Recently in Globular Waarmening Category

.


Then I went to look at what happens when the GHCN removes the "in-homogeneities" to "adjust" the data. Of the five raw datasets, the GHCN discards two, likely because they are short and duplicate existing longer records. The three remaining records are first "homogenized" and then averaged to give the "GHCN Adjusted" temperature record for Darwin.

To my great surprise, here's what I found. To explain the full effect, I am showing this with both datasets starting at the same point (rather than ending at the same point as they are often shown).

OK, so Australia, according to 5 sets of raw data, is cooling slightly over the past century.  The author dives deeper into the adjustments to show the points where "someone" has added big jumps in temperature that don't exist.

It would be nice to check the CRU data this way, but all raw data has been destroyed, lost, shreaded, hidden, refused, etc.

To be an environmentalist is admirable.  To drink the green koolaid of AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) is just plain stupid.

.

Like we didn't know that...Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach. Those who can't, and can't teach, create a fake ecological disaster so that they can get grant money.

Do hacked e-mails show global-warming fraud?

From: Phil Jones
To: ray bradley ,mann@[snipped], mhughes@
[snipped]
Subject: Diagram for WMO Statement
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:31:15 +0000
Cc: k.briffa@[snipped],t.osborn@[snipped]
Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,

Once Tim's got a diagram here we'll send that either later today or first thing tomorrow. I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd [sic] from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline. Mike's series got the annual land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999 for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.

Thanks for the comments, Ray.

Cheers, Phil
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit

From: Tom Wigley [...]
To: Phil Jones [...]
Subject: 1940s
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 23:25:38 -0600
Cc: Ben Santer [...]
Phil,
Here are some speculations on correcting SSTs to partly explain the 1940s warming blip. If you look at the attached plot you will see that the land also shows the 1940s blip (as I'm sure you know).
So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degC, then this would be significant for the global mean - but we'd still have to explain the land blip. I've chosen 0.15 here deliberately. This still leaves an ocean blip, and i think one needs to have some form of ocean blip to explain the land blip (via either some common forcing, or ocean forcing land, or vice versa, or all of these). When you look at other blips, the land blips are 1.5 to 2 times (roughly) the ocean blips—higher sensitivity plus thermal inertia effects. My 0.15 adjustment leaves things consistent with this, so you can see where I am coming from.
Removing ENSO does not affect this.
It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip, but we are still left with "why the blip".
Let me go further. If you look at NH vs SH and the aerosol effect (qualitatively or with MAGICC) then with a reduced ocean blip we get continuous warming in the SH, and a cooling in the NH-just as one would expect with mainly NH aerosols.
The other interesting thing is (as Foukal et al. note - from MAGICC) that the 1910-40 warming cannot be solar. The Sun can get at most 10% of this with Wang et al solar, less with Foukal solar. So this may well be NADW, as Sarah and I noted in 1987 (and also Schlesinger later). A reduced SST blip in the 1940s makes the 1910-40 warming larger than the SH (which it currently is not)-but not really enough.
So ... why was the SH so cold around 1910? Another SST problem? (SH/NH data also attached.)
This stuff is in a report I am writing for EPRI, so I'd appreciate any comments you (and Ben) might have.

Tom.

The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.

Well I have my own article on where the heck is global warming ? We are asking that here in Boulder where we have broken records the past two days for the coldest days on record. We had 4 inches of snow. The high the last 2 days was below 30F and the normal is 69F, and it smashed the previous records for these days by 10F. The low was about 18F and also a record low, well below the previous record low.

Comment by Dave S on Ace

I just posted this on Real Climate and pointed out that these emails are going to be very damaging, because they lend credibility to some of the major suspicions that fuel skepticism...

1) Climate scientists are more interested in manipulating data to make it substantiate a predetermined narrative ("It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip...") and

2) They are often merely tweaking the variables that are actually known and understood to make data fit what is supposed to "look right" given those knowledge constraints and their preconceptions/preferences.  Prime example: "I've chosen 0.15 here deliberately. This still leaves an ocean blip, and i think one needs to have some form of ocean blip to explain the land blip (via either some common forcing, or ocean forcing land, or vice versa, or all of these). When you look at other blips, the land blips are 1.5 to 2 times (roughly) the ocean blips - higher sensitivity plus thermal inertia effects. My 0.15 adjustment leaves things consistent with this...". In other words, they are totally making shit up.

3) They work to suppress dissenting views and data, by actually hiding data (suggesting deletion of emails), manipulating the pier review process, and pressuring publishers ("Note that I am copying this view only to Mike Hulme and Phil Jones. Mike's idea to get editorial board members to resign will probably not work"), a problem reinforced by the buddy-buddy fraternity that exist across organizations ("I've just completed Mike's Nature trick...").

Gavin gave me a "Fair point, but..."

Veteran Loch Ness Monster Hunter Gives Up - The Daily Record

Despite having hundreds of sonar contacts over the years, the trail has since gone cold and Rines believes that Nessie may be dead, a victim of global warming.

Thanx to No Pasaran

Prediction for 2009: Since Global Cooling failed to catch on in the 70's, and Global Warming is freezing up, the next Pre-Engineered "Crisis" will be...Global Stagnation, or Climate Status Quo!

"Oh, no! The weather this year is just like last year's! We know from history that Climate is supposed to Change-yet it's hot this summer-JUST LIKE LAST SUMMER! And it was cold this winter-JUST LIKE LAST WINTER!!! The debate is over! Scientists all agree-only massive taxing, spending, regulation and UN-control can save us! Stop Climate Status Quo Now!!!!!"

Cold Fury

Apparently the poles have missed the memo that they are melting.

The Kyoto treaty was agreed upon in late 1997 and countries started signing and ratifying it in 1998. A list of countries and their carbon dioxide emissions due to consumption of fossil fuels is available from the U.S. government. If we look at that data and compare 2004 (latest year for which data is available) to 1997 (last year before the Kyoto treaty was signed), we find the following.

· Emissions worldwide increased 18.0%.
· Emissions from countries that signed the treaty increased 21.1%.
· Emissions from non-signers increased 10.0%.
· Emissions from the U.S. increased 6.6%.

In fact, emissions from the U.S. grew slower than those of over 75% of the countries that signed Kyoto. Below are the growth rates of carbon dioxide emissions, from 1997 to 2004, for a few selected countries, all Kyoto signers. (Remember, the comparative number for the U.S. is 6.6%.)

· Maldives, 252%.
· Sudan, 142%.
· China, 55%.
· Luxembourg, 43%
· Iran, 39%.
· Iceland, 29%.
· Norway, 24%.
· Russia, 16%.
· Italy, 16%.
· Finland, 15%.
· Mexico, 11%.
· Japan, 11%.
· Canada, 8.8%.

World and U.S. opinion seems to revolve around who signed Kyoto rather than actual carbon dioxide emissions.  Once again, stated intent trumps actual results.  Can even the global warming believers possibly believe this treaty has anything to do with it?

UN: Poor Need $86 Billion in Climate Aid

...less the 98% rake-off by the UN leaves 1.72 billion. Figure 5 billion are 'poor' by UN standards...that gives 37 cents to each of them. Willie Sutton was wrong...the banks are not where the money is. The money is in leftoid scams.

"Arctic Ocean Getting Warm; Seals Vanish and Icebergs Melt."

Great masses of ice have now been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, and at may points well-known glaciers have entirely disappeared.

The Washington Post, headline page 2, November 2nd, 1922

God DAMNED those SUVs.

Freakin' Moonbat alert.

An agriculture professor at the University of Melbourne, Snow Barlow, said the paper showed humans were taking up too much of an important natural resource.

"Here we are, just one species on the earth, and we're grabbing a quarter of the renewable resources ... we're probably being a bit greedy."

At least on this one, I'm doing my fair green share.  I don't eat leafy veggies, and I don't go out into the sun - so I am not converting Mother Gaia's companion's warm rays into vitamins. As any ginger kid can tell you, we don't burn - we bleach.

A North Pole expedition meant to bring attention to global warming was called off after one of the explorers got frostbite. The explorers, Ann Bancroft and Liv Arnesen, on Saturday called off what was intended to be a 530-mile trek across the Arctic Ocean after Arnesen suffered frostbite in three of her toes, and extreme cold temperatures drained the batteries in some of their electronic equipment.

Moonbats. Arctic. Mid-Winter. Frostbite.

Could there be any other result?

Moonbats never let reality get in the way of their fondest fantasies.

They were experiencing temperatures that weren't expected with global warming," Atwood said. "But one of the things we see with global warming is unpredictability".

Naturally. Severe cold is a sure symptom of gerbil worming.

I think a wake up call is in order.

Which brings us to the comment of the day from ErnieG

They probably had to abandon their sunscreen and scuba gear, too. What a waste.

Posted by ErnieG on
2007 03 13 at 08:48 AM • permalink

OMG!
After posting my snarky comment about scuba gear, I went back and read
the news item. To demonstrate that the ice is melting and we’re all
gonna die, they were actually planning to don wet suits and go
swimming.

In it's entirety - the official answer to Gore's Inconvenient Truth.  All 75 minutes of it.  This is science...not superstition.

The Great Global Warming Swindle

When big Al brushed off his massive energy usage by whining that he offset his footprint by buying carbon credits - you knew some one would check....

Al buys his carbon offsets from Generation Investment Management LLP, which is "an independent, private, owner-managed partnership established in 2004 and with offices in London and Washington, D.C.," that, for a fee, will invest your money in "high-quality companies at attractive prices that will deliver superior long-term investment returns." Generation is a tax-exempt U.S. 501(c)3. And who's the chairman and founding partner? Al Gore.

Hot air, farts, carbon offsets, snake oil... The man is a charlatan.

I saw this picture on Mullings....



Start of a joke: Al Gore, Rosie O'Donnell and Rob Reiner go to Guatamala City to participate in a double-dutch jump rope tournament ...

Global warming concerns are keeping children awake at night

Half of young children are anxious about the effects of global warming, often losing sleep because of their concern, according to a new report today.

Then the obvious solution is to quit scaring the kids with all this venal globular waarmening nonsense. Anyone pushing that craptrap should be charged with child molestation.

It's for the children, after all.

You can start with the gerbil-worming alGore monster under the bed.

...or perhaps they could just stop fudging the data.

Mayhaps one of you greenies can tell me why the exact same data for 1880 - 2000 published in 2000 and 2007 show a change lowering iinconvenient recorded temperatures in the 30s and a change raising recorded temperatures in the 90s. I guess the answer is - if the recorded data don't fit your agenda, change the data. - originally found on Kim

This photo was snapped recently in New Orleans, still reeling from Canadian Ice Storm Katrina.

It is absolutely essential that we melt as much of the polar icecaps as we can.

97.5% of all water on Earth is salt water, leaving only 2.5% as fresh water. 70% of the earth's remaining fresh water is tied up in those greedy frozen unilateral bastards, leaving less than 1% available for use in the earth's closed ecosystem.

Globular Waarmening is absolutely critical to the future survival of the planet.

Ice Caps Delenda Est...

Here is a picture I found on FF.com of Niagra Falls in 1911. I wonder if my grandfather's SUV had anything to do with it?

Here's one I took two winters ago...from the shore in the distance of the first picture.

A thread over at FMFT got me looking at the numbers..... How much human activity accounts for greenhouse gases. It is about 0.28%, if water vapor is taken into account-- about 5.53%, if not. This point is so crucial to the debate over global warming that how water vapor is or isn't factored into an analysis of Earth's greenhouse gases makes the difference between describing a significant human contribution to the greenhouse effect, or a negligible one. Water vapor constitutes Earth's most significant greenhouse gas, accounting for about 95% of Earth's greenhouse effect (4). Interestingly, many "facts and figures' regarding global warming completely ignore the powerful effects of water vapor in the greenhouse system, carelessly (perhaps, deliberately) overstating human impacts as much as 20-fold. Water vapor is 99.999% of natural origin. Other atmospheric greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and miscellaneous other gases (CFC's, etc.), are also mostly of natural origin (except for the latter, which is mostly anthropogenic). Human activites contribute slightly to greenhouse gas concentrations through farming, manufacturing, power generation, and transportation. However, these emissions are so dwarfed in comparison to emissions from natural sources we can do nothing about, that even the most costly efforts to limit human emissions would have a very small-- perhaps undetectable-- effect on global climate. Charts The Kyoto Protocol calls for mandatory carbon dioxide reductions of 30% from developed countries like the U.S. Reducing man-made CO2 emissions this much would have an undetectable effect on climate while having a devastating effect on the U.S. economy. Can you drive your car 30% less, reduce your winter heating 30%? Pay 20-50% more for everything from automobiles to zippers? And that is just a down payment, with more sacrifices to come later. Such drastic measures, even if imposed equally on all countries around the world, would reduce total human greenhouse contributions from CO2 by about 0.035%.

Tim Blair is running a thread on sea level rise down under. Included in the comments is a link to a site where you can zoom into your little bit of the world and see how it would look at different sea level changes. As I can pretty much spit into the Barnegat Bay from my back yard, I had some interest. There are marks on every telephone pole in the neighborhood, bye the bye, which mark feet above mean high tide. The lowest part of my backyard is about 5' above MHT. I find this more interesting for storm surge information than I do for Globular Warmening. At most the ocean would rise a few centimeters over the next century, but a 4 meter (13 foot) storm surge would give me ocean front property. ...of course this is bullshit, but I wonder how they reconcile a 13 foot rise in the ocean with my property being 5' above sea level...and my house doesn't get washed away? Go Warmening. Get busy with those SUVs guys.

Took six weeks between the mortco paperwork (I bought it with a loan against property) and getting the title from Florida, but it's finally done. The bank was great, the mortco sucked...it took 4 weeks to get a copy of my flood insurance on the property I used, and my neighbor only needed to sell it cuz of a nasty divorce...sad. But now I have my very own Gas-Guzzling-Global-warming-Hippy-heart-attack-giving EnviroWacker 8000. In other words...basically a mid-sized station wagon with 4WD I'll never use in the cement jungle I live in....but paid for, insured, registered, and warranty still good for another 2 years.

Everything that has been affected by Global Warming....

Iowahawk has the lowdown we can all live with....

61^o today along the shore in the great State (and criminal enterprise) of New Jersey. If this is global warming....I'm all for it. Every day like this is a day closer to Spring.