The recent act of desperation from the collection of Climategate Climateers trying to diss the satellite based global temperature record has spawned a cartoon, and it isn’t from our usual cartooning friend, Josh.
And it seems so true, these folks keep holding on to an antiquated and highly corrected and adjusted metric (the surface temperature record) which is full of bad data, while at the same time saying essentially the same thing about the satellite record. It is the ultimate science based case of the pot calling the kettle black.
Source: Alex @plankslaw on Twitter
So much for “settled science”.
Adjustments to satellite observations and the algorithm which translates radiance data into temperature are warranted. Those to the so-called surface observations are mostly unjustified, intended not to improve the data but to cool the past and warm the post-war world.
“are mostly unjustified”
When they bother telling us what those adjustments are.
The gatekeepers’ once secret adjustment algorithms have been dragged out of their blood-stained hands kicking and screaming, thanks to the FOIA. Thus we now know that UHI adjustments make the “record” even hotter rather than colder and that the sea “surface data” have been adjusted higher so as not to be out of whack with the cooked book land station tamperatures.
NOAA can no longer be trusted even to report the raw data accurately.
[Comment deleted. “Jankowski” has been stolen by the identity thief pest. All Jankowski comments saved and deleted from public view. You wasted your time, sockpuppet. -mod]
@ Rattus Norvegicus
“Carl Mears of Remote Sensing Systems, who actually constructs the RSS data set would respectfully disagree with you. He has stated that he considers the surface record to be more reliable than the satellite record.
http://www.remss.com/blog/recent-slowing-rise-global-temperatures “
Quote from above link: “Part of the cause of the hiatus could simply be due to bad luck, that is, the last 15 years could have been cooler than normal simply because of random fluctuations in the climate system. There are many modes of variability in the climate system on time scales of a year, decades, and even longer. Even when such modes are well represented in a climate model, they most likely occur at different times than the real-world events, leading to differences between the modeled and observed time series”
What can the man mean by ‘Bad Luck” ?
Michael C (9:07pm) — +1 …. indeed.
Gloateus Maximus, I believe they also decided a few years ago to calculate the Artice ice area in a different way. If my memory is correct, this new way shows more ice loss.
As a guy who did his PhD thesis on how to tease temperatures out of the brightness temperature to get temperature at the standard levels in the 1970s, it is almost impossible to fudge the data other than by outright fabrication. As the horn rotates around, one of its views is of a calibration load with a known temperature. Altitude will effect the weighting functions a tad, but those are an evolving process over time and the altitude of the satellite is well known and so the weighting function can be evaluated on the basis of the physics of the oxygen molecular spectrum. I suppose it is remotely possible that the observation frequency could change substantially, but I, for one, have never encountered that. Compared to the “adjustments” that are made to the surface temperature network, there is almost zero wiggle room in the microwave sounders.
One thing that struck me lately is how deficient it is to use surface temperatures to measure very much. When you have something like the El Nino we are having now, the thickness of the slab of warmer water in the western Pacific increases, and the thickness in the eastern Pacific tends toward zero. The total enthalpy difference of the ocean between the El Nino and La Nina is little or none. But because the colder surface area increases and the warmer surface area decreases during the La Nina phase and the increases during the El Nino phase, the total “average temperature” of the Pacific increases in the El Nino, while its total heat (enthalpy) content remains the same. But it is too much to expect the greens to know the difference between enthalpy and an elephant I suppose. They think an adiabatic lapse rate is what happens when somebody does not have a lot of at bats in baseball and their at bats lapses.
+10
I agree. Combining land station “data” with sea surface “data” is inherently bogus. Better just to report the best land station data separately, with only the most valid adjustments, as for example for the switch from mercury to electronic thermometers.
Except that, then the land would be seen to be cooling, with the possible exception of parts of the Arctic.
“there is almost zero wiggle room in the microwave sounders.”
They could adjust the data to agree with ship buckets from the 17th century. 🙂
This is a fascinating fact that I have been wondering about for some time. I couldn’t understand how a transient event such as an el nino could cause an increase in global temperature that is temporary, given that the AGW hypothesis suggests that the heating is ongoing. Nor could I ever understand how a localized event can cause “global” increase in temperature. So, if enthalpy is unchanged over the broader and deeper area, there is no “global” increase in temperatures-which negates the idea that these spikes are meaningful in any way to “global” temperature, even though they are the poster children for global warming up steps. Sorry for all the quotation marks, just an easy way to say B.S.
If one area heats way up, it raises global temp.
Not the whole globe…the average.
But that released heat from the tropical sea surface does not stay where it is…it is entrained into global circulation cells, including the Hadley cells, and transported around, hither and yon (to quote a recent use of that phrase here.).
But good point about the heat retention.
After an el nino is usually a la nina, and temps cool for several years.
If CO2 traps heat and leads to a progressive warming…then logically once it warmed up, it would stay warmer, even if the ocean surface cooled over a wide area
ShrNfr on January 15, 2016 at 12:36 pm
ShrNfr, this seems to me to be a hugely significant point you have just put forward.
As the entire science of climate change is based upon anomolies, surely these El Nino upticks (of warmed surface area, but not of increased enthalpy) insert an extra series of major ‘up steps’ into what may be an otherwise slowly increasing record?
And to add, the surface area covered by thermometers is miniscule compared to satellite (re homogenization). Amazing though the “accuracy” that can be tortured out of land/sea data.
Yes Mr. Harmsworth, it too me way too long to put two and two together and come out anywhere near 4. As a scientist/engineer, I tend to over complicate stuff. Of course, the whole shooting match is indeed complicated, but when you reduce it to the basic and most simple mechanics, it has to do with the trades blowing east to west or the lack thereof. Winds interact with surface water and push it along in the direction in which the wind is blowing. You pile the warmer water up in the west and suck up the deeper cold water during the La Nina. The western Pacific has a higher sea level because of this. Sort of a “storm surge” type effect. When the trades shift, that water sloshes back and you get the El Nino. I always remembered the NJ shore where I grew up. When the winds came in off the ocean, the ocean temperature was reasonable. When then came from off land, you could freeze your anatomy taking a swim. Same basic effect on a much smaller level. Of course, a thicker slab of warmer water contains more enthalpy than a thinner slab of warmer water. Enthalpy is conserved as we know, so in one case you have a lower “average temperature” of the ocean surface, and in the other a higher “average temperature” of the ocean surface. It is a defect in trying to represent the enthalpy of a three dimensional object by the appearance of one surface. It is like saying an entire brick is black when only one surface has been painted black.
Like I said, most of the members of the escathological cargo cult of the CAGW do not have the foggiest idea of who, what, when, or why. Sadly, they will be allocating resources in exactly the worst way at the worst time. Cold does not like wind turbines, and solar panels do not like cloudy weather. Nothing against either, but betting all of it on a single horse is just plain dumb. I do have solar panels on my house for instance.
I had nothing against wind turbines either, until the details of how much they cost, how little they generate in comparison to their rating, and how many birds they kill began to emerge.
I now see wind turbines in a different light.
Good post, very enlightening.
I’m guessing that it matters because the interaction with the atmosphere is at the sea surface and the temperature of the deeper water doesn’t matter (in terms of interaction with the atmosphere). yes/no?
Loved your post
Carl Mears of Remote Sensing Systems, who actually constructs the RSS data set would respectfully disagree with you. He has stated that he considers the surface record to be more reliable than the satellite record.
http://www.remss.com/blog/recent-slowing-rise-global-temperatures
“Compared to the “adjustments” that are made to the surface temperature network, there is almost zero wiggle room in the microwave sounders.”
Ahh.. misleading
1. over the whole record you have multiple instruments.
2. Just look at the changes you get in version to version
http://www.moyhu.org.s3.amazonaws.com/2015/12/uahadj.png
3. RSS adjusts their data with a GCM
Go look at UHA code.. then get back to me
The adjustments made to Sat products dwarfs those made to land products
That said.. Amuse yourself and compare RSS land only and UHA land only with the surface
temps
Oh wait here it is for the US
http://static.berkeleyearth.org/posters/agu-2013-poster-1.pdf
UHA land versus GISS land?
http://climatewatcher.webs.com/GISS_UAHLT_1979.png
Steven M,
Another reader made this comment. It is so straight to the point that I saved it:
…satellite data has…
(1) the most uniform global coverage
(2) the advantage of minimizing/ignoring localized temperature artifacts
(3) undergone more scrutiny than any other dataset
(4) been the most transparent with data and methodology
(5) been essentially independently-verified by the analysis of multiple organizations (RSS and UAH) which at times have been somewhat “rivals” at odds with each other.
Why would you use anything else for 1979-present (and future)?
The new meme is that satellite data is wrong. The alarmist crowd is squirming because people like Steve Goddard have exposed so many examples of NASA/GISS, USHCN, NOAA and others falsifying the temperature record that they hired a serial propagandist (P. Sinclair, AKA: ‘potholer’) to fabricate some new lies for them.
And:
2. Just look at the changes you get in version to version
Yeah, let’s look at GISS:
Dr. Mears is concerned about keeping his funding. His statement is illogical and technically incorrect. It is easy to see he threw it together in a bit of a panic.
Thanks for the graph, “dodgy bros” Moshy.
http://s19.postimg.org/vl57b01tf/GISS_UAHLT_1979.png
” as for example for the switch from mercury to electronic thermometers.”
A German scientist did a side by side on these over a few years. (I’m sure someone has a link)
Electronics read a lot higher on average…….
…..so GISS adjusts them upwards.
“Amazing though the “accuracy” that can be tortured out of land/sea data.”
Maybe averaging precision data results in accuracy. Who knows these days, when aggressive assertions in the court of popular opinion accompanied by insults to those who question have inverted the traditional concept of what science stands for. Because precautionary principle.
Mosh, according to your chart of temp adjustments from the satellite and the GISS adjustments, the GISS adjustments are at times >2.5 times larger.
I find it odd therefore that you claim the satellite adjustments are larger than the GISS adjustments. It is also obvious there has been no warming since 1998 at least.
The thing that strikes me as odd is that they’re clearly trying to create an unbroken record. WHY? Any difference between just figuring out the temperature for one day with whatever’s available, or a month, or a year…whatever, WHY would you try to make it one record. Any sort of apparent “precision” would be an illusion…and the difference between it and the other measurements would in reality just make the error bars wider. Many of the adjustments are quite reasonable…but this accumulating error that’s cooling the past just sticks out like the dogs balls at this point.
Q for ShrNfr et al.: What is the effect on these sensor readings by atmospheric aerosols from volcanoes and mancanoes and to the seasonal extent, burning of vegetation? How would they read the brightness temperature for clean air, mixed air and reflections from the particles themselves? How is it any different from watery clouds/contrails? If there is a significant effect would it be possible to weave another geographical source on aerosols like MODIS to derive a regional adjusted/corrected dataset for sat ‘temps’? Thx kindly.
Apologies for using the term ‘adjusted/corrected’ among these battle-weary souls. I too feel your pain.
Mosher.
That we could get multiple instruments to agree within what appears to be .1C is simply AMAZING!
Your comment should be ‘Look how well they agree!”
That you, or anyone for that matter, could believe surface data to be accurate enough to resolve 1 degree per century trends is religion, not science. This is before doing things like using the temperature in Phoenix as a proxy for Denver, or any other point within 1200km. Oh, and which systems do you think will be calibrated consistently and regularly? The ones in space that cost billions to put up there? Or the ones on the ground?
If you’ve ever spent any time in a lab trying to calibrate thermometers/thermistors/etc. you would realize the futility of believing that we know the surface temps to better than 1C at any given time, given the conditions they are in, and the range of temps they are required to measure.
If you have done that kind of work and still believe you can use that data the way it has been used, and then to make predictions based upon it, I really don’t know what to say…
@ john harmsworth the answer is simple they are confusing temperature with energy. One is measured in joules the other in centigrade. They are not equal. Nor do they correlate always.
You are confusing climatology with physics. Climatology is based on statistics and political concerns like income redistribution. Physics is based on science. There is some overlap, but it’s purely accidental.
I’m pretty sure it works roughly like this. They TRY to work out surface temperatures but there’s a constant UHI bias. As UHI at a station becomes too pronounced, they move the station. But the only way to stitch it into a continuous record once that happens is to basically adjust the future up or the past down to match the interpolated temperature for that location. And again, since the interpolated results are being smeared to all future locations…the multiple moves by some stations can actually result in the same city’s UHI being inserted multiple times for multiple moves.
And the thing is, I’m pretty sure this was initially a mistake. Then about the time of the surface station project, it was hubris. And at this point there are so many in so deep…having called people like us such vile names and alleging outright criminal deception…that they can’t come out and say “well would you look at that…turns out we were completely full of shit the whole time” If they’d been behaving like real scientists (instead of advocates) and had a tiny bit of skepticism/humility, they could just say “Oh darn, you guys were right.”
So to sum up, I seriously doubt the intent was there from the beginning. But the last adjustments make the adjustment history look like an exponential curve, we’re past the point of it being a mistake they just won’t let themselves see. At this point, they’re just hoping they can prop up their failures long enough for some kind of actual warming to give them an ability to correct it without looking like the criminals they have become.
The painted into a corner syndrome again.
The adjustments to satellite data are relatively straightforward. First there are geometric normalizations based on the viewing angle and distance to the surface. Second are adjustments for the intrinsic characteristics of the sensor (mostly related to bandwidth and sensor gain). At this point, normalized voltages are proportional to the power emitted by the planet.
The surface temperature at each pixel is related to the measured voltage by V = k*o*T^4, where T is the temperature, o is the SB constant and k is the effective emissivity of that pixel times a constant that relates the normalized measured voltage to the measured power and which was determined by the first 2 adjustments. Only the emissivities are unknown, but given the millions of pixels that can be precisely correlated to measured surface temperatures, the result is millions of redundant equations to solve for relatively few unknown emissivities leading to a high confidence best fit for the emissivity at each pixel and at each point of time. Since it is easy to know that the emissivity is the same between two different measurements, the T^4 relationship can be used to verify the absolute accuracy of the extracted constants.
Effective emissivities for the clear sky can also be calculated exactly and correlated to the calculated constants using line by line HITRAN based simulations, where another satellite sensor measures a narrow band signal that is proportional to water vapor concentrations.
This analysis calculates the radiating temperature of an equivalent gray body radiator where the grayness is a function of the atmosphere between the surface and space. It just turns out that this is a very good proxy for the actual surface temperature and gets better as longer term averages are computed.
… but in this case…. the “kettle” (UAH) is true blue. Its “black specks” (adjustments to correct for drift, satellite temp. and the like) are part of the design, i.e., UAH is performing accurately as it was designed to (corrections are INTRINSIC to it and are not flaws).
The pot (adjusted data)’s “black,” are the myriad cracks in the whitewash where the black of the low-grade black plastic underneath is showing… , for, indeed, the pot is “black.”
Some of the difficulties faced by scientists trying to put together a surface temperature record are also faced by the scientists trying to put together a satellite temperature record, and they are not intrinsic to the instruments.
For example, merging data sets from different measurements – for satellites, that means different satellites. From the RSS website:
Our MSU/AMSU products use data from 14 different satellites. The data need to be intercalibrated before being merged together. This is a complex process, as shown in the flow chart below.
First, adjustments are made for changes in local measurement time (diurnal adjustment) and Earth incidence angle.
Then, intercalibration is performed by comparing measurements from co-orbiting satellites, yielding a set of “merging parameters”.
Uncertainty that arises earlier in the process (e.g. from the adjustments for local measurement time) can cause uncertainty in the merging parameters, which adds to the uncertainty in the final results.
Because of the complex nature of the errors, they are difficult to calculate and describe using simple statistical methods. Instead, we use a Monte Carlo technique to produce a large number of possible realizations of the errors that are consistent with the sources of error that we have studied.
A detailed description of the methods used to generate the uncertainty ensembles, and a summary of the results is given in Mears et al, 2011.
http://www.remss.com/measurements/upper-air-temperature
Okay, cgs, I wrote poorly. I hope you (and others) got my point: UAH’s properly done corrections do NOT make it “black.” The bogus adjustments of land temp. datasets ARE “black”.
Thank you for the education, btw.
Oh, and GREAT CARTOON! 🙂
To these guys, instrument calibration is just another kind of adjustment!
Yes, for these calibrations to be equivalent to surface temp adjustments of data recorded many years ago (and recently), then they would have to be doing a different calibration algorithm every day (or whatever time period).
ISTM, that as long as the process is the same for everywhere and from day to day, month to month, and year to year, it is not at all like fiddling with individual temperature readings from individual surface stations.
Or am I wrong?
And that brings up a question. Has the satellite data record been adjusted years or decades after the temperatures were first reported as has been done to the surface temperature record?
This is provided that “adjustments” are in the spirit of calibration. Calibration is always essential but it must be correctly done, i.e. yielding normalization. The problem with AGW calibrations is that they increase deviations from the normal, or so is the stance of we skeptics.
We may be coming to the point wherein climate alarmists will start to eat each other up and look even more foolish than they have in the past. But will the media clue into it? Doubtful.
it would make for exceptional investigative journalism, but they are too busy pimping for the Clintons and the cause
Bubba Cow commented: ‘…it would make for exceptional investigative journalism…”
At some point a respected journalist will tackle the AGW issue but for now there would be no outlet for their work and those that have….French weatherman for example….have lost their jobs. The amount of material available for such an endeavor is monumental so it’s not for lack of source.
Wow….these cartoons just get more and more sophisticated.
“Satellites do not measure temperature. They measure radiances in various wavelength bands, which must then be mathematically inverted to obtain indirect inferences of temperature.[1][2] The resulting temperature profiles depend on details of the methods that are used to obtain temperatures from radiances. As a result, different groups that have analyzed the satellite data have produced differing temperature datasets. Among these are the UAH dataset prepared at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and the RSS dataset prepared by Remote Sensing Systems.
The satellite time series is not homogeneous. It is constructed from a series of satellites with similar but not identical sensors. The sensors also deteriorate over time, and corrections are necessary for orbital drift and decay. Particularly large differences between reconstructed temperature series occur at the few times when there is little temporal overlap between successive satellites, making intercalibration difficult”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_temperature_measurements
‘Satellite data….probably the most adjusted data in the world’
V. Idiot says:
Satellites do not measure temperature.
By that parsing, a mercury thermometer doesn’t measure temperature either.
Satellite data is far superior to land-only stations that are sparse, and land only covers 29% of the planet. But since the best and most accurate global temperature database comes from satellites, naturally the alarmist clique has to lie about it.
Village Idiot
Nah this is like warmist work practices
actually Village, I picture you as the lift driver
dbstealey your thoughts please?
michael
michael,
It isn’t what I expected.
This is how I picture VI.
dbstealey January 16, 2016 at 9:23 am
Well did you at least get a laugh?
Yes. Did you?
Yet, every day it flies over a calibration point and every day the difference between the measured and the known are cross referenced for accuracy and everyday the difference is within the error bars. So I may agree it is the most adjusted. I would also argue that is the most calibrated. How often are ships thermometers calibrated? Especially the ones on the intake? What is the adjustment made for the different types of ships used to make the measurements? How are the ships cross reference to each other?
Arguing that a system that calibrates it’s Instruments on a daily basis by adjusting is instruments is somehow inherently worse than a system that does no calibration but lots of adjusting is flawed logic.
great cartoon…warmists need to get that data to lay down and DIE so it can be resurrected through the genius of embalming to have the semblance of looking just like it did when it was alive. It strikes me though that the damage done at the high water mark of alarmism will not be undone for decades in the same way that there has never been a general whoopla over all the lying done by Commoner and his ilk about chemical contamination. Just the general ebbing of the tide and no one citing those sources anymore in better more carefully conducted experimentation.
Agree that the damage will not be undone for decades. The public is still convinced that DDT thins eggshells and is overall evil, though.
Don’t be surprised by an “accident” in space to explain what happened to the unfortunate satellites in question. Those “accidents” can be blamed on space junk or evil oil companies or better yet Wall Street.
They’ll blame on the collapse of the thermosphere a couple of years ago.
The memory is a bit foggy so perhaps I am wrong, but weren’t we originally waiting to get back the first satellite data with the idea it was a better method to measure global temps and would thus prove the climate was warming significantly once and for all??
We were also in (too big of) a hurry to get the carbon observatory up there so that could prove their side. When it came back with less than supportive data, the project was largely sequestered from the public’s view.
IIRC, the warmistas loved the satellite data in the period of the 1998 spike, and for as long after that as they could point to it as proof of AGW.
As the pause lengthened, they decided that data sets which contradicted their meme, and which they were not in a position to alter, were just no damn good at all.
My understanding is Satellite temperatures also match fairly closely with weather balloon readings, so they must be wrong as well. Weather balloons measure temperature at one point whilst satellites I understand measure average temp of a small column of air, hence some differences.
Over the one country on Earth that has a pristine surface data set, USCRN, the trend in the satellite data over that area is a pretty close match to the trend in that surface data.
Rod, while the short-term fluctuations of the balloons track the short-term fluctuations of the satellites, over the long-term they’re drifting apart, with the balloon higher & its trend more closely tracking that of the surface.
Tamino has some links about this on his latest post on the satellites (“Earth to John Christy”, https://tamino.wordpress.com/2016/01/15/earth-to-john-christy/).
Of course, I recommend checking the numbers for yourself, but as far as I can tell, he’s correct: the trend of the ‘loons is similar to that of the surface.
Tamino’s reply to the first comment
Its a “product” from NOAA created in 2004. IGRA is the raw data. Would put my money on honesty drift.
RATPAC data are not global, but comprised of:
The radiosonde network is not even remotely globally comprehensive. It is “spotty” to say the least, and not particularly consistent in its data collection methods over time and space, at least not when compared to the satellites. The datasets are simply to a large extent estimations (‘interpretations’) based mainly on interpolations and extrapolations over vast regions with no data whatsoever …
Thus, the satellites are on much safer ground than the radiosondes when reporting “global tropospheric temperature anomalies” over time.
And to boot, the satellite troposphere temp data (RSS, UAH) matches the CERES EBAF ToA Ed2.8 radiation flux anomaly data from March 2000 to July 2015 to an astounding degree, which is probably the best piece of corroborating evidence you could get, if ever you needed one:
[Comment deleted. “Jankowski” has been stolen by the identity thief pest. All Jankowski comments saved and deleted from public view. You wasted your time, sockpuppet. -mod]
Excellent sleuthing, Michael Jankowski. We’re done here.
Might want to make a screen capture. Expect it to disappear. Like I said, it’s Tamino.
It’s been many year since I played with them (in the UK) but I think radiosondes measure temperature continually all the way up.
Results for specific levels can be
extracted from that data stream.
I expect so, but you would need to compare the temperatures they read at the particular location with the temperature the satellite reads at the same location.
I.e., not what Tamino did.
This calls for a new mission for EPA in between respiratory health science and mining engineering. They can handle the satellite support role and even prep for the press release about the subsequent and unfortunate, plummet to earth.
97 percent of the other satellites disagreed with them anyway. Because the psychologists said so.
YEW FOOLS! Don’t Cha Know? Global Warming’s responsible for that dead-of-winter North Atlantic hurricane, earth’s cooling trend, recent earthquakes, tsunamis, frozen Thames, droughts, tornadoes, dust devils, rampant winds tumbling tumble weeds across parched landscapes, torrential rains, volcanic eruptions, snarling snow leopards terrorizing villages, towns tidal-waved by melting glaciers, polar bears paddling the Gulf of Mexico, and Swine Flu.
SHAME, SHAME on that hacker and those independent climate scientists who debunked and broke the global warming hockey stick over Oscar Al and his Nobel pal’s heads as they tried to run a global warming scam on the world in Copenhagen. NO DOUBT ABOUT IT, you deniers! Global warming IS a scourge that MUST. . .BE. . .ERADICATED! Like the GREAT EBOLA BOOGEYMAN on his pale horse and exploding populations and starving hoards with spoon and bowl in search of genetically modified gruel and something to buy it with. WHAT’S WRONG WITH YA? The world would be a better place if you would only listen to your IPCCs, AGWs, NGOs, WHOs, FAOs, MSMs, EPA’s, WTOs, PPs, TPP’s, POOs, and their clairvoyant fear mongering associates.
BY ANY MEANS we got to shut down those coal fired power plants using an infinite supply of the cheapest energy fuel know. BETTER WE USE RADIATION to boil water to run generators to generate electricity. The boys at the rising sun will tell ya that and this whole “debate” could be moot before Fukaoshit! is over. Solar? Wind? You’d have to cover America with bird blenders. AND DISREGARD the fact they kill about a million a year including endangered whatevers. . .NOT TO WORRY THOUGH. . . they’ll always be robins to throw in the stew pot. CLEAN. . .ENERGY. . .WORKS! All you have to do is disregard Tesla’s research and the hydrogen-to-energy confirmation sitting in the vaults and just COVER THE GROUND in between the bird blenders with solar panels and lease Canada to extend the project and even that wouldn’t come close to supplying North America’s nor the world’s energy needs and did you know there’s no such thing as peak oil? THAT’S RIGHT! . . . EARTH REPRODUCES ITS OWN OIL. Can you say A-BIOTIC OIL?
Peak oil like global warming, pandemics, WMD’s, police training exercises every time there’s a Sandy Hoax shooting, A-RAB terrorists that swooped in on America on 9-11 (right area of the world, wrong terrorists) were all pulled from the same flim-flamer’s hat.
Beam. . .me. . .up. . .Scottie.
I got a big grin out of that post, and I had a tough day at work today and needed a big grin.
Thanks, ~ Mark
And yet they want to rely on satellite data, with several adjustments, and with know references point issues, which ignoring the tide data, which they can’t corrupt, ….
to try to push up the tiny amount of real sea level rise….
to a still tiny rate of sea level rise..
to scare the world.
Seriously !!!
errata… WHILE ignoring the tide data……
The mean sea level is *incredibly* difficult to compute.
I see it twice a day on the beach here in Pattaya.
“The mean sea level is *incredibly* difficult to compute.”
Compute? Maybe.
But discern the trend, over time?
All one needs to do is look at long term graphs from tide gages which have been in the same place for a very long time, and do so for many of them spread out all over the Earth, and it becomes very clear.
Sea level rise is not accelerating at all.
Which makes assertions of a warming world ocean seem rather unlikely to be true.
Unless warming has been constant for many decades.
Which seems very unlikely.
You can go to any tide table at this link http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_global.htm
You will be hard pressed to find ANY with any acceleration to match the artificial trend change that the alarmista CREATE by tacking the erroneous satellite sea level data onto the tide data.
Jason is 1,336 kilometres away from the sea and he can sense, to within 50 millimetres, the change in distance from last year to this.
But, even Jason, slick as he is, takes many readings and opts for the middle path, lacking the confidence to declare, as truth, any one instant.
For myself, I kayak on the waves and I pick out millimetres on my carpenter’s rule, but I could never reconcile those as Jason does.
Andy, thanks for the link. I would tell anyone who asked over the years that I have not seen any sea level rise in So Cal where I lived. Your link confirmed that and shows the stations in San Diego, La Jolla and Newport as having the same sea level in 2008 as in 1958 when I began going to those beaches.
The long term trend from the San Diego and La Jolla stations looks to be 2.1 mm per year. The Newport station quit reporting in 1993, but San Diego has a 109 year uninterrupted record and 91 years for La Jolla. You can also see the previous El Nino spikes in 98′, 93′ & 83′. I would imagine most of those spikes are from the water sloshing back and forth like a bathtub from relaxing and strengthening of the trade winds, rather than from thermal expansion.
When looking at all the California stations, it would appear that the Pacific Ocean has been rising at a rate of 1.5 mm per year. Once you go north of Portland in the Pacific, it appears the stations are showing glacial rebound. Some areas in Alaska are showing trends of -10 to -14 mm per year. The area where I live is also creeping northward a couple cm per year, but like sea level, I don’t notice it. For me it is the same as it ever was.
if the the data doesn’t agree with your theory, then the data must be wrong.
I don’t understand why there are arguments over the temperature data adjustments. Isn’t the raw data available to everyone, along with the program that does the adjustments, along with comments in the program as to why certain values are being adjusted?
Hadley Climate Research Unit in the UK claimed the raw data were protect intellectual property and, if it wasn’t, it anyway didn’t matter because they had lost it. I don’t know about NOAA and GISS data and corrections but I’d sure like to hear from someone who does.
That is right. In office moves in the mid 90’s. Only adjusted data exists now for the period…and we know that is tainted.
Haha…Russ, is that sarcasm?
If it is not, it should be.
The only way the adjustments are even known about in many cases is because some people saved copies of the raw data and graphs from years ago, and then track the changes.
They alterations are not announced, not spoken of, and not available for inspection.
In the case of one large dataset, the original data was “discarded” after it was altered.
I believe some guy named Phil wad a hand in that jaw-droppingly shady dealio.
The same Phil who said he would not share his methodology or his data with someone who “only wanted to find something wrong with it”, or words to that effect.
So, in case you are a new comer and this is a serious question…the answer is no just no, it is “HELL NO!”.
There are articles with very long discussion threads here and on other blogs that detail some of the efforts to obtain the information you are referring to.
In one case, that I believe may be an ongoing effort, the person requesting the information, which is by law public information and must be made available upon request, the response was it would cost several hundred thousand dollars to retrieve a copy of the information, and the person making the request would have to pay up in advance for the request to go forward.
Menicholas January 15, 2016 at 3:13 pm
One of the reasons why the President of the U.S. did not want the Senate anywhere near the paris agreement . As part of any treaty ALL records could be subpoenaed. including Hadley Climate Research Unit. And of course Ah, “some guy named Phil”
They screwed up by pushing back against the U.S. congressional investigations. Climate change is so low on the average American’s radar screen that no one would have paid attention.
Make them pay for it.
Every Republican down to dog catcher should be saying the Dems are costing you jobs, vacation, and education for your kids on a cockamamie theory that NASA satellites have disproved for the last eighteen years.
Now they’re trying to say they know better then folks who put our flag on the moon and landed probes on Mars. So who you going to believe, the NFL, or the playground league.
michael
Russ, here in Australia, our Bureau of Meteorology has been forced to respond to a Technical Advisory Forum, which was created in response to one of the recommendations of an independant peer review of their high-quality temperature dataset (ACORN-SAT). The raw data is fed through the homogenisation/adjustment process and ACORN-SAT is the result. There is public access to both the raw and adjusted station data via the BoM’s website.
HOWEVER. The actual adjustments are not available, and replication is not possible. There is a list of metadata-supported adjustments for site moves etc, however these are lacking in any detail and do not allow replication. The Advisory Forum found:
“The Forum noted that the extent to which the development of the ACORN-SAT dataset from
the raw data could be automated was likely to be limited, and that the process might better be
described as a supervised process in which the roles of metadata and other information required
some level of expertise and operator intervention. The Forum investigated the nature of the
operator intervention required and the bases on which such decisions are made and concluded
that very detailed instructions from the Bureau are likely to be necessary for an end-user
who wishes to reproduce the ACORN-SAT findings. Some such details are provided in Centre
for Australian Weather and Climate Research (CAWCR) technical reports (e.g. use of 40 bestcorrelated
sites for adjustments, thresholds for adjustment, and so on); however, the Forum
concluded that it is likely to remain the case that several choices within the adjustment process
remain a matter of expert judgment and appropriate disciplinary knowledge.”
This is why there are arguments over temperature data adjustments – we don’t know what they are. They are not available, and are a matter of “expert judgement and appropriate disciplinary knowledge”. It smacks of “you wouldn’t understand, so we won’t tell you” – not good enough for a publicly funded dataset, created and maintained by public servants, used for public policy.
It sounds like “appropriate disciplinary knowledge” is if you disagree with our knowledge, you will be appropriately disciplined.
Russ Nelson,
The general argument in this forum is that it’s because the adjustments to the surface data products cool the past and warm the present, which is true for land data …
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-lwQfxPaXFd0/VNoo9h7vUhI/AAAAAAAAAhA/iW8rexGjbgU/s700/land%2Braw%2Badj.png
… but NOT true for ocean data …
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-HGT605CXR7w/VNoo9mjLeuI/AAAAAAAAAg8/QK_0C_L-hYc/s700/ocean%2Braw%2Badj.png
… and not true when both series are combined to form a global land/ocean index …
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-opy7LoBO__w/VNoo9u5ynhI/AAAAAAAAAg4/_DCE5Rzm9Fw/s700/land%2Bocean%2Braw%2Badj.png
Credit: Zeke Hausfather/Victor Venema
It doesn’t matter how often this is pointed out here, it seems most are still convinced that the net surface adjustments are warming, when in fact they are cooling.
For GHCN land surface station data, which is used by GISS, yes, both raw and adjusted data are available at the station level: ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/v3/
A sub-directory of that folder contains the source codes used for the homogenization process: ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/v3/software/52i/
GISS provides the source codes for their further processing steps: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/sources_v3/
USHCN has a directory with several peer-reviewed papers detailing the rationale for adjustments and the before and after effects of doing them: ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ushcn/papers/
And still, folk here say demonstrably false things like this:
Gloateus Maximus
January 15, 2016 at 12:19 pm
Adjustments to satellite observations and the algorithm which translates radiance data into temperature are warranted. Those to the so-called surface observations are mostly unjustified, intended not to improve the data but to cool the past and warm the post-war world.
MarkW
January 15, 2016 at 12:34 pm
“are mostly unjustified”
When they bother telling us what those adjustments are.
Gloateus Maximus
January 15, 2016 at 12:47 pm
The gatekeepers’ once secret adjustment algorithms have been dragged out of their blood-stained hands kicking and screaming, thanks to the FOIA. Thus we now know that UHI adjustments make the “record” even hotter rather than colder and that the sea “surface data” have been adjusted higher so as not to be out of whack with the cooked book land station tamperatures.
NOAA can no longer be trusted even to report the raw data accurately.
It beggars comprehension, it really does.
B. Gates says:
The general argument in this forum is that it’s because the adjustments to the surface data products cool the past and warm the present, which is true for land data… (my emphasis)
And then says:
…folk here say demonstrably false things like this:
“Adjustments… to the so-called surface observations are… intended not to improve the data but to cool the past and warm the post-war world.”
***
Demonstrably contradictory, no?
dbstealey,
No, demonstrably false:
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-opy7LoBO__w/VNoo9u5ynhI/AAAAAAAAAg4/_DCE5Rzm9Fw/s700/land%2Bocean%2Braw%2Badj.png
Exact opposite of the claim, which is ONLY true if one ONLY considers adjustments to the land data, or as Andres Valencia points out above, a subset of land data:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/ushcn/ts.ushcn_anom25_diffs_urb-raw_pg.gif
Some incompetent conspirators these, who not only provide the before and after data: ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ushcn/v2.5/
… but also do us the favor of plotting a graph showing the net result of them, and providing a ready link to the journal-published literature describing why and how those adjustments are made: ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ushcn/papers/
Like I said before, it boggles my mind that folks in this forum claim that these adjustments are made without any explanation, in secret, when the whole kit and kaboodle is sitting out there on NCDC’s ftp server for anyone with an Internet connection to download and inspect.
We can’t do the same thing for UAH v6, can we. Why aren’t you, Anthony et al. crawling up Spencer and Christy’s keeysters with FOIA requests demanding their data and code, hmmm?
Wherefore this evident trust in their adjustments with zero ability to independently audit their work, hmmm?
Demonstrably contradictory, no?
Why aren’t you, Anthony et al. crawling up Spencer and Christy’s keeysters with FOIA requests demanding their data and code, hmmm?
Simples. Because they haven’t shown themselves to be serial liars like the alarmist jamokes in potholer’s propaganda video.
And you still contradicted yourself, no matter how you try to slice and dice it:
You agree that this is correct: surface temps cool the past and warm the present,
Then you say this is incorrect: surface temps cool the past and warm the post-war world.
Brandon,
Nothing you have posted shows my point incorrect, although I should have written “land” instead of surface in my comment on the pre-war period. Phil Jones himself admits that the so-called SSTs were adjusted to jibe with the overheated land “data”.
It’s true that older SST “observations” were warmed up, but, as I said, in an intentionally bogus fashion in order to fit the narrative, not to make the most defensible adjustments. In the case of SSTs, it served the Team’s purpose to downplay both how rapid natural warming can be (and was before higher CO2) and to hide the strong solar signal in the older observations.
Please see in particular Steve McIntyre’s comment here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/25/historical-sea-surface-temperature-adjustmentscorrections-aka-the-bucket-model/#comment-1316553
I know Zeke Hausfather believes that the gatekeepers aren’t crooked and don’t cook the books, but I’m going with the evidence of my own eyes on this, as so well demonstrated graphically by Tony Heller.
Nice legerdemain, giving 5 year averages, Brandon. Doesn’t even suggest they wiped out the “pause”. The pause lives in these data. Perhaps they are pre-Karl charts?
Gloateus Maximus,
I already knew you were talking about land surface data. Here is one of your claims about land data: The gatekeepers’ once secret adjustment algorithms have been dragged out of their blood-stained hands kicking and screaming, thanks to the FOIA.
Here is my rebuttal to that claim:
For GHCN land surface station data, which is used by GISS, yes, both raw and adjusted data are available at the station level: ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/v3/
A sub-directory of that folder contains the source codes used for the homogenization process: ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/v3/software/52i/
GISS provides the source codes for their further processing steps: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/sources_v3/
USHCN has a directory with several peer-reviewed papers detailing the rationale for adjustments and the before and after effects of doing them: ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ushcn/papers/
If one actually explores those links and moves to higher level directories, one will also find the codes and documentation for versions 1 and 2 of the relevant adjustment algorithms.
How about you post a citation to this so that we can read Dr. Jones’ words in context instead of relying on your own interpretation?
Perhaps you don’t realize that imputing motive is a form of creating a narrative? You’ve wandered into an evidence-based discussion and submitted speculation. IOW, It looks to me like not much you are saying here actually supports your OWN claims.
Let’s discuss “defensible” adjustments:
http://www.moyhu.org.s3.amazonaws.com/2015/12/uahadj1.png
Credit: Nick Stokes
You apparently trust your eyeballs to tell you when someone is “cooking the books”, do you not trust your eyeballs to tell you when someone is “chilling the books”? It’s a dual-edge sword you’re flailing about with there, mind that you don’t lop off a leg with it.
Ok done. Which bit did you find relevant to this discussion?
The salient point for me here is not what Zeke believes about the “crooked gatekeepers” but whether this plot of his is legit:
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-opy7LoBO__w/VNoo9u5ynhI/AAAAAAAAAg4/_DCE5Rzm9Fw/s700/land%2Bocean%2Braw%2Badj.png
I didn’t buy it at first:
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2015/02/09/guest-post-skeptics-demand-adjustments/#comment-47583
Victor kindly confirmed for me that I had in fact been reading too much WUWT, and told me which datasets were used to build that comparison plot:
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2015/02/09/guest-post-skeptics-demand-adjustments/#comment-47584
Subsequently, Zeke modified the graphics to include the data citations, and Victor expanded the Twitter conversation into a more detailed post on his own blog:
http://variable-variability.blogspot.com/2015/02/homogenization-adjustments-reduce-global-warming.html
With all that information in hand, I went out and got the before and after data and did my own comparison. Because the result was the opposite of what I had been wrongfully lead to believe, and therefore quite surprising, then and only then did I trust that plot enough to use it to support the case against the narrative of corrupt gatekeeping activists masquerading as scientists who are inflating long-term global temperature trends for grant money or any other speculated motive.
There’s no need for you to take my word for it when I say that I got the same result as Zeke, you can — and I think should — go out and get the data for yourself.
Bartemis,
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/CMIP5-90-models-global-Tsfc-vs-obs-thru-2013-1024×921.png
Forget about 5 year running means … try 5 year baselining in a noisy data set for raising some eyebrows.
They are. Karl et al. (2015) provide their own before/after comparison:
http://www.realclimate.org/images/noaa_update.jpg
Figure B still shows far greater warming adjustments to the pre-War past than post “pause” present. And with annual means instead of running 5 year means no less.
Brandon, you’re presented a graph that supposedly compares pre and post adjustments made by Karl and it has a NOAA logo on it. The graph would lead the causal reader to thing Karl only made adjustments to data prior to 1995, yet a recent chrt published by NOAA based on Karl’s revised data tells a very different story:
?dl=0
How do you explain this?
Mods – due to a browser glitch I mistakenly posted the same message to Brandon twice. Please feel free to remove one of them. Thanks and apologies.
Win, lose or draw.
Everybody knows that everybody is watching every move.
I guess that is a good thing.
Plato answered in most famously, the guardians guard themselves.
Government climate scientists … the term just begs for comment … let’s just leave it that they’re tone deaf … they just don’t get it that the laughter they’re hearing is directed at them (there are, of course, the exceptions; they’re the ones that do actual science and question everything, even their own beliefs).
Thanks, Anthony. I don’t think the satellites are wrong. UAH and REMSS are now in agreement.
I rather trust the continuous satellite measurements than the very sparse, ill-situated and adjusted thermometers.
See
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/ushcn/ts.ushcn_anom25_diffs_urb-raw_pg.gif
from
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/ushcn/ushcn.html#QUAL
Jumping the sharknado?
There is a “God” What the Alarmist and Climate-gate people have just done can only come from divine intervention. (Or a bad case of the stupids”
Stop focusing on the temp records themselves but rather the accuracy and dependability of NASA satellites over the last fifty+ years.
Lets extrapolate from Lewandowsky in regards to conspiracy theories ” If you are denier of the NASA satellite temperature observations”,,,.. You would believe that the Cuban missile crisis was faked. AS well as the moon landing.
Also all those Mars space craft., And all those pictures of Pluto? Just Photo shopped.
Bell them like a cat with this. Because of NASA satellites we can read the menu of any restaurant on the planet. We We can sent a missile through a window and check the table setting first before it goes off.
And these ..people want to question REAL NASA scientists and they methods because CAGW is not showing up in he satellite observations?
This is political. ANY Dem. is going to have to run on this administrations climate actions.
Every Republican should ask the voters this question, who are you going to believe your GPS or the folks who said say… fill in the blank I can’t begin to list the choices
So do lite candle to what ever you believe its seldom that such gifts come along. Now its just to use it properly.
michael
+1
(and, Amen!) 🙂
I don’t think this is idle musing. The Clime Syndicate has surely been harassing Mearns who, embarrassed by his own work’s findings, has been mildly dissing and rationalizing his own RSS satellite temperatures. Is he saying he’s not doing the calculations right? No, he’s bending to the Syndicate.
In the past, we’ve seen how they deal with misbehaving data – sea level rise slowdown, the pause, erasure of the MWP, LIA, etc., and having wiggled out of climate gate and a string of whitewash investigations, they act without scruples.
Watch for divergence of RSS upwards away from UAH. This is a no-brainer. It will destroy the congruence of the satellite sets and marginalize (they are already making Christy’s and Spencer out to be bungling fools in the video) UAH as d#nire work. This is no Friday funny. This is cleanup work to finish off killing the pause. It is high priority. You heard this from G. Pearse first!!!
Gary Pearse January 15, 2016 at 4:23 pm
I don’t think this is idle musing. The Clime Syndicate has surely been harassing Mearns who, embarrassed by his own work’s findings, has been mildly dissing and rationalizing his own RSS satellite temperatures. Is he saying he’s not doing the calculations right? No, he’s bending to the Syndicate.
Okay so how do we stiffen his back bone? If he is honest and honorable and there is no links through which he can be protected?
Early in the american revolution after one of the defeats the New Jersey Militia was called out. They stayed home, when they were scorned for their lacking, Washington demurred saying there was no army for them to form and rally around. Remember this, people must not be ever left to feel alone and unsupported.
This goes beyond fine words, it goes to actions.
We need to be better at this (me included)
January 15, 2016
Dear Sirs,
I have read just now with great interest your stirring remarks:
Gary Pearse
Mike D.
We are applauding you from the balconey, George, John, and us all, wishing fervently that we could join forces with you and Mr. Watts, Mr. Spencer, and the rest of you science Realists in your stalwart stand for Truth and Liberty in that vale of tears below.
This is {indeed}, no time for ceremony. The question … is one of awful moment to this country. For my own part I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery; … Let us not deceive ourselves, sir. These are the implements of … subjugation … Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death! **
Hear, hear! Mr. Pearse, the gentleman from Canada, and Mr. D., the gentleman from New England!
Is America, is the entire free world, to cringe and bow and shuffle its pitiful, embarrassed, way into the sheep pens prepared for it by the AGW Rabble? Is the priceless jewel of Liberty, bought at such great sacrifice, after just 240 years, to be so readily tossed aside for mere embarrassment?? Are the brayings of jackasses whose minds are hardened clay, whose god is their stomach, more persuasive than the voice of your own Conscience, Dr. Mears?? Stand firm! YOU — ARE — NOT — ALONE.
Very sincerely yours,
Patrick Henry, Esq.
********************************
**(Source: Patrick Henry “Give Me Liberty…” speech, March 23, 1775, http://www.historyplace.com/speeches/henry.htm )
Look up Patreon and pay the man.
There ain’t no quiet way to come thru a door that has a burglar bar across it.
The question Janice is.. How? As Washington said an army, a real army is needed.
Washington retreated and later attacked on X-mas eve.
If someone is going to stand up they must have some hope other then moral support. That does not feed their families or preserve careers. People will sacrifice themselves but not their families.
This is going to take people powerful enough to shield them from retaliation. I am getting to deep here, this is a science blog not politics it is our curse we play by the rules.
michael
Dear Michael,
You bring up an issue of vital importance to freedom and to the integrity of science.
Whether freedom from AGWer tyranny over the economy and over the laboratory is worth the cost is for each fighter for truth to decide. If standing up for truth creates a grave risk of losing one’s job and one’s professional connections, it is understandable that many quietly acquiesce in the sc@m. One need not trouble oneself about one’s reputation, per se, for, “like a fluttering sparrow, an undeserved curse, does not {in the end} come to rest.” (Proverbs) The support of one’s family is, however, a serious concern. We need, I think, a John Hancock (or two or several…), willing to put personal fortune on the line. I have not seen that yet. There HAVE to be some wealthy people reading this blog, who despise AGWers and their l1es about human CO2, who could, if they were willing, quietly guarantee the financial well-being of scientists who stand up for truth.
And yet…, when the cause is great enough, a true defender of truth does not run from the battle — whatever the cost. Even when all they have (for certain) is moral support.
But, then, on the other hand, I think of the sneering that met Dr. Murry Salby — on this very site… by rock-solid skeptics! — at his brave stand in Hamburg, Germany, in April, 2013. It was appallingly unsupportive. His treatment at the hands of many of his skeptic colleagues would not encourage other scientists, many of whom do not have half his personal, native, courage, to do likewise. I think many of the science realists are awake to the fact that truth about human CO2 is about much more than scientific accuracy, much more than a mere intellectual exercise; it is about freedom. Unfortunately, many others sleep on in ignorant bliss and engage in the foolish luxury of publicly bad-mouthing heroes for truth such as Dr. Willie Soon and Dr. Salby.
Yet, what do those short-sighted fools matter? There were many, many, loyalists and “uncommitteds” in 1775 who did not “get” how important it was to unite against a tyrant king. And, yet, the patriots won. All it takes is “a few good {people}.” A John Hancock…. a John Adams…. a George Washington…. a Nathan Hale. And God. “God and one are a majority.”
So, great-hearted Michael, we DO have something, something very powerful, that we can do: pray.
John Adams, et. al., had no guarantees of success. As they resolutely signed the Declaration of Independence, they knew that as soon as they lifted the pen from the parchment, they faced CERTAIN death by hanging for treason. And their families would not have had it any other way.
Your ally, with fire in her eyes,
Janice
“Your ally, with fire in her eyes,
Janice”
Uh, would that be CO2 emitting fire or bioluminescent?
/grin
“At times one has to deal with hidden enemies, intangible influences that slink into dark corners and from this hiding affect people by deception. In instances like this, it is necessary to trace these things back to the most secret recesses, in order to determine the nature of the influences to be dealt with. The very anonymity of such plotting requires an especially vigorous and indefatigable effort, but this is well worth the while. For when such elusive influences are brought into the light and branded, they lose their power over people.
“Here, the dark principle, in itself rigid and immovable, is dissolved by the penetrating light principle, to which it subordinates itself in deference. In human life it is penetrating clarity of judgment that thwarts all dark hidden motives. In the life of the community it is the powerful influence of great personalities that uncovers and breaks up those intrigues which shun the light of day. In nature, it is the wind that disperses the gathering clouds, leaving the sky clear and serene. The penetrating quality of the wind depends on its ceaselessness. This is what makes it so powerful; time is its instrument.
“Thus also in nature a sublime seriousness is to be seen in the fact that natural occurrences are uniformly subject to law. When the wind blows over the land it goes far and wide, and the grass must bend to its power. In daily life, what goes around, comes around. Smile at someone and they will smile at you. Throw a punch and you will get punched. If respect is sincere and expressive of real faith, the contemplation of this has a transforming and awe-inspiring effect on those who witness it.
“Contemplation of the divine meaning underlying the workings of the universe gives to the man or woman who is called upon to influence others the means of producing like effects. This requires that power of inner concentration which sincere contemplation develops in great men and women strong in faith. It enables them to apprehend the mysterious and divine laws of life, and by means of profound inner concentration they give expression to these laws in their own persons. Thus a hidden spiritual power emanates from them, influencing others without their being aware of how it happens, swayed as the grass by the wind.
“Actions have consequences.
“The ‘power elite’ can subvert the rule of law and hide behind lies all they like, but only a fool could not see the harvest of hate and destruction that will spring from such evil seeds as are now being sowed. Only a fool—an elitist—so wadded in wealth and privilege that he believes these malignant fruits will never touch him personally.
“Time will tell.”
From a reader at the Daily Bell
Wrusssr (8:51am today),
Thank you for sharing that inspiring quote — FULL of gems of wisdom, what a treasure trove!
Pamela Geller (Atlas Shrugs), Mark Steyn, Christopher Monckton, Roy Spencer, Anthony Watts, Murry Salby, Willie Soon, and MANY of the science giants of WUWT, are out there, on the front lines of the battle for truth, right now.
And, yes, indeed, truth — will — win. “Just a matter of time.”
Your Ally for Science Realism,
Janice
Hi, JohnWho (or Just Some Guy or … heh),
Lol. The fire in my eyes is the flames of righteous indignation (or ignitation, if you please).
The fire that shoots out of one’s eyes when one pulls one’s shoulders back, fixes one’s gaze, and grimly intones, “How — DARE — they!”
#(:))
Janice
We are fleas on a dog’s ass, wondering if the dog has a fever, or if his temperature is dropping. It doesn’t matter, guys! The dog will still be alive with our great great grandchildren aboard, Fleas know how to survive.
Ronald P Ginzler January 15, 2016 at 6:18 pm
quit hogging the best bites!!!
Naw, there really is something rotten in the state of Alabama
https://tamino.wordpress.com/2016/01/15/drift/
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2016/01/ups-and-downs.html
The short term agreement of the satellite measurements (months) with balloons and surface records is excellent but over the long term they drift away. Something is off there.
Utter BS.
Yup.
So also say:
1. Bartemis: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/01/15/friday-funny-or-not-so-funny-satellite-deniers/#comment-2120631
and
2. Kristian: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/01/15/friday-funny-or-not-so-funny-satellite-deniers/#comment-2120637
and
3. Michael Jankowski: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/01/15/friday-funny-or-not-so-funny-satellite-deniers/#comment-2120886
Above. Those three comments destroy Rabett’s assertion.
***********************
btw: Good to see you (blank) Jim. I was hoping you were okay.
Take care, Janice
Thanks, Janice. I’ve missed you too!
WATCH IT, folks.
These scoundrels will be going after the ‘primary’ standards at the NBS/NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) next!
Standards labs everywhere BEWARE.
NO science is safe from the corrupting influence of the ‘money’ in CAGW!
Eli: Potentially ‘big’ on mathematical methodology, but also potentially terribly weak on metrology (the science of measurement, instrument calibration theory, techniques and implementation.)
Not EVERYTHING can be explained away by the artful use of ‘numbers’ and rhetoric.
OK. For anyone that thinks the earth is actually cooling instead of heating up. Explain why I’ve only seen snow accumulation once so far this year? North East section of the US. Anyone? The data presented at COP21 was adjusted to down play the severity of the situation unfolding. Why? Because if the researchers actually presented their data uncensored, they’d look like chicken little and their research grants would be no more. People always use the tired old argument,”But Antarctica is getting bigger.” On the surface, sure it looks bigger. But the last time I checked, scientists don’t have the means to measure the ice’s thickness at the South Pole yet. One last morsel of data for anyone interested. And NO it’s not from NOAA. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WDUeyxENx7o&feature=youtu.be
Maybe you should read the seasonal forecast for El Nino years?
http://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/us-winter-forecast-2015-2016-mild-northeast-california-rain/52732989
It does seem to be playing out as the norm for an El Nino year. I don’t have a strong opinion on where the climate is going to go but I do have one on scientific integrity and honesty. The shenanigans on the warmist side are detectible but generally not addressed or punished. This corrupts science and is rotting out our society on a generational scale.
When was the last time you checked?
Radar has measured the ice under Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station at about 2700 m thick. The SPIce coring project is currently drilling nearby down to a depth of 1500 m.
http://spicecore.org/
Your local weather in an El Nino year means nothing. Much of the world is suffering from unusual cold and snowfall. Since you’re in the US NE, I’m surprised that your area isn’t among them. Central New York State endured a record snow storm this month:
http://www.syracuse.com/living/index.ssf/2016/01/watch_record_snowfall_in_cnys_first_winter_storm_of_2016_time-lapse_videos.html
Toby, are you auditioning for the lead role in Fifty First Dates? How long ago did the US east coast set records for the most snow in a season? Just when did that area experience a “polar vortex” that set record lows? Yeah, those events were just weather, just as the El Nino-produced mild winter this year is. A single point does not show a trend; a single year does not define a climate.
There are sites where you can play Chicken Little and garner support from other mental midgets. This is not one of them.
One thing to do is compare the heights of the el ninos in the recons with another proxy for el ninos, the most prominent of which is coral bleaching. Well it so happens that 1998 was much worse for coral bleaching than 2010 which means that satellites reflect reality better. We’ll see the total amount of bleaching for 2016 in 2017. I predict it will be even less than in 2010.
Quite so. I ask the Satellite Den!ers, so if the RSS is wrong and (as adjusted) the land temp people are right and 1998 was a trivially small el Nino that went nowhere near the massive temp records of 2010, 2014, 2015 and 2016 (yes, they’ve already declared it hottest evah): Why did they forget to tell the corals? So just 2 simple questions:
1) What tricked the satellite? We’re not talking about orbital decay etc which is totally linear. This isn’t about the tilt of the curve. The satellites’ “malfunction” simply took a small el Nino, massively over-estimated it on the way up, and then fully retraced it on the way down creating an artificial “hottest evah” year where none existed. (And which strangely was confirmed by a massive spike in the 1998 terrestrial datasets, which subsequent study has shown was totally spurious.) I can’t think of any physical phenomenon that would cause a temporary, rather than structural, bias in the satellite.
2) What tricked the coral? Why did they bleach themselves during the trivially small 1998 el Nino but not the vastly hotta 2010 and 2015 el Ninos?
Just answer me those two things, and I will happily sign onto the CAGW meme. (Of course, then I will ask you for evidence that giving money to al-Gore and Buffett’s Big Wind operations will cure it!)
The above quote was about the agricultural industry along with “big pharma”, but I think it applies to all of science. It certainly applies to the
con-artists“climate scientists” who are pushing a totally un-scientific concept of CO2 controlling weather or climate.Mike the Morlock
January 15, 2016 at 4:51 pm
Janice Moore
January 15, 2016 at 6:10 pm
Mearns will not be stiffening his backbone except to pinch his nose first and do the dastardly with RSS. He is paid to produce RSS – it’s his job. However, he has been on record several times rationalizing and arguing against the pause, claiming the 97/98 El Nino is responsible – Dnires have started the pause from the top of the big El Nino hill. He also has said that the surface record is more apropos for determining warming. This new video is preparation/a trial balloon to see what response it gets.
They WILL NOT fear to efface RSS in some way. Karlizing the data to kill the pause was a bold stroke because T. Karl new it was a hornet’s nest and rallying ground of skeptics and it was the unwelcome elephant in the room of climate theory. The problem was so great that it had to be wiped out at all costs. Emboldened by what they had gotten away with with climategate and multiple whitewash investigations, they threw out the 4000 argo floats and recast sea surface temperatures with marine night time temperatures measured by passing ships!!! What happened – nothing! The other surface temperature record sets were simply rejiggered to karlize them, too.
If they can replace the argo floats a 19th century marine technology, they can recast RSS as anything they like, recalibrate it using nighttime marine SST as Karl did and suddenly the Satelllite pause also disappears except for that of UAH – we’ve already had Eli Rabbet above stick the first pin in:
Eli Rabett
January 15, 2016 at 9:31 pm
“Naw, there really is something rotten in the state of Alabama…
The short term agreement of the satellite measurements (months) with balloons and surface records is excellent but over the long term they drift away. Something is off there.”
To change slight cooling to warming is a satellite drift “adjustment”. They will also find some refrigerating element in the satellite itself that needs correction. Remember the sea level adjustment to account for crustal rebound? This correction added a volumetric factor so that their sea-level is now a bit above the physical, real sea surface!! We don’t have a sea-level anymore.
I think we should alert Lamar Smith of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology who is already investigating NOAA’s Karlizing of the pause. It may be that there are emails saying we have to torpedo the RSS to support NOAA’s actions. Maybe also Ted Cruz.
And crocodiles on Svalbard, hippos in UK, coal seams in Greenland with tropical fern tree fossils, dinosaur bones in Antarctica… The paleo record tells us of much greater past warmings that caused the planet to be lush with vegetation and wildlife.
Yup. At the end of the Pliocene, just 2.6 million years ago, the Arctic Ocean was ringed by spruce and pine forest. The treeline was at the shoreline. Then the Isthmus of Panama formed and the northern continents developed waxing and waning ice sheets, joining Antarctica under frozen water. The southern continent also owes its burden of ice to oceanic circulation change. The East Antarctic Ice Sheet formed at the Eocene-Oligocene boundary, when the continent was finally cut off from South America and Australia by deep currents, creating the Southern Ocean.
I see the true believers Mosh and Gates trying their darndest to convert people to the dark side. They need to stop looking at now, and look at history, it is full of details of the climate of the times. It has been much warmer than now and much colder. Many things have changed our climate, but co2 never has, what is wrong with the thought processes of this pair. Unfortunately for their ilk the historic records are fact, PC did not become fashionable until recently. The solar records would suggest that rather bad cold conditions co-incide with the suns cycles. That said, it would appear that the sun is about to have its normal sabbatical as we enter a new La Nina, the coming few years should be a real test for their propaganda skills.
They trust GPS satellites and not weather satellites? What is the difference? In fact, we trust our lives to positioning satellites every time we fly in commercial aircraft – don’t we? I like the point of the cartoon, too. It appears that the public is definitely aware of the hypocrisy so one wonders what the supporters of the alarmists true aims are? They can’t be based upon their poor excuse for science. So what are the true motives and will the public finally say, enough is enough? I’m hoping Trump will raise this issue and make this climate scaremongering a major election issue. For sure, he doesn’t like the destruction of the coal industry and would allow commerce to return, I think.
Mears explained, in a Washington Post interview, why he thinks the site temperature indices are more reliable than than satellite; it is that all the site data sets (GISS, BEST, etc) are similiar. Could there be another explanation for why they are similiare, other than being more reliable? Don’t they use the same raw data, and do they not communicate with each other? Reminds me of a discussion in a business class many years ago; each year when new cars were introduced Ford and Chrysler would hold off until GM prices were public and could then make their prices competitive.
Richard
On the Flat Earth, satellites could not be trusted, because they would be falling down (“orbit decay”). Hillarious!
Hillarious means connected to Hillary ….