Guest Post by Bob Tisdale
NOAA recently published their State of the Climate Report for May 2015. Under the heading of Global Summary Information, they note:
Note: With this report and data release, the National Centers for Environmental Information is transitioning to improved versions of its global land (GHCN-M version 3.3.0) and ocean (ERSST version 4.0.0) datasets. Please note that anomalies and ranks reflect the historical record according to these updated versions. Historical months and years may differ from what was reported in previous reports. For more, please visit the associated FAQ and supplemental information.
But of course we know the adjustments that led to the new NOAA ERSST.v4 sea surface temperature data (the biggest changes to the NOAA data took place in the ocean portion) are not supported during the global warming slowdown period by the night marine air temperature dataset (HadNMAT2 from the UKMO) that NOAA used for bias corrections. (See post here.) In other words, it appears NOAA overcooked their “improvements”. Oops!
On the NOAA Global Analysis – May 2015 webpage they state under the heading of Temperatures:
The combined average temperature over global land and ocean surfaces for May 2015 was the highest for May in the 136-year period of record, at 0.87°C (1.57°F) above the 20th century average of 14.8°C (58.6°F), surpassing the previous record set just one year ago by 0.08°C (0.14°F). This ties with February 1998 as the fourth highest monthly departure from average for any month on record. The two highest monthly departures from average occurred earlier this year in February and March, both at 0.89°C (1.60°F) above the 20th century average for their respective months.
Somehow I don’t think that will surprise anyone.
Figure 1 is a graph of the new NOAA Pause-Busting global surface temperature data from January 1979 to May 2015.
Figure 1
HOW DOES THE PAUSE-BUSTER DATA COMPARE TO THEIR EARLIER DATA FROM NOAA?
Animation 1 compares the new and old NOAA global land+ocean surface temperature data from January 1979 to April 2015, the last month of the old data. The data tweaking had little impact on the multidecadal warming rate.
Animation 1
Animation 2 covers the period of January 2001 to April 2015. It shows that NOAA’s tweaking had a noticeable impact during the 21st Century, almost doubling the warming rate. Again, NOAA can’t justify those higher trends with the night marine air temperature data they used as a reference for the bias adjustments in their sea surface temperature data.
Animation 2
HOW DOES THE PAUSE-BUSTER DATA COMPARE TO THE OTHER GLOBAL DATASETS?
Figure 2 compares the new pause-buster data from NOAA to the global surface temperature products from GISS and UKMO and to the lower troposphere temperature data from RSS and UAH. I’ve used the new Release 6.0 data from UAH in the comparison. The anomalies of all datasets have been referenced to the WMO-preferred base years of 1981-2010.
Figure 2
There are of course differences in how each of the data suppliers handle the polar oceans. As soon as the new NOAA data are available at the KNMI Climate Explorer, I’ll present the comparison using the latitudes of 60S-60N. The new NOAA data should stand out like a sore thumb.
CLOSING
I’ll be using the new NOAA pause-buster data in the future monthly updates, starting next month. In each update from this day forward, I’ll remind everyone that the adjustments that led to the new NOAA sea surface temperature data, where the biggest changes took place, are not supported during the global warming slowdown period by the night marine air temperature dataset (HadNMAT2 from the UKMO) that NOAA used for bias corrections. And as I noted earlier, in other words, it appears NOAA overcooked their “improvements”. Hopefully, others will remind NOAA of that as well.
How do they get away with this? It’s tampering. Period. Full stop. Well, also, it says that they don’t trust their instruments, and neither should anyone. What a load of posteriorly-emitted hooey.
(Another wasted effort by a banned sockpuppet. Comment DELETED. -mod)
How do they get away with it?
The President ordered it.
OK, let’s make this three Mikes in a row 😉
Here is what the HadNMAT2 data that they supposedly used “correct” the SST data looks like.
So SST has a pause, NMAT2 has a pause but “correct” SST using NMAT2 and the pause disappears. Funny that.
as a scientist…
do you understand *anything* about science ?
data is a sacred thing, carved in stone
interpretation is not; esp with large data sets, all sorts of corrections updates and adjsutments are not only common, but *the right thing to do*
as we learn more, we can correct the old data
if, say, you learn that Type J thermocouples manufactured prior to 1950 had a 0.2oC offset compared to later ones, wouldn’t the prudent thing be to correct the data ?
that is how science in the real (not denialist) world works
The obvious problem with your delusion of how things work ‘in the real world’ is that most skeptics actually WORK in the real world. We know you’re lying. We know that if any company got caught playing these games they would get burned.
This isn’t about ‘fixing’ 70 year old data to match current work anymore. The Climate frauds already did that…numerous times. This is them lowering the data from less then 20 years ago, back when they were already riding the Climate gravy train. And again, and again and again. How many times now have they lowered the ‘record high’ temps from 20 years ago? How much had they falsely inflated those temps back then, and why should I believe they’re not doing the same now?
And how many times will they have to reduce 2015 temps in 2030 to keep the lie going?
So, science in the real world consists of revisionism? The ‘super-el Niño’ of 1998 is now no warmer than just another month of May. That’s the science of 1984.
Climate science has become political science. Your example does not apply.
*correction needed*
as a troll…
Scientists generally have a decent knowledge of grammar as it is inherently important to the trade.
We always correctly applied the statistical ground rules and just increased the uncertainty of the data in question. We never changed it, ever. We would go to jail for doing that.
Actually, isn’t it,”our Gav” in his new role
‘,
Climate “scientists” overcooking their results – never, shock horror!
This ‘organisation’ needs to be disbanded, but if the ‘boss’ AKA the little “o”approves of or drives it’s lies, there is only one solution, fire the CEO and board members…good luck America, you are going to need it…
What ever goes up must come down, and the more desperately the data is adjusted the harder it will eventually fall.
James hits the nail on the head. The anthropogenic portion of increasing CO2 does not have the potential energy to create this warming weather pattern variation driven by oceanic/atmospheric teleconnected changes that support and drive that warming. Temperature cannot increase without weather patterns supporting that change. And to change weather patterns takes no small amount of energy. Try moving the jet stream. Try moving an oceanically large warm pool from one place to a different place. Try developing thunderheads with just human sourced CO2 heating. Back of the envelope calculations easily demonstrate something else is at play. Something very large and very powerful. And no it isn’t the changes in the Sun. Not enough energy in that change either.
If the only entities large enough and powerful enough to create this warming pattern are the natural pattern variations in oceanic/atmospheric teleconnections, it will eventually reverse itself to our peril. So enjoy it while it is here. It is no more than a fickle but pleasant high in the terrible ups and downs Earth has yet to throw at us.
Unfortunately, the fast pace of ‘adjustments’ from the observational data concealers seems to indicate that the reversal has already taken place. These ‘scientists’ are digging themselves a hole from which history will not let them escape.
Busting the pause serves the political purposes of the President. He will use it as a justification to sign a new climate treaty, so if the trend they have established only lasts a few months, that’s no problem.
NOAA is just a political entity that serves the will of the left. Don’t try to find a scientific basis for the adjustments because there likely is none.
it isn’t the changes in the Sun. Not enough energy in that change either.
I keep hearing that. But suppose the change in wavelength matters more than energy delivered? Maybe wavelength changes energy absorbed.
but ..
no one said it is CO2
what people are saying is that CO2 increases water at the equator, and the combo of CO2 and water, esp after it gets into the upper atmosphere, where IR photons actually escape, is what does the trick
anyway, why don’t you calculate the area of the earths surface, and see how much energy is in 0.1cal per second per aquare meter….it is a lot of energy
also, you assertion that changes require a lot of energy….unproven; there maybe a a hump between states, but the states maybe roughly iso energetic, so all you need is a blip of energy to get over the hump (I;m using standard lingo for deltaG chemical reactions)
M Simon June 19, 2015 at 10:41 am
I keep hearing that. But suppose the change in wavelength matters more than energy delivered? Maybe wavelength changes energy absorbed.
///////////////////////////////////
As I often suggest to Willis, not all watts are born equal.
Wavelength determines where within the climate system the watt is absorbed. The absorptiion characteristices of EMR by water is wavelength dependent. It may well make a difference (at least in the short term) the depth at which energy is being absorbed by the oceans.
Re: UV and other extreme ends of the infrared band. The energy required to in situ bring temperature up in a stationary oceanic/atmospheric system will tell you where to look for that amount of energy. The following links will help you see that.
The amount of energy in the UV spectrum after it passes through the atmosphere is very small compared to visible light:
http://www.itacanet.org/the-sun-as-a-source-of-energy/part-2-solar-energy-reaching-the-earths-surface/
You can use this link to convert the various measures of energy:
http://www.mhi-inc.com/Converter/watt_calculator.htm
And you can use this link to see Specific Heat and the energy needed to raise a substance 1 degree Celsius. http://www.bickfordscience.com/03-05_State_Changes/PDF/Specific_Heat.pdf
Unfortunately, it only needs to hold up long enough for Obama to ramrod his agenda through.
“… the harder it will fall.”
You’re selling them short. They’re very bright liars and such people can keep a hoax going a very long time.
As long as some people are stupid enough to believe the propaganda and ignore their lying eyes.
As long as the pause buster stands up until after the Paris conference, it will have done what they wanted it to. After that they can bring in a new ‘improved’ version.
“….It’s the Paris agenda,
Normal weather’s no more,
Unprecedented and worst ever,
Watch the scare stories soar;
With factual inaccuracies
The politicians are plying,
As the real world observations
They keep on denying.”
http://rhymeafterrhyme.net/no-warming-pause-now-theres-a-surprise/
In real world Norway is reporting the coldest June since 1923 and a record overnight low was set in the Netherlands in Twente. The MetO forecast for a sizzling Spring in the UK fizzled out and Summer is limping along. Is 2015 the year that the cooling really starts and NOAA’s faked figures will look seriously out of step with reality, and more importantly, public perception?
As Adam Savage from Mythbusters said: “I reject your reality and substitute my own”.
All these data “adjustments”, all the models, all the propaganda and lies are used as substitutes for reality to paint whatever picture and tell whatever kind of story they want. It doesn’t matter if it doesn’t accurately reflect reality because they’ve successfully gotten the sheeple to believe the garbage they’re peddling is reality.
Sure, the house of cards they built is slowly crumbling and will eventually collapse, but before then they have caused and will cause an awful lot of damage.
Their numbers still show it started back in 2000.
Current – The combined average temperature over global land and ocean surfaces for May 2015 was the highest for May in the 136-year period of record, at 0.87°C (1.57°F) above the 20th century average of 14.8°C (58.6°F),
(1) The Climate of 1997 – Annual Global Temperature Index “The global average temperature of 62.45 degrees Fahrenheit for 1997” = 16.92°C.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/1997/13
(2) 2014 annual global land and ocean surfaces temperature “The annually-averaged temperature was 0.69°C (1.24°F) above the 20th century average of 13.9°C (57.0°F). 0.69°C above 13.9°C => 0.69+13.9 = 14.59°C
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2014/13
14.8 >> 16.92 << 14.59
Which number do you think NCDC/NOAA thinks is the record high. Failure at 3rd grade math or failure to scrub all the past. (See the ‘Ministry of Truth’ 1984).
What would it have been if they were still using the semi-adjusted HADCRUT3 version instead of the full-adjusted HADCRUT4.
12 month average anomaly
HADCRUT3 HADCRUT4
Dec 1998 0.55 0.52
Dec 2011 0.34 0.40
Increase/ -0.21 -0.12
The new version increases warming (or rather decreases cooling) since 1998 by 0.09C, a significant amount for a 13 year time span. Whilst the changes should not affect the trend in future years, they will affect the debate as to whether temperatures have increased in the last decade or so.
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2012/10/10/hadcrut4-v-hadcrut3/Decrease
what part of “global” don’t you get ?
I don’t think anyone on our side denies that in a global system, there are a lot of “local” , on a global scale, anomolies; it is the GLOBAL avg that counts
do you know what a zombie argument is ?
This year is likely to be an El Nino year. Thus it is unlikely that NOAA’s recent adjustments will be exposed.
But if 2016/7 turns out to be a La Nina year, and should cooling begin to onset after that (whether because of a change in ocean dynamics/negative periods and/or a quiet sun etc) then they will begin to look out of place.
If the satellite data shows only a modest blip this year 9because of El Nino), a modest reversal next year (because of La Nina) and then no increase in temps through to 2020, one can imagine how the ‘pause’/’hiatus’ will lengthen and how model projections will all be outside their 95% confidence band.
In these circumstances, the satellite data is likely to confirm (or at any rate be consistent with the theory) that it is ocean cycles (particularly strong El Ninos) that drive temperature upwards in step changes, and not manmade CO2.
— Gerry, England
This rather nicely illustrates the decision time coming. For if we state that record low temps are occuring, then we are stating that natural variability is still greater than any putative CO2 forcing. And since both Positivism and Falsificationism have been both mentioned lately — it’s of note that such a record cold temp is sufficient for rejecting the AGW hypothesis under either notion.
The only possible salvage is, of course, to state that globally increased radiative feedbacks cause locally reduced radiative feedbacks; reduced farther than the global increase itself, and in excess of natural variability. But in taking that tack we must discard the global average temperature as wholly uninformative. A bit like trying to check the tire pressure in a car by speaking at length about fuel economy trends of the car itself. That is, it repudiates the utility of any notion of ‘global climate’ or ‘global temperature.’
But in bolting on such an ad-hoc hypothesis, we refute the previous AGW hypothesis and it’s claim as a ‘settled science.’ The ‘consensus’ remains valid, natch. It’s just that we now are stuck stating that 97% — or whatever — of climate scientists believe in the same falsehoods. But necessary to such a salvage is that the heat differences would be increased *regionally*, and so too then would be storm frequency and severity — which simply can’t be found in the data so far as I know. Which again suffices to reject the AGW hypothesis, this time with ad-hoc appendages, under both of Postivism and Falsificationism.
There is always a ‘third way’ that can be attempted with anything, of course. But the third way here is to state that the AGW hypothesis — without or without ad-hoc appendages — is not yet at such a severe point that it’s effects can be clearly shown. But if such is the claim, then it again fails under Positivism — there is no ‘best evidence’ metric satisfied as there is as yet no evidence at all sufficient for that task. A safe harbor can be found in Falsificationism only by repudiating every prior statement of ‘best evidence’ or other uses of Positivism. But in which case we’re simply stating that while it is ‘theoretically possible to falsify the hypothesis’ it has yet to undergo a critical test. That is, there is no legitimacy in stating that it is the One True Hypothesis versus just one of a large set of Wild Ass Guesses.
But that last attempted salvage is even more entertaining as while there is apparently such a strong consensus of Belief amongst Climate Scientists despite any Positivistic evidence there appears to be no consensus whatsoever about what the AGW hypothesis requires. For if it required anything concrete then there would exist a demonstrable falsification test, or point. And yet the only consensus there is that there’s a lack of consensus on when the model (hypothesis) failures violate what the AGW hypothesis requires. And here again, the AGW hypothesis violates the notion of Falsificationism.
Which is not to say that AGW isn’t science, so long as we define Science in just such a way to permit it. But if AGW is not a scientific theory under either of Positivism or Falsificationism, then it is the onus of Climate Scientists to point to whichever Philosophy of Science they require that demonstrates that they have legitimately produced a valid Scientific Theory. And by which means under that philosophy it can be demostrated to be sound, or unsound.
USA and Canada also just endured another colder than norm winter. Great Lakes ice was at 88% March 1. Prior year was at 92% Norm is 52%. True this is just weather but why is only hot weather reported
“Oops! We had it wrong! Warming reduces storms! So all the non-extreme weather proves GW after all. Whew!”
Typo alert:
“where the biggest changes too place,”
took?
Thanks, artwest. Fixed it.
Why do they go and do this in secret, aren’t they all in the game? inc. the Governments.
They could theoretically add +0.5 deg to 2015 and only a few skeptics would know. The general population would totally buy it.
I hope we get another “Climategate” before Paris, because I think your right the general population will buy it. These people totally disgust me, they should be kicked off the trough.
The potential is there. Several people have the files…
The general population, many of which just shivered through the coldest winter on record, with the longest stretch of below freezing temps ever, with icebergs washing ashore in New England, and the ocean frozen into sea ice and slush all the way down past New Jersey…is not buying it.
Not hardly.
It is just not something that people feel comfortable talking about, because of the deplorable tactics used and the media blitz that suppresses information contrary to the CAGW meme.
Most people know BS when they have it hurled at them.
The sea-ice went as far south as the southern Delmarva penninsula just north of the Chesapeake Bay mouth.
If they ever get round to measuring surface temperatures, rather than “surface” temperatures, let me know.
Only thing I’m amazed about, is that as far as is known, they didn’t resort to such tactics long ago. I guess they were afraid of being kicked-out of the scientific community if caught massaging data. It looks like their backers are now so concerned about the collapse of the CAGW propaganda machine, that ostracism is considered an acceptable risk.
Though, BEST data when first published as a graph had the post-2000 section snipped off to avoid revealing the embarrassing bit. The raw data still contained that section, which was probably a reluctant concession to the demands of scientific morals.
What scientific morals, in the climate department?
“I’m here to discuss scientific morals.”
“Oh, I’m sorry; this is climate science. You want Room 12A…”
(With apologies and thanks to Monty Python)
According to animation 1 the trend change in the new NOAA data versus the old data between 1979 and April 2015 is +0.03C/dec. Comparing UAH version 6.0 to the old v5.6 there’s a -0.03C/dec trend change over this same period.
Animation 2 shows that for the period 2001 to April 2015 the trend change in the new NOAA version was +0.05C/dec compared to the old version. In the new version of UAH, the trend change for the period 2001 to April 2015 amounts to -0.09C/dec lower than the old version (it went from +0.07 to -0.02C/dec).
Ignoring the direction of the changes, the recent revisions to UAH are on a similar magnitude to those made to NOAA over the longer term. However, the revisions made to UAH for the shorter period 2001 to April 2014 are around twice the magnitude of those made to NOAA.
Two questions arise:
1) Why no hullabaloo about the much greater UAH v6.0 trend change from 2001?
2) What do these examples tell us about the significance of trends over periods as short as ~15 years?
David R, reply to your question 1, the changes to the UAH TLT data bring the UAH TLT data into line with the RSS TLT data, while the changes to the NOAA data make it a warming outlier during the recent slowdown.
Reply to question 2, Judith Curry summed this up well in a recent post here:
http://judithcurry.com/2015/06/08/improving-climate-change-communication-moving-beyond-scientific-certainty/
Judith wrote:
“This new paper is especially interesting in context of the Karl et al paper, that ‘disappears’ the hiatus. I suspect that the main take home message for the public (those paying attention, anyways) is that the data is really really uncertain and there is plenty of opportunity for scientists to ‘cherry pick’ methods to get desired results.”
Regards
My answer to your question “2) What do these examples tell us about the significance of trends over period as short as ~15 years” would be this:
These examples tell us nothing of importance, they are of some interest but they lack the important piece of data to make a decision about global warming. The missing piece is CO2 data. The IPCC and all the collectors of temperature anomalies data will only plot these alone. But the claim is that warming is due to CO2 increases. If so, they should plot the CO2 data on the same graph. We have reliable CO2 data from Mauna Lua since 1958. So where is the correlation between the increase in temperature anomalies?
Fortunately, some do this as you can find many plots here:
http://www.climate4you.com/
Look at all the temperature anomalies (from any source) vs. CO2 concentrations graphs .
You will see about this:
Phase 1: 1958 to 1977 (or so) : CO2 is increasing, anomalies are decreasing
Phase 2: 1978 to 2003 (or so) : CO2 is increasing, anomalies are increasing, case for CO2 can be made
Phase 3: 2004 to now: CO2 is increasing, anomalies have no trend up or down or if any a slight trend up or down of no statistical significance, so there is no trend. Despite the fact (check the Mauna Lua site), that the yearly rate of increase in CO2 was much higher during these years.
You can draw your own conclusions. Here is what I think.
What is interesting is the public is never told this. Only the increase in temperature anomalies is presented and the claim that a reduction in CO2 will solve the problem.
Now, looking again at the graphs presented at this site, we have about 10 years (Phase 3) of no correlation between the increase in temperature and the increase in CO2, not a very long period, but yet how long a period of yearly increasing temperature anomalies will it take before we can again claim that there is a correlation with increasing CO2? So I look at the graphs again. Phase 1, about 20 years of no correlation, how many years would you say would be needed for the reversal (Phase 2) to be accepted as real?
So in essence the correction by NOAA is irrelevant, it is too small to bring back the correlation with increasing CO2 and it will take many years of increasing temperature anomalies to catch up to increasing CO2 before a correlation is established again. Not that I want to predict anything.
Note: There is also an interesting plot at this site using polynomial fit of CO2 vs. temperature anomalies.
David R.
I was thinking that as well – some of the adjustments made to the UAH dataset are larger than the adjustments made to the NOAA dataset. This has been pointed out on other blogs.
I notice the latest NOAA Global report shows a large difference between global average temperature reported from the UAH and RSS TLT datasets. Carl Meares of RSS did comment on his blog that the surface datasets agree with each other better than the satellite datasets.
Carl Meares of RSS did comment on his blog that the surface datasets agree with each other better than the satellite datasets.
You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to work that one out – just take a look at the collusion that went on in the Climategate emails.
In my opinion, 15 years is a blip wrt short and long term natural weather pattern variations. However, the 15 year period is the length of time given by the modelers. According to their own calculations, any length of time greater than 15 should show warming if their models are to be considered correct.
http://judithcurry.com/2014/12/15/will-a-return-of-rising-temperatures-validate-the-climate-models/
Thank goodness someone came up with a new re-construction that hides the plateau. This previously rejected, now treasured statistical maneuver is lovingly referred to by many climate scientists as Mike’s Nature Trick I believe. On steroids and heroin, downed with a shot of whiskey, whilst dressed in an SS uniform.
http://climateaudit.org/2011/03/29/keiths-science-trick-mikes-nature-trick-and-phils-combo/
Steve: You need to update your post to add the NOAA Ship Trick.
Pamela Gray.
That “15 year period” is a myth – I looked into it a while ago.
If you have any citations to the scientific literature that say otherwise I will have a look.
I am still trying to find information on the % of current IPCC models that have pauses of 15 or more years. I know that statistic lives somewhere in the literature. I will keep looking. Meanwhile there is a lot of noise still happening out there about the length of this pause, even after the slight adjustment up with the latest NOAA reconstructed data set (which will eventually lie in embarrassed silence).
http://www.nature.com/news/climate-change-the-case-of-the-missing-heat-1.14525
AR5 working group1, ch 9, p.743:
“Most simulations of the historical period do not reproduce the observed reduction in global mean surface warming trend over the last 10 to 15 years. There is medium confidence that the trend difference between models and observations during 1998–2012 is to a substantial degree caused by…” [insert kitchen sink].
https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter09_FINAL.pdf
These authors seem entirely unable to provide facts and instead use non-scientific qualifiers such as “…most…do not…”. What the hell does “most” mean exactly?
From wikipedia: “Recent findings have cast doubt on the previously-agreed hiatus in the first decade of the 21st Century.[6][7] The new analysis corrects for known biases in ocean temperature measurements and adds new land temperature records, though the new data still shows the warming trend to have been slower than in the previous decades.[8]” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_hiatus
Notice that they say the new analysis “corrects” for known biases. If that is true they would have corrected the ship intake measure, not correct everything else to it. The bias IS the ship intake data!
The following link to research suggests that ship intake data should be corrected. And they demonstrate how. Apparently that is not the case anymore? Wonder what the authors of this paper think about that.
ftp://podaac.jpl.nasa.gov/allData/gosta_plus/retired/L2/hdf/docs/papers/1-crrt/1-CRRT.HTM
Every year for the last decade NOAA has predicted that the entire US would be warmer than previously. Over and over again, they predict only warming. Now that cooling is painfully obvious, they ‘predict’ cooling after it happens, not before. But if you look at the maps of all their yearly predictions, it shows only warming.
This has rendered them utterly useless to farmers, for example, who no longer use NOAA information to plan ahead. I use their predictions only for humor.
The release of this version is very brave. If there are any incriminating emails that imply the data was influenced by anything but observations…
Well, Climategate took place just before Copenhagen.
NOAA scientists are very brave.
I’ve often wondered if the climate emails (I refuse to call it ‘climategate’) were released by Russian hackers. Since they have even more of an axe to grind this time, maybe MCourtney will be right. Jeez, that’ll be a first, MCourtney! 🙂
Unlikely the Russians. Russia Today strongly pitches Global Warming. Russia wants the West to stop fracking and mining coal and destroy our economies. The Russian government would not let climatgate emails slow down our rush to suicide…
Bob,
There is no reason to expect that the rise in May relative to last year (and the record level) is due to the new version. Here is a table of the differences between successive May’s since 2000:
The changes are minor compared to the amount (0.08°C) by which May 2015 exceeded May 2014, the previous record in both old and new.
Oh yes, I believe instrument data to be so precise as to make this observation solid as granite. (rolls eyes)
HadNMAT in, hazmat out. (NOAA’s Arc.)
it’s all about reinforcing the Pope’s Encyclical. here’s another example:
16 June: Phys.org: A third of the world’s biggest groundwater basins are in distress
Two new studies led by UC Irvine using data from NASA Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment satellites show that civilization is rapidly draining some of its largest groundwater basins, yet there is ***little to no accurate data about how much water remains in them.
The result is that significant segments of Earth’s population are consuming groundwater quickly ***without knowing when it might run out, the researchers conclude. The findings appear today in Water Resources Research.
***”Available physical and chemical measurements are simply insufficient,” said UCI professor and principal investigator Jay Famiglietti, who is also the senior water scientist at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory. “Given how quickly we are consuming the world’s groundwater reserves, we need a coordinated global effort ***to determine how much is left.”…
http://phys.org/news/2015-06-world-biggest-groundwater-basins-distress.html
***how did the above vague observations end up as dire warnings in the world’s MSM?
A third of world’s aquifers are being sucked dry: NASA data – Reuters
New NASA data show how the world is running out of water – WaPo
Study: A Third of Global Groundwater Basins Are Overstressed – New York Times
Many of the world’s water basins are being depleted, studies find – Los Angeles Times
The global warming scam has become a multi-billion dollar industry. All the beneficiaries of that scam realise that as soon as one of them says there is no problem, their research funding dries up. So, what would you do?
Don’t hope for objectivity or honesty. Don’t waste time with facts or counter-arguments. A billion dollar bribe buys a lot of dishonesty.
“The integrity of Science and Truth itself have been jeopardised by the campaign to distort evidence to support man-made global warming.
Scientific method is not natural to most human beings; we are all fallible creatures with our own motives and prejudices. Science based on careful observation and experiment has been replaced by speculation based on politics and computer models”
Even if God intervened and gave advice regarding these folks, you’d just see an updated version of 1 Samual Chapter 8. About 3,000 years ago +/-.
Some today might call it call the Joseph Goebbels Effect of a lie told often enough becomes truth but thousands of years of history proving the “elites” always win. Sometimes I think their all Social Dawinists. This will not end well.
Just honest climate results, that’s all.
But wait, there’s more!!!
Buy this line of BS now, and receive an all expense paid trip to Paris (for us, not you), polar bear extinction, and ocean acidification – all totally FREE!!!*
.
.
.
.
*By free we mean at excruciatingly high taxpayer expense.
Offer not good on WUWT.
????????????
In Figure 1, the data could be divided in to two parts, namely prior to 1995-2000 and after 1995-2000. These two segments present two horizontal fits with a jump at 1995-2000. Year to year variation is a common feature.
Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy
I don’t see how you get two horizontal fits for the periods 1979-1994 and 2001 – present. Using the latest NOAA data from their site, the trend from Jan 1979 to Dec 1994 is 0.08C/dec. From Jan 1995 to Dec 2000 the trend is actually slightly slower, at 0.07C/dec. Since Jan 2001, the trend in the NOAA data is now +0.13C/dec.
The full trend in the latest NOAA data since 1979 is 0.15C/dec, which is in good agreement with all the other surface data sets and just fractionally warmer than the satellites.
So you take the best quality data you have – reasonably accurate thermometers – and feed it into a black box that uses (we assume) much lower quality data to adjust it.
How do we know it’s lower quality data? Because otherwise you would use that data for your evidence.
And somehow the resulting data is more accurate?
Seriously, are there no climate scientists out there that will call foul on this?
Yes, and you will find many of them here and on other blog sites.
Here is a short list of people with a little bit of education who are willing to call the whole thing a sham, and to do so explicitly and in public:
http://www.petitionproject.org/
I know it is difficult to make definitive statements based on an overview of a situation, but here I go.
If one takes a look at the cryosphere today pictures of the northern hemisphere (see the sea ice pages) and note that vast swathes of Canada/Russia and Alaska are still under snow or ice towards the end of June compared to previous years of no snow and ice, the question is “How hot must the rest of the planet be to counteract this volume of snow and ice? I also thought that the claim was that the warming was due, in part, to warmer Arctic temperatures – really?
Steve T
Thank you SteveT for giving me the opportunity to slip in a question to the experts here on one of the cryosphere today charts , on the sea ice ref page , that i find a bit puzzling.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.arctic.png
On the chart there are 4 visually distinguishable sections :
1979- 1997 (approx) : mean positive anomaly , and large variation in max and min both on seasonal basis and year – to year
1997-2007: gradually reducing sea ice , but variations, seasonal and annual are much reduced
2007-2013: constant negative mean sea ice anomaly , but increased variations , like 1979-1997
2013 – present : mean sea ice increasing , and variations , once again , much reduced .
Is this change in he noise which seems visually so obvious what one expects from AGW theory and are the visual observations backed up by proper analysis of the numerical data for the periods mentioned above?
I wonder what that looks like in ice volume rather than extent.
==============
And when those two charts do not look sufficiently worrisome, they can see if the ice thickness chart makes a better fit with the panic mongering of the day.
Hey Steve, I think you missed this:
Note: snow cover data not updating … we hope to have a new data source by July, 2015.
Accepted, hook line and siker, by all alarmists here in Australia. The SBS is pushing that “The Australian Govn’t has accepted The Pope’s challenge.
sorry, but NOAA’s bag of digits do not deserve to be called data any more. Call it a result.
Or a forgery.
Or just bullshit.
It has not deserved to be called data since they began “adjusting” it. Post “adjustment”, we are dealing with an estimate of what the data might have been had they been collected timely from properly selected, calibrated, sited, installed and maintained instruments; or, perhaps, an estimate of what someone believes the data should have been.
It isn’t science any more, it is Data Tayloring. The product being a propaganda cover cloth…
To all three above^:
Yes, yup, and I agree.
It’s incredibly amusing how they claim we know the temperature to point-zero-whatever degrees, then release a new set of data that adjusts the temperatures by more than that amount, and get away with it! We ought to claim the error bars are the deltas between the raw data and the “most adjusted” data set. Every time TPTB mess with the raw data, the error bars would then get worse.
Error bars?
What error bars?
We no have no error bars!
WE DON’T NEED NO STINKING ERROR BARS!
The perform the calculations numerous times using different methods, and thus, by the law of climate statistics, crappy data becomes a highly precise result with 97% confidence level of being so accurate it can be regarded as factual. No one puts error bars on facts.
I found this chart the other day…
Then I went back and found this one on NASA’s page…
http://dsx.weather.com/util/image/w/nasa-may-2015-temp-anoms.jpg?v=at&w=980&h=551&api=7db9fe61-7414-47b5-9871-e17d87b8b6a0
How can May 2015 be hotter than May 2014? It appears that there is a drop from ’14 to ’15 according to their chart.
Why would you use an anomaly chart with a 1951-1980 baseline?
“How can May 2015 be hotter than May 2014? It appears that there is a drop from ’14 to ’15 according to their chart”
Easy. The past was always adjusted up too much, and so has to be adjusted down, and the present is always measured too low and so has to be adjusted up. Every couple of years the entire past gets adjusted lower than it was measured, and the present becomes the warmest ever. Brilliant, really.
The real artistry is achieved with the timing; or speed with which the adjustments are made. Just slightly faster than the speed of smell.
Kenny, there have always been differences between the monthly data from NOAA and GISS.
I have the impression that there are also always differences between monthly data from NOAA and monthly data from NOAA.
The skeptics own this one.
Let me explain.
Last year, NOOA claimed the “HOTTEST year ever!”
Everybody went on about 0.03 degrees or 0.08 degrees, and its a 38% probability or a 31% probability, with error bars. And that became the story, except it did not. Popular opinion was that that it was what we call “inside baseball” all the way. The press reports was that “hotter is hotter” and that is what was reported. Nobody wanted to hear about some people talking about a 38% Probability.
They were never called out on adjusting the data.
They were never called out on fixing the data.
They were never called out on tampering the data.
They were allowed to get away with it last time, and they are doing it again. It is way too late to say that the data was tampered from 2013 to 2014 to 2015. They have been progressively tampering the data since the 1980’s.
It is way past time to call a halt to the surface record, and call it what it is.
Thanks Bob
So….NOAA is saying we won’t know what the temperature is right now….for at least another decade
Latitude, excellent point… and exactly what I said next week in my lecture on time travel.
OK, that made me laugh out loud. Today has been a long week.
That’s right; look at it from their point of view, if it gets cooler or remains the same in the next few years all previous temperatures will have been found to be over-estimated and will need to be adjusted down to reflect what every simpleton knows. The world is getting warmer.
Historical months and years may differ from what was reported in previous reports.
NSS. You don’t say. Well, at least they admit they are modifying the data.
Get your data, get your new data here! Now with added warming!
NOAA has now rationalized their re-write of history, all nice and open and legal….and utterly ignoring reality at the cost of their integrity.
What I find interesting is that the National Climate Data Center (NCDC) changed its name to the National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI). Notice that they got rid of the word “Climate” from their name. It seems that climate in now a bad word, esp. for Republican Congressmen working on the budget. In the proposed FY2016 markup coming out of Congress, *climate* research funding has been cut in favor of increased funding for *weather* research. You don’t have to be a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.
Mumbles McGuirck on June 19,
2015 at 5:21 am
What I find interesting is that the National Climate Data Center (NCDC) changed its name to the National Centers
for Environmental Information
(NCEI).
_____
interesting, yes – downscaled from NCDC to NCEI:
from providing the nation with Climate Data
to, first glance, an mere in/outlet of the EPA.
Thanks – Hans
At what point does this kind of data adjusting/fudging/tampering rise to the level of scientific misconduct? Can any reasonable person conclude that there was no bias, no predetermined result? Climate science: measure it with a micrometer, mark it with a piece of chalk and split it with an axe… then, “Oh, look!”
Or, more accurately, mark it with chalk, split it with an axe and THEN measure with a micrometer. As for the pause-that-wasn’t, it was always worse than we thought… We just didn’t know it till now.
And don’t forget to ” beat to fit , paint to match”….(8>))
BTF PTM – for those in the know. Avoids scaring the uninitiated.
Taken together with the Popes Encyclical itys official – CAGW is a religion. It is entirely self evident becasue iot is self referenced. There is man made global warming therefore all man made data must reflect that it is entirely logical to the Mobius Mind.
BTW 400 years since Galileo was hounded and imprisoned. You might think they would use their God given intelligence to read and understand history’s memo.
I have been highly skeptical for the past 10 or 20 years, I don’t know recall when I actually started paying much attention but I think I am a fully fledged denier now. Actually I will pull back a bit, 100% is a bit much. I am 97% confident that CAGW is 97% a crock.
You can just look also at Hadsst3 temps for may : warmest on record by far.
NASA are the Pope’s accompanists or vice versa. Ellen Stofan is quoted in both pieces below, which i find amusing, even if her second appearance involves an April quote:
16 June: UK Daily Mail: Richard Gray: Our scorched Earth in 2100: Nasa maps reveal how climate change will cause temperatures to soar
Nasa has released 11 terabytes of data predicting temperature and rainfall
A map released by Nasa shows large areas in July 2100 will exceed 45°C
Scroll down for an interactive map
***Ellen Stofan, chief scientist at Nasa, said: ‘Nasa is in the business of taking what we’ve learned about our planet from space and creating new products that help us all safeguard our future.
‘With this new global dataset, people around the world have a valuable new tool to use in planning how to cope with a warming planet…
EVEREST’S GLACIERS TO VANISH …
For those with the computing power and hard drive space, the data can be downloaded here (LINK)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3125113/Earth-2100-Nasa-maps-reveal-world-need-adapt-rising-temperatures-caused-climate-change.html
don’t believe for a second that the following is not being ramped up of late, especially by NASA, as part of the CAGW scare-them-out-of-their-wits tactics. yesterday, it was just Grunsfeld and Stofan in a HuffPo piece by Nitya Rajan – “Former NASA Astronaut Say ‘Aliens Probably Know We Exist’” – today it’s an even bigger NASA cast! MSM are such CAGW tools:
19 June: UK Daily Mail: Mark Prigg: There IS alien life out there: Nasa administrator says he believes we are not alone in the universe
Charles Frank Bolden Jr., the Administrator of Nasa confirmed he believes there is life outside of Earth.
Facing readers from First News for the newspaper’s Hotseat show on Sky News, he was asked if he believed in aliens by 10-year-old Carmen Dearing.
‘I do believe that we will someday find other forms of life or a form of life, if not in our solar system then in some of the other solar systems – the billions of solar systems in the universe, he said…
It comes just days after former astronaut, John Grunsfeld, said that aliens may spot humans from afar from the changes we’ve made to Earth’s environment.
‘We put atmospheric signatures that guarantee someone with a large telescope 20 light years away could detect us,’ said Grunsfeld at the Astrobiology Science Conference in Chicago.
‘If there is life out there, intelligent life, they’ll know we’re here…
Grunsfeld who is now associate administrator for Nasa’s Science Mission Directorate, added: ‘Are we alone?’ is the biggest driving question.’
***In April, Nasa’s chief scientist Ellen Stofan we could find evidence of extraterrestrial life in 20 to 30 years.
‘We know where to look, we know how to look, and in most cases we have the technology.’
Jeffery Newmark, interim director of heliophysics at the agency, added: ‘It’s definitely not an if, it’s a when.’…
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3130345/There-alien-life-Nasa-administrator-says-believes-not-universe.html
most people would know the alien life being talked about is microbial, but there are plenty who are seeing little green men in all this talk.
as Ronald Reagan said in a 1987 speech at the United Nations, in part:
“In our obsession with antagonisms of the moment, we often forget how much unites all the members of humanity. Perhaps we need some outside, universal threat to make us recognize this common bond. I occasionally think how quickly our differences worldwide would vanish if we were facing an alien threat from outside this world.”
A map released by Nasa shows large areas in July 2100 will exceed 45°C.
____
Guess – NASA plans model scaled Venus explorer simulation grounds with ever expandable heating adaption.
Halfreality scalable CAGW scenarios – for education and family sightseeing.
Great of NASA. Hans
John Grunsfeld,
said that aliens may spot humans from afar from the changes we’ve made to Earth’s environment.
‘We put atmospheric signatures that guarantee someone with a large telescope 20 light years away could detect us,’
____
can’ believe a NASA astronaut argumenting that stupid – neither the 20 lys nor the environmemtal signs:
since 100 ys we do radio communications.
Wer’e detecteble up a 100 lightyears radius Sphere.
No environmental signatures needed – contrary: never ever again can we shelter under a whatsoever ‘natural’ enviroment.
Hans
our sole / technical / existence expands year after year: lightyear to lightyear.
to whomever that concerns.
And no coming ‘icons forbidders’ able to erade our remnants.
____
That blog ever gets, say, remarkable. Hans
Even with the most recent raising of global ocean surface temperatures in the period of 1998-2014 by NOAA in a failed attempt to hide the global climate hiatus , there is little global land warming happening since 2005. Global and Northern Hemisphere, land area temperature anomalies during the last 10 years show a flat or slightly negative or cooling trend of -0.02 C /decade and -0.05/ C/decade respectively according to NOAA own Climate at A Glance data. In North America, Contiguous US annual temperature anomalies show a negative or cooling trend since 2005 at 0.69 F/decade. A similar pattern appears to be in Canada where 7 out of 11 climate regions show declining annual temperature departures since 1998; one is flat and 3 show warming from the. In other words 70 % of North American climate regions are not experiencing global warming but cooling. So how could global warming be generating all these extreme weather events on land when there is no global warming happening on land globally.
The whole IPCC charade is based on:
CO2 forcing increasing the GHE
Supposedly this will cause more moisture and amplify the effect of water vapor leading to a warmer atmosphere
Yet, they cannot find any warming in the atmosphere
The only thing that can heat the ocean is sunlight due to the physical properties of water.
Ergo, NOAA pointing to increased SST just proves it is the sun, not CO2 and there is no AGW.
Bob
Did you notice that they have eliminated the ONI version of the 2014/2015 El Nino with their ERSSTv4 and modified all the ONI data going back to 1950. This is the fourth time they have made changes to the El Nino status or projections . . Early 2014 they said there would be a strong El Nino in 2014. For the 2014 YEAR Report they claimed there was no El Nino effect on their 2014 temperatures and no EL Nino existed in 2014 , but there was an El Nino during the latter part of the year and there was a major effect on 2014 temperatures . Then early in 2015 they declared an El Nino from Oct /2014 to April 2015. .Now with ERSSTv4 , they again eliminate the El Nino. One gets the impression that they just play with the figures to suit the political needs of the day and no one calls them to task for the bad science they project to the public.
Wow. Thanks, Herkimer. I hadn’t come across that yet. How funny. Now you see it, now you don’t.
Has anyone independently – and by that I mean someone not of the alarmist cult – audited what NOAA does to its temperature statistics?
Very simply, is the methodology they use to manipulate/torture data scientifically and statistically logical, and perhaps most important of all, is it replicable?
The UK Global Warming Policy Foundation recently began such a study. http://www.tempdatareview.org/
A well known fact:
If you torture numbers long enough, they’ll tell you anything you want them to.
“overcooked” ?
That’s like saying a bank robber committed an overdraft.
Regarding Bob’s Figure 2 above, In May of 2009 all the trends for GISS, HADCRUT3, GISS, NOAA all fell on top of one another. UAH with just a little less of a trend was the odd one at the time. I have the old file if anyone wants it.
It has been the past climate record that generally ocean surface temperatures drive or lead the land temperatures . But , starting with 2005-2015 period where ocean temperatures were adjusted up by a factor of 2, via the latest fudging of Ocean temperatures via ERSST.v4 , the ocean SST’s are rising but global land temperatures are slightly dropping or flat . NOAA may fool the public with all their number gyrations , but you cant fool Mother Nature. As this decades evolves further, it does not matter what the temperatures are altered to , people are going to feel the colder weather and clearly know that global warming is not happening . All the signs point to a cold winter again like the last one and this translates to a colder year , particularly the first 6 months . The YEAR TO DATE FIGURE (JAN-MAY) for CONTIGUOUS US is dropping at -0.73F/ decade since 1998
This kind of nonsense is only going to get worse and more frequent as the Paris Climate Conference in December fast approaches … such is the determination by these alarmists to do anything to ensure an agreement is signed in Paris restricting fossil fuel energy use and with the aim of eliminating it altogether by the rune of the century.
For the sceptics to combat this government funded propaganda, it is a David versus Goliath battle. And I just pray David wins again.
NOAA claims, that:-
(A) The annual global surface temperature of 1997 is 62.45°F (16.92°C).
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/1997/13
(B) The annual global surface temperature of 2014 is 0.74°C above the 20th century average global surface temperature.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2015/5/supplemental/page-3
(C) The 20th century average global surface temperature is 13.9°C.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2014/13
By any normal reckoning, the annual global surface temperature which NOAA reports for 1997 is at least 2.28°C higher than the annual global surface temperature which NOAA reports for 2014. The trouble is, it is impossible to verify any of claims (A), (B), and (C), should any of them happen to be true, and it is impossible to falsify any of claims (A), (B), and (C), should any of them happen to be false. How many angels are dancing on top of the Empire State Building at this very moment? As many as you like, because however many angels you claim are dancing on top of the Empire State Building at this very moment, nobody can actually prove your claim is false.
The sublime beauty of Karl et al. is that it puts obvious lie to the worn canard that “the science is settled.”
Well of course the science is settled. It is the data that is unsettled.
I think the satellite data which is much more objective and supported by the state of the art temperature system put into the U.S.A in 2008, along with radiosonde data and independent weather companies such as Wx. Bell Inc. is the data one has to go with.
I say this because the government has an agenda to keep AGW theory alive and of course in order to promote that agenda they are in turn going to have to have the data support AGW as much as is possible and that is what seems to be happening with all of their adjustments. I might also add THE adjustments always magnify the rate of warming as we proceed forward and never in reverse.
In addition ,it does not make sense that all adjustments they make to the data always lend support to the idea that AGW is real and still going on when all of the other data shows no such occurrence is taking place.
Bottom line is that if there really was any warming to speak of, the satellites would pick it up and be used since it covers the earth more completely than land based measurements and is less prone to errors or requiring adjustments based on a hundred different things.
That is actually the complete opposite of reality.
http://www.remss.com/measurements/upper-air-temperature
Bob, thanks for your usual thorough analysis and documentation.
I was surprised to see in your graph comparing global surface temperature products that UAH v6 appears to show 2010 eclipsing 1998 as the warmest year on record. When I look at the numbers I see 1998 anomaly is 0.48C and 2010 is 0.35C. Even at the level of the first several months of the year, 2010 doesn’t show higher anomalies except for a slightly higher March.
As far as I can see, 1998 is still the peak in the UAH global record. Of course, if you use US48 or US49 1998 is surpassed.
NOAA/NCEI: “Historical months and years may differ from what was reported in previous reports”
This methodological statement should be NCEI’s proud motto.
And since CO2CAGW aka “[CO2-]Climate Change” has been so recently elevated by the Pope to full Religious status, it would seem appropriate at this time to ask, “Can I get me a witness…..Can I get a witness?” / Marvin Gaye
There is no question in my mind that with Paris coming up 2015 will be the ‘warmest year on record’ no matter what the real situation is and there are plenty of people willing to do ‘what ever it takes’ to make it so.
It is just a shame I cannot find any bookies who would take this bet , has even they know it is a ‘done deal’
The only real question is by how much will it be the ‘ ‘warmest year on record’ are they going to get greedy and come up with a big number or come up with a number that may give them headlines but in reality is meaningless given the error margins involved?
Pick a card and place your bets folks.
From your animation it looks like they stuck the thumbtack into the record at 1995 and rotated counterclockwise, cooling the past a bit more and warming the present. Keep your eye on 1995 and watch the peaks move above and below that.
Didn’t we just have the wettest May on record in the U.S.? Rain comes from clouds. Cloudy days are cooler than sunny days. How can anybody in their right mind think that May was record hot? At least regarding the United States. These announcements of record heat remind me of all the propaganda that the economy is roaring back. Same lie.
Bob:
Haven’t you ever noticed that clouds also make nights warmer?
Ave temps are …. well …. the min + max dived by two.
You can have warm ave temps from the min side of the equation.
I am quite worried about the coming winter already, I have been keeping a fire to stay warm at night for say 7 nights in May and now 2 nights thus far in June. 100 miles north of NYC. Another oddity is we had a very late end to winter and spring was dry in April, not particularly warm for April either, now, I am reading of reports of snow and ice all over NH, Greenland stuck in ice, Norway snow covered, SH winter raging in FALL down under…. Hottest MAY evah ! Really? Where? Where is all the heat? Both hemispheres have winter conditions happening! Yes the general public IS rejecting CAGW alarmism faster and faster as the Earth refuses to obey models. Another clue to coming winter is the Mountain Laurel bloom, which has traditionally blossom peaked by the 22nd of June (like clockwork on our mountain) this year it has already peaked and was in full bloom by the 9th of June. I do not know if this means anything but I must say it is most notable for the locals here who observe these things.
It appears the monsoonal flows are also starting early this year. Its going to be an interestingly short summer for most of the US. The wet flows are even engaging over Europe. All things are pointing to a very snowy and clod winter for us in the Northern Hemisphere.
GEORGE NAY TOWHOWCON
All the signs point to a cold winter again 2015/2016 like the last one and this translates to a cold year 2016 in North America , particularly the first 6 months . The YEAR TO DATE FIGURE (JAN-MAY) for CONTIGUOUS US is dropping at -0.73F/ decade since 1998 . The warm ‘blob’ of surface SST off the north west coast of North America is still there and this could mean that the jet stream may again be diverted further south dragging the POLAR VORTEX over Canada and cold weather to US also . Don’t count on NOAA to advise you on this as they seem to have a fixation on global warming news only( as it appears to me at least) instead of helping the public to prepare and plan for the colder weather that may be coming in their own country.
Yes indeed Herkimer, read your thought up thread earlier today. I keep wondering how can the most of North America be trending cooler (colder) and no where else (for sake of argument) my reasoning mind tells me that cold air is running amok over the NH and the earth spinning can not be a static phenomena, there must be more cold happening than over my back yard! Anyways, I am putting up extra wood…..
Remember how damn cold it was in the 50’s and 70’s?
Bundle up folks.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/daily_ao_index/JFM_season_ao_index.shtml
“NOAA/NCEI: “Historical months and years may differ from what was reported in previous reports”
Much more succinctly: YMMV… (“your mileage may vary”, for those unfamiliar with social acronyms…)
This entire agenda driven “science” (or “seance,” to be completely forthright) reminds me of the Cold War era and a famous joke from the Soviet Union: “The future is known with certainty. It’s the past that keeps changing.”
The Soviet Union was famous for editing out photos of people close to rulers, such a Stalin, who were later found guilty of crimes in show trials, only after having been lionized earlier by rulers, such at Stalin. Anyone recall, for example, the biologist Lysenko? Who’s political privilege and avoidance of actual empirical testing set back Soviet science for more than half a century? And resulted in the deaths of millions of people through famine?
Yes, the late physician turned king of the techno-novel, Michael Crichton, noticed this same dangerous folly in the global warming crusade in the past decade. He wrote about it in “State of Fear” in 2004.
Sadly, the valuable “Appendix” entitled “Why Politicized Science is Dangerous” seems to be no longer available at the author’s website. It contains a crucial lesson from history, being repeated this year, these months, today, over global warming – exactly as Crichton feared it was.
Therefore, please allow me to quote his essay at some length. (And I invite Anthony or the mods to elevate the entire essay by Michael Crichton as a new post, here; it is called for.)
“A second example of politicized science [after eugenics] is quite different in character, but it exemplifies the hazard of government ideology controlling the work of science, and of uncritical media promoting false concepts. Trofim Denisovich Lysenko was a self-promoting peasant who, it was said, “solved the problem of fertilizing the fields without fertilizers and minerals.” In 1928 he claimed to have invented a procedure called vernalization, by which seeds were moistened and chilled to enhance the later growth of crops.
“Lysenko’s methods never faced a rigorous test, but his claim that his treated seeds passed on their characteristics to the next generation represented a revival of Lamarckian ideas at a time when the rest of the world was embracing Mendelian genetics. Josef Stalin was drawn to Lamarckian ideas, which implied a future unbounded by hereditary constraints; he also wanted improved agricultural production. Lysenko promised both, and became the darling of a Soviet media that was on the lookout for stories about clever peasants who had developed revolutionary procedures.
“Lysenko was portrayed as a genius, and he milked his celebrity for all it was worth. He was especially skillful at denouncing these opponents. He used questionnaires from farmers to prove that vernalization increased crop yields, and thus avoided any direct tests. Carried on a wave of state-sponsored enthusiasm, his rise was rapid. By 1937, he was a member of the Supreme Soviet.
“By then, Lysenko and his theories dominated Russian biology. The result was famines that killed millions, and purges that sent hundreds of dissenting Soviet scientists to the gulags or the firing squads. Lysenko was aggressive in attacking genetics, which was finally banned as “bourgeois pseudoscience” in 1948. There was never any basis for Lysenko’s ideas, yet he controlled Soviet research for thirty years. Lysenkoism ended in the 1960s, but Russian biology still has not entirely recovered from that era.
“Now we are engaged in a great new theory [like eugenics and Lysenkosim] that once again has drawn the support of politicians, scientists, and celebrities around the world. Once again, the theory is promoted by major foundations. Once again, the research is carried out at prestigious universities. Once again, legislation is passed and social programs are urged in its name. Once again, critics are few and harshly dealt with.
“Once again, the measures being urged have little basis in fact or science. Once again, groups with other agendas are hiding behind a movement that appears high-minded. Once again, claims of moral superiority are used to justify extreme actions. Once again, the fact that some people are hurt is shrugged off because an abstract cause is said to be greater than any human consequences. Once again, vague terms like sustainability and generational justice — terms that have no agreed definition — are employed in the service of a new crisis.
“I am not arguing that global warming is the same as eugenics. But the similarities are not superficial. And I do claim that open and frank discussion of the data, and of the issues, is being suppressed. Leading scientific journals have taken strong editorial positions of the side of global warming, which, I argue, they have no business doing. Under the circumstances, any scientist who has doubts understands clearly that they will be wise to mute their expression.
“One proof of this suppression is the fact that so many of the outspoken critics of global warming are retired professors. These individuals are not longer seeking grants, and no longer have to face colleagues whose grant applications and career advancement may be jeopardized by their criticisms.
“In science, the old men are usually wrong. But in politics, the old men are wise, counsel caution, and in the end are often right.
“The past history of human belief is a cautionary tale.”
SOURCE
https://www.msu.edu/course/lbs/332/bellon/R0124b.pdf
+100
Surely we need an Annual Trofim Lysenko Award for Climate Science, retroactive to 2010 (at least – maybe earlier as some “big” names could feel slighted):
2010 James Hansen
2011 Michael Mann
2012 Phil Jones
2013 Kevin “Travesty” Trenberth
2014 Naomi Oreskes
2015 I think we already have a winner !!!!!
which adds to the whole NSA CIA emotionation:
The gods did and do see us everytime / everywhere – undeleteable. Catholics always knew.
____
upon the shoulders of Odin sit the ravens Hugin and Munin, archetypes of espionage:
Meinung und Wissen: opinion and knowing.
Sometimes they start over the world, gathering peoples minds and sayings.
prototype indogermanic drone concepts.
Returned they whisper last achieved informations into Odins ears.
Odin never needed atmospheric signatures – Hans
btw – Odin’s now 2000 lightyears ahead / beyond us.
full stop. Hans.
M Simon on June 19, 2015
at 11:02 am
Well of course the science is settled. It is the data that is unsettled.
____
so the AGW climate modelling is to be done 2 step:
1st: halfautomated mancraft data preprocessing /up;
followed by
2nd: full speed algorithmic modelled warmth acceleration.
advanced technics in the means of decarbonizating the planet backwards pasture times – low technics, shaman medicin and juvenile live ends.
I just adjusted my picks for a Power Ball lottery drawing two months ago (very slightly and only one or two numbers up and down, resulting in a net zero adjustment, i.e. no adjustment at all – totally mathematically defensible) And guess what! I won $200,000,000 (hey… where is my money…? hello Power Ball people…? hello?….)
So the pause in Arctic Ice melt will be similarly disappeared when?
https://www2.ucar.edu/atmosnews/news/5124/arctic-ice-melt-could-pause-near-future-then-resume-again
By the way, we are creeping up on the 10 year limit noted in the link, if not already there. That limit was set by the models, indicating that a pause in ice decrease should change back to its continued melting state after 10 years. I think betting against this limit will be a pretty good bet. Unless, of course, it is disappeared. Betting that it will be disappeared is also a pretty good bet.
Lying about temperature anomalies is one thing, but lying about Arctic ice extent could lead to jail time for manslaughter if a ship were to sink because of it.
I actually think a group of researchers have been selected to pour over the satellite data regarding the fuzzy ice edge issue and have been given marching orders to desperately, quickly, and with due emergency come up with a “correction for known satellite biases” in the historical data set.
Don’t suppose another group is busy looking at the AO for a “reconstruction”?
The models indicate that anthropogenic warming will force the AO to have a slightly positive trend. “Based on computer-model results and physical reasoning, scientists have expected the global increase in greenhouse gases to foster a slightly positive AO trend over the coming century.”
https://www2.ucar.edu/news/backgrounders/weather-maker-glossary
But the trend has been negative since 1990.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/daily_ao_index/JFM_season_ao_index.shtml
It’s almost as if, since recalcitrant humans refuse to be deprogrammed of anthropogenic global warming skepticism, AGW scientists are now going after recalcitrant data for deprogramming.
…and Josh so needs to cartoon this.
Do they get bonuses and travel perks for this contribution to over-reach policy fraud? I think it violates the RICO Act.