’, would you Marty? You can admit an honest mistake, can’t you?

          Marty displays blind faith in the trillion dollar climate change industry, he never questions anything they do, no matter how outrageous. And he lies.

        • gator69 says:

          The liar lies again… (see above).

        • gator69 says:

          Or see below… Marty’s lies are everywhere!

        • AndyG55 says:

          Poor Martin..

          All day composing a load of meaningless garbage and evasion that says absolutely nothing, provides absolutely no facts. Just empty rhetoric.

          You seriously are a waste of everybody’s time.. especially your own.

          Everybody knows that the temperature data being fabricated by Gavin et al is a massive load of fraudulent garbage.

          And nothing you have said has changed that FACT, and nothing you have said or produced has countered any of SG’s evidence of that monumental FRAUD.

          You ARE NOT able to explain why the fraudulent mal-adjustments have been made, otherwise you would have done so… all you do is mouth off, and produce absolutely nothing. You have not produce one single post that explains even one of them, all you offer is just the same unjustified, meaningless propaganda BS.

          You are totally unable to accept FACTS and REAL DATA, they are your enemas.

          You just run and hide in the crevasse of your tiny brain-washed mind.

        • Martin Smith says:

          gator, I referred you to the IPCC report. You didn’t look at it. Here is one place where the forcings are discussed. The Scientific Basis, WG1, the Summary for Policy Makers. Search for “forcing” : https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdf

          Your second question is still irrelevant. Here is the explanation: http://www.skepticalscience.com/how-we-know-recent-warming-is-not-natural.html

          If you and Spencer want to claim the current global warming is natural, you have to find a cause or set of causes that explain the data. The term “natural variability” doesn’t mean “without cause.”

        • gator69 says:

          Poor Marty, he still does not know that AR5 does not list all forcings, and does not quantify them. And on top of that, Marty reversed himself again, and ,lied again.

          I don’t claim that all the climate forcings have been found…

          Here is one place where the forcings are discussed.

          And yes Marty, unlike you I have read AR’s 1-5, and that is why I knew to bait you into your idiotic claims, as you are a know-nothing.

          If you and Spencer want to claim the current global warming is natural 😆

          Natural variabilty is the set precedent, the null hypothesis. And in order to claim that man is now changing global climates for the first time in 4,500,000,000 years, it must first be disproven. This is how real science works, but you would not know anything about real science.

          Now, where is that singular peer reviewed paper that refutes the set precedent? Hmmmm?

        • Martin Smith says:

          Andy, when Steven, or any of you, support your claims of fraud with evidence of fraud, or even if you show evidence that some adjustment to some dataset is incorrect, then you can call me names. Until then, you can’t hope to achieve anything.

        • David A says:

          MS says… “Jason, first, the term “troll” is verb, not a noun.”
          ==================================================
          LOL. Trolling, as in “MS is trolling”, the word trolling is a verb. In the true statement, “MS is a troll” the word is a noun. It is all you are. Your every statement is disingenuous and unresponsive.

        • Marty, you said that not all the adjustments are warming of the present and/or cooling of the past. Really? Please link us to any adjustment that either cools the present or warms the past, or both. I would really LOVE to see you pull that out of your arse.

        • Gail Combs says:

          Brother. Marty the Gorebot can’t get anything correct.

          Martin Smith says:
          Jason, first, the term “troll” is verb, not a noun….

          Encyclopedia Britannica

          TROLL
          Troll,  in early Scandinavian folklore, giant, monstrous being, sometimes
          possessing magic powers. Hostile to men, trolls lived in castles and haunted the surrounding districts after dark. If exposed to sunlight they burst or turned to stone… trolls are used as symbols of destructive instincts. Trolls in modern tales for children often live under bridges, menacing travelers and exacting tasks or tolls.
          http://www.britannica.com/topic/troll

          Marty the Troll

        • Gail Combs says:

          Martin Smith says today “If you and Spencer want to claim the current global warming is natural, you have to find a cause or set of causes that explain the data. The term “natural variability” doesn’t mean “without cause.”

          I ALREADY posted links yesterday to NOAA’s page on D-O events with sudden NATURAL temperatures of 8-10C and NOAA admits they DO NOT KNOW WHY!

          Until NOAA knows for certain what causes D-O, Bond and Heinrich events and can rule them out, they CAN NOT point fingers at mankind. Especially when the current change is less than a degree C per century and the instrument error is >2C.

        • lectrikdog says:

          “To say “ignore them” is easy. To ignore them is often more difficult. It offends our instinct to fight back when confronted, particularly when confronted by something particularly nasty or stupid. This, of course, merely plays into the hands of the troll, whose purpose is to get a rise out of his target, to engage them on his terms and thereby exist in someone else’s world. This is really all it’s about for the troll, whose own world is so small and worthless that his existence there is meaningless. Allowing the troll to exist in your world is his goal, and he wins when you confront him.”
          http://blog.simplejustice.us/2009/10/24/the-troll-tax/

        • Jason Calley says:

          Martin says:” Jason, first, the term “troll” is verb, not a noun.”

          Actually, “troll” can be used as either. My usage was obviously (based on sentence structure) a noun.

          Martin says: “I don’t have to explain the adjustment for 1880. Nor did I say I can’t.”

          Below is from the thread at https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2015/10/29/new-ways-to-visualize-nasa-temperature-fraud/
          ******************************************************************************
          Jason Calley says:
          October 30, 2015 at 1:46 pm
          In the 2005 chart from NASA, it shows 1880 with a 0.5 degree anomaly and an error range of about + or – about a tenth degree. In 2015 the anomaly has been changed to about 0.45 degree, well outside the earlier error range. Please tell me, what new information has been collected about the readings from 1880 that justify changing the anomaly by an amount three and a half times greater than its original error bars?

          Martin Smith says:
          October 30, 2015 at 1:55 pm
          I can’t answer your questions, Jason. I don’t have the tools or the knowledge.
          ***********************************************************************************

          Shame on you, Martin.

        • Gail Combs says:

          lectrikdog says:

          “To say “ignore them” is easy. To ignore them is often more difficult. It offends our instinct to fight back when confronted, particularly when confronted by something particularly nasty or stupid. This, of course, merely plays into the hands of the troll….

          Normally I do ignore trolls. However when we have nasty traitors planing to sell us into serfdom I will attack anyone that supports those murderous traitors who call themselves ‘leaders’ and their minions.

          Lets take a look at what they are aup to. First the UN wants a DIRECT YEARLY TAX on the citizen of the USA. However in 2015, President Obama proposes federal spending levels totaling 21 percent of the U.S. economy and tax revenue equal to 18 percent. This is why the USA goes deeper and deeper into debt. The USA can not AFFORD to spend money on crap boondoggles or evasculate the economy.

          The nitty gritty of the dismal financial picture:

          ‘In the United States, the cap-and-trade is an approach designed to control carbon emissions and will impose huge costs upon American citizens via a carbon tax on all goods and services produced in the United States. The average family of four can expect to pay an additional $1700, or £1,043, more each year. It is predicted that the United States will lose more than 2 million jobs each year as the result of cap-and-trade schemes.’ -The European Foundation, Dec 15, 2009
          http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/146138/100-reasons-why-climate-change-is-natural

          “This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution… democracy is a poor political system for fighting global warming. Communist China is the best model.” — Christiana Figueres, disciple of Al Gore, and Executive Secretary of the UN Framework Convention
          http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/021015-738779-climate-change-scare-tool-to-destroy-capitalism.htm

          The US Owes the World $4 Trillion for Trashing the Climate

          Countries listed in order of contribution magnitude.
          United States: $3 billion[A year]
          ​The largest single donor to the Green Climate Fund, the United States announced a $3 billion pledge (not to exceed 30 percent of total pledges) in November 2014. This builds off a history of US climate finance, as the Bush Administration pledged $2 billion to the Climate Investment Funds in 2008.
          http://www.theroadthroughparis.org/negotiation-issues/country-finance-pledges

          TOTAL SPENDING:

          So WHO PAYS?
          WAGE EARNERS!

          And FINALLY the BANKSTER’S SOLUTION
          The International Monetary Fund Lays The Groundwork For Global Wealth Confiscation

          The International Monetary Fund (IMF) quietly dropped a bomb in its October Fiscal Monitor Report. Titled “Taxing Times,” the report paints a dire picture for advanced economies with high debts that fail to aggressively “mobilize domestic revenue.” It goes on to build a case for drastic measures and recommends a series of escalating income and consumption tax increases culminating in the direct confiscation of assets.

          …The tax rates needed to bring down public debt to precrisis levels, moreover, are sizable: reducing debt ratios to end-2007 levels would require (for a sample of 15 euro area countries) a tax rate of about 10 percent on households with positive net wealth. (page 49)”

          Note three takeaways. First, IMF economists know there are not enough rich people to fund today’s governments even if 100 percent of the assets of the 1 percent were expropriated. That means that all households with positive net wealth—everyone with retirement savings or home equity—would have their assets plundered under the IMF’s formulation.[@10% confiscation]

          Second, such a repudiation of private property will not pay off Western governments’ debts or fund budgets going forward. It will merely “restore debt sustainability,” allowing free-spending sovereigns to keep tapping the bond markets until the next crisis comes along—for which stronger measures will be required, of course.

          Third, should politicians fail to muster the courage to engage in this kind of wholesale robbery, the only alternative scenario the IMF posits is public debt repudiation and hyperinflation. Structural reform proposals for the Ponzi-scheme entitlement programs that are bankrupting us are nowhere to be seen.

        • Martin Smith says:

          Morgan, I did link you to one that warms the past. You can’t have forgotten it already, and you know well which one I am talking about. It is the same one your hero Lamar Smith claims to be investigating, the most recent one by NOAA. See item 4, graph B: http://www.skepticalscience.com/what-you-need-to-know-about-karl-2015.html

        • Martin Smith says:

          Please stop the slander, Jason. You asked me to do the mathematical analysis for the 1880 change for you, not explain the reason(s) for the change. I can’t do the former; I can do the latter, but I’m afraid you are on your own, because before claiming that change is fraudulent, as you have done, you have to have understood that explanation. Clearly you don’t understand it, or you wouldn’t be demanding me to do your homework for you. Please stop the slander.

        • Martin Smith says:

          But, Jason, it should be obvious what they’ve done. It is to me anyway. I could be wrong, but it’s what I would do, now that we have the techniques. See if you can figure it out. On the other hand, if you have any evidence that any adjustment to any dataset is incorrect, please post your evidence. And please publish it. Steven claims to have scientific evidence of fraud, and you support him. Why not publish? No guts no glory. It certainly won’t get any play here. I think I’m the only one here who doesn’t believe AGW is a hoax. Please. Publish in a scientific journal. And please. Send your evidence to Lamar Smith. I’m sure he would love to see it.

        • AndyG55 says:

          Poor Martin the Goreboy..

          Totally unable to accept the MASSIVE AMOUNTS OF EVIDENCE that the work of Gavin and his crew is MONUMENTAL FRAUD.

          He can rant and rave and carry on like a child’s tantrum, but he CANNOT post one single piece of evidence that the MASSIVE, UNJUSTIFIED, POLITICALLY-MOTIVATED are anything but FRAUD.

          His own abject ignorance STILL has him using links to SkS, so hilarious to watch.

          SkS is at the very forefront of the scientific fraud and propaganda mal-feaces…. and the little child still hasn’t figured that out.

          I repeat, just for you , little Goreboy,

          You have produced ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to negate the MASSIVE AMOUNT OF EVIDENCE that the data fabrication and mal-adjustments of Gavin et al, is MONUMENTAL AND DECEITFUL FRAUD

        • AndyG55 says:

          The allegations and the massive amount of evidence of this FRAUD are published.

          This web site has far, far more viewers than any little AGW based journal.

          Every new piece of evidence of the massive scientific malfeasance is there for the whole world to see. 🙂

          That is what draws little worms like Marty the Goreboy.

          They think they can counter the evidence by using empty rhetoric and ranting….

          …, but all their putrid presence does is increase the web visibility of that evidence.

          They have no counter argument that isn’t totally based on the lies and deceit of the fraudster and their mates…, and the general public is seeing this more and more.🙂

        • Martin, you’re getting your ass kicked here..

          Perhaps its time to consider how many of these Adjustments are unwarranted .. and DO serve a massive Political Agenda …

          Try Science not Scyience and Bill Nye bullshit..

          The Adjustments made CLEARLY mark a trend.. Cooling the Past while Warming the Present.. are you not skeptical AT ALL ?? WTF??

        • AndyG55 says:

          Phillippe,

          You need to realise that Martin has very little understanding of anything to do with climate.

          He actually thinks Skeptical Science presents anything to do with science… really ..he even links to SkS… Soooo tragic.

          He also inhabits a climate cultist site run by a cameraman called Peter Sinclair… and thinks that its the bee’s knees of climate science because Sinclair did Al Gore’s little climate propaganda course or something like that.

          The moronic ignorance and kool-aide brain-washing is very strong the little child-minded troll.

      • Martin, just one example is how cooler Rural Stations have been removed.. while hotter Urban ones remain.. thus, the Average gets Hotter…

        Slick trick highlighted on many occasions here..

        Ship-Bucket Gate.. latest ‘adjustment’ which allows the claim of 2015 hottest ever bullshit.. NOAA adjusted in the wrong direction.. adjusted decades of historical data.. total bullshit.

        Can you cite Real World Examples where Adjustments are Justified??

  2. Steve Case says:

    [T]he White House … had their employees at NOAA and NASA tamper with temperature data…”
    That’s a very strong accusation, do you know something the rest of us don’t?

    • Bob123 says:

      I know if I was accused of fraud, I would fight the allegation. Unless I had more to lose from the fight.

    • jokin says:

      For heaven’s sake, just look at the data, man.. (and the perverse incentives for perpetuating the fraud)

    • Gail Combs says:

      Steve Case says “That’s a very strong accusation, do you know something the rest of us don’t?”

      You combine that with each temperature adjustment has been examined and found wanting and you have motive and ‘weapon’ Especially when“… the scientific justification for each adjustment is” being torn to shreds by REAL scientists.

      Actually the World Bank gave the real motive MONEY:

      World Bank Carbon Finance Report for 2007
      The carbon economy is the fastest growing industry globally with US$84 billion of carbon trading conducted in 2007, doubling to $116 billion in 2008, and expected to reach over $200 billion by 2012 and over $2,000 billion by 2020

      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.
      ……………

      Here is a quick look at the different excuses given for adjusting the data.
      The switch from Glass thermometers to MMTS instruments
      The conversion from liquid in glass thermometers to thermistors is the conversion from a slow responding instrument (due to the amount of mass) to a very quick responding system. This allows transient hot winds to be recorded like the two minutes a Heathrow when the wash from a jet cause a new ‘record’ temperature trumped in the press:

      [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

      Yet the ClimAstrologists say the opposite and adjust accordingly!!!
      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 to give it the veneer of science. It has since been proved wrong.

      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. http://wkserv.met.fu-berlin.de/Beilagen/2013/Autom%20WSt_Hager.pdf

      This has also been backed up by a completely separate study by retired research scientist Bill Johnston who analyzed Australian weather records in a fairly sophisticated and very detailed way. Jo Nova: Are hot days in Australia mostly due to low rainfall, and electronic thermometers — not CO2?

      CONTINUED

      • skeohane says:

        Gail, didn’t the MMTS have an 11′ maximum cord length when first implimented, moving the temperature measurement close to a building.

        • Gail Combs says:

          Yes, Anthony Watts had something about that a few years ago. He showed a station in Alaska moved next to a house as an example IIRCC.

          I remember it clearly because we went nuts with the issue of short wire length at my last job. The pyrometer was used in an oven for firing ceramics and the recording insturment had to sit too close to the oven. Chaos ensued. (black thermo sensitive recording paper and melted plastic parts.) Splicing additional wire length didn’t work because it changed the reading.

          Here are a few bits and pieces on thermometers:

          addinall says: April 11, 2014
          http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/04/11/lovejoys-99-confidence-vs-measurement-uncertainty/#comment-1611399

          I used to make thermometers for a living. Well, the company did, I wrote statistical process control software that used the digital thermometers for predictive control of factory machinery. Today in the 21st century, armed with a thousand dollars, you can’t walk into a science/engineering shop and come out with a temperature probe that will give any claim to this type of accuracy. It is PURE fiction. Climate “science” is just a bunch of made up numbers published by fools and promoted by bigger fools. And crooks.

          In search of the perfect thermometer

          …As someone who has designed and built electronic temperature sensors I have certain concerns about the data itself.

          Unless temperature sensors are regularly calibrated I think it is unreasonable to expect accuracy of greater than a couple of degrees.

          Even some that are calibrated may not have good accuracy. The LM34 which is a commonly used semiconductor for measuring temperature is +/-2 degrees F. This is pretty typical of analog or digital semconductor sensors. The temperature error for this part is also non-linear, and so it’s not a simple offset that you have to account for during data collection. Furthermore, there are lots of additional errors that can creep into a temperature measuring device beyond the sensor itself.
          http://www.national.com/pf/LM/LM34.html

          Lots of engineers chimed in.

          AHHHHhhhh FOUND IT!

          How not to measure temperature, part 20

          The pictures above, courtesy of the Pielke Research Group shows an electronic Min/Max Temperature Sensor placed near a grain elevator office. Cable length limitations on this sensor have caused hundreds of similar placements in the USHCN network where Stevenson Screens used before could be placed a good distance away from such influences….

    • Gail Combs says:

      Cont.
      TOBS = Time of Observation.
      my comment with a lot of links shows TOBS adjustments of historic data is really really bogus.
      https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2015/01/06/fixing-the-past-at-the-ministry-of-truth/#comment-477742

      Steve addresses TOBS in another manner:
      https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/?s=tobs

      An example:
      https://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/screenhunter_1040-jul-16-10-24.gif?w=640&h=483

      The graph below organizes US HCN stations into two groups. Those that took morning readings (i.e. reset the thermometer in the morning or night) on July 15, 1936 and those which took afternoon readings (reset in the afternoon) on that date.

      Both groups show identical downward trends in US maximum summer temperatures since 1910. If TOBS were real, the 1936 morning reset temperatures would be warming much faster than the 1936 afternoon reset temperatures. In actuality, the morning temperatures are cooling slightly faster than the afternoon temperatures.

      This shows that TOBS has little or no effect on the temperature, and is simply another excuse to cool the past and turn a long term cooling trend into a warming trend.

      …………

      March of the Thermometers
      Tossing out good data while retaining UHI contaminated data.

      the GHCN station dropout Smith has been working on is a significant event, going from an inventory of 7000 stations worldwide to about 1000 now, and with lopsided spatial coverage of the globe. According to Smith, there’s also been an affinity for retaining airport stations over other kinds of stations. His count shows 92% of GHCN stations in the USA are sited at airports, with about 41% worldwide.
      http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/08/on-the-march-of-the-thermometers/

      More at my comment again with tons of links:
      https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2015/01/18/how-gavin-cheated-to-create-the-required-talking-point/#comment-482838

      CONTINUED

    • Gail Combs says:

      cont.
      UHI — Urban Heat Island

      The ‘adjustment’ is about 0.2 C by the ClimAstrologists (Zeke H.) and in some cases they ADD instead of subtracting!

      How to amplify UHI. Reduce the number of stations by about 90 percent, and then spread the warming in the city stations 1200 K, while ignoring valid stations that do not show the warm anomaly.

      New Study: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/11/18/new-urban-heat-island-study-shows-surprising-variation-in-air-temperatures/
      Some parts of the Twin Cities can spike temperatures up to 9°F higher than surrounding communities thanks to the “urban heat island” effect, according to a new study from the University of Minnesota…. In urban areas during the winter when snow cover is less pervasive, temperatures are higher than rural areas in the daytime by an average of 2 °F.

      They reckon the UHI in Peking is at least 3’C,
      http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3002906/Electric-cars-combat-urban-heat-problem-study.html

      E.M. Smith’s summary post: https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2012/06/20/summary-report-on-v1-vs-v3-ghcn/

      The EFFECT:
      https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2010/01/08/ghcn-gistemp-interactions-the-bolivia-effect/

      “Urban Island Heat” effect. NOAA and a rebuttal by Steve McIntyre
      https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/09/17/fake-adjustments-from-fake-scientists/#comment-424001

      Roy Spenser on Heat Island Effect
      paper: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/03/the-global-average-urban-heat-island-effect-in-2000-estimated-from-station-temperatures-and-population-density-data/

      Las Vegas: Poster Child for the Urban Heat Island Effect – a good demonstration
      http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/06/las-vegas-poster-child-for-the-urban-heat-island-effect-updated-corrected/

      Frank Lansner on January 6, 2014

      Trasher, Thank you for comment!
      You write: “Did you adjust the raw data for TOBS? ”
      TOBS TOBS TOBS
      This is a FINE thing about working with ORIGINAL YEARBOOKS, everyone should try it..
      In the year books you can see exactly when data was recorded. You can see IF the TOBS actually changes. And do you know what? TOBS HARDLY EVER CHANGE !
      Therefore, if someone suggests that “oh this adjustment is probably due to TOBS”, then you should say: “No, its probably NOT ”…. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/06/the-original-temperatures-project/#comment-1526732

      ……

      Frank Lansner does look at the USA temperatures from an entirely different perspective:
      USA part 1

      Content
      1) Basic results for US contiguous 48 states
      2) TOBS vs. COTS, Hadcrut adjustments to USA temperature data.
      3) US temperatures, a geographic perspective

      So what is COTS?

      … Most of the extra heat trend from Hadcrut stations seems to originate from “COTS” – “Choice Of Temperature Stations” and only a third from adjustments like ”TOBS”. …

      And that goes back to the Station Dropout Problem.
      Frank also has interesting things to say about Coastal Temperature stations
      ……………..

      As you can see from the above, whenever you do a ‘dig here’ on the explanations for the different adjustments you find a thin veneer covering a lie.

      This one is a real kick in the teeth to the CAGW conjecture.

      Misunderstanding of the Global Temperature Anomaly from John Kehr (I can no longer do a direct link since WordPress censors his site)

      ….Now for something interesting. In January [2013] the anomaly in the Arctic was well above average. By simple physics that meant the Arctic was losing energy to space at a much higher rate than average. Normally the Arctic is losing energy at a rate of 163 W/m^2. In January of 2013 it was losing energy at a rate of 173 W/m^2. That 6% increase in rate of energy loss meant that the Arctic ended up with a negative anomaly in February. The dramatic change in Arctic anomaly played a big role in the drop of the global anomaly in February.

      The rate of energy loss is a self-correcting mechanism. Physics don’t allow it to operate in any other way. As a whole the Earth lost ~ 4 W/m^2 more than average over the entire surface in the month of January. Data for February is not yet available, but it will be close to average because the anomaly was closer to average. The higher rate of energy loss in January resulted in a more average February. That is how the climate operates.

      Finally I have to get a dig in at CO2. In January of 2013 it was 395 ppm and in 1985 it was 50 points lower at 345 ppm. So despite the fact that CO2 was higher, the Earth was losing energy at a higher rate to space. CO2 was not blocking the energy from escaping despite all the claims that increased CO2 prevents heat from escaping the Earth. The Earth 30 years later was losing a significantly larger amount of energy to space than it was in the past.

      Add Steve Goddard’s damning bits of evidence.
      “The most damning graph of all though is the one below, showing how NOAA (red) is cooling the past relative to their own thermometer data (blue)”

      “Before data tampering by NCDC, US temperatures show essentially zero correlation with atmospheric CO2. Climate sensitivity of zero.”

      “.. I tried correlating the magnitude of the tampering with the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, and found almost perfect correlation – shown below.”

      If R= 0.0 there is no correlation if R = 1.0 there is perfect correlation. Since the raw US temperature data shows NO CORRELATION with CO2 the correlation was put into the data using bogus adjustments!

  3. omanuel says:

    Should we inform world leaders at the Paris Climate Conference that we the people created government to secure our right to enjoy life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and that we are no longer willing to be manipulated or led by incompetent, fear-mongering world leaders that exploit uncertainties, by creating a chronic stress situation ?

    https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_the_FEAR_the_basis_of_control_of_our_lives_and_our_hopes_by_the_political_and_economic_establishment

    http://judithcurry.com/2015/11/25/the-rise-and-fall-of-central-england-temperature/#comment-746163

  4. Steve Case says:

    Here’s a quick & dirty graph of the differences between 2000 and 2015 from Tony’s links above:

  5. OrganicFool says:

    Obama’s war on energy.

  6. AndyG55 says:

    Actual positions out of 37 in UAH on a monthly basis.. (remember that we are still well below the MWP, RWP and the first 3/4 of the Holocene. )

    Dec 2014… 5th
    Jan… 7th
    Feb…8th (eq)
    Mar… 10th (eq)
    Apr… 14th (eq)
    May… 3rd
    June… 3rd
    July… 8th
    Aug… 3rd
    Sept… 4th
    Oct … 1st

    And on a year to end of October basis…

    2015 is 3rd with an anomaly of 0.245ºC after
    1998 with an anomaly of 0.543ºC and
    2010 with an anomaly of 0.386ºC

    And as we have seen, UAH USA trend is an almost identical match to the only pristine, evenly distributed, untainted, surface record, USCRN. (0.0038ºF/yr UAH to 0.0035ºF/yr USCRN)
    UAH data extraction methods are thus VALIDATED.

    • AndyG55 says:

      And let’s remember, this year has had a broad El Nino (NON-CO2 driven) which is apparently as strong as the one in 1998.. but no real spike yet.. and the El Nino looks like it might be subsiding.

      No wonder they are ramping up the data tampering maleficence in the lead up to Paris.

      They know what will happen to the temperatures after the El Nino subsides.

      Not even the manic fraudulent maladjustments of Gavin et all will be able to HIDE THE DECLINE.

      • David A says:

        Yes, the tropospheric rise is just getting going, and appears that it will not have behave as strongly as 1998 or 2010. Why Perhaps because the blob is weakening along with the AMO dropping?

      • Gail Combs says:

        People forget that an El Nino is the manifestation of ocean heat beating feet out the door headed for space.

        That energy is not getting replenished with a quiet sun.

        From CO2 Science a really nice round-up of solar effects on earth’s climate.
        Solar Influence on Climate (Irradiance Measurements) — Summary

        We begin our review of the potential effects of solar activity on earth’s climate with the study of Karlén (1998)… The former record revealed both long- and short-term temperature fluctuations; and it was noted by Karlén that during warm periods the temperature was “about 2°C warmer than at present.” In addition, the temperature fluctuations were found to be “closely related” to the 14C-derived changes in solar irradiation, leading him to conclude that “the similarity between solar irradiation changes and climate indicate a solar influence on the Scandinavian and Greenland climates.” …. he bluntly stated that “there is no evidence of a human influence so far.”

        Lockwood et al. (1999) analyzed measurements of the near-earth interplanetary magnetic field to determine the total magnetic flux leaving the sun since 1868. Based on their analysis, they were able to show that the total magnetic flux leaving the sun rose by a factor of 1.41 over the period 1964-1996, while surrogate measurements of the interplanetary magnetic field previous to this time indicated that this parameter had increased by a factor of 2.3 since 1901…..

        [Several other studies reviewed and ending with]

        Although there thus is still significant uncertainty about the true magnitude of the TSI change experienced since the end of the Maunder minimum, the wide range of possible values suggests that long-term TSI variability cannot be rejected out-of-hand as a plausible cause of the majority of the global warming that has fueled earth’s transition from the chilling depths of the Little Ice Age to the much milder weather of the Current Warm Period. Indeed, the results of many of the other studies reviewed in this summary argue strongly for this scenario, while others suggest it is the only explanation that fits all the data.

        • Bob Weber says:

          The sun caused global warming.

          Sunspot activity was 65% higher for the 70 years of the modern solar maximum from 1935.5-2004.5, when the annual average SSN was 108.5, than it was during the previous 70 years from 1865.5-1934.5, when it averaged 65.8, using http://www.sidc.be/silso/DATA/SN_y_tot_V2.0.txt.

          TSI, which tracks w/sunspot number, was higher during the modern maximum period:

          The v1 SIDC SSNs were 89% higher during the modern maximum, vs 65% for v2. The TSI graphic is based on v1, http://www.sidc.be/silso/DATA/ARCHIVE/V1.0/yearssn.dat, AFAIK. The versions differ but the modern maximum readily stands out in both.

        • Gail Combs says:

          Bob take a look at Cycle 7

          and Cycle 8

          Cycle 8 was a much stronger cycle and peaked about 1836/37. The Notch-Delay Solar Theory would predict warming 10 to 13 years later.

          And so we find? Ice cores from the Fremont Glacier show it went from Little Ice Age cold to Modern Warming Period warm in the ten years around 1850.

          ABSTRACT
          An ice core removed from the Upper Fremont Glacier in Wyoming provides evidence for abrupt climate change during the mid-1800s….

          At this depth, the age-depth profile predicts an age of 1845 A.D. Results indicate the termination of the LIA was abrupt with a major climatic shift to warmer temperatures around 1845 A.D. and continuing to present day. Prediction limits (error bars) calculated for the profile ages are ±10 years (90% confidence level). Thus a conservative estimate for the time taken to complete the LIA climatic shift to present-day climate is about 10 years, suggesting the LIA termination in alpine regions of central North America may have occurred on a relatively short (decadal) timescale.
          http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/1999JD901095/full

          The Notch-Delay Solar Theory Predicts Cooling from 2017

          Global temperatures will come off the current plateau into a sustained and significant cooling, beginning 2017 or maybe as late as 2021. The cooling will be about 0.3 °C in the 2020s, taking the planet back to the global temperature that prevailed in the 1980s. This was signaled (though not caused) by a fall in underlying solar radiation starting in 2004, one of the three largest falls since 1610 when records started. There is a delay of one sunspot cycle, currently 13 years (2004+13 = 2017).

          With that type of prediction by a brilliant mathematician and modeler and similar predictions by others such as Russian astrophysicist Habibullo Ismailovich Abdussamatov the head of Space research laboratoryand Pulkovo Observatory as well as several others from other countries. A Paris agreement makes ZERO sense and waiting a couple years to see if the skeptics have it right does.

          Oh and on the Russians and ‘Global Cooling’ this is a fun article: Russian Academy Of Sciences Experts Warn Of Imminent Cold Period: “Global Warming Is A Marketing Trick”

          …Russian scientist Vladimir Bashkin is categorically in disagreement. He claims that the climatic changes are characterized by cycles and have nothing to do in any way with the activities of man…

          Together with his colleague Rauf Galiullin from the Institute for Fundamental Problems of Biology of the Russian Academy Of Science, he demonstrates that the current warming is a reverberation of the planet coming out of the ‘Little Ice Age’ and that in the near future, of course measured on geological timescales, we are at the threshold of an ice age….

          The periods of a cooling and a warming follow each other at 30-40 year intervals. In Russia for example there was a warming in the 1930s, a time when seafaring at the Northern Sea Route was possible, then a cooling followed during the wartime years, and then warming followed in the 1970s, etc.. The current warming period ended at the end of the millennium….

          “The greenhouse effect that is connected with the anthropogenic factor is about 4 or 5 percent of that from natural emissions. The eruption of a volcano produces more. A real contribution to the greenhouse effect is made by normal water vapor. Thank God nobody has gotten the idea that this too needs to be regulated.“

          …A global warming that so many are talking about is not so much a scientific problem, rather it is much more a marketing trick.….

        • Bob Weber says:

          Terrific points and research again Gail! We need to keep exploring the solar and temp records for the type of circumstances you uncovered. My research also indicates the impending cool down from the El Nino and from ever lower solar activity – to start after this ENSO peak, and is based on my solar flux accumulation model, that relates F10.7, SSN, TSI, OHC, and SST. Stay tuned…

  7. AndyG55 says:

    SG.. there’s error in dates on third graph. Both dates are 2015.🙂

  8. OrganicFool says:

    It’s not only NOAA and NASA fudging numbers?…

    Is the EPA fudging their numbers for its Carbon Regulation?
    http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/analysis/is-epa-fudging-the-numbers-for-its-carbon-regulation/

    “Most modelers calibrate their base cases to the Energy Information Administration (EIA)’s most recent Annual Energy Outlook (AEO) when conducting analyses of energy issues. In fact, since EIA is the premier energy information source for the federal government, it would make sense that agencies turn to their expertise and numbers when calculating those measures which might involve energy. However, the EPA stands out because its regulatory agenda has enormous impacts on energy cost and availability, but it frequently chooses not to use EIA’s numbers.”

    EPA’s “Clean Power Plan” Hikes Prices in All 47 States That It Regulates
    http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/analysis/epas-clean-power-plan-hikes-prices-in-all-47-states-that-it-regulates/

    “According to a recent study by NERA Economic Consulting, EPA’s regulation of carbon dioxide from power plants, the so-called “Clean Power Plan” (CPP), will hike electricity prices in all 47 states that are subject to the regulation. Of those 47 states, 41 states are projected to see double-digit “peak” electricity price increases and 28 states are projected to see “peak” electricity price increases greater than 20 percent.[i] The plan’s projected cost of at least $29 billion annually is three times greater than the cost of EPA’s Mercury and Air Toxics rule, to which the U.S. Supreme Court stated, “It is not rational … to impose billions of dollars in economic costs in return for a few dollars in … benefits.” The benefits of the CPP are miniscule, reducing global carbon dioxide emissions by less than 1 percent and global temperatures by 0.02 degrees Celsius by 2100, according to EPA’s own models.[ii]”

    Alarmists should enjoy the energy crunch, higher bills, more homelessness and people struggling to make it to save the planet from evil CO2. Soon they will all be living like Inuits and Amish and whining about their furnaces and lights I’m sure.

  9. Gonzo says:

    Notice how alarmists love their satellites when it comes to sea level or ice volume or incoming/outgoing IR but HATE them when it comes to temperatures or the recent Zwally
    ICEsat Antarctica paper? It’s only the alarmist satellites that are adjusted right!!!

  10. Steve Case says:

    Gonzo says:
    November 25, 2015 at 8:44 pm
    Notice how alarmists love their satellites when it comes to sea level …

    And notice how they fudge the numbers on that data as well:

    They’ve bumped up the rate of sea level rise almost a full mm/yr since 2004.

    • Don says:

      That comes out to ~14 inches in 100 years. Nothing like their insane predictions.

      • AndyG55 says:

        And in reality, the tide gauges give around 1-1.5mm/year so 4″ to 6″ in 100 years, assuming linearity. But we know the Earth is most likely controlled by rather chaotic cycles.
        There are statistical hints of a slight slowing down of this horrendous (lol) 1-1.5mm per year.

  11. David A says:

    They can only keep playing the game so long, as they must continue to fudge just to maintain the current lie. So the push in Paris this year will be far stronger then normal.

    • Gail Combs says:

      That is why Goldman Sachs president Turnbull ousted Abbott in Oz and Trudeau (his Daddy was buddy-buddy with Maurice Strong) ousted Harper in Canada just before the Paris-ite circus.

      Looks like our only hope is Putin since Obummer has been groveling to the Chinese.

      • DavidS says:

        Harper shot himself in the foot on many issues. He really is not a likable character even if he was much better on this particular issue than the alternatives. The media and public service who already leaned away from him, totally turned on him largely because of his own stupidity. This caused the 5-10% swing vote in Canada to go over to the Trudeau.

        • Gail Combs says:

          The MSM is what causes the swing. The Sheeple are generally completely ignorant and only follow where the MSM leads.

          Think of all the MSM attacks on Bush (The Shrub) heck they were screaming RECESSION the first day he set foot in office, (one actually caused by Bill Clinton and hitting in 2007-8). Then think of all the cover-ups for Obummer and Hitlery. Both Clintons and Obummer would be in jail multiple times over if we actually had a justice system.

          Just off the top of my head:
          Fast and Furious (google now lists a movie and not the CIA gun running)

          Refusal to build the wall mandated by law.

          Benghazi attack blamed on a little watched video and all the dancing by Hitlery and Obummer

          Hitlery’s private email arrangement while Sec. of State.

          The Grubered Obummercare

          Handing Iran nukes

          The IRS targeting of conservatives

          The BLM targeting a rancher so Henry and his family can get his ranch.

          Obama’s Justice Department not only agitating to cause the Ferguson riots but also interfering with state law enforcement and their lynching of Zimmerman because of his ‘White’ name as a campaign issue. The fatal shooting of a talented deaf Indian woodcarver because he is using a two inch blade to carve a piece of wood is however ignored.

          Here is someone else’s list 10 Ways Obama Has Failed as President

  12. Andy DC says:

    When trillions of dollars (of our money) at stake, what is a little data fudging among friends? As our friend Martin says, the climate crooks can keep their reasons for doing so to themselves, thus we on the outside looking in can never “prove” malfeasance. Even though it is as plain as the ever growing nose on his face!

    • Martin Smith says:

      None of your money is at stake, Andy. The trillions of dollars you are talking about is from capitalist investment. I suppose a very small amount of your money is currently being used to give incentives to renewable energy producers, but that will pay off for you in the long run. And you don’t complain about the subsidies given to fossil fuel producers, so you can’t legitimately complain about subsidies to renewable energy producers.

      And if you want to play the “data fudging” card, you have to include evidence of it. Neither you nor Steven, nor anyone else here, has done that yet. Evidence of adjustment is not evidence of fudging.

      Finally, the adjustments are explained. No one is keeping the explanations to themselves.

      • Marty there are hundreds, maybe thousands, of threads, many of which give evidence of why the fudging is fake. Look for threads about UHI or time of day bias, etc.

        • Martin Smith says:

          Those are evidence of adjustment, Morgan, not evidence of fraud. The adjustments are supposed to be there. They are explained, and the data and methods are in the public domain. But that’s beside the point. Steven has made many claims of fraud since I have been visiting here, and not one has been supported with even evidence that the change is incorrect, let alone fraudulent.

        • AndyG55 says:

          The evidence of fraud is in the facts that

          1. the adjustments were pre-determined, as shown in the climategate emails. That is FRAUD

          2. the adjustments are uniformly in the one direction that matches the political agenda. That is FRAUD

          3. The adjustments account for nearly all the warming.. the warming is therefore an artefact purely of the adjustments. To claim warming.. is FRAUD.

          4 the adjustments are well outside the error range of the original data.. thus either invalidating the original data, or invalidating the adjustments. The continued use of that data is therefore SCIENTIFIC FRAUD

          5. The adjustments are most often continuous, these adjustments just keep happening. That means their previous adjustments were incorrect…. a scientist DOES NOT make adjustments upon adjustments using those adjustments to promulgate other adjustments. That is FRAUD.

      • Gail Combs says:

        Martin Smith says: “…None of your money is at stake, Andy. “
        More refried pig feces from the Gorebot.

        Where the heck do you think all the money Obummer has been handing out comes from? A money Tree?

        President Obama’s Taxpayer-Backed Green Energy Failures

        Obama: My Plan Makes Electricity Rates Skyrocket

        If energy costs ‘sky rocket’ then what jobs the USA has left walk out the door. And that doesn’t even get into the billions spent on useless grants to the psuedoscientists at the universities.

        But what the heck does a Disinfo Agent from Oslo care about the USA?

      • The adjustments are questionable since they done on a repeated basis.

        • Martin Smith says:

          All science is questionable, Karl, but you have to answer the questions. That requires evidence.

        • Actually, Martin, the responsibility lies with those who made the changes to explain them: we are their customer.

        • Martin Smith says:

          Yes, Karl, that is where the responsibility lies, and those who made the changes have explained all of them. They have all been peer reviewed as well. Lastly, the data and methods are publically available, so anyone can reproduce the work. So far no one has shown any adjustment to be incorrect.

        • AndyG55 says:

          “That requires evidence.”

          And Martin has presented absolutely ZERO evidence.

          Nor has he even bothered to read ALL the MASSIVE AMOUNTS of evidence that TOTALLY CONTRADICT the AGW political thought-bubble.

          He likes being ignorant.. its his life’s work.

      • pmc47025 says:

        Wow Martin, that’s a lot of bull$hit packed in to 3 paragraphs.

        “None of your money is at stake.”

        Jeez Marty, what planet do you live on? Gail effectively refuted your position.

        “And you don’t complain about the subsidies given to fossil fuel producers, so you can’t legitimately complain about subsidies to renewable energy producers.”

        I can’t speak for Andy on this one, but I complain whenever the government sticks it’s nose where it doesn’t belong. I actually wouldn’t mind a renewable energy subsidy with well engineered plans that had a chance of some investment return. The current strategy (?) is a disaster.

        “And if you want to play the “data fudging” card, you have to include evidence of it.”

        Adjusting data outside of the previous year confidence interval with a lack of verifiable procedure is strong evidence of data fudging.

        “Finally, the adjustments are explained”

        Explained how? I could explain to my teacher that the dog ate my homework. An acceptable explanation for the adjustments would include at a minimum a complete set of raw input data, all relevant processing procedures (code), and output data. You have said this is available and the adjustment procedure could be easily repeated by anybody (paraphrase) – so far, that appears to be false.

        • rah says:

          There are subsidies to fossil fuel producers, but what is going on with renewables are not subsidies but are out right direct funding. Besides, if one would compare the return of Kw per taxpayer dollar renewables are clearly one of the poorest government investments in history. That is why they have such a hard time finding private investor funding. Fact is that without significant government assistance there would be very few wind farms constructed. They are not profitable investments except in a few places. Further, for the area used they produce very little power. No comparison to any type of fossil fuel power station. One would have to cover most of the state of Connecticut with windfarms in order to come close to supplying the demand of the NYC urban area.

        • gator69 says:

          sub·si·dy ˈsəbsədē/ noun
          1. a sum of money granted by the government or a public body to assist an industry or business so that the price of a commodity or service may remain low or competitive.
          “a farm subsidy”

          Fossil fuels are not subsidized, this is a lie of the left. The left is constantly twisting words and definitions, trying to convince us of things that just are not so.

          Now go and sin no more.

  13. Climatism says:

    Reblogged this on Climatism and commented:
    Much more comprehensive and accurate satellite data tells us that the last time there was any ‘global warming’, at all, was when Bill Clinton dumped his own legacy in the White House. “I did not have sexual relations with that woman.” – 1998.

  14. Brian H says:

    Reality bites. There are too many economic and scientific stumbling blocks, not to mention the politics of China and India’s self-interest, to sustain the charade.

  15. cfgjd says:

    Someone should publish this as otherwise it’s worthless. Go go go!

  16. M Simon says:

    I’d be willing to go after these liars only if the “Refer Madness” crowd takes one for their team. Look up “Heath Monkey Study Asphyxiation” for a guy who got paid to kill monkeys and lie about it. The government paid for only one kind of science on that subject. Sound familiar?

    It is not just the Left that plays this game.

    Well yes. They seem better at it. Your point is?

    No one should be playing this game. .

  17. How dare you question all 2,458 Pelosi vetted Gruberomomoters data?
    Think we are numbed & dumb?

  18. Martin Smith says:

    Steven, you are using a graph from 1988, which was made from the climate models in 1988. You have to look at the equivalent graphs in AR5. Your argument is based on the implicit assumption that what was projected by climate models in 1988 must come true in 2015 or the climate models of today are invalid. Your assumption ignores the fact that most of what we now know about global climate models has been learned since 1988. Did you really not know that, or are you intentionally trying to deceive your readers?

    • Bob123 says:

      Martin, please provide PROOF that ANY climate model has been accurate. Tony has provided ample evidence that they are not accurate. Got any PROOF that they are?

      • Latitude says:

        Bob, he’s referring to “Hansen’s zero emissions Scenario C.” the last graph…
        …the prediction was cutting back on CO2 emissions would flat line temp increase

      • Martin Smith says:

        Bob, please look it up yourself. This is basic climate science. You can’t expect me to republish every science paper whenever you demand to see them. Learn to do your own research.

        • Latitude says:

          …not even one huh?

        • Gail Combs says:

          GEE, I guess Martin hasn’t heard the news.

          An engineer and mathematician with six degrees related to modeling and applied mathematics, including a PhD from Stanford University, a the lead modeler for Australia’s carbon accounting model for the Kyoto Protocol, just ripped that simple basic climate science model to shreds.

          They blew the math. The basic climate model, underling all the GCMs is the application of “basic physics” to climate. The physicists got it right. The climate scientists doing the modeling got it wrong. The basic climate model contains serious architectural errors. Correction of these errors and fitting actual data to the improved model gives a surface warming per doubling of the CO2 concentration that might be almost zero (lower bound), is likely less than 0.25 °C,and most likely less than 0.5 °C. In Conventional models the upper and lower bounds of climate sensitivity stayed the same 1.5 – 4.5 deg C

          The new model agrees with the emphrical data: Lindzen and Choi,[1][2] Spencer and Braswell[3][4] and Idso[5] suggest it is 0.4°C – 0.7°C.

          This is why the conventional model runs hot compared to the actual temperature.

          In addition a couple of Physicists found the equations (shape) for the ‘wings’ where the mostly saturated CO2 is absorbing is WRONG further lowering the climate’s sensitivity to CO2.

          REFERENCES:
          1. Lindzen, R. S., and Y.-S. Choi (2009), On the determination of climate feedbacks from ERBE data, Geophys. Res. Lett., 36, L16705

          2. Lindzen, R. & Yong-Sang Choi, Y, (2011) On the Observational Determination of Climate Sensitivity and Its Implications, Asia-Pacific J. Atmos. Sci., 47(4), 377-390, 2011

          3. Spencer, R.W., and W.D. Braswell, (2010), On the diagnosis of radiative feedback in the presence of unknown radiative forcing, J. Geophys. Res, 115, D16109

          4. Spencer, R. W.; Braswell, W.D. (2011) On the Misdiagnosis of Climate Feedbacks from Variations in Earth’s Radiant Energy Balance, Remote Sens. 2011, 3, 1603-1613.

          5. Idso, S.B. 1998. CO2-induced global warming: a skeptic’s view of potential climate change. Climate Research 10: 69-82.

        • gator69 says:

          Gail, if it wasn’t covered by SkS, Desmog or Huffpo, then Marty does not “know” about it. Hell, the fool did not even know what was in the alarmists’ latest holy testament AR5! Talk about blind faith!😆

        • catweazle666 says:

          “This is basic climate science”

          Martykins, you don’t KNOW any basic climate science.

        • AndyG55 says:

          “Learn to do your own research.”

          From a Goreboy as ignorant as you about anything to do with climate science and who runs away from REAL DATA….

          That is hilarious.

          You are making a monumental fool of yourself, little child.

        • Bob123 says:

          Nothing. As expected.

      • gator69 says:

        Bob, Marty thinks that AR5 has identified all climate forcings and has quantified them, he also thinks that AR5 has disproven natural variability. Marty is igniorant of the science.

        gator69 says:
        November 22, 2015 at 3:41 pm

        …And since you failed so misearbly the last time, let’s review some basic climate science again.

        1- List all climate forcings, order them from most to least effectual, and then quantify them all.

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

        There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our climate, or how we got here. For 4,500,000,000 years climates have always changed, naturally. This means there has been a set precedent, and the burden of proof falls on natural climate change deniers like yourself.

        Martin Smith says:
        November 22, 2015 at 3:48 pm
        Thank you for repeating your questions yet again, gator. Here is the answer to both of them yet again:https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/

        What a fool believes…

    • Latitude says:

      I see you didn’t take my advice…..

    • gator69 says:

      1- List all climate forcings, order them from most to least effectual, and then quantify them all.

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

      Then we will discuss why alarmist models are crap.

      There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our climate, or how we got here. For 4,500,000,000 years climates have always changed, naturally. This means there has been a set precedent, and the burden of proof falls on natural climate change deniers like yourself.

      • Gail Combs says:

        Martin the Gorebot completely ignores history.

        Between this interglacial and the last one back, the Eemian, we find in the Greenland ice cores that there were 24 Dansgaard-Oeschger oscillations. Abrupt warming of 8 to 10C with at least one local warming of 16C.

        (a general definition of an interglacial since the MPT is the oxygen 18/oxygen 16 isotope ratio must drop to 3.6 parts per mil – Lisieki and Raymol)

        NOAA shows the same graph with Heinrich events included.

        …Dansgaard-Oeschger (D-O) events were first reported in Greenland ice cores by scientists Willi Dansgaard and Hans Oeschger. Each of the 25 observed D-O events consist of an abrupt warming to near-interglacial conditions that occurred in a matter of decades…. Related to some of the coldest intervals between D-O events were six distinctive events, named after paleoclimatologist Hartmut Heinrich, that are recorded in North Atlantic marine sediments….

        What caused Heinrich and Dansgaard-Oeschger events?

        The cause of these glacial events is still under debate…
        http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/abrupt/data3.html

        Meanwhile this from Chronis Tzedakis.
        (Tzedakis, 2010, The MIS 11 – MIS 1 analogy, southern European vegetation, atmospheric methane and the “early anthropogenic hypothesis”, Climate of the Past, vol. 6, pp 131-144, European Geosciences Union)

        While the astronomical analogy between MIS 1 and MIS11 has been incorporated in mainstream literature, there is a distinct difference between the two intervals: the Holocene contains one insolation peak so far, while the MIS 11 interval of full interglacial conditions (Substage 11c of the marine isotopic stratigraphy) extends over two insolation peaks. Thus an interesting situation has arisen with regard to the precise alignment of the two intervals.”

        The two schemes lead to very different conclusions about the length of the current interglacial, in the absence of anthropogenic forcing, …

        … the precessional alignment would suggest that the Holocene is nearing its end, “while the obliquity alignment would suggest it has another 12,000 years to run its course.

        “In this view, the two Terminations are incommensurate and MIS-1 is analogous only to the second part of MIS-11c….

        This agrees with Lisieki and Raymo (Oceanography, 2005), that the Holocene will not go long without man’s influence. NOAA of course stops at Loutre and Berger, 2003 based on a model that says the Holocene will go long.

        Lisieki and Raymo is an exhaustive look at 57 globally distributed deep Ocean Drilling Project and other sea bed cores.

        • Robertv says:

          But we all know that he who controls the present controls the school system and the media and the state funded science and therefore the past.

    • Robertv says:

      So we can’t trust/use the 2015 models either because who knows what we will learn in the next 27 years.

  19. Robertv says:

    When they no longer can hide the decline for the public and no longer can use CO2 for global warming they just change gears and use it as the source of global cooling radiating heat out to space. That would make CO2 even more dangerous.

    • Gail Combs says:

      Robert,

      They already did the switch by calling it Climate Change and Climate Disruption.

      You know they are lying through there teeth by their hammering on wild weather like hurricanes, tornadoes and droughts. Those three INCREASE as the weather gets colder not hotter.

      That is a MAJOR confession that they are well aware the temperature is headed down but they don’t want to admit it to the Sheeple.

      They can’t change the freezing point of water though.

  20. gator69 says:

    Feliz Día de Gracias, Tony!

  21. Happy and peaceful Thanksgiving to everyone and especially to Tony who is the reason why we gathered here in the first place.

    • rah says:

      Same to you CW. We had one and about all the family was there. Seems that I now have a new vacation place. Long story short. The family business now owns what was at one time my parents snow bird haven on a channel at Port Charlot, FL. All of us kids will share the use of it. 3 bed rm, two bath with a nice Lani complete with hot tub and a boat lift with deck boat. So perhaps late this January when I get fed up with winter driving we might take a little vacation to where the snow does not fly. Get to visit my retired airline buddy and his wife at this ranch on the way down.

      • Gail Combs says:

        Sounds nice RAH, enjoy.
        Hubby is currently sleeping off his turkey dinner. We had dinner with an old college roommate of his since it is a bit far to travel north for turkey dinner with family. We have to feed the ani-mules and he is a bit old to travel now.

      • Thank you, rah. We just returned from a gathering in town with extended family and old friends. We did it earlier than usual so those driving longer distances had some daylight returning on the snow covered roads. The woodstove kept the house warm while we were gone and I just loaded it up for the evening. The snow let up and there is hardly any wind, a welcome change from the last couple of days. Times are good.

        I hope you make it to Florida this winter and see your old friends on the way.

        And a peaceful evening to you, Gail.

        • rah says:

          CW & Gail
          I read that you guys got a pretty good snow. Heck, it’s 60 deg F here this morning but rain is coming in anytime now. I remember going rabbit hunting with my Dad and Uncle Thanksgiving mornings during the 60’s and it seemed there was always snow on the ground back then. No snow this year and little for the last several this time of year here in Indiana. That doesn’t disappoint me one bit.

          I also have an old SF team buddy,who’s wife was good friends with mine in Tolz that have invited us down to stay at their place at Key West. That guy could play Popeye the Sailor Man without any prosthesis. His voice is even prefect since he has one vocal cord partially paralyzed. He’s got a good sized boat and wants to take us out. I know I’ll love it but not so sure about my exfiance since she even gets car sick. Not too many years before I start to slow my pace and taking a little time to smell some of the roses.

        • Gail Combs says:

          RAH,

          There is medication for seasickness so your wife can enjoy the boat ride.

          http://www.webmd.com/drugs/condition-13723-Prevention+of+Motion+Sickness.aspx?diseaseid=13723&diseasename=Prevention+of+Motion+Sickness&source=0

          The US Navy seal Guide says:
          “…using the horizon as a focal point he helped them overcome seasickness….”

          I found that the focal point really matters. (I have some problems with motion sickness.) If I lunge a horse I have to focus on the horse and ignore the landscape whipping by to prevent getting dizzy.

  22. Gail Combs says:

    Martin The Gorebot can forget about Russia and China and India curbing CO2 it ain’t gonna happen!

    They are the three big emitters and thanks to the strangling of the USA and EU economies they are now getting even bigger.

    YEAR 2006

    year 2012

    Just to make it easy for the Little Gorebots:
    COUNTRY … PERCENT 2006 … PERCENT 2012
    China………………. 21% ………………… 27%
    USA…………………. 20% ………………… 18%
    EU…………………… ??? …………………. 13%
    Russia………………. 6% …………………. 13%
    India…………………. 4% ………………….. 5%

    And a Happy thanksgiving to everyone too. Let’s hope our politicians give us something to be thankful for next year and the year after.

    • AndyG55 says:

      As I’ve said before, as an anti-CO2 crusade, CAGW has been a monumental failure.

      CO2 emission levels will continue to climb, probably even accelerate, for at least the next 20-30 years🙂

      And by then, the trogs and goreboys will have turned to dust because real scientists, and people with their own minds, will have woken up to the fact that increased levels of atmospheric CO2 are TOTALLY BENEFICIAL and HIGHLY DESIRABLE.

  23. pmc47025 says:

    I emailed NOAA asking about the normalization code, their response:
    —————————————–
    The underlying raw data for the NOAAGlobalTemp data set is ERSST v4 (Sea surface temperature) and GHCNM v3.3.0 (land station). You can download the data at the following web sites:

    ERSST v4: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/data-access/marineocean-data/extended-reconstructed-sea-surface-temperature-ersst-v4

    GHCNM v3.3.0: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/ghcnm/v3.php

    Furthermore, the bias adjustment code (PHA) for GHCNM v3.3.0 is available here: ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/v3/software/

    Also, relevant journal publications are listed in the above sites and fully explain the algorithms and methodologies involved in the processes.
    ——————————————

    After downloading the v3/software and reading their quick start guide, I tried a couple of Linux VMs I already had setup, wouldn’t install. After commissioning a fresh Open SUSE Leap VM, the install worked, but, the first attempt to generate the output file failed, out of memory, in a VM with 3GB RAM!

    Has anyone here been down this road? I’m trying to gauge how much effort I want to put into this, haven’t seen a FORTRAN program in ~30 years (in a college class).

    • pmc47025 says:

      BTW, I have a pending email to NOAA asking about the ERSST RAW data and bias removal code.

      • pmc47025 says:

        Thanks Gail. So far the NOAA has been reluctant to give any real information. I’ve had multiple email exchanges where I specifically asked for raw measured temperature data and the bias adjustment code used to generate the normalized data. The replies contained a few links to fully normalized grid aligned data and a snide “everything you are looking for is right here” (paraphrase). This time, the reply linked to something that looked like a small piece of the bias adjustment code – thought I’d give a hack at running it. I intend to keep asking.

        Time for the bird! Happy Thanksgiving everyone!

  24. Alf says:

    Pmc have you asked Mosher? He seems to claim everything is transparent. Who to believe?

    • Gail Combs says:

      Yeah, and Obummer claimed his government was the most transparent evah!
      Then we had
      Shameless IRS Is STILL Withholding Lois Lerner Emails:
      Agency makes wild and contradictory claims in attempt to avoid disclosure, but Judge is losing patience

      The biggest Benghazi shock: Hillary Clinton didn’t have office computer

      An email sent by a subcontractor suggests that Hillary Clinton’s deputies repeatedly directed them to erase months-old backups of her State Department emails, just as federal officials began asking for the emails.

      EPA’s illegal human experiments could break Nuremberg Code

      Human testing lawsuit dismissed; Court lacks jurisdiction to hear case against EPA

      So the EPA and its researchers are free to violate all the rules of human experimentation — and no one can do anything about it.

      We can prove that EPA conducted illegal experiments, lied to the study subjects and committed assault and battery on its human guinea pigs.

      It’s unfortunate that Judge Anthony Trenga opted to hide behind a disputable procedural technicality to avoid adjudicating these facts….

      And yes the EPA killed a kid.
      Teenager died in 1996 government-funded air pollution experiment at Univ. Rochester; University now using diabetics as air pollution guinea pigs
      (Rochester University/Strong Memorial Hospital killed my Mom with their ‘experiments’ too.)
      CONTINUED:

      • Gail Combs says:

        The FDA Underreports Scientific Misconduct In Peer

        A new JAMA study found the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is silent on matters of scientific misconduct and fraud.

        Researchers reported in at least 57 clinical trials, the FDA found evidence of one or more of the following problems: falsification or submission of false information, problems with adverse events reporting, protocol violations, inadequate or inaccurate recordkeeping, failure to protect the safety of patients or issues with informed consent. Yet, only three of the 78 publications that resulted from these trials made note of this. There were largely no corrections, retractions, or listed concerns….

        Shielding the Giant: U.S. Department of Agriculture’s `Don’t Look, Don’t Know Policy

        Remember how the recent unemployment figures don’t seem to reflect the number of friends and relatives that are out of work? Well you aren’t imagining things. Once you are off the unemployment rolls you do not exist as ‘unemployed’
        “GOVERNMENT ECONOMIC REPORTS: THINGS YOU’VE SUSPECTED BUT WERE AFRAID TO ASK!”: “Employment and Unemployment Reporting” (Part Two in a Series of Five)

        …Up until the Clinton administration, a discouraged worker was one who was willing, able and ready to work but had given up looking because there were no jobs to be had. The Clinton administration dismissed to the non-reporting netherworld about five million discouraged workers who had been so categorized for more than a year. As of July 2004, the less-than-a-year discouraged workers total 504,000. Adding in the netherworld takes the unemployment rate up to about 12.5%.

        The Clinton administration also reduced monthly household sampling from 60,000 to about 50,000, eliminating significant surveying in the inner cities. Despite claims of corrective statistical adjustments, reported unemployment among people of color declined sharply, and the piggybacked poverty survey showed a remarkable reversal in decades of worsening poverty trends.

        Somehow, the Clinton administration successfully set into motion reestablishing the full 60,000 survey for the benefit of the current Bush administration’s monthly household survey.

        While the preceding concentrates on the numbers that tend to move the markets, the household survey also measures employment. The payroll survey also surveys average hourly and weekly earnings and average workweek….

        And if you think the cost of living has gone up while your real wages have gone down but the government stats don’t seem to back this up….
        “The Consumer Price Index” (Part Four in a Series of Five)

        …In recent decades, however, the reporting system increasingly succumbed to pressures from miscreant politicians, who were and are intent upon stealing income from social security recipients, without ever taking the issue of reduced entitlement payments before the public or Congress for approval.

        …Inflation, as reported by the Consumer Price Index (CPI) is understated by roughly 7% per year. This is due to recent redefinitions of the series as well as to flawed methodologies, particularly adjustments to price measures for quality changes…. That means Social Security checks today would be about double had the various changes not been made. In like manner, anyone involved in commerce, who relies on receiving payments adjusted for the CPI, has been similarly damaged. On the other side, if you are making payments based on the CPI (i.e., the federal government), you are making out like a bandit….

        Up until the Boskin/Greenspan agendum surfaced, the CPI was measured using the costs of a fixed basket of goods, a fairly simple and straightforward concept. The identical basket of goods would be priced at prevailing market costs for each period, and the period-to-period change in the cost of that market basket represented the rate of inflation in terms of maintaining a constant standard of living.

        The Boskin/Greenspan argument was that when steak got too expensive, the consumer would substitute hamburger for the steak, and that the inflation measure should reflect the costs tied to buying hamburger versus steak, instead of steak versus steak. Of course, replacing hamburger for steak in the calculations would reduce the inflation rate, but it represented the rate of inflation in terms of maintaining a declining standard of living. Cost of living was being replaced by the cost of survival. The old system told you how much you had to increase your income in order to keep buying steak. The new system promised you hamburger, and then dog food, perhaps, after that.

        The Boskin/Greenspan concept violated the intent and common usage of the inflation index. The CPI was considered sacrosanct within the Department of Labor, given the number of contractual relationships that were anchored to it. The CPI was one number that never was to be revised, given its widespread usage.

        Shortly after Clinton took control of the White House, however, attitudes changed….

      • Gail Combs says:

        For decades the US government has consistently lied to the American public in department after department. Why ever would anyone think NOAA is NOT lying especially when, true to form they try to hide their e-mails?

  25. Thomas E. says:

    This is a big one. But I think the Diet Heart Hypothesis and the “Healthy” Low Fat Diet is the biggest fraud in history, with this being a strong second.

    This one does not have a huge body count. Ancel Keys has the bad health of 100’s of millions on the back of trying to eliminate natural dietary (saturated) fats.

    Obesity, diabetes, cardiovascular, and cancer epidemics are all in part of full on the back of bad science, and replacing saturated fats with processed wheat, soy, corn and sugar, and the addition to the diet of vegetable oils.

    BOTH of these issues have the exact same root cause, “do gooders” in government pushing ahead a seemingly good idea to the point where they can’t go back without looking stupid. The precautionary principle in overload, act before all the science is in. Both of which have various amounts of fraud sprinkled in to keep the myth going.

    The tide is changing slowly with saturated fat. It is no longer deemed a nutrient of concern according to the 2015 dietary guidelines. But the idiots in charge still recommend avoiding saturated fat.

    Clinical studies are clear

    – The longest lived people on earth have higher cholesterol levels in their blood
    – Well over half of heart attack victims have normal or below normal LDL levels.
    – Dietary saturated fat intake has little or no bearing on the actual cholesterol levels in the blood.
    – Dietary fructose (sugar) and alcohol have a clear impact on small dense LDL levels.

    Both messes are causing the waste of trillions of dollars!

    • OrganicFool says:

      Thomas E

      “replacing saturated fats with processed wheat, soy, corn and sugar, and the addition to the diet of vegetable oils.”

      Good one. High five.

      And we need some warm and fuzzy pink ribbons and “races for the cure” to raise millions $$ for “research” to find out why millions of people have the epidemics you mention in more “feel good” fund raisers for little Johnny and Susie, rather than getting them back to politically incorrect foods like butter, cream, eggs, and red meat (all demonized by the AGW religion).

      Ah, what would real vitamins from Nature do for us? We take synthetic vitamin pills for that now!
      One example, vitamin D from Nature contains over 12 known co-factors, found in animal fats like catfish, cod liver and pork lard. Synthetic vitamin D doesn’t.

      • Gail Combs says:

        I just put up this link earlier this morning.
        (Plus pointers to these comments of mine The Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee (DGAC) came up with the recommendation that America Should Adopt a ‘Plant-Based’ Diet. and UNsustainable Corn. )

        Violence in Schools? It’s the Prozac and Ritalin Stupid!

        ATROCIOUS DIETS

        Pellagra is a vitamin B3 deficiency disease. In 1938, the American Journal of Medical Science, Vol. 196 published an article titled, “The Mental Symptoms of Subclinical Pellagra (in children)” by T.D. Spies et al. Symptoms include hyperactivity, perceptual difficulties, inappropriate social behavior, and problems in school. Sound familiar?

        How can a child today develop this syndrome? Easily! Live on a standard diet of products made from white flour, white rice, and refined sugar. In a California study involving 400 prisoners, 200 were given a multi-vitamin-mineral supplement, while the others were given a placebo. Neither the prisoners nor the prison staff knew who was getting the placebo. The number of discipline violations in the treated group fell 38% in the 15 weeks of the study. There was no change in violations in the placebo group.

        Psychiatrist Abram Hoffer, MD has added much to our understanding of human nutrition. Two of his contributions concern food allergies and dosages of vitamins. He writes that “food allergy can reproduce almost every known psychiatric syndrome, from autism and schizophrenia to mood and behavioral disorders”. His work with concentration camp victims proved that some people need much higher doses of vitamins than others to maintain health.

        CRIME AND NUTRITION

        Many studies support the concept that better nutrition reduces crime and delinquency in adults as well as in children. A recent study appeared in the British Journal of Psychiatry in 2002. This was a well-controlled study in which half of a group of 230 young offenders were given a food supplement containing vitamins, minerals and essential fatty acids. The other half were given a placebo or dummy pill (an excellent choice of words, in this case).

        Those who took the real food supplement over an eighteen-month period experienced a reduction in all repeat offenses of 25%. Violent crime was reduced by nearly 40%. Those who took the placebo had no reduction in their repeat offenses over the same period of months….

        • OrganicFool says:

          Gail, great info, as always.

          I didn’t consider the pellagra connection, will look more into this.

          “The physician should not treat the disease but the patient who is suffering from it” – Maimonides

        • Gail Combs says:

          Organic, I am not really against GMO from an ethical stand point but the FDA certainly has not done the testing it should, thanks to ex-Monsanto executive Michael Taylor when he ran the FDA, plus there is the problem with Horizontal gene transfer

          From my point of view, we are better off with traditional farming methods not mono-culture and if need you to use chemicals use spot treatment. For the backyard gardener, a teapot full of boiling water will do wonders for killing weeds like poison ivy that are a major problem. When I had a wood stove up north near New Hampshire, I found horse manure and wood ash really made my garden produce and it was sitting on top of granite ledge.

          The people who bought the place took out all my gardens and tried to increase the size of the driveway only to find out that stone wall wasn’t just a stone wall.The bottom layer of ‘stone’ was granite ledge. The neighbors, who called to tell us were roaring with laughter.

        • OrganicFool says:

          Can a teapot of boiling water stop elm trees? They seem invincible!

  26. Barbara says:

    Happy Thanksgiving if time zones don’t make this the day after, but greetings to all anyway. I really appreciate Steve/Tony and the rest of the brilliant “sceptics” who post here.

  27. AndyG55 says:

    More MASSIVE TAMPERING bought to light.

    This time its South Africa.. Thanks Paul 🙂

    https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2015/11/26/massive-tampering-with-south-african-temperatures/#more-18662

  28. eliza says:

    Respectfully I say it aint worth your valuable time replying to Martin. I think the intention is to wear you down. A “yea sure” sarc reply would suffice LOL

    • Gail Combs says:

      The replies are not for Martin the Gorebot but for the Silent Fence Sitters who by now are ROTFLTAO.

      • AndyG55 says:

        Martin’s little rants allow us to bring a lot of evidence together in one thread.

        The casual reader can then see the massive amount of evidence pointing towards deliberate, unjustified and politically motivated data adjustments.. ie FRAUD

        They also get to see just how the alarmista cultist works, with the deliberate lies, and mis-direction , and the totally an utter refusal to accept any of the scientific evidence and real data that all goes against the AGW contrivance.

  29. eliza says:

    I’m wondering where SG is….

  30. markstoval says:

    “For decades the US government has consistently lied to the American public in department after department. Why ever would anyone think NOAA is NOT lying especially when, true to form they try to hide their e-mails?” ~ Gail C.

    The modern State (government) is mankind’s biggest mistake. It is a gang of thieves writ large and the truth means nothing to the minions of the state. Consider NASA and NOAA. Both agencies are lying about temperature records and have been caught numerous times. Consider how many employees they have working on the temperature data sets. There must be at least a few people in these agencies who consider themselves moral and honest people, and yet they are engaged in a massively fraudulent con that is attempting to destroy the industrialized western world. They are attempting to destroy their own friends and family! Why? How to explain that?

    I see all around me the mentality of slaves. I see people who do as they are told and do not fight back even when the truth is so easy to prove. This site shows the massive fraud even though I doubt our host knows any NASA insiders. Imagine what just one honest man inside NASA or NOAA could do.

    I guess all that can be done is to continue to rub the alarmists noses in the honest truth and publicly show their duplicity over and over.

  31. markstoval says:

    And another thing! (just kidding)

    I would like to mention that many of the so-called skeptic sites are really just lukewarmer sites.

    I have been warned at wuwt for example that any “slayer nonsense” can not be mentioned or linked to. What? The idea that our climate is mainly a function of atmosphere density, gravity, insolation from the sun, and the massive amount of water on our planet is not new. It did not start with those people who wrote that book about slaying the sky-dragon. The standard US atmosphere made no mention of CO2 or “back radiation” and it perfectly described the temperature gradient. http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2014/12/why-us-standard-atmosphere-model.html

    I would just like to say to all my friends and no-so-much friends here that the massive CO2 delusion has warped science to the point that we are much further away from understanding how the earth’s climate works that we were at the start of the “space race”. Don’t think that there really is a “97 percent consensus of scientists” that CO2 warms the surface of planet earth”, and don’t think that what consensus that does exist proves anything. Facts, logic, and observation proves things and so far the IPCC cAGW theory is a bust. https://okulaer.wordpress.com/2015/11/15/how-agw-isnt-happening-in-the-real-earth-system/

    • Gail Combs says:

      Mark,
      Anthony (WUWT) is the Controlled Opposition whether he knows it or not. The goal was to sideline skeptics and keep them talking about ‘The Science’ when it was ALWAYS about The Politics.

      Within ‘The Science’ he has F. Englebeen, a ‘skeptic’ who ONLY shows up to bash any mention that the CO2 record is a complete sham with pointed potshots at Zbigniew Jaworowski and Ernest Beck. Dr Glassman says of this supposed skeptic. He is Ferdinand Engelbeen, a gadfly and regular commenter to RealClimate.org, a major public outlet for IPCC climatologists. And yet he still has many people thinking he actually is a skeptic.

      You have L. S. who has squashed the solar record flat and turns any discussion about the sun into a discussion about how TSI is constant and can’t have an effect. He even got Tallbloke and Nicola Scafetta, a research scientist at the ACRIM Lab and professor in the physics department at Duke University banned/moderated.

      Then you have Willis who has taken potshots at Dr Evan, a brilliant mathematician and modeler as does Leif Svalgaard Also Eschenbach targets Dr. Nir Shaviv, an Israeli‐ American physics professor, carrying out research in the fields of astrophysics.

      A frequent visitor to WUWT that talked Anthony into correcting his data to include a TOBS adjustment is a professional Alarmist Zeke Hausfeather of BEST (and his buddy the Mosh Pup). They are tasked with defending the temperature record adjustments. LINK

      Last you have _Jim who attacked me whenever I mention The Politics especially Agenda 21 or the repercussions of the politics. He was so obnoxious, calling me crazy, in need of mental health… that finally he was jumped on by Richard Courtney, Janice and a couple others.

      So where were Anthony’s famous moderation policies? _Jim very very rarely added anything to the discussion and yet was allowed to continue for years. However Tallbloke and others got tossed fore espousing science that was not wanted by the mainstream.

    • markstoval says:

      Gail,

      I was reading an older thread at the talkshop when I ran across some talk of Willis deleting anything one person (Kristian I believe) wrote in a thread as Willis was losing badly. (as anyone would expect) Oddly, the moderators would leave everything Kristian wrote in place and there it would be for a while until Willis could get to it to delete it. Open debate, eh?

      I once had a short discussion with Dr. Brown of Duke. I took him to task for making fun (insulted our logical abilities) of those of us who believe “back radiation” has no net warming effect. He said no one with any scientific training questioned the 33 degrees of warming by “green house gases”. He wanted to get into a debate on the matter after I listed about half a dozen PhDs who believed as I did. So, I told him I was only pointing out that credible scientists disagreed with the CO2 delusion and asking him to stop the ad hominems. He asked me to debate again and I told him find me a place where it was not his “home field”. He claimed he had no “home field advantage” and that I was being silly. I told him it was against site policy to even link to some posts I would choose to link to. I reminded him of getting his ass handed to him by Postma and others. I also reminded him that I had been on moderation for being suspected of being a “slayer”. No home field advantage??? What a hoot.

      I have run across many real skeptics in my travels who have been banned at wuwt or heavily moderated. And yet they used to make fun of alarmist sites for doing that very thing.

      When wuwt sticks to showing that real world observations do no match the predictions of the alarmist-warmist camp then they do a fine job. When they get to the underlying science of the matter they might as well have James Hansen post articles. (OK, that was over the top I admit)

      • Gail Combs says:

        Mark, That is why I am here and at Tallbloke’s and at Jo Nova’s except for an occasional visit to WUWT. After the attack on Tallbloke I had had it.

        I was not aware of Willis removing people comments after the Mods let them through although Willis did remove one of my comments.

  32. Gail Combs says:

    Marty the Gorebot says:

    Second, you claim to know the adjustments are fraudulent, but you apparently haven’t read the explanations for the adjustments.

    Third, I don’t have to show you the documentation of the adjustments. It is publicly available.

    I have already gone over ad nauseum reasons for adjustments and why they are not realistic.

    Summary of GHCN Adjustment-Model Effects on Temperature Data by John Goetz, an experienced programmer.

    The charts in this post use the dataset downloaded at approximately 2:00 PM on 9/23/2015 from the GHCN FTP Site.

    The monthly GHCN V3 temperature record that is used by GISS undergoes an adjustment process after quality-control checks are done. The adjustments that are done are described at a high-level here.

    The adjustments are somewhat controversial, because they take presumably raw and accurate data, run it through one or more mathematical models, and produce an estimate of what the temperature might have been given a set of conditions. For example, the time of observation adjustment (TOB) takes a raw data point at, say 7 AM, and produces an estimate of what the temperature might have been at midnight. The skill of that model is nearly impossible to determine on a monthly basis, but it is unlikely to be consistently producing a result that is accurate to the 1/100th degree that is stored in the record….

    The following chart shows the amount of data that is available in the GHCN record for every month from January, 1700 to the present. The y-axis is the number of stations reporting data, so any point on the curve represents the number of measurements reported in the given month. In the chart, the green curve represents the number of raw, unflagged measurements and the purple curve represents the number of estimated measurements. The difference between the green and purple curves represents the number of raw measurements that are not changed by the adjustment models….
    The second chart shows the same data as the first, but the start date is set to January 1, 1880. This is the start date for GISS analysis.

    Green = Raw
    Purple = Estimated (made up)
    Blue = Tossed Out

    Now take a good look at that chart.

    First is the sudden tossing of data a couple years ago. Take a good look at the blue line bottom right. WTF?!? they already tossed 2/3 of the stations!

    … The blue curve at the bottom shows that approximately 7% to 8% of the raw data was discarded by the adjustment models, with the exception of a recent spike to 20%….

    Second is the very obvious 1990 Great Dying of Thermometers andd Does data have biases introduced into it from thermometer drops?

    Also notice the peak number of thermometers was in the ~1970 cold period. Many of these thermometers haven’t disappeared, it’s just that their records are not being included in the “global” compilations. “D’Aleo point out, sometimes these ‘forgotten’ thermometers are still used to calculate the baseline averages.” giving rise to The Bolivia Effect

    This shows the Great Dying of Thermometers

    Conclusion

    Overall, from 1880 to the present, approximately 66% of the temperature data in the adjusted GHCN temperature data consists of estimated values produced by adjustment models, while 34% of the data are raw values retained from direct measurements. The rural split is 60% estimated, 40% retained. The non-rural split is 68% estimated, 32% retained. Total non-rural measurements outpace rural measurements by a factor of 3x…..

    • Gail Combs says:

      Marty the Gorebot is always saying how the information is out their and all we have to do is look. Seems he is repeating Gavin Schmidt’s lying obstructions.

      Here is Gavin Schmidt in his recent post on RealClimate:

      It is clear that many of the temperature watchers are doing so in order to show that the IPCC-class models are wrong in their projections. However, the direct approach of downloading those models, running them and looking for flaws is clearly either too onerous or too boring.

      …this is EXACTLY what folks like Steve McIntyre have been trying to do for years with the NOAA, GHCN, and GISS temperature metric code. Finding nothing about the output that makes sense given the raw data, they have asked to examine the source code. And they have met with resistance at every turn by, among others, Gavin Schmidt

      …here is what Steve gets typically when he tries to do exactly as Schmidt asks:

      I’d also like to report that over a year ago, I wrote to GHCN asking for a copy of their adjustment code:

      I’m interested in experimenting with your Station History Adjustment algorithm and would like to ensure that I can replicate an actual case before thinking about the interesting statistical issues. Methodological descriptions in academic articles are usually very time-consuming to try to replicate, if indeed they can be replicated at all. Usually it’s a lot faster to look at source code in order to clarify the many little decisions that need to be made in this sort of enterprise. In econometrics, it’s standard practice to archive code at the time of publication of an article – a practice that I’ve (by and large unsuccessfully) tried to encourage in climate science, but which may interest you. Would it be possible to send me the code for the existing and the forthcoming Station History adjustments. I’m interested in both USHCN and GHCN if possible.

      To which I received the following reply from a GHCN employee:

      You make an interesting point about archiving code, and you might be encouraged to hear that Configuration Management is an increasingly high priority here. Regarding your request — I’m not in a position to distribute any of the code because I have not personally written any homogeneity adjustment software. I also don’t know if there are any “rules” about distributing code, simply because it’s never come up with me before.

      I never did receive any code from them.

      Here, by the way, is a statement from the NOAA web site about the GHCN data:

      Both historical and near-real-time GHCN data undergo rigorous quality assurance reviews. These reviews include preprocessing checks on source data, time series checks that identify spurious changes in the mean and variance, spatial comparisons that verify the accuracy of the climatological mean and the seasonal cycle, and neighbor checks that identify outliers from both a serial and a spatial perspective.

      But we will never know, because they will not share the code developed at taxpayer expense by government employees to produce official data

      And it gets to be even more fun.

      A year or so ago, after intense pressure and the revelation of another mistake (again by the McIntyre/Watt online communities) the GISS did finally release some of their code. Here is what was found:

      Here are some more notes and scripts in which I’ve made considerable progress on GISS Step 2. As noted on many occasions, the code is a demented mess – you’d never know that NASA actually has software policies (e.g. here or here. I guess that Hansen and associates regard themselves as being above the law. At this point, I haven’t even begum to approach analysis of whether the code accomplishes its underlying objective. There are innumerable decoding issues – John Goetz, an experienced programmer, compared it to descending into the hell described in a Stephen King novel. I compared it to the meaningless toy in the PPM children’s song – it goes zip when it moves, bop when it stops and whirr when it’s standing still. The endless machinations with binary files may have been necessary with Commodore 64s, but are totally pointless in 2008.

      Because of the hapless programming, it takes a long time and considerable patience to figure out what happens when you press any particular button. The frustrating thing is that none of the operations are particularly complicated.

      So Schmidt’s encouragement that skeptics should go dig into the code was

      a) obviously not meant to be applied to his code and

      b) roughly equivalent to a mom answering her kids complaint that they were bored and had nothing to do with “you can clean your rooms” — something that looks good in the paper trail but is not really meant to be taken seriously. As I said before:

      I am sure Schmidt would love us all to go off on some wild goose chase in the innards of a few climate models and relent on comparing the output of those models against actual temperatures.
      Temperature Measurement Global Warming Is Caused by Computers

      • Jason Calley says:

        The continuing comments that “the adjustment reasons and procedures are easily available” remind me of an Algebra teacher I had a half century ago. At the beginning of each class he would ask “Are there any questions?” At first a few students would have questions about the previous night’s homework. No matter what question he was asked, the teacher would slam his book down on his desk — WHAM!! — and shout, “IT”S IN THE BOOK!” Never a page number, never a hint, never an explanation.

        Please, Sir…What are the reasons for the temperature data adjustments? Why are the adjustments greater than the error bars? “WHAM!! IT’S IN THE BOOK!”

        (I will add that that teacher was totally unsuccessful in destroying my love of math.)

        • Ted says:

          THE ADJUSTMENTS CAN’T BE GREATER THAN THE ERROR BARS.
          By definition, that level of adjustment invalidates the original measurements. From that point, mathematically, you might as well be throwing darts. It simply isn’t possible to defend both the data, and the adjustments that invalidate them.

          Martin-
          To call something “science,” when based on explicitly invalidated data, is plainly fraudulent. The proof you endlessly demand *IS* the adjustments you so adamantly defend. If those adjustments are valid, the data is not.

          QED, fraud.

        • Jason Calley says:

          Ted, brilliantly explained! Thanks for such lucid comments.

        • AndyG55 says:

          Ted,

          Marty the Goreboy will never read this.. (and certainly never understand it, or accept it)

          He is only interested in the top of the thread where his limited concentration span can cope.

        • Ted says:

          Andy-

          More importantly, I made a point based purely in logic. No appeal to authority can explain away logic. It’s either valid, or refuted by still more logic. Martin doesn’t respond to comments of that nature.

          I tried debating Martin, and he wanted no part of it. I neither expect, nor request, any response from him. (though I still welcome a debate, if he’s willing)
          Sometimes, I just need to vent.

        • Jason Calley says:

          Hey Ted, you say, “It’s either valid, or refuted by still more logic. Martin doesn’t respond to comments of that nature.”

          Yeah… sadly that has been my experience as well. I cannot help but wonder what his motivation is.

        • AndyG55 says:

          “I cannot help but wonder what his motivation is.”

          Attention seeking. This is all he has left in his life.

        • Motivation? Simplicity. Belief. Belonging. The world is hostile and confusing with uncertainty and choices. And not belonging to just anyone. Belonging to those who can tell others where to go and what to do.

  33. sfx2020 says:

    Hello all, especially Mr Goddard.

    It’s hardly the biggest fraud ever (you have to include other Governments, in which case this sort of secretive tampering is not rare at all), but there is definitely the usual gang of idiots and crooks busy at work, in a bureaucratic mess, welcome to the real world.

    Nothing screams “fraud” like secretive and hidden “methods”, the hallmark of pseudo-science and scams. If others can’t replicate your work, it’s not science. And considering the difficulty of getting almost anyone not involved in your field to ever even listen to you, when somebody resists talking about and showing their work, it fails the sniff test.

    Anyone who has tried to actually get somebody not involved to even listen to them about their research, knows what I mean. An actual scientists would LOVE TO TELL YOU ALL ABOUT IT, they would never shut up about it, they would love to have you scouring the code, looking at every last thing they did, paying attention to their work. They would discuss it forever.

    When somebody presents the finished package and refuses in any way to avoid answering questions, or explaining every last detail of the hard work they did, there is something seriously wrong. The climategate emails revealed this, but as we know, it won’t matter, because this isn’t about facts and science for some people.

    It’s about other things. You know in your heart this is true.

    But exactly “what” it is about, that is an even greater mystery than the code and methods used to alter the past. Orwell would be nodding his head through the tears.

    SFX

    • gator69 says:

      Respecfully I must disagree.

      It is the biggest scam in the history of the Earth, because it is global in scope. It isn’t just one government, or even a coalition of governments pushing this fraud, it is virtually every government and leftists around the world. It is impossible to name a larger scam than CAGW, which is based upon nothing but fraud.

      • I’ve seen much bigger scams I swear but I really can’t remember where …

        (with apologies to Johnny Cash)

        “I tell ya, I’ve fought tougher men
        But I really can’t remember when
        He kicked like a mule and he bit like a crocodile …”

    • Gail Combs says:

      Well said, You nailed it.

      Alice: Mommy, I want to know about elephants.
      Sue: Go ask your father
      Alice: But Mommy I don’t want to know THAT MUCH about elephants.

      (Dad is a Phd Nuclear Physicist and you Can’t shut him up.)

      • Jason Calley says:

        “Dad is a Phd Nuclear Physicist”

        Well, there are over a hundred natural elephants, starting with hydrogen and helium. The heaviest elephants are radioactive! When you arrange all the elephants into a table, they form certain groups…
        🙂

  34. sfx2020 says:

    It seems ironic that the current leader of Russia has spoken out against the fraud.

    http://dailycaller.com/2015/10/29/russias-putin-says-global-warming-is-a-fraud/

    • Gail Combs says:

      Russia is the real ‘Canary in the Coal Mine’ and they are well aware it is getting colder and what that means to Russia. Why do you think Putin had a fit when the EU tried to grab the Ukraine?

      Back when everyone was wondering why the Russians were holding the Winter Olympics on the Black sea, I said it was so Russia had an excuse to move their military there. Putin wanted to protect their access to the European Breadbasket, the Ukraine. Seems I was correct.

      From the Ria Novosti agency,
      https://web.archive.org/web/20091218203023/http://en.rian.ru/papers/20091216/157260660.html

      Note the head of Institute of Economic Analysis was Putin’s Advisor.

      On Tuesday, the Moscow-based Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA) issued a report claiming that the Hadley Center for Climate Change based at the headquarters of the British Meteorological Office in Exeter (Devon, England) had probably tampered with Russian-climate data.

      The IEA believes that Russian meteorological-station data did not substantiate the anthropogenic global-warming theory. Analysts say Russian meteorological stations cover most of the country’s territory, and that the Hadley Center had used data submitted by only 25% of such stations in its reports. Over 40% of Russian territory was not included in global-temperature calculations for some other reasons, rather than the lack of meteorological stations and observations.

      The data of stations located in areas not listed in the Hadley Climate Research Unit Temperature UK (HadCRUT) survey often does not show any substantial warming in the late 20th century and the early 21st century.

      The HadCRUT database includes specific stations providing incomplete data and highlighting the global-warming process, rather than stations facilitating uninterrupted observations.

      On the whole, climatologists use the incomplete findings of meteorological stations far more often than those providing complete observations.

      IEA analysts say climatologists use the data of stations located in large populated centers that are influenced by the urban-warming effect more frequently than the correct data of remote stations.

      The scale of global warming was exaggerated due to temperature distortions for Russia accounting for 12.5% of the world’s land mass. The IEA said it was necessary to recalculate all global-temperature data in order to assess the scale of such exaggeration.
      http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100020126/climategate-goes-serial-now-the-russians-confirm-that-uk-climate-scientists-manipulated-data-to-exaggerate-global-warming/

      Climategate e-mail — March 2004, from Phil Jones to Michael Mann.

      Recently rejected two papers (one for JGR and for GRL) from people saying CRU has it
      wrong over Siberia. Went to town in both reviews, hopefully successfully. If either appears I will be very surprised, but you never know with GRL.
      Cheers
      Phil

    • Putin doesn’t need the anthropogenic global warming claim to exert greater control of the citizenry. He already has it.

      In the absence of this single biggest driver behind the institutional worldwide push against CO2, it is easy to understand why the leader of a northern power would welcome a warming trend even if it was partially anthropogenic. Russia has way more to lose in a cooling trend.

      On the other hand, low oil and natural gas prices are an immediate and real threat to both Russia and to his rule. And one should never forget that Russians are instinctively distrustful of Western intentions and initiatives.

      The alarmists have been worried about Russia’s global warming posture for a while, e.g. here:

      http://csis.org/blog/might-russia-welcome-global-warming

      • Gail Combs says:

        Of course Russia would welcome a warmer earth. They would be crazy not to.

        SO Whats Not to LIKE?:
        These are the recreations of the present and various times when the Holocene was ” considerably warmer and moister than at present, with much greater vegetation cover in desert regions…”

        Across west and central Siberia, closed conifer forest predominates (dark blue green), giving way to open boreal woodlands in the north-east (light blue-green), and tundra (orange) in the far north and at high elevations. To the south-east are broadleaved temperate forest zones; cool-climate adapted in the north, warm-climate adapted in the south. In central Asia, there is a desert zone (dark red) surrounded by less extreme semi-desert (light red). In tropical south-eastern Asia, warm, moist climates allow rainforest (dark green) to exist, while further westwards this is replaced by woodlands and scub (light green), such as over western India. The Himalayan Massif has a mixture of mainly barren high mountain land (dark grey) and tundra (orange).

        PRESENT without color

        8,000-7,000 14C y.a. By 8,000 14C y.a., forests in most areas of northern Eurasia were at least as thickly wooded as they naturally would be today. Conditions remained considerably warmer and moister than at present, with much greater vegetation cover in desert regions, northward extension of warm temperate forest belts in China and Japan (Winkler & Wang 1993, Petit-Maire & Gua 1996). There was probably greater forest extent in south Asia due to a stronger summer monsoon in India (suggested by both land-based and oceanic indicators of monsoon strength in the region; e.g. Cullen 1981, Zonneveld et al. 1987) and in Indo-China (e.g. Bishop & Godley 1994). Evidence from this time interval is discussed in detail on the main

        …………………………………

        6,000-5,000 14C y.a. Plant fossil and sedimentological evidence suggests that conditions remained moister and warmer than at present, with forest vegetation exceeding its present limits in most parts of Eurasia (Winkler & Wang 1993). Lake level evidence from widely scattered areas across Eurasia (western Siberia, Mongolia, Yakutia and China) also suggests moister than present conditions at this time (Harrison et al. 1996). Petit-Maire & Gua (1996) suggest that the paleosol record in north-west China indicates a relatively arid phase 6,500-5,500 14C years ago, though with a return to peak Holocene humid conditions 5,500-3,800 14C y.a. .

    • Ted says:

      Putin seems to me to be in the same position as Trump. It’s not that anyone actually trusts either of them. It’s that both are well known to value only their own aggrandizement. Both are seen as too rich to be bought, and too arrogant to be blackmailed. On subjects which appear to have no possible relation to self aggrandizement, people trust both to speak their minds freely, because they appear to have nothing to gain by doing otherwise. They may be wrong, but at least they’re sincere in their wrongness. As compared to today’s standard politicians, there’s a certain comfort in that.

      • Gail Combs says:

        Agreed
        I also think that both Putin and Trump are interested in the welfare of their countries and not in some grand scheme of a world government controlled by Bureau-Rats. I think both Putin and Trump have been leaders outside of politics and that makes them a bit more realistic. If you have had to actually lead and manage other people you realize what a major pain in the rump it is.

  35. sfx2020 says:

    “(Dad is a Phd Nuclear Physicist and you Can’t shut him up.)”

    Exactly. People who really have something want everyone to know it, they just won’t stop. They will flood you with everything they have.

    When somebody is evasive, that’s when the BS meter starts going off.

  36. lectrikdog says:

    A multidisciplinary approach is long overdue: “It is hoped that this new and comprehensive theory would be a catalyst for future research and provide a platform to join what are now several independently researched branches of science; Geology, Climatology, Meteorology, and Biology. The science of Climate is extremely complex and necessitates a multi-discipline approach.”
    I would add just one more, Astrophysics.
    http://www.plateclimatology.com/

    • Ted says:

      The mention of astrophysics reminds me of something I keep wondering about. Currently, much research is devoted to finding earth-like planets. They’re looking for planets with conditions favorable to life, with temperatures allowing liquid water being the most important. Therein lies the question. NASA says that temperature is utterly controlled by CO2. The primary difference between earth and venus, by their estimation, is CO2. If that’s the case, how can we hope to infer temperature within a few hundred degrees, on planets that can only be detected by stellar wobbles?

      • lectrikdog says:

        It was Carl Sagan who promoted the absurd notion about CO2 and runaway greenhouse on Venus. Venus is hot because its atmospheric pressure is 92 times Earth’s.
        http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/06/hyperventilating-on-venus/

        • OrganicFool says:

          Lectrikdog – perhaps you are familiar with the Electric Universe or Thunderbolts Project?

          According to Electric Universe (EU) scientists (plasma physicists, electrical engineers and other fields), Venus is a relatively young planet. It just “came out of the oven”.

          Immanuel Velikovsky, a contemporary of Carl Sagan whom often disputed Velikovsky’s claims, predicted that when Venus was measured they would find it to be very hot, over 600 degrees. Most scoffed at this one. He then told them to point their new radio telescopes to Jupiter and they would find it emitting radio waves. He understood the electrical nature of everything.

          Their explanation is that Venus is still electrically discharging and St. Elmo’s fire has been observed on Venusian mountain tops. This may also explain the mysterious “white spots” on Ceres. Aurora Borealis is caused by the same incoming energy from the sun. Comet’s are rocky bodies not melting ice balls as commonly promoted. Solar wind charged particles cause the comets to emit radiation as it reacts to the more positive energy as it gets closer to the sun.

          This makes sense in space, as we know that electricity wants to neutralize and it does this by electrical discharging, such as in lightning. It does it in other plasma formations, and bits of material are removed from the body, similar to arc welding. This often causes a “peanut” shape to comets and asteroids. It is called electrical discharge machining. The giant spot on the moon looks like an arc weld. Many craters are created this way as well, notice their very symmetric round or hexagonal shapes. Electrical patters often follow hexagons. There are also apparent Lichtenberg formations on Venus and other planets, showing a scarred past. The EU goes into this information it their videos worth checking out on youtube. The planets have interacted electrically in the past, including with Earth, wreaking havoc and creating huge catastrophes.

          When the sun weakens as in a grand solar minimum, the heliosphere weakens and allows more cosmic rays in from the surrounding galaxy. One theory is that this is how it helps cools the Earth as cosmic rays create more cloud cover and reflect more sunlight back to space. Some truly scary scenarios would also include creation of rivers of moisture in the atmosphere that will cause major floods in parts of the world.

          NASA still sees things in the old Newtonian billiard ball physics. They are good at sending space probes but don’t seem to be able to interpret the electrical results they find when they get there.

          I’ve come to see that NASA is much like the Middle-ages Catholic Church. They have taken the role of high priest and cannot be questioned. Their dogmas are the only ones allowed and those challenging it are heretics and will be burned at the stake like Bruno.

          NASA does not always follow the scientific method. They start with the AGW as the null hypothesis rather than natural variability, for example. Same with the Big Bang theory. This is why they can’t understand when they observe electrical phenomena surrounding “black holes”, which really can’t exist in a big bang universe and are not black holes but some kind of electrical plasmoids. Pulsars are another form. Stephen Crothers shows the complete illogic in the big bang and black holes. They cannot co-exist in the same universe! The whole Einstein “curved space-time” concept doesn’t make any sense. How can space curve? The Big Bang is based on nonsense of “an infinitesimal point of nothingness” that suddenly exploded? More crazy talk. They have convinced the world that this is a fact. Much like they are trying to convince the world that man’s small contribution of a harmless trace gas at .04% is alarming. “Money, money, money, give us more money! We will save you.”

        • lectrikdog says:

          OrganicFool Good point about NASA. Yes I’m familiar with the EU/Thunderbolts. I think some of their stuff has merit, but drop them cold when they make crazy assertions like the Grand Canyon was formed by massive electrical discharges, and conflating dendritic drainage patterns with the dendritic patterns of electrical arc discharges. Electrical machining of metals, or EDM, is something I am familiar with but it happens on a scale far smaller than the Grand Canyon, or Valles Marineris. I also don’t buy the young Venus hypothesis. It’s as old as the solar system.

        • OrganicFool says:

          Lectrikdog, I respect your view.

          Consider that Valles Marineris seems to have a distinct electrical pattern with a spiral shape. Notice also there are huge boulders strewn on Mars and the asteroid belt is near Mars, that could have originated from VM. The EU theory has merit in that if bodies in space were to come within close enough proximity, there would be an electrical discharge between them. I can only imagine what kind of bolt of electricity that would be created as the two bodies discharged. Knowing also that electricity is 10×39 times more powerful than gravity, it could easily pull rocks from the surface and pull them into space.

          Billy Yelverton has done some interesting lab experiments with electrical discharges and even replicated the creation of Valles Marineris. I’m not a geologist, but it does appear to generate many of the geological patterns in nature. Many electrical phenomenon observed in space can be replicated in small labs here on Earth, like real science (as opposed to climastrology).

          I think this is a worthy topic because it does relate very much to climate change and the Sun is a variable star. We also know that a major solar storm could cause some carnage to our electrical grid. We have never witnessed anything like a Carrington event in modern times, so we may have a collective amnesia.

        • Apart from its high pressure, Venus is also hot because its atmosphere absorbs visible light and optical IR on the way in, unlike Earth’s, which is transparent to visible light and optical IR. (Optical IR is short wave IR near the visible, say 0.7 to 4 microns. It’s called optical because you can use a regular optical telescope on it.)

        • (Most of the sun’s energy that hits Earth and Venus is visible light.)

      • lectrikdog says:

        It also begs the question: Is Water rare or plentiful? We know it is ubiquitous in our solar system. But from there it’s a mere, although fair, assumption to ‘ubiquitous in the Milky Way’, and ‘ubiquitous in the universe.’ “Based on our simulations and our growing astronomical understanding, the formation of water from hydrogen and oxygen atoms is a ubiquitous component of the early stages of stellar birth.”
        Note: ‘Based on our simulations…’, where have we seen that before?
        http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/universo/water_beyondearth03.htm

        • rah says:

          Water has to be abundant in this universe I would say just looking at our own solar system. Long period comets are believed to originate from the Oort cloud and that sphere of icy objects is thought to possibly reach nearly half way to the next closest star and contain possibly a trillion potential comets.

          Short term comets are believed to have originated in the Kuiper belt. It is believed to extend as a belt that is about 20 Au or IOW 20x the distance between earth and sun outside the orbit of Neptune. Kuiper belt It is believed that periodically when the orbits of the gas giants align the gravitation force perturb the orbits of the icy objects in the belt and that results in a shower of comets entering the atmosphere and bombarding the planets, including earth. It is now believed that most of the craters on the moon resulted from such bombardments.

          It is believed that the vast majority of objects in the Kuiper belt and Oort cloud are made up of icy objects though many may not be water.

          Still, that is one heck of a lot of H20 out there.

  37. Jim Steele says:

    Please help expose the 2nd biggest deception by the USGS regards polar bears and publicize the petition to investigate

    Reasons to Petition Congress to Investigate USGS’ Dubious Polar Bear Claims

    Sign Petition: https://www.change.org/p/lamar-smith-demand-congress-investigates-the-usgs-polar-bear-analyses

    Spread the truth and share this petition: https://www.change.org/p/lamar-smith-demand-congress-investigates-the-usgs-polar-bear-analyses/share?source_location=share_sponsor

    Let the truth lead us where it may!

    excerpt: Greater than eighty percent of most polar bears’ annual stored fat is accumulated during the ringed seal pupping season that stretches from late March to the first week of May. Well‑documented observations (Stirling 2002, Harwood 2012, Chambellant 2012) report that cycles of heavy springtime sea ice have drastically reduced ringed seal reproduction. Heavy springtime ice is likely the greatest cause of polar bear nutritional deprivations, yet not one USGS model incorporates sea ice conditions during this critical time.

    Read more of why you should petition at http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/11/26/petition-congress-to-investigate-usgs-polar-bear-research-methods/

  38. ren says:

    Very strong galactic radiation due to weak solar wind.

    • OrganicFool says:

      More on Earth’s magnetic reversal and weakening: http://magneticreversal.org/

      What effect could this have on Earth’s climate?

      • Gail Combs says:

        Yes, that is a bit of a cause for concern. I tripped over info on the earth’s magnetic field when I was looking for something else a couple of days ago. Can’t find it now but this is what I archived:

        From NASA:

        The pole kept going during the 20th century, north at an average speed of 10 km per year, lately accelerating “to 40 km per year,” says Newitt. At this rate it will exit North America and reach Siberia in a few decades.

        Keeping track of the north magnetic pole is Newitt’s job. “We usually go out and check its location once every few years,” he says. “We’ll have to make more trips now that it is moving so quickly.”

        Earth’s magnetic field is changing in other ways, too: Compass needles in Africa, for instance, are drifting about 1 degree per decade. And globally the magnetic field has weakened 10% since the 19th century. When this was mentioned by researchers at a recent meeting of the American Geophysical Union, many newspapers carried the story. A typical headline: “Is Earth’s magnetic field collapsing?”

        Probably not. As remarkable as these changes sound, “they’re mild compared to what Earth’s magnetic field has done in the past,” says University of California professor Gary Glatzmaier
        http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2003/29dec_magneticfield/

        Magnetic field changes, NOx and Ozone by James A. Marusek. Nuclear Physicist & Engineer. U.S. Department of the Navy, retired.
        http://www.breadandbutterscience.com/OzoneHole.pdf‎

        The first set of high-resolution results from ESA’s three-satellite Swarm constellation reveals the most recent changes in the magnetic field that protects our planet.

        http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Observing_the_Earth/Swarm/Swarm_reveals_Earth_s_changing_magnetism

        Connection to climate:

        Solar Activity, Earth’s Magnetic Field and Galactic Cosmic Rays
        http://www.co2science.org/articles/V10/N25/C1.php

        Connection between the Earth’s Climate Change and Variations in the Geomagnetic Field and Cosmic Ray Fluxes During the Past Ten Thousands of Years
        http://www.as-se.org/gpg/paperInfo.aspx?ID=7830

        External forcing of the geomagnetic field? Implications for the cosmic ray flux—climate variability
        http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jastp.2004.05.003
        http://www.geosciences.sfsu.edu/Geosciences/classes/gm700/PDF_Files/DaveGgeomag.pdf

        (Global Perspectives on Geography, Volume 1, Issue 4, November 2013)
        – Valentin A. Dergachev, Oleg M. Raspopov, Sergey S. Vasiliev, Hogne Jungner

        Evidence for cosmic ray modulation in temperature records from the South Atlantic Magnetic Anomaly region
        http://www.ann-geophys.net/31/1833/2013/angeo-31-1833-2013.html
        (Annales Geophysicae, Volume 31, Issue 10, pp. 1833-1841, October 2013)
        – E. Frigo et al.

        In October 2014 a paper by Andersson et al suggests another layer of action, again on ozone. Described as the missing driver in the Sun-Earth connection, energetic electron precipitation (EEP) dramatically affects ozone – but above the poles, not the equator. The EEP in the mesosphere is directed preferentially towards the poles along the magnetic field lines because the electrons are charged particles, which explains why the effect is strongest at the poles.When the Sun is active the energetic electron rain decreases ozone preferentially above the poles and in the mesosphere.

        http://chamos.fmi.fi/presentations/Andersson_SPARC2014_poster.pdf

        Andersson ozone energetic electron precipitation poles

        Energetic electrons which originate from explosions on the surface of the Sun are stored and energized in the radiation belts. Strong acceleration and loss processes that occur during geomagnetic storms can boost the trapped population and lead to signicant loss of electrons into the atmosphere

        Energetic electron precipitation (EEP) affects the neutral chemistry of the middle atmosphere at magnetic latitudes 55-65 N/S, through the enhanced production of odd hydrogen (HOx), and odd nitrogen (NOx). Both, HOx and NOx,play a major role in the ozone (O3 ) balance via participating in the ozone-destroying catalytic reactions. Recent studies have provided clear evidence of the connection between EEP and mesospheric hydroxyl (OH) [Andersson et al., 2012; Verronen et al. 2011].

        Here, we combine 11 years of ozone measurements from the GOMOS/ENVISAT, SABER/TIMED, MLS/AURA and MEPED/POES instruments to show the significance of the EEP to the mesospheric ozone variability at magnetic latitudes connected to the radiation belts. We examine 57 EEP events between 2002-2012 with daily mean 100-300 keV electron count rates (ECR) exceeding 150 counts/s in the outer radiation belt and show that strong EEP events can cause significant ozone loss, being comparable with solar proton event (SPE)….

  39. ren says:

    Please click on.

  40. ren says:

    The ozone hole is already visible in the north, due to the very low temeperature stratosphere.

  41. OrganicFool says:

    ‘Seek Funding’ Step Added To Scientific Method
    (Ha! – from The Onion.)

    “PARIS—In an effort to modernize the principles and empirical procedures of examining phenomena and advancing humanity’s collective knowledge, the International Council for Science announced Thursday the addition of a “Seek Funding” step to the scientific method. “After making an observation and forming a hypothesis as usual, the new third step of the scientific method will now require researchers to embark upon an exhaustive search for corporate or government financing,” said the group’s president, Gordon McBean, adding that the new stage of the process, which will be implemented across every scientific discipline, also entails compiling and forwarding grant proposals to hundreds of highly competitive funding sources. “Next, scientists simply modify their study’s goals to align with the vision of potential funders and wait for several months to hear back. At this point—should this step be successful, of course—they can move on to the experimental stage, and then to analysis.” McBean confirmed that the council was also developing a new initial step for the scientific process, “Assess Profitability of Research,” which would help determine if systematic investigation is even worth pursuing in the first place.”

    http://www.theonion.com/article/seek-funding-step-added-scientific-method-51837

  42. eliza says:

    This posting proves that this site has a lot more going for it that SG gives credit for. No posting for 24 hours and he already has got 182 comments! BTW me thinks the lukewarmists sites are undergoing a slow disappearance as punters realize how they have been had by the likes of GISS, Hadcrut, NOAA, NASA data fraudsters which they keep on quoting as reliable for “comparative studies” etc… This site and P Homewood, no tricks zone etc are the only sites that are handling this fraud headon and are actually doing something to stop it.

    • gregole says:

      Lukewarmers already have their minds made up and just cite factoids to support their “cause”. No science. No discovery. Superficial. Boring. Why isn’t it getting hotter?

      • Gail Combs says:

        Maybe because it is actually getting colder?

        It is kinda hard to fake the freezing point of water.

      • Gail Combs says:

        Both Jo Nova’s and Tallbloke’s have decent traffic too. So does Nir Shaviv

        http://sciencebits.com/WorstBEST

        Note on the side bar

        Wattsupwiththat removed. Not sensible anymore.

        OUCH!

        • markstoval says:

          Thanks for the link to sciencebits.com as I seem to have overlooked that one.

          Are there any more really skeptical blogs or sites I might have missed? (I know, you don’t know which ones I know about but, hey, a list of good ones would do a lot of people good) 🙂

        • markstoval says:

          By the way, wuwt once had Tallbloke’s Talkshop listed in the blogroll as “Transcendent Rant and way out there theory” during a period when Watts was mad because Tallbloke’s place is for all kinds of skeptics. So, nice to see wuwt get their just deserts.

          Wuwt does do a lot of great posts by guest bloggers. They mix in truth with delusion — which is a perfect mix for propaganda purposes. They even have a Dr. of Physics who is happy to tell you that the lukewarmer way is the only acceptable way — anything else is stupid.

          And finally, throughout the history of science, every great revolution in understanding started off as a “way out there theory”. Consider the theory that continents can move!

        • Gail Combs says:

          Mark, Let me get back to you on a list. I have to go to work soon so will have it this evening. Check back then.

  43. cfgjd says:

    Did the “data tampering” cause the current mass-loss of mountain glaciers, ice caps, ice sheets and Arctic sea ice? Cool.

    • markstoval says:

      We are at record levels (modern times of course) of total ice on planet earth. Did no one tell you? And besides, the land based mountain glaciers have been receding (and sometimes advancing) for centuries.

      • Martin Smith says:

        No we’re not, mark. Not for sea ice anyway: http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=85246
        The point about most of the glaciers and Greenland melting now is that it’s not being caused by natural causes. It’s caused by AGW.

        • gator69 says:

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

        • Martin Smith says:

          gator, you have seen the explanation of why your question is a strawman. Even so, you are missing a major point: Natural variability refers to the set of natural causes, but the complete set of natural causes we know about can’t have the effect on global average temperature that we have seen over the 20th century and the first part of the 21st century. We have eliminated all the natural causes we know about by understanding how they work and seeing that the maximum effect they can all be having is a small fraction of the change we have seen. The one exception is water vapor. We don’t completely understand its role yet, but we do know it can’t increase without warming to begin with.

        • gator69 says:

          Sorry Marty, but you cannot just wave your hands and claim NV has been disproven, because it has not.

          You always cry and moan about Tony not providing “evidence”, you cannot have it both ways.

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

        • Martin Smith says:

          gator,there are no such papers. Just like there are no papers that prove the recent warming is caused by natural causes. The body of scientific papers show that the current warming is consistent with AGW theory and therefore is not explained by natural variability.

        • gator69 says:

          The reason there are no such paoers, is because we do not know what caused the warming. Stupid much?😆

          If you cannot provide the paper, then you must admit that NV is still a player, unless you are a lying warmist zealot.

        • Martin Smith says:

          That’s false, gator. We know the physics of the greenhouse effect. The warming we have observed is consistent with those physical laws. Therefore, any natural cause or causes would have to account for the warming that the increased CO2, methane, and water vapor must cause by the increased greenhouse effect. The greenhouse effect really is settled science. Therefore, to show that the current warming is caused by natural causes, you must explain why our understanding of the greenhouse effect is wrong. Sorry.

        • gator69 says:

          Sorry Marty, but claiming you “know” is hearsay.

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

        • Martin Smith says:

          There are no such papers, gater. Nor are there any peer reviewed papers that prove natural variability is the cause of recent warming.

        • gator69 says:

          So then we agree that the cause of the recent warming is unknown.

        • Martin Smith says:

          No, gator. The only theory that explains all the known data is AGW. If you have a competing explanation, please post it now.

        • gator69 says:

          😆

          Sorry Marty, but AGW is only a hypothesis, and is only one of many attempts at explaining recent climate change. NV is the set precedent which must first be disproven before a new explanation can be advanced.

          So once again, provide even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.

        • Martin Smith says:

          gator, you can call AGW an hypothesis if you like, but the point is you don’t have a competing hypothesis. AGW, whether it is an hypothesis or a theory, explains all the data. It explains the warming of the last 100+ years. Natural causes do not explain that warming., and you have no competing hypothesis. That’s the point.

        • gator69 says:

          OK, let me get this straight. There are no papers refuting NV, but we know it isn’t NV.

          GOT IT!😆

        • markstoval says:

          “No we’re not, mark. Not for sea ice anyway:”

          The topic was total ice on the planet and you ran away from that with “sea ice” which is ice floating on the sea.

          You know from high school physics that ice floating on the sea will no raise the sea level by melting don’t you? So you pick something of no importance to cherry pick when total ice was the topic. (you started that topic by the way)

          Idiot, ignorant, or dishonest. Hard to say. Which are you?

        • Martin Smith says:

          Mark, your remark about total ice was unsupported, so I didn’t have far to run. I ran just far enough to find some evidence that proves you are wrong.

        • AndyG55 says:

          “It’s caused by AGW.”

          RUBBISH..

          You have absolutely NOTHING to prove that conjecture.

        • AndyG55 says:

          “The only theory that explains all the known data is AGW.”

          Again with the lies.

          YOU ARE WRONG little cockroach.

          The REAL UNTAMPERED DATA absolutely disproves the suggestion of AGW.

          There is in fact ABSOLUTELY NO CO2 WARMING SIGNAL in…

          1. the satellite data, (CO2 is meant to warm the atmosphere.. it isn’t happening)…

          2. in the sea level data (there is no acceleration, just the steady even climb)

          3. In Arctic sea ice. (following the AMO as it always has)

          There is absolutely nothing to validate the suggestion of Anthropogenic Global Warming.

          DATA TAMPERING is what really explains NEARLY of the warming in GISS and its stablemates.

        • AndyG55 says:

          “We know the physics of the greenhouse effect. ”

          No, little Goreboy, …… you DO NOT know the physics of the Greenhouse effect.

        • AndyG55 says:

          “Natural causes do not explain that warming”

          YES THEY DO,
          (especially if you call the massive data tampering a “natural” response to wanting to push an agenda)

          The world is totally within the range of normal variability… actually on the COLD end of the current interglacial.

          There is NOTHING UNTOWARD OR UNPRECEDENTED happening with the global climate..

          …there is no need for a hypothesis to explain anything.

    • rah says:

      What “current” mass loss of Ice caps?
      https://sunshinehours.files.wordpress.com/2015/11/global_sea_ice_extent_zoomed_2015_day_330_1981-2010.png?w=1024&h=682


      op: The total daily contribution to the surface mass balance from the entire ice sheet (blue line, Gt/day). Bottom: The accumulated surface mass balance from September 1st to now (blue line, Gt) and the season 2011-12 (red) which had very high summer melt in Greenland. For comparison, the mean curve from the period 1990-2013 is shown (dark grey). The same calendar day in each of the 24 years (in the period 1990-2013) will have its own value. These differences from year to year are illustrated by the light grey band. For each calendar day, however, the lowest and highest values of the 24 years have been left out.

      • Martin Smith says:

        rah, you should look at a graph of the trend for the yearly minimum.

        • AndyG55 says:

          Marty the Goreboy, AGAIN refuses to look at the evidence of the link between the AMO.. or is too dumb to actually see that link. Guess what little cockroach… the AMO has turned, and Arctic sea ice levels are starting to climb

          We only have a very short term graph that starts at the low point in the AMO.

          The REALITY, which Marty will run away from again… is that the current level of Arctic sea ice is actually anomalously high compared to the first 3/4 of the Holocene.

          You want to look at minimums?.. wel during first 3/4 of the Holocene period, there was most regularly ZERO summer Arctic sea ice.

          This was not caused by my V8 Holden, or by Marty’s use of coal-fired electricity.

          We actually live in a somewhat COOLER period of the Holocene, only just above the COLDEST period of the last 10,000 years.

    • AndyG55 says:

      Try to make the connection !

      The so-called “current loss”, is from 1979, now look at both the graphs yourself..

      And please.. do try to think for yourself. !!!

    • AndyG55 says:

      And what caused the basically zero summer arctic sea ice through most of the first 3/4 of the Holocene..

      Sure wasn’t my V8 Holden… nor was it the coal fired electricity you totally rely on.

    • AndyG55 says:

      And in case you still don’t understand.. here is a more precise version of the AMO.


      See where to low point is on the current cycle of the AMO..

      Then look at the date all the Arctic sea ice graphs start.

      Maybe, just maybe, you will start to wake up to reality

    • AndyG55 says:

      And if you look at the REAL UNTAMPERED temperature data from say Reykjavik, you will see exactly the same pattern

      The peak in 1940, cooling to 1979 then up again to a few years ago..
      …now starting to drop.

      You will, of course , totally miss all these NATURAL relationships if you use the tainted data that GISS pulls from their nether crevasse.

    • gator69 says:

      God what an idiotic statement. Pavlov’s alarmists. They hear about melting ice, and they start drooling.

  44. rah says:

    For a few days we here in central Indiana enjoyed a wind out of the south so the temp on Thanksgiving was over 60 deg. F. THAT was of course due to climate change. Today it’s raining and we have a s wind and it is over 20 deg. F cooler than it was on Thursday. THAT of course, is just weather.

    • Martin Smith says:

      Not true, rah. Both days have been strongly influenced by an aspect of climate change. You can see an animation of the situation here: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/map/images/fnl/sfctmpmer_01a.fnl.anim.html
      The blue blobs you see moving across the northern hemisphere are places where the jet stream has bunched up and bulged down into the lower latitudes of the northern hemisphere. This used to happen occasionally. Now it happens often. The reason it happens more often is the jet stream has slowed. the reason it has slowed is because the albedo of the northern latitudes has changed because there is much less ice there for much of the year than there used to be. This causes the Arctic circle to warm faster than most of the rest of the planet. As you can see from the animation, almost the entire Arctic circle is warmer than normal, and much of it is 20C warmer than normal. This animation is made from the raw data, BTW. It’s a handy animation to look at whenever you think your weather is strange.

      • lectrikdog says:

        Simply, No. It’s the jetstream exhibiting an increased Meridional flow component. This is caused by the decrease in solar output. Climate is changing, to a cooler state. Read: http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.uk/2014/03/new-paper-finds-another-solar.html

        • Martin Smith says:

          Your remark is actually illogical, dog. The global average temperature is rising, not falling.

        • Martin Smith says:

          Yes, dog, the global average temperature really is rising.

        • Martin Smith says:

          dog, we’re interested in the surface temperature, not the tropospheric temperature. We all live on the surface.

        • Martin Smith says:

          dog, you have posted the same graph twice. (a) it disagrees with all the other datasets and (b) it isn’t surface temperature.

        • lectrikdog says:

          no the first was RSS Lower Trop, 2nd was Rss Global Mean Land

        • lectrikdog says:

          and the RSS land shows a steeper downtrend than Trop does, how do you figure?

        • Ted says:

          Martin-

          Please give us a link to the peer reviewed study invalidating the satellite measurements.
          Alternately, please give us a link to the peer reviewed study showing how the troposphere can cool, while the surface warms.

          If we assume the adjusted surface temperatures are correct, then either the satellites are wrong, or they’re measuring the wrong thing. There are no other options. Please help us to understand which it is. In the absence of evidence supporting either of those assertions, then the most reasonable conclusion left is that the surface numbers are wrong.

        • Martin Smith says:

          It’s trop over land, dog, and anyway, land isn’t global.

        • Martin Smith says:

          Ted, I already did that. The link to the study is in the analysis piece below. It doesn’t invalidate the satellite data. It explains the difference: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/mar/25/one-satellite-data-set-is-underestimating-global-warming

        • Martin Smith says:

          Something is wrong, dog. Your dataset disagrees with pretty much all the other datasets. See for yourself: http://www.skepticalscience.com/temperature_trend_calculator.html

        • Steve Case says:

          Martin Smith says:November 28, 2015 at 3:39 pm
          Yes, dog, the global average temperature really is rising.

          Yes, since the 1800s the rise rounds off to about a degree. Do you think it’s a trend leading to a catastrophic disaster or not? If so, some details would be nice. Like what would be catastrophic about it.

        • Martin Smith says:

          Steve, I don’t know what you mean by catastrophic disaster, so I can’t answer your question directly. What I believe is that there is already enough unavoidable warming in the pipeline so that we can’t avoid having to deal with serious problems of food and water shortages, sea level rise, and the mass migrations and wars that those problems will cause. If we don’t act to drastically reduce burning fossil fuels, these problems will only get worse.

        • Ted says:

          Martin-

          The study you linked to says the UAH is tainted, due to the lack of diurnal cycle corrections. They point to RSS as being correct. Tony generally uses the RSS numbers, therefore the study is irrelevant to your argument. If anything, it supports Tony’s position more than yours.

          Can you link us to a peer reviewed study invalidating the satellite measurements we’re actually discussing?

        • Martin Smith says:

          Ted, use the trend calculator I provided. Select RSS and enter the start and end years 2000 and 2015. There are two calculators. Try them both. They disagree with the two graphs posted here by dog. Here is the link: http://www.skepticalscience.com/trend.php

        • lectrikdog says:

          Martin sez: ‘It’s trop over land, dog, and anyway, land isn’t global.’ Global Mean Land means all land masses everywhere. Land always cools faster than Oceans, that’s why the steeper downtrend over Global land as opposed to (total)Global mean. So, we don’t live in the Troposphere, that’s a good thing. Nevertheless, Cool air does tend to sink. And if you have the majority of the atmosphere(Tropo on up) cooling down, then somehow that’s not going to have an effect on surface temperatures? I repeat myself: This is caused by the decrease in solar output. It’s the Sun, not CAGW, AGW, GW, CC, or whatever you want to call it.

        • Ted says:

          Also, Martin-

          You repeatedly insist that the current warming* can only be due to man made causes, because we know the natural causes of all previous temperature swings. Can you elaborate on the causes of Heinrich and Dansgaard-Oeschger events?

          http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/abrupt/data3.html

          * You’ll note that a major claim on this site is that there is no current warming, and that the data claiming that is are heavily manipulated, for political purposes. If that hypothesis turns out to be correct, then no explanation is required for the non-existent warming. That alleged manipulation is the competing theory you keep demanding.

        • Ted says:

          Martin-

          How does that trend calculator in any way relate to anything I’ve said? Did you intend to address someone else? Or am I missing a connection?

        • Ted says:

          And no, Martin, lectrikdog’s data set does not disagree with “pretty much all the other datasets.” According to your own link, the margins of error have significant overlap between all the data sets. In fact, every single one includes zero change (or even a decline) as a distinct possibility. Statistically, every one of those graphs shows a trend line indistinguishable from zero. In every case, the margin of error is greater than the trend.

        • AndyG55 says:

          “We all live on the surface.”

          You are a cockroach.. so , yes, I guess you do.

        • AndyG55 says:

          RSS and UAH are totally VALIDATED but their comparison to USCRN over the USA.

          The trend comparison of UAH especially, to this EVENLY-SPACED, PRISTINE, UNTAMPERED data set is as so close as to be remarkable.

          That’s how good the UAH data set is.

          Do you even know what VALIDATED means?

          Take the AGW suggestion.. it is UNVALIDATED…. It is NOT PROVEN.

          The only way the AGW suggestion is sustained is the MASSIVE DATA ADJUSTMENTS carried out by NOAA/GISS and any other data set that uses their FRAUDULENT GHCN fabrication.

          There is in fact ABSOLUTELY NO CO2 WARMING SIGNAL in…

          1. the satellite data, (CO2 is meant to warm the atmosphere.. it isn’t happening)…

          2. in the sea level data (there is no acceleration, just the steady even climb)

          3. In Arctic sea ice. (following the AMO as it always has)

          There is absolutely nothing to validate the suggestion of Anthropogenic Global Warming.

        • AndyG55 says:

          And little ignorant Goreboy..

          Please explain the mechanism that allows the surface to warm at a faster rate than the lower troposphere over a period of time. (Except fraudulent surface data)

          This will be interesting 😉

        • AndyG55 says:

          “You repeatedly insist that the current warming* can only be due to man made causes”

          It most certainly is.. Men name Karl and Schmidt.

          That is where the ONLY warming this century has come from.

        • Gail Combs says:

          Actually lectrikdog,

          If you rea;;y want to see the signal you want to look at ocean sheltered areas. The exact areas that GISS purged from the record. These are the areas in the interior away from the affects of the PDO and AMO.

          Here is an example:

          Blue areas on the graphic above are best sheltered against the dominating western winds of ocean air and they are labelled “OAS” below.

          Average of Danish coastal temperature series from original data and then the 5 longer temperature series made available by DMI for the public and climate science including BEST. The blue graph is an average of all Danish OAS areas (all blue areas in fig 9) created from original data.

          Two things of interest.
          1. The interior temperature starting as of ~2010 is declining but was otherwise stable.

          2. The coastal stations reflect the AMO.

          You can see this better on this graph of Sweden and Denmark non-coastal stations with an almost 1C drop from the 1930 to 2010.

          The AMO has peaked so it should be intereasting over the next decade as Europe cools off.

      • AndyG55 says:

        “almost the entire Arctic circle is warmer than normal”

        Another LIE, and easily proven so.

        http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php

  45. rah says:

    OMG now their saying by tonight it’s going to be 30 deg. F colder than it was on Thursday. That’s a 30 deg F change in 48 hours! How will will all the ultrasensitive life forms survive such a disaster from climate change?

  46. markstoval says:

    Oh my god!

    Marty claimed:
    “We know the physics of the greenhouse effect. The warming we have observed is consistent with those physical laws.”

    The physical laws of why a hot house (or greenhouse) works is by cutting off the convection. This has been know for over a century. Now the pig-ignorant Mary brings that out even though not one alarmist “scientist” would dare say such a stupid thing in public.

    My god the stupid runs deep.

  47. Steve Case says:

    Martin Smith says:November 28, 2015 at 3:39 pm
    Yes, dog, the global average temperature really is rising.

    Yes, since the 1800s the rise rounds off to about a degree. Do you think it’s a trend leading to a catastrophic disaster or not? If so, some details would be nice. Like what would be catastrophic about it.

    • Martin Smith says:

      Steve, I don’t know what you mean by catastrophic disaster, so I can’t answer your question directly. What I believe is that there is already enough unavoidable warming in the pipeline so that we can’t avoid having to deal with serious problems of food and water shortages, sea level rise, and the mass migrations and wars that those problems will cause. If we don’t act to drastically reduce burning fossil fuels, these problems will only get worse.

      • lectrikdog says:

        “If we don’t act to drastically reduce burning fossil fuels, these problems will only get worse.” At best, this is mindless drivel. At worst, pure alarmist balderdash. You need to watch this, maybe a few times too. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0Z5FdwWw_c

      • Steve Case says:

        Martin Smith says:
        November 28, 2015 at 4:53 pm

        I don’t know what you mean by catastrophic disaster, so I can’t answer your question directly.

        What I believe is that there is already enough unavoidable warming in the pipeline so that we can’t avoid having to deal with serious problems of … sea level … that those problems will cause. If we don’t act to drastically reduce burning fossil fuels, these problems will only get worse.

        So why not flesh out your concerns about sea level rise? I choose that one because I think it’s the scariest issue you guys have. The vision of inundated coastal cities does strike a nerve, so what are your projections? Numbers and dates would be good?

      • AndyG55 says:

        What a load of UNMITIGATED RUBBISH.

        CO2 enhances food production. Warming enhances food production.

        There is absolutely no indication of global water shortage.. just bad planning.

        And a lot of that water infrastructure shortfall could have been solved if the world hadn’t WASTED so much money on the moronic response to the AGW farce.

        Sea level rise shows no acceleration and is around 1 – 1.5mm/year like it has been for the last 100 or so years of tide records.

        You are talking rambling, nonsensical GARBAGE as usual, little Goreboy.

      • AndyG55 says:

        “drastically reduce burning fossil fuels”

        Guess what little Goreboy…

        There is absolutely NO WAY that there will be any global reduction in CO2 emissions for a very long time.

        With China, India, Indonesia, and many other countries too numerous to list , all wanting to partake in the goods of the developed world, global CO2 emissions will continue to rise, and in fact almost certainly accelerate, for the next 100 years at least.

        And there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING that you or any of your fellow ranters can do about it 🙂

        I suggest you go to a nice high cliff and do what you feel you need to.

        Me, I’m just going to continue to enjoy the view of the bountiful CO2 driven world around me. 🙂

    • wizzum says:

      You mean like the huge swaths of land in the northern hemisphere that will be suitable for growing food via a longer growing season?

      Disastrous.

  48. Martin Smith says:

    Have we all had enough fun for one day? I know I have. Thanks for playing. See you all tomorrow.

    • Ted says:

      Martin-

      Why is it that any time anyone (usually Gail) brings up the Heinrich and Dansgaard-Oeschger events, the next thing we hear from you is, “Oh, gee.. Look at the time. Gotta go.” Could you, just once, enlighten us untermenschen as to the known causes of those temperature swings. As both the speed and the amplitude of those events dwarfs even the most pessimistic projections of all potential anthropogenic changes, with the likely exception of nuclear war, it seems important to understand them. NOAA claims ignorance as to the initial causes, so I was hoping you could provide us with more information.

      http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/abrupt/data3.html

      • Good question, Ted, though I’m fairly certain it is a rhetorical one and you know the answer.

        For those silent readers who may be following this thread and trying to sort out the pro and con arguments:

        Martin Smith is an arrogant hit-and-run activist and a proven liar. He makes repeated claims without proof. When confronted, he lies about making those claims. He attempts to disrupt thread discussions by endlessly repeating the same claims and trying to wear people down. He posts links that do not support his statements. When confronted about it, he tells people to go find it themselves. He keeps talking about science but lists Huffington Post and The Guardian as his sources. When facts and evidence pile up against his claims, he runs away and resurfaces on a different thread. He calls it “moving on”.

        Below is a verbatim sampling of his statements accusing Steven Goddard of dishonesty and altering posted DMI sea ice graphs. He carried on ad nauseam, impervious to argument, facts and reason. In the end he denied ever doing it and moved on as always. He could not erase the evidence of his methods, though. He left a permanent trail through many threads for everyone to see. Steven Goddard’s blog has attracted the attention of some very bigoted global warming activists but Martin Smith’s methods are particularly slimy as evidenced in the following quotes.

        Martin Smith wrote:

        “Steven, you are still using the wrong graph. By now you know that the wrong graph is deceptive. This is the correct graph.”

        “The Danish Meteorological Institute says this is the correct graph and the one Steven doctored and then posted is incorrect.”

        “Read the comment at the bottom of the correct graph. Then follow the link to the graph Steven used, and read the comment at the bottom of that graph, which Steven removed.

        “Steven used the wrong graph, and he doctored it. …”

        “Oh, come on. If you use the link to the graph Steven used, instead of the doctored copy he posted, …”

        “Steven doctored it by removing the qualifying comment at the bottom, written by DMI …”

        “I have never accused Steven of altering graphics.”

        https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2015/11/20/more-spectacular-fraud-from-the-white-house/#comment-553967

        More damning details of Martin Smith’s MO are referenced here:

        https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2015/11/08/arctic-sea-ice-growth-continues-at-a-record-pace/#comment-550312

        Now, just because Martin Smith had shown himself to be a dishonest crook and liar doesn’t mean he couldn’t be right in some instance (even a broken clock …). However, one would think that if his claims were supported by facts, data and evidence, he wouldn’t need to resort to the ridiculous methods he became known for on this blog.

    • AndyG55 says:

      Again Marty chickens out without producing ONE TINY BIT of evidence to support any of this rantings.

  49. kbray in california says:

    Latest from Denmark on Arctic Ice:

    http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/old_icecover.uk.php

  50. rah says:

    A very shore list of extracted from well over 100 examples of catastrophes predicted as the result of either increased CO2 or human caused climate change by scientists or experts:

    End of Civilization:
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/climate-change/news/article.cfm?c_id=26&objectid=3611421
    Threatened extinction of over 1 million species:
    http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2004-01/ci-ccm010504.php
    Increase in diseases in infections in Sea life.:
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/09/990908080025.htm
    Pentagon tells Bush: climate change will destroy us:
    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2004/feb/22/usnews.theobserver
    Climate change could force 1 billion from their homes by 2050
    climate-change-could-force-1-billion-from-their-homes-by-2050-817223.html
    Blood Meant for Transfusions Can Get Contaminated Due to Global Warming
    http://www.medindia.net/news/Blood-Meant-for-Transfusions-Can-Get-Contaminated-Due-to-Global-Warming-40825-1.htm

    I can list at many dozens of other such catastrophes claimed to be imminent due to climate change. But that should be enough.

  51. rah says:

    Excellent Saturday summary from Joe Bastardi. The first 1/3rd is about climate change.
    http://www.weatherbell.com/saturday-summary-november-28-2015

  52. ntesdorf says:

    The fact that the temperature record is closely matching the zero increase in net climate forcing increase after year 2000 shows that sensitivity to increases of CO2 is zero. We will never increase temperature even by one degree with our puny efforts. The only increase comes from their nefarious adjustments.

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 )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s