A Prediction Coming True?

Guest essay  by David Archibald

Pierre Gosselin of NoTricksZone has a post by Mike Brakey on NOAA adjustments of the temperature record of Lewiston-Auburn, Maine. In short, the NOAA are shameless liars. Their cooling of the past to keep the global warming meme alive reminds me of the old Soviet joke – the future is known, it is the past that keeps changing. The NOAA can’t be accused of not thinking big. They lowered the average temperature of Lewiston-Auburn in 1913 by 4.0°F (2.2°C). But the perversion and corruption of the temperature record to serve dark ends is something that we are inured to. One of Mr Brakey’s complaints about the NOAA perversion of the temperature record is that he can’t trust official figures any more in serving his clients.

There was a paragraph in the post though that lit up like a beacon:

A BLACK SWAN event is forming in 2015 (see chart to right). Based on the first four months of 2015, there is an excellent chance 2015 Maine temperature might average, on an annual basis, well under 43.0°F. Not only have Maine temperatures been on a decline since 1998, we are now seeing temperatures reminiscent of the bitter turn of the early 1900s.

No chart was included but we have our own. Hanover, New Hampshire is just to the west of Maine and has a temperature record going back to 1835. This is what that looks like:

clip_image002

Mr Brakey wrote that the 2015 Maine temperature might average “well under 43°F” (6.1°C). That is marked on the chart. That temperature of 43°F would take us back to the 1970s. “Well under” would take us back to the mid-19th century. The latter result is the promise of the three year difference in solar cycle length between Solar Cycle 22 and Solar Cycle 23 under Friis-Christensen and Lassen theory. That was last written up on WUWT in July 2011. This is a graph from that post:

clip_image004

It is very gratifying to see this prediction on track. The ocean to the east is also cooling as shown by this graph from Professor Humlum’s Climate4you website:

clip_image006

The North Atlantic (60-0W, 30-65N) has been cooling for the last decade. The rate of cooling is just as fast as the rate of rise of the late 20th century. At that rate we will be back to Little Ice Age conditons lickety-split.

Lastly, a warning. Joe Bastardi of Weatherbell Analytics is predicting another “Garden of Eden” growing season for the midwest agricultural belt in 2015 and doubtless his forecast will prove correct. Those conditions won’t last forever though.

David Archibald, a visiting fellow at the Institute of World Politics in Washington, D.C., is the author of Twilight of Abundance (Regnery, 2014)

Advertisements

151 thoughts on “A Prediction Coming True?

      • “God is dead.” – Of course, most folks do not understand what this was about when he said it. Basically, he was commenting on the folks going to church in the morning and then heading over to the pub to get plastered sunday afternoon.

      • Just that you cannot base a global quantity on a small town in New Hampshire [purportedly responding to the discredited F&L ‘theory’]. He has done that in the past as well. Not good.

      • Thanks Leif, not sure why I didn’t see a “reply” button on your answer.
        Obviously New England is not teleconnected to the global temperature, no more than Svalbard at least;-)

      • Leif – As I read it, he doesn’t base a global quantity on a small town in New Hampshire, he only relates.New Hampshire to next-door Maine. He does however relate the north Atlantic to global temperature. So it’s bad, but not as bad.
        PS. re your “Twilight of Reason” comment : it would be very helpful for those of us who can’t see into your mind if you could tell us up front what you perceive the problem to be.

        • You should read some of his earlier posts. It is all about New Hampshire. He throws in the North Atlantic as an afterthought, but it is not his main argument.
          My comment does not further elaboration.

      • icouldnthelpit
        especially for you hard facts:
        Belgium brussels royal institute of meteorology March mean according to a mean value of 1980-2010 (belgium is dutch so i copied it straight here from their page with translation):
        Gemiddelde temperatuur (=mean temperature) (in) °C 6,6 normaal (or normal for the period)1980-2010 6,8
        so it means 0.2 degrees BELOW average
        Giss gave belgium a nice reddish color putting it in the “0.5-1.0 range ABOVE average”…..
        [sarc] i guess someone is not able to read a thermometer or data here but i doubt having seen the weather here that it was our own royal institute that is kept by analphabetic scientists [/sarc]

      • I agree, picking New Hampshire is unrepresentative of global T. But since it’s all they’ve got, that’s what they use
        Eighteen years and counting…

      • There’s no meaningful global temperature, so it doesn’t matter how many places you average together, you won’t end up with a valid global anything.

        • If you look at the Earth from far out in space, it radiates and you can define the global temperature as that which a similar body must have to radiate as much as the Earth. This is a valid and meaningful quantity.

    • I have the same reaction every time I see you attack someone for daring to disagree with you.

    • For some word fun, change it to Twilight of Treason.
      The climategate Herryreadme files convinced me that the HadCrut data upon which the NOAA rely are utterly Corrupted (read unreliable) by bad record keeping and Misfeasance if not out right Malfeasance.
      “What troubles me is not the rate at which the world is warming, but the rate at which the past keeps getting colder.”-unknown attribution.

    • Dr Svalgaard is alluding to my last book “Twilight of Abundance” and I thank him for mentioning it. One of the things that my book describes is the dire consequences of the severe, solar-driven cooling phase we have entered. So the Maine temperature results are gratifying. Another prediction in the book was the Yemen would be one of the first countries in the Middle East to fall apart – check. Another chapter is entitled “China Wants A War”. And now China is building whopping great forts with whopping great flak towers in the Spratlys.
      http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3046619/Philippines-seeks-Southeast-Asian-unity-denouncing-China-reclamation.html
      China says that they are peaceful but they don’t conjure up images like the peaceful Hekawis. Everything is happening on schedule.
      In fact China is going to spoil the whole global warming party. The imposition of new taxes and regulations requires a static world in which the camel stands still while more straws are added to its back. China has its own agenda and couldn’t care less. They will have their war and frivolities like global warming will be forgotten immediately.
      So Dr Svalgaard – all those years spent fiddling with the sunspot record will have been for naught. Nature isn’t cooperating either – so disappointing.

      • dire consequences of the severe, solar-driven cooling phase we have entered.
        Except that we have not, and none of the other things you mention have anything to do with ‘solar-driven cooling’.

  1. Cooling The Past In Maine
    Thermometers in Maine show that maximum temperatures have cooled substantially since 1895. However, the data presented to the public shows the opposite – because of data manipulation. For Farmington, Maine – USHCN subtracts as much as seven degrees from pre-1900 data, and make the cooling trend turn into a warming trend.
    https://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/chart_117.png
    https://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/chart_24.png
    https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/08/23/cooling-the-past-in-maine/

  2. What I tell people is Its not so much climate change we have to adapt to, its data change, because the warming trend of the adjustments is bigger than the warming trend in the temperatures. The difference being climate change is sensible to your body, and data change is ultimately felt in your wallet.

  3. We should all stop to consider what all the tampering with the data sets is doing to any attempt at honest science. With the madness that prevails almost universally that CO2 is the driver of earthly temperatures, we see all sorts of twisting of reality to fit the prevailing paradigm. Where would and honest scientist go to find an honest temperature data set to judge his theories against??? (and what government agency would give a grant for honest science???)
    “Who controls the past controls the future; who controls the present controls the past.” ~~ George Orwell’s dystopian novel Nineteen Eighty-Four

    • A more relevant question is to what lengths will those with theories of global conspiracy and fraud go to in order to reject peer-reviewed science instead of trying to understand the research. They reject the findings of NASA, NOAA, the IPCC (which is a summary of 10s of thousands of peer-reviewed papers by independent researchers), major universities, the National Academies, and all scientific professional associations– while accepting any contrary musing of a non-scientist.
      Do they really have unique insights into the behavior of the Climate? Or are they missing it all?

      • Independent?…not when the funding source has a specific agenda.
        Unique insights?…science doesn’t partake into insights, else it becomes a belief which eschews science.

      • “… theories of global conspiracy …”.
        =========================
        No-one’s suggesting a ‘global conspiracy’.
        Used Car salesmen have been turning back milage counters probably for a century now; no-one’s suggesting a ‘global conspiracy’ of used car salesmen, it’s just the nature of the beast.
        It’s the same with purveyors of CAGW.

      • You’re using the logical fallacy of begging the question. Why do you assume we make no effort to understand the actual research? In fact a large number of us originally gave the benefit of the doubt and assumed AGW was real. Then we started actually evaluating the published science itself. Quite a few of us ARE scientists. And the more we read the actual research, the more horrified we became with the shoddy work that was making it through peer review and being published – and how grossly the research was being exaggerated by the media and activist “climate scientists.” In fact it was by evaluating and understanding the peer reviewed published research that we became skeptics. That’s how I got there – and I’ve heard the same experience related from many others.
        Funny you throw the IPCC in. They are, in fact, a POLITICAL organization and not a scientific one. Their very mandate and mission was to study the harmful effects of AGW. NOT to determine IF AGW is occurring, not to determine if is is, would the benefits outweigh possible harm or would the harm be worse? Nope. They began with the grossly unscientific assumption that AGW was a fact and was occurring. And the summary isn’t a scientific paper – it is, in fact, reviewed and modified at will by government appointed bureaucrats – and never sent back for the scientists to correct errors or flaws. What’s more, the authors are hand picked and appointed by governments too, not based on merit.
        Not to mention you’re playing the logical fallacy of appeal to authority. Science isn’t done by authority or consensus, but by experiment and measured data. Computer model output isn’t measured or empirical data. But if you really want to play the authority game, and since you made the claim that supposedly we simply believe whatever any non-scientist says so long as it’s anti-AGW, then consider that there are vastly more reputable credentialed scientists who’ve put in writing that they do NOT believe any significant AGW is occurring than those who’ve said it is. And the list of those who do not believe in any significant AGW includes some of the most eminent scientists of our times, some Nobel Prize winners in the hard sciences, and even some IPCC authors. I’ll try posting a listing for you in a separate post because I’m not sure if the automated spam filter will let it through because there are so many links in it (I think I recall Anthony saying at one point it would be set to a max of 4… hopefully if it gets hung, one of the MODERATORS will be kind enough to approve it and let it through).

      • **1350+ peer reviewed research papers supporting skeptical arguments http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html
        **100 eminent scientists including Nobel winners and IPCC lead authors contesting Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW-e.g., human caused) who wrote the U.N. http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=d4b5fd23-802a-23ad-4565-3dce4095c360
        **31,000+ scientists disavowing AGW, including over 9,000 Ph.D’s
        http://www.petitionproject.org
        **Over 1000 scientists worldwide disavowing AGW signed onto USA Senate report http://hatch.senate.gov/public/_files/USSenateEPWMinorityReport.pdf
        or
        http://www.climatedepot.com/2010/12/08/special-report-more-than-1000-international-scientists-dissent-over-manmade-global-warming-claims-challenge-un-ipcc-gore-2/
        **100 plus scientists rebuke Obama as ‘simply incorrect’ on global warming, March 30, 2009
        http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/9764
        [ Note: Many of the scientists are current and former UN IPCC reviewers and some have reversed their views on man-made warming and are now skeptical. Also note Nobel Laureate for Physics Dr. Ivar Giaever signed. Giaever endorsed Obama for President in an October 29, 2008 letter. See: Portfolio.com]
        **In 2012, 49 former NASA astronauts and scientists wrote to protest against the anti-scientific, alarmist position being adopted by Hansen and Schmidt at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS). They wrote: “We believe the claims by NASA and GISS, that man-made carbon dioxide is having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are not substantiated, especially when considering thousands of years of empirical data.”
        or: 49 Former NASA Scientists Send A Letter Disputing Climate Change
        **Sixteen Concerned Scientists: No Need to Panic About Global Warming There’s no compelling scientific argument for drastic action to ‘decarbonize’ the world’s economy.
        http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204301404577171531838421366.html
        **Professor Lindzen has systematically destroyed every CAGW argument:
        http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02148/RSL-HouseOfCommons_2148505a.pdf
        **This one NOT scientists, just the general population of the world, across the board: UN Poll Reveals: Global Population Not Convinced by Climate Change Scaremongering A global poll of more than 6.5million people has placed climate change at the very bottom of a long list of priorities, with the finding being consistent across both genders, almost all age ranges, all education levels and in most regions of the world. (h/t Watts Up With That)…
        Back to scientists:
        **“The environmental movement I helped found has lost its objectivity, morality and humanity. The pain and suffering it is inflicting on families in developing countries must no longer be tolerated.” – Patrick Moore, Ph.D. and Greenpeace co-founder. See also: Why I am a Climate Change Skeptic
        **Nobel Prize-winning physicist Ivar Giaever, elected member of the National Academy of Sciences and a supporter of President Obama in the last election, publicly resigned from the American Physical Society (APS) with a letter that begins: “I did not renew [my membership] because I cannot live with the [APS policy] statement: ‘The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.’ In the APS it is OK to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible?”
        **eminent “Prof. Hal Lewis resigns from the American Physical Society, writing:
        “The appallingly tendentious APS statement on Climate Change was apparently written in a hurry by a few people over lunch, and is certainly not representative of the talents of APS members as I have long known them. So a few of us petitioned the Council to reconsider it. One of the outstanding marks of (in)distinction in the Statement was the poison word incontrovertible, which describes few items in physics, certainly not this one. In response APS appointed a secret committee that never met, never troubled to speak to any skeptics, yet endorsed the Statement in its entirety. (They did admit that the tone was a bit strong, but amazingly kept the poison word incontrovertible to describe the evidence, a position supported by no one.) In the end, the Council kept the original statement, word for word, but approved a far longer “explanatory” screed, admitting that there were uncertainties, but brushing them aside to give blanket approval to the original. The original Statement, which still stands as the APS position, also contains what I consider pompous and asinine advice to all world governments, as if the APS were master of the universe. It is not, and I am embarrassed that our leaders seem to think it is. This is not fun and games, these are serious matters involving vast fractions of our national substance, and the reputation of the Society as a scientific society is at stake.”
        from: NoTricksZone by Pierre Gosselin http://notrickszone.com/
        **One of the fathers of Germany’s modern green movement, Professor Dr. Fritz Vahrenholt, a social democrat and green activist, decided to author a climate science skeptical book together with geologist/paleontologist Dr. Sebastian Lüning. Vahrenholt’s skepticism started when he was asked to review an IPCC report on renewable energy. He found hundreds of errors. When he pointed them out, IPCC officials simply brushed them aside. Stunned, he asked himself, “Is this the way they approached the climate assessment reports?”
        Vahrenholt decided to do some digging. His colleague Dr. Lüning also gave him a copy of Andrew Montford’s The Hockey Stick Illusion. He was horrified by the sloppiness and deception he found. Well-connected to Hoffmann & Campe, he and Lüning decided to write the book. Die kalte Sonne [The Cold Sun] cites 800 sources and has over 80 charts and figures. It examines and summarizes the latest science.
        Conclusion: Climate catastrophe is called off. The science was hyped.
        **Dr. Lawrence Solomon, once a believer in AGW, realized belatedly, that he was wrong, because he found out that there were too many eminent Professors, who were skeptics and he decided to write a book, titled: “The Deniers” and he explained that he was sad about the enormous corruption among the doomsday “scientists”, especially when they were in the management of institutions like universities and weather-departments. http://opinion.financialpost.com/2011/06/23/lawrence-solomon-supreme-skeptics/
        **Joe D’Aleo, executive director of the International Climate and Environmental Change Assessment Project and first director of meteorology at the Weather Channel, is not surprised by the peer reviewed published survey results of Meteorologists who are also TV forecasters, showing that only 1 in 4 American Meteorological Society broadcast meteorologists agrees with United Nations’ claims that humans are primarily responsible for recent global warming. He says:
        “AMS has tried very hard to brainwash broadcast meteorologists by forcing them to attend conferences and teleconferences with one-sided presentations where global warming evangelism is preached,” D’Aleo said. “Broadcasters send me notifications they get from AMS telling them they must attend these conferences where only the alarmist point of view is preached. This survey shows that broadcast meteorologists are not swayed by these one-sided presentations.
        **Like Professor Emeritus Robert Tennekens, a Dutch professor in meteorology, who after a 10-year stint lecturing in the U.S. was asked to lead the Dutch meteorological department in the Bilt, Holland. After he found out about the corrupt way his staff was following the I.P.C.C.’s computer-modeling, he tried to stamp this habit out, but because too many of his staff and colleagues had powerful friends in the then Dutch government, he was sacked from his job.
        **Professor Bellamy the British botanist also received the sack, when he decided to speak out against the AGW corruption on B.B.C. That is not science, that is corruption, when honest people dare to speak out for the truth and then get sacked from their job/career.
        **Professor Tim Flannery who was appointed by the Australian Prime Minister and who is paid Audlrs. 180,000 in tax-payers’ money to advise her on climate change, predicted over and over again for the last 5 years, that Australia by 2009 would be a total arid and barren place, with all the dams in the major cities totally empty. Well, since last year a number of states saw huge floods destroying their properties and crops as dams in Queensland overflowed and the same now is happening there and we in Sydney, New South Wales experienced the coldest days in our summer since 1916! [text from last three items copied from another commentator]
        And on and on and on – the list is nearly endless, I’ve just pulled a small number of such quotes to post here.

      • Never suspect conspiracy or fraud when the plethora of weak minds flooding our Sandstones coupled with the power of modern computing will do just fine.
        GIGO snake oil salesmen and tub thumping hot Gospellers naturally abound in such Wild West frontier environments, but eventually wiser heads and considered civil values will win out.

      • @Rational Db8
        You say:
        ‘Why do you assume we make no effort to understand the actual research?’
        My response: Because many of the posts on this forum criticizing peer-reviewed science at NASA, NOAA, or in the IPCC Assessment are in fact themselves wrong on the Science, and show a clear lack of curiosity about the details of the Science, but instead show a ready-fire-aim mentality — which misses the (Scientific) mark repeatedly.
        You say:
        “….more horrified we became with the shoddy work that was making it through peer review and being published – and how grossly the research was being exaggerated by the media and activist “climate scientists.” In fact it was by evaluating and understanding the peer reviewed published research that we became skeptics. That’s how I got there – and I’ve heard the same experience related from many others. ”
        I say:
        Multiple studies of peer-reviewed papers show that 99+% support or confirm AGW. The constant refrain of they’re ‘all corrupt’, or ‘fraudulent’ are not the cries of scientists, but rather of the uneducated and the conspiracy theorists, and perhaps a few with science education that haven’t bothered to study the research.
        If you really believe that real scientists have discovered how shoddy the science of AGW is, why haven’t they published to correct the record? That’s the test, and they fail –completely.
        You say:
        “The IPCC… is a POLITICAL organization and not a scientific one. Their very mandate and mission was to study the harmful effects of AGW. NOT to determine IF AGW is occurring, not to determine if is is, would the benefits outweigh possible harm or would the harm be worse? Nope. They began with the grossly unscientific assumption that AGW was a fact and was occurring. And the summary isn’t a scientific paper – it is, in fact, reviewed and modified at will by government appointed bureaucrats – and never sent back for the scientists to correct errors or flaws. What’s more, the authors are hand picked and appointed by governments too, not based on merit. ”
        I say:
        In my 40 year Scientific and technical career, I worked with many who contributed as volunteers on IPCC Committees and your claims are 100% false:
        1) The IPCC’s mission was NEVER to prove that warming was man-made. AGW is the conclusion from the overwhelming evidence. It’s just that you and your cohorts don’t like the conclusion.
        2) The head of the IPCC is appointed by government, but the working members of the IPCC are not government appointed bureaucrats, but rather volunteers from all walks of life — Corporations, Universities, Engineering and Scientific organizations, independent researchers, etc.
        3) The selection of those IPCC members is by other volunteers –their PEERS–, not by governments. You are simply wrong.
        You say:
        “Not to mention you’re playing the logical fallacy of appeal to authority. Science isn’t done by authority or consensus, but by experiment and measured data. Computer model output isn’t measured or empirical data. But if you really want to play the authority game, and since you made the claim that supposedly we simply believe whatever any non-scientist says so long as it’s anti-AGW, then consider that there are vastly more reputable credentialed scientists who’ve put in writing that they do NOT believe any significant AGW is occurring than those who’ve said it is. ”
        I say:
        ‘Science isn’t done by consensus’ Of course it isn’t. A Scientific Consensus (or more accurately—‘near consensus’) is the RESULT of scientists coming to similar conclusions about a physical phenomenon, not a starting point. What if hundreds of researchers arrive at completely different conclusions — then what???. Your point is self serving — by your standard any conclusion of science arrived at by all scientists is bogus. And that would include ALL established science. What a crock.
        You say:
        “..there are vastly more reputable credentialed scientists who’ve put in writing that they do NOT believe any significant AGW is occurring than those who’ve said it is.”
        I say:
        99% of peer -reviewed papers conclude or confirm AGW. Almost NO scientists active in the field dispute AGW. You’ve got it backwards.

      • RoHa says:
        Appeal to authority.
        I LOL every time I see one of warrenlb’s comments. They are all the same, using his appeal to authority fallacy, as if that settles anything.
        What settles the debate for most of us is the 18+ years of temperature stasis. Folks like warrenlb either twist themselves into pretzels trying to rationalize that, or they fall back on their endless appeals to bought-and-paid-for ‘authorities’.
        Leif is right, too: the issue is how much MMGW there is, if any. Even if MMGW exists, it has to be too small to measure, since there are still no measurements quantifying it. All of warrenlb’s references to AGW lack that critical information.
        Without measurements, everything is merely an opinion. A conjecture. But the remedy is always the same: a huge reduction in fossil fuel use. There is never any cost/benefit analysis considered. The terrific impact on those at the bottom of the economic ladder is shrugged off by the climate alarmist crowd. They really don’t care if food and energy costs skyrocket. In fact, it’s part of their agenda. And as always, they really don’t believe what they’re saying.

      • @ warrenlb
        You are hardly the arbiter of who is or isn’t “wrong on the science.” And posts in a single thread are utterly meaningless with regard to the degree of curiosity someone does or doesn’t have about these issues – that is just grossly flawed reasoning on your part.
        “but instead show a ready-fire-aim mentality — which misses the (Scientific) mark repeatedly. “
        Oh, the irony!! Doing a large amount of ready-fire-aim-miss-the-mark there yourself, my dear.
        “Multiple studies of peer-reviewed papers show that 99+% support or confirm AGW.”
        And you base that grossly fallacious claim on what? Cook’s debunked paper?
        “why haven’t they published to correct the record? That’s the test, and they fail –completely.”
        A) they have – your failure to read such isn’t their failure to publish such, and B) quite a few have had major trouble getting published because of the pro-AGW pal review that’s been going on in “climate science” but some get published anyhow. I guess you missed the entire climategate fiasco and what it showed in this regard.

        In my 40 year Scientific and technical career, I worked with many who contributed as volunteers on IPCC Committees and your claims are 100% false:
        1) The IPCC’s mission was NEVER to prove that warming was man-made. AGW is the conclusion from the overwhelming evidence. It’s just that you and your cohorts don’t like the conclusion.
        2) The head of the IPCC is appointed by government, but the working members of the IPCC are not government appointed bureaucrats, but rather volunteers from all walks of life — Corporations, Universities, Engineering and Scientific organizations, independent researchers, etc.
        3) The selection of those IPCC members is by other volunteers –their PEERS–, not by governments. You are simply wrong.

        Whew boy. If you ACTUALLY have a 40 year science career, you’re sure missing the mark badly.
        1) Where did I ever claim the IPCC’s mission was to prove AGW was occuring? In fact I said quite the opposite – they ASSUMED it was occurring from the start and continued with that base premise without ever actually seriously working to verify it. Just read their original mission statement.
        2) Sigh. Wrong again. Read the IPCC themselves on the issue: http://www.ipcc.ch/organization/organization_structure.shtml The top level positions are appointed, and the summary report is edited, line by line, by government appointees who aren’t even scientists for the most part.
        3) Why in the world do you assume volunteers are somehow BETTER than being government appointed anyhow? Does it never occur to you that activists are far more likely to volunteer than non-activists?
        “‘Science isn’t done..What a crock.”
        More utter baloney. There’s ZERO that’s “self serving” in my statement. And there clearly is NO “scientific consensus” regarding AGW – I proved that beyond doubt.
        “99% of peer -reviewed papers conclude or confirm AGW. Almost NO scientists active in the field dispute AGW. You’ve got it backwards.”
        Yet again you are dead wrong. That claim is the height of utter bunk. If you insist on continuing to make such a claim, provide the references showing it to be so – and a large number of people here can easily shred anything you can produce that way, including myself. And again, the issue isn’t IF ANY AGW is occurring – it’s if any SIGNIFICANT amount is occurring. Or as Leif said “how much.”.

      • @Rational Db8
        The essence of your gish gallop debating is that you reject peer reviewed science, although you seem to believe there are many peer-reviewed science papers that reject AGW. If so, post one. You’ll find them hard to find, as did Dr. James Powell (twice appointed to the National Science Board, and ex-President of the Franklin Institute, among other accomplishments) — he found 2 out of 10,885 climate papers: http://www.jamespowell.org/Piecharts/styled/index.html.
        Which means you cannot accept relativity, plate tectonics, DNA, Evolution, or the findings of solid state physics which gave us computers, and more. Cherry picking is no more valid when applied to peer-reviewed science than it is to trend lines on charts.
        All your lambasting of the Science establishment is no more than another version of conspiracy theory. You want to live in that world? Knock yourself out. It’s not for me. Or for competent science.

      • warrenlb,
        Rational Db8 has so thoroughly destroyed your arguments — which as usual amount to no more than your endless Appeal to Authority fallacies — that I’m surprised you keep coming back for more. You say:
        you seem to believe there are many peer-reviewed science papers that reject AGW. If so, post one.
        The last time you demanded the same thing, R. Db8 buried you in thousands of links and citations. You ignored every one of them, and now you start again with your endless logical fallacies. You simply ignore all evidence that contradicts your “carbon” religion. That is nothing but rank confirmation bias: you cherry-pick whatever factoids you think support your beliefs, and you just ignore everything else.
        For once, try to post verifiable scientific evidence without falling back on the crutch of your usual logical fallacies. They don’t work here. We need data, and the more data the better.
        Data means measurements. Try to produce measurements quantifying man-made global warming (MMGW), if you can. If you can’t, then you’re just trying to convert people to your faith-based MMGW religion. It’s just as simple as that. Post verifiable, testable measurements quantifying MMGW, or you lose the debate.

    • Who controls the freezing temperature of water? The point being that those in the ivory towers and public offices can play with the surface temperature numbers all they want but the fundamentals of the physical world do not change and THAT is what people see and experience. Their effort is doomed to failure and in fact it seems it is failing in the public realm just for that reason despite their on going efforts to distort both the historic and current data. Then of course there is that pesky satellite data.

    • @Isvalgaard
      I agree with your point; in fact, there are two issues: 1) Does Man’s burning of fossil fuels contribute to the warming of the planetary system, and 2) if so, by how much.
      Rational Db8 posts: “…..are vastly more reputable credentialed scientists who’ve put in writing that they do NOT believe any significant AGW is occurring than those who’ve said it is.”
      I was addressing Db8’s issue which is clearly the first –whether or not man is a factor.
      The second issue is a subject of considerable research: The spectrum of findings range from 1.5C to 4.5C+ with a midpoint of about 3C. Outliers of less than 1.5 and greater than 4.5 are atypical.

      • “I was addressing Db8’s issue which is clearly the first –whether or not man is a factor.”
        Clearly you were NOT addressing any issue of mine. I never so much as implied that man isn’t a factor. In fact I stated quite clearly the issue was if man is a SIGNIFICANT factor, or, exactly as Lief put it “how much.”
        “The second issue is a subject of considerable research: The spectrum of findings range from 1.5C to 4.5C+ with a midpoint of about 3C. Outliers of less than 1.5 and greater than 4.5 are atypical.”
        Oh, really? 14 published papers since 2010 alone have lower ranges than the IPCC, 10 of those with the lower bound below 1.5C and all with a midpoint well below 3C. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/09/25/the-collection-of-evidence-for-a-lower-climate-sensitivity-continues-to-grow-now-up-to-14-papers-lower-than-ipcc/

      • Rational Db8,
        That guy is so easy playing Whack-A-Mole with that it’s no challenge. But good job anyway, you’ve refuted all his claims chapter and verse, in your last several comments.

      • @ dbstealey
        Thanks for the positive feedback. You’re so right about whack-a-mole with these types, unfortunately.

    • @DBStealey
      The listings Db8 provided have nothing to do with peer-reviewed science — if you think so, you know no more than DB8 as to what constitutes peer-review by a competent journal.
      And your broken record- mantra about ‘testable evidence’ is evidence that you don’t know what the phrase means. The unprecedented rate of rise in global temperatures, the melting of glaciers, shrinking of arctic sea ice extent, the reduction in the Greenland ice sheet, migration of species, the decreasing alkalinity of oceans, the decreasing differences between daytime highs and night time lows– and more–are all predictable, testable and verifiable conclusions of AGW.
      Give that step in the Scientific Method a try, Stealey… I imagine you’ll find it a new and refreshing experience.

      • Warren, you seem to have a very serious case of psychological projection (e.g., falsely accusing others of what you yourself are guilty of). I have in fact posted links to a very large number of peer reviewed published papers from reputable journals. If you are unable to follow links or note and follow citations to such in discussion articles I’ve provided, then you are so incompetent that you shouldn’t even bother spewing your baseless opinions. And it’s pretty clear that’s the case, unfortunately. You prove it even further with the following:
        “The unprecedented rate of rise in global temperatures, the melting of glaciers, shrinking of arctic sea ice extent, the reduction in the Greenland ice sheet, migration of species, the decreasing alkalinity of oceans, the decreasing differences between daytime highs and night time lows– and more–are all predictable, testable and verifiable conclusions of AGW.”
        In science correlation is not causation. NONE of what you note, even if accurate (and much of it isn’t), is the slightest bit of evidence of any AGW. First, there is nothing the least bit “unprecedented” about the recent relatively mild warming that has occurred in a relatively linear fashion since the end of the Little Ice Age, not in terms of either rate or magnitude. In fact there have been many times historically where there were far faster and larger temperature changes. Cripes, the rate and magnitude of change after the end of the LIA but before man started producing significant amounts of CO2 was almost exactly the same as the rate and magnitude that has occurred while AGW was supposedly occurring. Glaciers have melted before – in fact at times even more and faster than we’ve seen in the past 50 or 60 years. Species migrations have also changed, nothing new or unusual there either. We don’t even BEGIN to have sufficient measurements to have a clue if ocean pH is or isn’t actually changing – we have no baseline, so that claim is just absurd and unscientific any way you cut it. There are other things that can cause a narrowing between day and nighttime temperatures too – human land use issues and irrigation being a major one.
        But again, even if ALL of those things were occurring as you claim, it still isn’t evidence of AGW. Correlation is NOT causation. If it were, then all we have to do to reduce suicides is make people drink at least two cups of coffee a day (half the suicide rate), and we’d all know that darkness causes crime, as does wearing sneakers/tennis shoes (and prolly the same for hoodies). And pirates – well actually a LACK of pirates, is clearly responsible for global warming. This has been conclusively proven by the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster: Open Letter To Kansas School Board. And the outcome of the Washington Redskin’s games determines the outcome of presidential elections http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2009/10/regression-abuse.html .
        Oh, but wait, golly, gee, maybe you’re right, after all about the glacier and sea ice melting, look at what I just found:

        The Arctic ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consul Ifft, at Bergen, Norway.
        Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers, he declared, all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone. Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met with as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes. Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the gulf stream still very warm.
        Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared. Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts, which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds.

        Oops, nope, that was from the Washington Post, in 1922.
        But you still might be right, after all, there is this:
        The extent of summer sea ice during the  19th century, insofar as it is shown in patterns  of navigability inferred from ship tracks, the  direct observations of explorers, and a number  of native accounts, is remarkably similar to  present ice climatology. A chart of northern  Canada (Figure 2) shows the routes followed  by discovery expeditions and their wintering  locations between 1818 and 1859, and also  displays the frequency that sea ice has  occurred during the recent 30-year reference  period 1971–2000. It is perhaps surprising that  most of the Northwest Passage was navigated  during the 19th century, with expedition ships  coming within 150 km of completing the passage on a number of occasions. Most   significant is that even in years that were   recognized as unfavorable at the time, ships  were still able to reach locations that would  be consistent with the worst ice conditions  that have occurred during the modern reference period. Of 33 expedition or supply ships  bound for the western part of Lancaster  Sound between 1819 and 1859, only two  failed due to unfavorable ice conditions.
        Oops, nope, that was accounts from 19th century Canadian Arctic explorer’s logs, reflecting climate conditions 200 years ago that were pretty much the same as present day… Arctic Ice Conditions : The Same As 200 Years Ago
        Care to explain all the glacier receeding and ice melting that occurred so rapidly back before man was even adding any significant amount of CO2 to the atmosphere, e.g., before AGW even started?
        Then of course there’s this: Roald Amundsen: Navigates Northwest Passage The first known successful navigation of the Northwest Passage – in a SAILING ship, no power other than the wind, no GPS, no satellite telemetry to help avoid ice flows, all the way back in in 1906. It is strongly suspected, however, the the Vikings did the same during the Medieval Warm Period.
        Give that step in the Scientific Method a try, Stealey… I imagine you’ll find it a new and refreshing experience.”
        I strongly suggest you try taking your own advice, Warren – it’s pretty clear you wouldn’t know the scientific method if it smacked you in the face knocking you right off your feet.

      • And as to the “unprecedented” nature of rapid warming supposedly caused by AGW, here’s info from a post I wrote some time ago on the issue:
        Here’s a good history of how the science has evolved with regard to the speed at which climate change can and has occurred throughout history, from the American Insitute of Physics. Rapid Climate Change
        High Resolution Greenland Ice Core Data Shows Abrupt Climate Change Happens In a Few Years http://epic.awi.de/17919/1/Ste2007b.pdf
        Greenland Ice Core Records, 15 degrees C (27 F) warming in less than a decade: http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=1zoanbc&s=5#.UwpYV4VfQ2c
        Coral links ice to ancient ‘mega flood’ 15 degrees C temperature change in a few tens of decades in the northern latitudes of Northern Hemisphere.
        The abrupt termination of the Younger Dryas climate event 7 degrees C in about 50 years, compared to about 1.6 degrees C in well over 150 years that we’ve seen recently, only half of which has even occurred since AGW supposedly started about 60 years ago …
        MAGNITUDE AND RATE OF CLIMATE CHANGES Shows 15 periods with more rapid warming that the recent warming supposedly due in part to anthropogenic global warming.

        The δ18O data clearly show remarkable swings in climate over the past 100,000 years. In just the past 500 years, Greenland warming/cooling temperatures fluctuated back and forth about 40 times, with changes every 25-30 years (27 years on the average). None of these changes could have been caused by changes in atmospheric CO2 because they predate the large CO2 emissions that began about 1945. Nor can the warming of 1915 to 1945 be related to CO2, because it pre-dates the soaring emissions after 1945. Thirty years of global cooling (1945 to 1977) occurred during the big post-1945 increase in CO2….
        …Temperature changes recorded in the GISP2 ice core from the Greenland Ice Sheet (Figure 1) (Cuffy and Clow, 1997) show that the global warming experienced during the past century pales into insignificance when compared to the magnitude of profound climate reversals over the past 25,000 years. In addition, small temperature changes of up to a degree or so, similar to those observed in the 20th century record, occur persistently throughout the ancient climate record…

        Dr. Don Easterbrook Curriculum Vitae: Dr. Don Easterbrook has about 150 journal published articles many of which are very heavily cited, and 10 books to his name, along with some 30+ invited presentations around the world at professional society meetings. Emeritus Professor of Geology, Western Washington University Ph.D., Geology, University of Washington, Seattle M.S., Geology, University of Washington, Seattle B,S., Geology, University of Washington, Seattle
        The PETM is another rapid temperature change event you can look up. This study Environmental precursors to rapid light carbon injection at the Palaeocene/Eocene boundary
        My mind is open to actual scientific data from well designed studies. But not to pseudo-science.
        I’m sorry Andy, but in fact there is nothing historically unprecedented about the recent temperature increase. Not magnitude or rate. In fact, there have been far more rapid and extreme changes even during the holocene – just look up the Younger Dryas and not only rapid warming associated with it, but also rapid cooling events.
        Far more recently, however, we can even look at the temperature changes between about 1919-43, and 1975-1999: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1900/to:2011/compress:12/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1917/to:1943/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1974/to:1999/trend
        Or 1910-1940 vs. 1979-2009: http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1900/to:2012/compress:3/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1910/to:1940/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1979/to:2009/trend
        Or even 1894-1944 vs 1950-2000: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1890/to:2013/compress:3/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1894/to:1944/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1950/to:2000/trend
        The next problem is that over the past 17 years or so, fully 26% of all the CO2 man has ever emitted was produced, and yet there has been no significant temperature increase. That’s pretty much not statistically possible if the AGW hypothesis is correct. http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1997/plot/rss/from:1997.9/trend/plot/esrl-co2/from:1997.9/normalise/offset:0.68/plot/esrl-co2/from:1997.9/normalise/offset:0.68/trend
        Here are some more research papers on historically rapid temperature changes:
        High Resolution Greenland Ice Core Data Shows Abrupt Climate Change Happens In a Few Years http://epic.awi.de/17919/1/Ste2007b.pdf
        There are a number of others, but these are the ones I had reasonably handy.
        According to the “climate scientists” no significant AGW started before about 1945-1950’s, when man started producing significant amounts of CO2. So how do you explain the Little Ice Age (both dropping into it, and what started us warming out of it over 100 years before AGW started?)? We’ve been warming at a relatively consistent rate ever since the end of the LIA…
        Anyhow, the point is that there is nothing at all unusual or unprecedented about the recent warming. And in fact, there were multiple periods during the Holocene that have all been warmer than present day temperatures: The Medieval Warm Period, Roman Warm Period, Minoan Warm Period, Holocene Optimum, etc. See: http://www.climate4you.com/GlobalTemperatures.htm#An%20overview%20to%20get%20things%20into%20perspective
        And in fact from Greenland Ice cores, it very much appears that we’ve been slowly cooling on average over the past 10,000 years – which makes perfect sense as we are only in an interglacial and will drop into full on ice age again: http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/lappi/gisp-last-10000-new.png

      • @DBStealey
        Not measurable? Really? You don’t know how to measure long term declines in ice packs? Or reductions in arctic sea ice extent? Or the ongoing reduction in the difference between daytime highs and night time lows? Or track the migration of species? Really?
        Your posts are the perfect example of why we use educated surgeons instead of barbers for surgeries, or why we go to PhD Scientists instead of amateurs for reliable Science.

        • Not measurable? Really? You don’t know how to measure long term declines in ice packs? Or reductions in arctic sea ice extent?

          Well, let’s see what we do measure.
          Arctic sea ice is 5% below its long-term average for this date.
          Antarctic sea ice is 35% higher than its long term average for this date.
          How many Big Government “scientists” and politcians will 92 billion dollars buy?

      • RACook says:
        Arctic sea ice is 5% below its long-term average for this date.
        Antarctic sea ice is 35% higher than its long term average for this date.

        Yes, and we should note that the Antarctic contains 10X more ice than the Arctic.
        *************************
        Next, warrenlb says:
        Not measurable? Really? You don’t know how to measure long term declines in ice packs? Or reductions in arctic sea ice extent? Or the ongoing reduction in the difference between daytime highs and night time lows? Or track the migration of species? Really?
        Warren, try to pay attention, and quit deflecting. Those measurements are not what I’ve been asking you to produce. The measurements I’ve repeatedly referred to are the (non-existent) measurements quantifying man-made global warming (MMGW: also known as AGW). Your strawman arguments are just more of your endless logical fallacies and deflection. You are always evading the fact that you cannot produce any measurements quantifying MMGW.
        So once more, for the slow learners here… Warren, in science:
        DATA IS EVERYTHING.
        Measurements are data, Warren. If you cannot produce measurements quantifying MMGW, then you have no data. And without any data, all you have is your baseless opinion. But that is not sufficient to insist that CO2 should be reduced below 350 ppm — which is what your alarmist crew demands. You claim that there is dangerous MMGW happening, but you have zero data to support that belief.
        This is a pretty simple debate, warren. But you always attempt to make it more complicated, by tap-dancing around the fact that you’re just winging it: you lack the necessary data to make decisions. You don’t have any data quantifying MMGW. So you constantly deflect with your logical fallacies; you label whatever questions we ask as “garbage”, while ignoring the basic fact that you don’t have any measurements quantifying what you insist must be happening. No wonder the alarmist contingent hides out from any fair, moderated debates. They’ve lost every one they ever engaged in.
        You’ve totally lost the science debate, warrenlb. Without any data you’re just deflecting, as always. A stand-up guy would acknowledge that he doesn’t have the necessary data, and then he would discuss ways of finding it, if possible. A scientific skeptic (the only honest kind of scientist) would work with everyone to find answers; to find measurements quantifying MMGW. But you’re no skeptic. You are just a climate alarmist politician. A propagandist.
        Finally, ‘Rational Db8′ has repeatedly put you in your place, but you never even try to address the points he makes. You never discuss anything he’s posted, or any of his links, because you are afraid to go down that road. If you did, you would be forced to admit that you’re wrong. So instead, you just emit endless pixels, like a squid emitting a cloud of ink to escape. You are trying to convince intelligent readers here that white is black, down is up, ignorance is strength, and dangerous MMGW is a-happenin’. But it isn’t, no matter how many ways you try to convince folks here; folks who know better. Without data, warren, you’ve got nothin’.

      • @warrenlb

        Not measurable? Really? You don’t know how to measure long term declines in ice packs? Or reductions in arctic sea ice extent? Or the ongoing reduction in the difference between daytime highs and night time lows? Or track the migration of species? Really?
        Your posts are the perfect example of why we use educated surgeons instead of barbers for surgeries, or why we go to PhD Scientists instead of amateurs for reliable Science.”

        You utterly missed Dbstealey’s point. NONE of those measurements are measurements of AGW. They are measurements of ice packs, sea ice extent, etc. All things which have changed drastically throughout Earth’s history from totally natural causes long before man ever existed.
        YOU jump to the assumption that they prove/measure AGW, when in fact they have never been proven to do any such thing.

    • warrenlb says:
      The unprecedented rate of rise in global temperatures…
      You couldn’t get more ridiculous than that. Global warming stopped following the 1997 global temperature anomaly. Even the IPCC acknowledges that, so you’re on your own trying to contradict it with your “unprecedented rise” nonsense.
      And:
      shrinking of arctic sea ice extent
      And:
      reduction in the Greenland ice sheet
      And:
      migration of species
      And:
      decreasing alkalinity of oceans (whatever happened to “acidification”?)
      And:
      decreasing differences between daytime highs and night time lows
      And finally:
      testable and verifiable conclusions of AGW.
      *snicker*
      Got all your alarmist talking points there, bubby? Especially the last one. Give us those testable measurements of AGW. That’s what we want to see. But you’ve got nothin’, as usual.
      Next, I know exactly what testable evidence is, and what it means. You clearly don’t. For your edification: testable means falsifiable. To understand, see Dr. I. Langmuir’s dissertations on Pathological Science. Compare the so-called Allison Effect, and N-Rays, and the Davis-Barnes effect, and ESP, and Flying Saucers with your ‘dangerous MMGW’ scare. You will see an almost perfect match. They all fall under the rubric of ‘pathological science’.
      You cannot produce any testable evidence of MMGW for the simple reason that it is so tiny that it is unmeasurable. But since admitting that would destroy everything you’ve taught to others, and all the baseless assertions you’ve made over the years, that you simply cannot admit that you can’t produce any measurable evidence quantifying MMGW.
      So unless and until you can produce such evidence, everything you assert is nothing more than a baseless opinion. Now, listen up, Warren:
      In science, DATA IS EVERYTHING.
      Measurements are data. Without measurable data, you’re just telling us another Chicken Little story: the sky is falling — according to you. But it isn’t. With Chicken Little, it was no more than a tiny acorn. With MMGW, it isn’t even that.

      • What a load of garbage you sell, Stealey. ‘Not falsifiable’, so all those pieces of evidence are not to be considered.
        I’d love to see you defend a dissertation classifying AGW as MEASURABLE but INSIGNIFICANT (you’ve now made the transition to a luke-warmer, I suppose) , and citing the evidence I gave as irrelevant – that would indeed be the laugh riot of the century.

      • warrenlb says:
        …so all those pieces of evidence are not to be considered.
        Sit up straight and try to pay attention for once: You did not provide any testable evidence. You did not produce any verifiable measurements. Everything you write is simply a baseless assertion. You desperately want people to believe in your ‘dangerous MMGW’ story — but you have no way to quantify it, or even show that it really exists.
        Next:
        I’d love to see you defend a dissertation classifying AGW as MEASURABLE but INSIGNIFICANT
        Look, bubby, it’s your conjecture that’s being falsified. Skeptics have nothing to prove, despite the purveyors of the MMGW narrative trying to make skeptics prove a negative. You cannot defend your conjecture with data, so you try to turn around the Scientific Method, and make skeptics prove something. But the job of skeptics is to debunk scientific conjectures if at all possible — and we have done an excellent job of debunking your ‘dangerous MMGW’ belief.
        It is your alarmist pals who can’t produce measurable data quantifying MMGW. Despite your endless tap-dancing, YOU cannot produce any data showing MMGW, out of total global warming. It’s just like the Langmuir link I provided, that you probably ignored because it doesn’t fit your confirmation bias: N-Rays, the Allison Effect, and MMGW all fit the same Pathological Science template. They are beliefs, without any real supporting data.
        The whole MMGW narrative is nothing but a giant head fake. There are no measurements quantifying MMGW, but you act as if it’s settled science that it exists. It’s not. You can’t even post data showing the fraction of MMGW out of total global warming. So you’ve got nothin’.
        IF MMGW exists, produce measurements quantifying it. If you can, then we’re getting somewhere. If you can’t, then all you’re doing is story-telling.

  4. It would be nice to see the Hanover New Hampshire plotted with RAW data, no tricks.
    Does such data still exist?

  5. Steve…”climate change is sensible to your body, and data change is ultimately felt in your wallet.” Great Stuff
    Why should any government agency publishing data on climate behave any differently than all the other government agencies. Nobody believes the CPI or BLS data.

  6. “Who controls the past controls the future; who controls the present controls the past.” George Orwell, Nineteen Eighty-four

  7. “In short, the NOAA are shameless liars. Their cooling of the past to keep the global warming meme alive reminds me of the old Soviet joke – the future is known, it is the past that keeps changing.”
    Another dumb post that makes no reference to the actual NOAA published history – the monthly unadjusted file. Or even more basic, GHCN Daily. As shown at WUWT three years ago, these don’t change.

  8. You ask does the raw data still exist. To a scientist the raw data is sacred. You can make a copy of the data and play with it all you want but the raw data the holy grail, the holy text. When you think of the gub’ment messing with the data, only the profane will survive in hell. Does anyone know where the love of God does when the gub’ment gets hold of the data.

  9. A mummy was found in Egypt. The archaeologists could not determine its origin. Then a Soviet advisor offered his help. The mummy was delivered to the Soviet embassy. In two hours, the Soviet advisor appeared and said, “His name was Amenkhotep 2 rd.”
    “How did you find out?”
    “He confessed,” the advisor said.

    Seems the NOAA people have gone to school on that one; but they make the data confess.

  10. NOAA claims that most of their adjustments are due to changes in the time of day when measurements are taken. What reasons apply for this location?

  11. Today
    “In short, the NOAA are shameless liars.”
    Yesterday
    Patrick Michaels (the billboard)
    “This kind of fallacious, juvenile and inflammatory rhetoric does nothing to enhance your reputation…”
    just saying

  12. lsvalgaard,
    I have a follow-up question from an earlier thread, if you’d be so kind.
    I wrote (with clarifications in [ ] ):
    “I briefly looked at Plasma Physics of the Local Cosmos — (I’ll give it more time later). What is striking to me is that it seems like the Cult of the Magnetic Field, to borrow from you. When I learned about Maxwell’s Equations, electricity and magnetism were unified. Why then in the publication you provided do magnetic fields dominate as if they are the be-all end-all? Are not [time varying] magnetic fields caused by time-varying electric fields? Last time I checked there are electric monopoles; there are no magnetic monopoles. [Motion relative to] electric charge is the cause; magnetic fields are the effect. Why has this been inverted?”
    You responded:
    “Electric fields are caused by changing magnetic fields. The big difference is that the electric field depends on the frame of reference, while the magnetic field does not.”
    * * * * *
    I’m totally lost! Since when did magnetic fields get elevated to Absolute Reference Frame? Could you please elaborate, and/or provide references. Thanks 🙂
    Is anyone else confused by Isvalgaard’s second statement?

    • The magnetic field in the laboratory is indeed produced when we apply a voltage to a coils of wire, but in a [collisionless] plasma it is the magnetic field that drives the current via the dE/dt in Maxwell’s equations and the dynamics of the charges. The energy to drive the electric currents come from the magnetic field, which then causes the current.
      Circuits in the laboratory consists of wires fixed in the reference frame of the laboratory., and behave quite differently. The topology is fixed and does not change. But, the topology of the circuit in a moving plasma is not fixed. The magnetic field is moved along with the plasma and the current is determined by Ampere’s law and the changing topology [the curl] of the magnetic field and flows in the reference frame of the moving plasma where there is no significant electric field. In the laboratory, the circuit stays fixed [e.g. bolted to the table] and will feel the electric fields in the reference frame of the laboratory and inductance becomes important.
      Parker’s book “Conversations…” explains all this in great detail. I can recommend reading it carefully.
      Alfven pointed out many years ago that the electric field depends on the frame of reference while the magnetic field generally does not. If in one frame, R, the electric field is E and the magnetic field is B, the electric field E’ and the magnetic field B’ in another frame, R’, are given by E’ = E + V x B and B’ = B, where V is the velocity of R’ relative to R. This holds when V is much less than the speed of light, so under that condition magnetic fields are invariant of the frame of reference, but to speak of an electric field without specifying a frame of reference is meaningless.

      • The magnetic field in the laboratory is indeed produced when we apply a voltage to a coils of wire, but in a [collisionless] plasma it is the magnetic field that drives the current via the dE/dt in Maxwell’s equations and the dynamics of the charges.

        But what is the origin of the magnetic field in the plasma? Is this based on the notion that “magnetic fields are ‘frozen’ in plasmas”?

      • I’m printing out the entire “Plasma Physics of the Local Cosmos” as I type this. Armed with mixed metaphors, I’m going to go through that thing with a fine-toothed microscope.

      • Magnetic fields don’t just ‘appear’.

        So far so good. I’m in agreement.

        Magnetic fields in the Cosmos are generated by dynamo action, i.e. by amplification of existing magnetic fields via the moving, conducting plasma.

        While I get what your are saying here, I have a hard time reconciling this with the notion that magnetic fields are invariant of the reference frame (whereas electric fields are not).
        1) If there is an electric monopole floating somewhere, and I move relative to it, from my frame of reference I will see dE/dt as non-constant, hence I will see a magnetic field. But someone sitting on the electric monopole will not. In other words, the magnetic field in NOT invariant of the frame of reference. Correct?
        2) Similarly, if we supply enough energy to a gas, it will at some point ionize. Then we have a plasma — a collection of charged particles. Now suppose that two cells of plasma move relative to one another. By the same argument, won’t an observer in each plasma experience a magnetic field as an effect of relative motion to the other plasma? And again, does this not mean that the magnetic fields are NOT invariant of the frame of reference?

        That raises the question: where did the very first magnetic fields come from eons ago? This is not known, although several mechanisms have been proposed, see. e.g. http://www.leif.org/research/The-Origin-of-Magnetic-Fields.pdf

        Again, I find this perspective at odds with what I know of Maxwell’s Equations. There ARE electric monopoles in the world. In other words, there ARE electric sources and sinks. BUT THERE ARE NO MAGNETIC MONOPOLES. Does this not definitively tell us that electric charges are the ’causes’, and magnetic fields are the ‘effects’ — effects that are reference frame dependent?

        • The important point is that the behavior of magnetic and electric fields in a plasma are very different from what we observe in the laboratory surrounded by non-conducting air. This is one of hardest things for people to come to grips with. Luckily there is a large literature on this so you should be able to find something that convinces you. Start with Parker or even Alfven. Any good text book on space physics will show you the same thing.
          In a sense, cosmic magnetic fields live forever while electric fields short out immediately [creating all the beautiful effect: flares, aurorae, etc]. The magnetic field in the solar wind comes from sunspots. The magnetic fields of sunspots are generated from the debris of earlier spots of the previous cycle all the way back to when the sun was formed with a magnetic field from the interstellar gas cloud that collapsed to form the sun. The magnetic field in interstellar space is created by dynamo action from the initial field in the cloud that became our milky way. That field came from the very first clumps of gas, perhaps generated by the Biermann battery effect or similar. It is still the very same field that is with us today.

      • If a magnetic field arose from nothing but gas dynamics (which would be expansion I assume?), where did the gas come from and what was it made of? And what produced the dynamics (if my assumption was right that gas expansion was the dynamics you refer to)? Of course, the next question would be, where did THAT come from? Have we entered into the realm of the Big Bang?

      • ” the current is determined by Ampere’s law and the changing topology [the curl] of the magnetic field and flows in the reference frame of the moving plasma where there is no significant electric field.”
        I can understand how a laboratory apparatus or a generator is a fixed frame of reference and a plasma is not, but I still do not understand what the frame of reference IS. Sort of like time, you know what it is for the lack of it but are hard pressed to explain what it really IS. I imagine the current in a plasma like a gossamer thread, twisting and turning with the undulations of the field it nevertheless influences. Carver Mead has made an electron a mile long…

      • I am concerned about this.
        but in a [collisionless] plasma it is the magnetic field that drives the current
        Does a magnetic field induce an EMF which can in turn, cause a current to flow in a conductor? (Faradays Law) or are you trying to change some basic laws?
        A magnetic field line has a beginning and end, therefore it has a frame of reference.

      • The important point is that the behavior of magnetic and electric fields in a plasma are very different from what we observe in the laboratory surrounded by non-conducting air. This is one of hardest things for people to come to grips with.

        Don’t we observe plasmas in all sorts of non-laboratory settings: lightning, neon lights, plasma balls, opened switches on electrical grids that short, geiger counters, magma, the ionosphere, … (the list is long indeed)?
        Science has as part of its process cycle the concept of ‘experiement.’ It seems you are implying ‘ignore experimental results’ … on top of ignoring what Maxwell’s Equations seem to say (at least how I interpret them).
        And I thought even laboratory plasmas were not surrounded by nonconducting air, but by double layers, in effect insulating distinct plasma cells.
        I will acknowledge though, that I had never thought of Gauss’s Law for Magnetism (del*dot*B=0) as implying that magnetic fields, with no sources or sinks, ‘live forever.’ And I certainly was never taught that! I’ll ponder it but I’m not buying it yet. At a minimum — on top of ‘ignore experimental results’ — proponents of what you claim have the onus of explaining where magnetic fields without spacial … AND NOW TEMPORAL … beginnings and endings, began!

        In a sense, cosmic magnetic fields live forever while electric fields short out immediately [creating all the beautiful effect: flares, aurorae, etc].

        Does this really fit reality? This is saying there are no double layers in space!!! Are they not detectable by the radio noise they emit? Do we not see the effects of charged particles accelerated by the voltage drop across double layers? To say that electric fields short immediately is to say that there are no cells of plasma in space because the E field in a plasma is everywhere NONZERO. Just look at the Crookes characteristic curve.
        * * * * *
        Leif, surely you have heard Dr. Donald Scott (EE) speak about what he sees as the errors of cosmologists with respect to plasmas in space, and in the laboratory. (Forget about the electric sun conjecture for the moment.) For example, have you heard his talk at NASA Goddard — Plasma Physics’ Answers to the New Cosmology? So, it the man simply off the mark in the ‘errors’ he points out?
        Thanks for engaging me. I think this is a fascinating topic. 🙂

      • Does this really fit reality? This is saying there are no double layers in space!!! Are they not detectable by the radio noise they emit? Do we not see the effects of charged particles accelerated by the voltage drop across double layers?
        The ‘double layers’ myth have been hyped many times, but has been known to be wrong for more than 200 years, see e.g. http://www.leif.org/EOS/angeo-33-481-2015-Double-Layers-NOT.pdf
        “double layers and other quasi-static electric potential structures have been invoked hundreds of times as being the agents of auroral electron acceleration. This is despite the fact that energy transfer by conservative fields has been known for some 200 years to be impossible [Poisson, S. D.: Traité de mécanique, Courcier, Paris, France, 1811]”

  13. In East Texas, thanks to the wettest spring any of us here can remember (10 inches ABOVE average, so far , and that’s not a projection, that’s actual measurement) that we are absolutely looking at a ‘Garden of Eden” growing season around here.

  14. This is one town and a prediction of a drastic drop in the yearly average temperature after only four months. There’s a lot of year left and a lot of area in the rest of the Earth. This article is as bad as ones you see in the mainstream press, sorry.

    • Except that when you take into account the widespread data manipulation by NZ, Aus, and Paraguay, etc. (I’m sure there are more), it doesn’t take a ‘rocket scientist’ to, at the very least, to awaken their grey matter and question the data. These are all governments that meet at the UN, that meet in private via air travel (gov’ts have endless mounts of funds), and that all western developed countries are bankrupt. That all gov’ts are corrupt and lie endlessly to their proles.

  15. Here is a post copied from Physics Today article commentary on Inhofe wsj op-ed. The loons are getting loonier by the day.
    “Guest | Apr 29, 2015 7:29 AM
    Stupid republicans, they have money invested in oil they don’t want it to stop plain and simple, once this is proven 100% I say execute all the deniers for endangering humanity as a species. To endanger an entire species with your false BS should be deserving of death.”
    http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/magazine/physicstoday/news/10.1063/PT.5.8114

    • “…To endanger an entire species with your false BS should be deserving of death.”
      This is typical of people who I call armchair revolutionaries. The essence of an inquisition is condemning people for thinking wrong thoughts. Falsely accusing someone of a capital crime threatens the false accuser so they persist in the hope that later, the falsity will be overturned by new evidence. CAGW is now in a state where desperate hope is driving extremism – hope that it will suddenly get a lot hotter all over the world, fulfilling their oft-repeated and ill-destined prophecy that mankind is baking the planet with CO2 emissions.
      Of course they call for the death of disbelievers! What else have they got? But will any of these armchair would-be Charles Mansons arise from their comfy cushion to come and slit my throat? No way! People who are being executed for thinking wrong thoughts should be terminated in a civilised manner reflecting the compassion inherent in the Deep Green philosophy. It is called ‘killing with kindness’ (to animals).

      • “But will any of these armchair would-be Charles Mansons arise from their comfy cushion in their air conditioned and heated home (built with fossil fuel energy and materials created using fossil fuels, and stocked with refrigerated foods brought to them courtesy fossil fuel transportation and growing methods) while pressing computer keys created and powered by fossil fuels to come and slit my throat?”
        There, fixed that for ya! 😉

  16. After reading the now obligatory Leif rant i was wondering if he could enlighten us on how many solar cycle 24 predictions he got right? and what is his prediction for SC25 just so we have it on record for use at a later date.

      • Leif,
        I seem to recall you were part of a team of scientists along with Dr Hathaway that made several predictions about cycle 24, all of which were shown over time to be incorrect. Perhaps i am mistaken, if so then i appoligise for inferring such things.
        Regarding cycle 25 i accept it would be difficult to accurately predict the fial outcome of a cycle before it begins but let us assume it is small as you say, lets say as small or smaller than 24 do you think this result will have an effect on climate and if so what affect will that be?
        regards

        • I was member of such a team, but was one [along with Dean Pesnell] who predicted a small cycle, and we eventually convinced the rest to tone down their doom and gloom prediction. Here is our prediction http://www.leif.org/research/Cycle%2024%20Smallest%20100%20years.pdf
          I don’t think there will be a noticeable effect on the climate. Although one could speculate a bit. We think the reason for the smaller sunspot cycles is that sunspot groups contain fewer and fewer visible spots as time goes by [for the past 40 years or so], so the sunspot number gets smaller and smaller. But since sunspots are dark that might mean that the decrease of the Total Solar Irradiance due to sunspots might become less and hence the sun will brighten a bit and that may mean a warmer climate as visible, dark sunspots disappear. Quite the opposite of what is commonly believed. But in any case the effect will be small.

      • craker, you don’t visit here much I am thinking. Before any finger is pointed at the measly change in solar parameters, one MUST consider oceans as the supreme holder of temperature variation. It’s heat absorbing capacity is enormous, and it coughs it back up in spurts and starts.

      • I remember that prediction, Leif. I’d say you nailed it, given the variability of the numbers.

  17. I seem to recall in George Orwells’s 1984, the Ministry of Truth falsified historical events to make predictions look true. Perhaps 1984 is not really about the Soviet Union but rather climate “science”! I wonder how many parallels we can find?

  18. I moved somewhere warm, because by the time the solar cycle troughs, I’ll be too old to fight my way to the front of the food riots, and I don’t want my daughter burdened with the job of trying to keep her ageing parents.
    Even if a major ice age hits, the tropical region where I live will still be productive.

    • Yeah, but then you’ll be overrun by the starving hungry hordes from the north. 😉

  19. Can anyone comment if NOAA’s deception has a chance of being exposed by the GWPF study that will come out sometime in the (hopefully) near future?

  20. Purely an aside, but if you predict a “Black Swan” event and it happens, then it’s not a Black Swan event, is it? (And Taleb’s whole Black Swan Thesis was such a crock anyway….)

  21. Not following why our forecast is a warning. We have correctly hit the last 2 wetter, cooler summers in this area, and this summer will really put the nail in the coffin of the 3 year dry spell that was even WORSE in the early 50s than the early part of this decade for Texas. The warning if you want is that the Pacific, which is very similar to the late 1950s, will be back in it cold state again in a few years ( this time with the atlantic) so it will dry again down there. But I dont know if saying a great growing season in those areas what the hysterics were screaming dust bowl again should be called a warning.. more like nature doing what nature always does..balancing

  22. Others have noted this, but I haven’t seen any changes in the data from Cryosphere Today for sea ice totals, ets.in the NH or the SH. for it seems like weeks …- anyone know why?

  23. I’m not sure I get it. (I’m a little confused) – Is the Hanover, New Hampshire chart (the first illustration) actual data, or adjusted/homogenized data? If actual data, it shows a steady rise in temperature…
    I think the data from the Mt Washington weather station shows a much less rise in temp from 1935…

  24. Could be a readjustment in the way they are calculating the Cryosphere values. Perhaps they changed the graph links and WUWT has the old links?

  25. Just so that I’m up to speed on the latest solar/climate science here, Brother David. Is the Friis-Christensen and Lassen theory back in vogue, or did it never go away? I thought it had gone the same way as the ‘Cosmic ray’ theory and the Dodo.
    It must be the same Lassen who said: “since around 1990 the type of Solar forcing that is described by the solar cycle length model no longer dominates the long-term variation of the Northern hemisphere land air temperature”.
    And of their theory has been written:
    “In 2009, a number of leading experts, including one Nobel laureate, concluded that the graphs of Friis-Christensen and Svensmark showing apparent correlations between global warming, sunspots and cosmic rays were deeply flawed. Friis-Christensen agreed that any correlation between sunspots and global warming that he may have identified in the 1991 study has since broken down. There is, he said, a clear “divergence” between the sunspots and global temperatures after 1986, which shows that the present warming period cannot be explained by solar activity alone”
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eigil_Friis-Christensen

    • ‘There is, he said, a clear “divergence” between the sunspots and global temperatures after 1986, which shows that the present warming period cannot be explained by solar activity alone”.’
      Apart from the most dedicated “warmists” does anyone believe that the current warming period can be explained by a single “forcing”?

  26. One can add Canada and Environment Canada to the nations who seem to have made downward adjustments to annual climate data going back as far as 1948. For example ,in the 2013 annual report , the 23 of the coldest years with negative departures or anomalies , 15 or 65% of the years seem to have been adjusted downward by 0.3 to 0.1 C from the 2008 annual report .
    Maine is getting colder but so is most of North America since 1998, especially eastern North America.
    2015 was the coldest January through March in the entire record in the 10 Northeast States and DC as reported by ICECAP
    The same can be said about the Eastern Canadian provinces and which includes cities like Montreal, Quebec, Toronto, Ottawa . February 2015 was the coldest ever recorded in many parts of these provinces .Charlottown , PEI had 18.1 feet of snow this past winter., the most ever recorded.
    If AMO continues to decline as it is doing, temperatures in the US North east and the Atlantic Provinces will continue to cool, and so will Maine.

  27. I can believe that earth may get colder and growing conditions get worse. But I do not believe there is any possibility of food shortages as a result. Certainly in North America over half the land that was farmed 120 years ago is not farmed now. It would not be hard to return that land to production. Also GM food offers many ways to respond to changes in climate or to other unforseen events, e.g a new pest.

  28. Six years ago i took an interest in global warming as topic. I participated in discussions here and at
    (un)realclimate, As soon as i was disparaged for even questioning dogma and had a few of my comments deleted there I became a skeptic. The IPCC and those in the “climate” community today become corrupt and will do anything to protect their funding. I wouldn’t believe one of them if the told me the sun had risen.

  29. Serious Question to the poster and the commenters:
    Are their no consistent periodic snap shots, separately stored, of the NOAA historical temperature data? Could such a thing be cooperatively reconstructed?
    Does it make sense to have a “job” that takes the NOAA data and sticks it onto an Amazon AWS/S3 file for “future generations”?
    I would have assumed that something like this would have already been being done. If it is not, does it make sense to do so? What data sets should be snap-shot’d once/month? How far upstream can we grab that data? I’m guessing that the less aggregated the data is, the less chance of it having been “processed”.

      • Thank you.
        And, I somehow commented on the wrong thread. I’m not sure how that happened, actually.
        The post I was trying to comment on was making the claim that NOAA was adjusting their historical data. And that this had been revealed by comparing the currently published data (from NOAA), and one individuals capture of the “same” data that had been published in 2013.
        I’m wondering if there is a single consolidated historical archive of NOAA (and the like) data. And, if not, whether there would be a benefit to taking a snapshot of the data every month. Just in case.
        In an ideal world, you shouldn’t have to worry about the source data changing with no explanation. Apparently we don’t live there.
        I’ll go make my comment where I originally intended to, but I’d love to hear your thoughts about that anyway.
        Thanks!

  30. One of Mr Brakey’s complaints about the NOAA perversion of the temperature record is that he can’t trust official figures any more in serving his clients.
    It’s not just NOAA in the US. It’s also many other government agencies in numerous countries all doing the same thing … and uniquely, its rich countries dominated by Europeans societies… from the UK to Australia. These governments are party to scientific fraud relating to climate data, without politicians really appreciating the problem and who are too scared to criticise government agencies.
    There is a reason why governments don’t want to even consider the satellite temperature data. The satellite temperature data represents ‘an inconvenient truth’ that blows away the flawed global warming doctrine. And that threatens the outcome of their Paris climate conference in December 2015.

Comments are closed.