Avalanches of global warming alarmism at #COP23

Foreword by Paul Driessen:

As the COP23 climate conference wraps up in Bonn, amid even more alarms than usual about Earth’s climate and weather, it is vital that we take a deep breath – and ponder the far less dramatic REALITY that what has been said in Bonn bears virtually no resemblance to what is actually happening on Planet Earth … or is likely to happen in the future because of mankind’s use of fossil fuels to power modern civilization.

In this article, climate experts Tim Ball and Tom Harris offer a timely, scientific assessment of what we know – and do not know – about Earth’s climate, and human influences on that climate. You will find it refreshing, reassuring and a valuable education on important aspects of climate science.


Avalanches of global warming alarmism

UN climate cataclysm predictions have no basis in fact and should not be taken seriously

Protesters at COP23 on November 4th. Image via AFP by SASCHA SCHUERMANN

Guest essay by Dr. Tim Ball and Tom Harris

Throughout the United Nations Climate Change Conference wrapping up in Bonn, Germany this week, the world has been inundated with the usual avalanche of manmade global warming alarmism. The UN expects us to believe that extreme weather, shrinking sea ice, and sea level rise will soon become much worse if we do not quickly phase out our use of fossil fuels that provide over 80% of the world’s energy.

There is essentially nothing to support these alarms, of course. We simply do not have adequate observational data required to know or understand what has happened over the past century and a half. Meaningful forecasts of future climate conditions are therefore impossible.

Nevertheless, this year’s session has been especially intense, since the meeting is being chaired by the island nation of Fiji, a government that has taken climate change fears to extremes.

COP23 (the 23rd meeting of the Conference of the Parties on climate change) conference president, Fijian Prime Minister Frank Bainimarama, has called for “an absolute dedication to meet the 1.5-degree target.” This is the arbitrary and most stringent goal suggested by the Paris Agreement. In support of Bainimarama’s position, the COP23/Fiji Website repeatedly cites frightening forecasts made by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

One prediction stated: “The IPCC recently reported that temperatures will significantly increase in the Sahel and Southern African regions, rainfall will significantly decrease, and tropical storms will become more frequent and intense, with a projected 20 per cent increase in cyclone activity.”

To make such dire forecasts, the IPCC relies on computerized models built on data and formulas to represent atmospheric conditions, and reflect the hypothesis that carbon dioxide is the principal factor driving planetary warming and climate change.

However, we still do not have a comprehensive, workable “theory of climate,” and thus do not have valid formulas to properly represent how the atmosphere functions. We also lack data to properly understand what weather was like over most of the planet even in the recent past. Without a good understanding of past weather conditions, we have no way to know the history, or the future, of average weather conditions – what we call the climate.

An important data set used by the computer models cited by the IPCC is the “HadCRUT4” global average temperature history for the past 167 years. This was produced by the Hadley Centre and the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit, both based in the United Kingdom.

Until the 1960s, HadCRUT4 temperature data were collected using mercury thermometers located at weather stations situated mostly in the United States, Japan, the UK, and eastern Australia. Most of the rest of the planet had very few temperature sensing stations, and none of the Earth’s oceans (which cover 70% of the planet) had more than occasional stations separated from the next ones by thousands of kilometers of no data. Temperatures over these vast empty areas were simply “guesstimated.”

Making matters even worse, data collected at weather stations in this sparse grid had, at best, an accuracy of +/-0.5 degrees Celsius (0.9 degrees F), and oftentimes no better than +/-1.0 degree C. Averaging such poor data in an attempt to determine past or future global conditions cannot yield anything meaningful – and certainly nothing accurate or valid enough to use in making critical energy policy decisions.

Modern weather station surface temperature data are now collected using precision thermocouples. But, starting in the 1970s, less and less ground surface temperature data was used for plots such as HadCRUT4. Initially, this was done because governments believed satellite monitoring could take over from most of the ground surface data collection.

However, the satellites did not show the warming that climate activists and computer models had forecast. So, bureaucrats closed many of the colder rural surface temperature sensing stations, while many stations in the vast frigid area of Siberia were closed for economic and other reasons. The net result was that cold temperature data disappeared from more recent records – thereby creating artificial warming trends, the very warming that alarmists predicted, desired and needed for political purposes.

Today, we have virtually no data for approximately 85% of the Earth’s surface. Indeed, there are fewer weather stations in operation now than there were in 1960.

That means HadCRUT4 and other surface temperature computations after about 1980 are meaningless. Combining this with the sensitivity (accuracy) problems in the early data, and the fact that we have almost no long-term data above Earth’s surface, the conclusion is unavoidable:

It is not possible to know how or whether Earth’s climate has varied over the past century and a half. The data are therefore useless for input to the computer models that form the basis of the IPCC’s conclusions.

But the lack of adequate surface data is only the start of the problem. The computer models on which the climate scare is based are mathematical constructions that require the input of data above Earth’s surface as well. The models divide the atmosphere into cubes piled on top of each other, ideally with wind, humidity, cloud cover and temperature conditions known for different altitudes. But we currently have even less data above the surface than on it, and there is essentially no historical data at altitude.

Many people think the planet is adequately covered by satellite observations – data that is almost global 24/7 coverage and far more accurate than anything determined at weather stations. But the satellites are unable to collect data from the north and south poles, regions that are touted as critical to understanding global warming.

Moreover, space-based temperature data collection did not start until 1979, and 30 years of weather data is required to generate a single data point on a climate graph. The satellite record is far too short to allow us to come to any useful conclusions about climate change.

In fact, there is insufficient data of any kind – temperature, land and sea ice, glaciers, sea level, extreme weather, ocean pH, et cetera – to be able to determine how today’s climate differs from the past, much less predict the future. The IPCC’s climate forecasts have no connection with the real world.

Sherlock Holmes warned that “It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.”

Sir Arthur Conan Doyle wrote this famous quote for fiction, of course. But it applies perfectly to today’s global warming debate, especially where the IPCC’s scary conclusions and forecasts are involved. Of course, this will not stop Bainimarama and other conference leaders from citing IPCC “science” in support of their warnings of future climate catastrophe.

We should use these facts to spotlight and embarrass them every time.

___________

Dr. Tim Ball is an environmental consultant and former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg in Manitoba. Tom Harris is executive director of the Ottawa, Canada-based International Climate Science Coalition.

Advertisements

265 thoughts on “Avalanches of global warming alarmism at #COP23

  1. I would be cautious quoting Conan Doyle. Although I agree with the quote, Sir Arthur did believe in fairies.

    • Point taken. However, Doyle managed to keep his supernatural fantasising out of the Sherlock Holmes books, except as anecdotal padding and the occasional allusion.

      Also, whoever said it, it’s a good statement of principle.

      • “Sherlock Holmes warned that “It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.””
        ————–

        Taking it and moving it up a further notch, theorizing outside the means of logic and rationale, without care of even the simple key words of logic and rationale, like the “if” or “and” or “or” and the rest of it all included as matter of statement, it still stands as a capital mistake and a misconception, even when data or some kind of data still available…….meaning that there is not much merit in any theory if it relies in a consensus as a means of merit, either when such consensus brutally and forcefully propagated, or simply implied indirectly or forcefully applied by merit of intricacy rooted in obfuscated or colloquially far stretched terminology…

        I still keep reading my above mind expression, and still confused, so don’t jump the gun please…:)

        cheers

      • I have a wonderful poster with Sherlock’s line showing a round dowel being “fitted” into a square hole. Lots of fitting going on these days, with little to no facts.

    • Halla ==> Doyle believed in the possibility of Fairies and other spiritual manifestations — for which, in his time, there was lots of first-hand anecdotal evidence — more evidence then for fairies than there is today for CAGW.

    • Conan Doyle would have been very popular with the media, coastal elite and Hollywood because of his beliefs.

    • Well, Tom, there are some things that humans can’t see, because we don’t have the eyesight for it. Cats and dogs, for example, can see into the ultraviolet spectrum.

      My cats have frequently chased something I can’t see, then stopped and tried to reach it on the wall. No gnats, insects or dust balls were present, therefore, i had to assume they could see something in the UV spectrum that I can’t see. I had to give it a scold and tell it to stop teasing my cats or I would banish it. That put an end to it. There’s much more peace at my little house now.

      You may be skeptical all you like – we’re all entitle to that – but Conan-Doyle believed in possibilities, as well as facts.

      • One of Ambrose Bierce’s short stories, “The Damned Thing”, takes the “colors we can’t see” conceit and runs with it.

    • Tom Halla, has it ever occurred to you that Sir Arthur may have seen fairies, thus has a right to believe in them? The fact that you haven’t seen them does not mean that they cannot or did not exist. I have never seen a fairy either, or, I should say, at least to my knowledge. Not knowing exactly what a fairy might look like does make it a bit difficult to determine, don’t you think?

      • Mayhaps we in the West are culturally conditioned to disbelieve and disregard the “fairies” (whatever they might represent) when we see them, like how we’re not supposed to laugh at puns, because it’s considered low humor. (Diehard punsters know this well and will accept the inevitable groans as the equivalent of a laugh.)

  2. Global warming is even worse for women. I just read it in the Guardian. Can’t wait to get Griff’s take.

    • I don’t have a view on that…

      I am concerned only in the reality of warming, as shown by scientific evidence.

      I will note the Guardian is always worth referring to because all its articles reporting on the science link to the science

      [ALWAYS worth referring to? That’s some broad brush of a belief – mod]

      • Guardian had a science article about some poor MOND researcher whose funding went up in smoke thanks to LIGO. Now GR isn’t quite correct but he is going to turn MOND relativistic with some new theory adjustment he hasn’t quite worked out. He has at best what we would call a thought bubble and the Guardian reports it as science and Griff thinks this is a reliable source to get science.

        At times it’s hard to say who has been more stupid with science the Guardian or Griff.

      • Griff, you are so funny.
        Grauniad “science” (just an example): “Five Pacific islands lost to rising seas as climate change hits ”
        As the old saying: a fake news + correction of the fake news, that’ two news to publish and sell…
        However, Grauniad never mentioned the “science” that Fiji do not experience any sea level rise…
        https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/11/13/fiji-flooding-is-fake-news-from-cop23/
        I wouldn’t call a media that present fake news, and fail to present real evidence, as “worth referring”, unless you mean “worth referring” as Hitler’s publication were: to know what he intended to do, not to trust it in any other matter.

      • “Guardian is always worth referring to…..”

        As comic relief?

        A bird cage liner.

        I believe it can be shredded ans used as cat litter..

        But certainly NEVER referred to on anything to do with REALITY or actual real science.

  3. “temperatures will significantly increase in the Sahel and Southern African regions”

    South Africa.. isn’t that the region where NOAA has no thermometers and massively warm the place already?

    How much more FABRICATION will be needed?

    • you can really see how much bs the homogenization really is there, its obvious that the water off the coast was a little warmer than usual, so they push that over the entire landmass, but to cover up the bs or make it look more legitimate, they must leave the actual reporting stations as correct, thus you get that single station in the congo, or wherever it is there, staying a pale red with everything surrounding it red..

      it really is pathetic. the people who write the homogenization code need to be replaced.

      • crackers

        You didn’t bother trying it, did you crackers?

        Not one station showing up from several searches of S.A. By comparison, the U.K. is littered wit them.

        Keep going troll.

      • NOAA map says NO DATA

        End of story !!

        And it would be good if you could stop running away from the data quality issue, Nick.

        I know its an issue you want to hide from, but unless you know the quality of your data, any of your little colouring-in games are meaningless.

      • The site is not conclusive (and promises more than it shows). They only show USA stations. Check Europe, where there are plenty of stations: none are shown. Zoom in on any part of the US and there are plenty, the more you zoom in. Don’t fool people with misinformation.

      • “So you’re back to saying, there is NO DATA!! And what about the quality?”

        Just saying what NOAA says. ” NO DATA”

        And since when have you been even the least bit interested in data quality ??

        Seriously !!!!

      • Barbara

        I guess that’ll mean an Under2 Coalition conference with “176 jurisdictions on six continents” sending representative along to another food and wine fest.

        The way we’re going, there will be a massive, year round climate change conference, with millions of delegates, living off taxpayers money, and then needing their families to join them as they have no home life.

        There will have to be an entire city “Conference City” devoted to them. It will have an agreeable climate, supported with free air conditioning and heating when conditions are unfavourable, free luxury board and lodgings, the finest food and wines free, and free transport when they are forced to jet off on holiday to relieve themselves from the daily conference grind. Healthcare will of course, be free and there will be no need for welfare because they are all so well paid.

        They will splinter into more numerous groups, inviting more delegates, from ever more obscure groups because they all must agree, and to facilitate that, they need more people with more disagreeable ideas. Except of course, scepticism, that will be banished.

        Maybe I’ll convert to being an alarmist, in fact………look, look, the world’s beginning to boil!

        I’m now a delegate!

  4. If Freeman Dyson is correct, and I certainly am not qualified nor inclined to disagree, the one continent on Earth that should respond to CO2-warming is Antartica. The temperature is so low that there is very little water vapor to confound the influence of CO2. I suspect that cloud formation and convective heat transfer, more confounding influences, is similarly low. CO2 in the air over the continent has surely increased as shown by measurements. following closely that of the Hawaii measurements. There are a few scattered thermometers located at scientific stations on the continent which generally show no warming. Whether they are well located for climate studies instead of outside-my-hut knowledge I do not know.

    If the protagonists are sure about their theory, why not take a big step towards proving it with an array of weather stations along the lines of the US Climate Reference Network?

    Just a thought.

    • The problem is the environment in Antarctica. When you place a station, it gets buried in ice after a few years. So you have to get creative if you want to measure air temperature at 2m above the surface by making platforms that continually raise the instruments as the ice builds up. It is somewhat more difficult than the USCRN. Then you have to get power to the instruments and the data out to the world. You would need some sort of small nuclear power unit like is on deep space probes and a transmitter that could burst transmit to passing satellites, and you need to prevent the power unit from contaminating the data with waste heat. It is quite a challenge.

    • We have at least one pristine station on Antarctica, Amundsen-Scott at the south pole, away from ocean influences. It shows a slight cooling since 1958. BEST managed to turn a slight cooling at its station 166900 into a slight warming by rejecting 26 months of extreme cold based on their ‘regional expectations’ QC algorithm. And the expectation control was McMurdo, on the sea coast 1300 km away and 2300 meters lower. If ever a station DID NOT need QC, it was the most expensive and best maintained on the planet. Footnote 26 to essay When Data Isn’t provides details with references including the BEST screen captures. Mosher really didn’t like that footnote.

    • “The temperature is so low that there is very little water vapor to confound the influence of CO2.”
      I don’t know if this is Dyson’s idea, but it is wrong. Neither CO2 nor water vapor can be regionalised like this. Mixing is far too rapid. Antarctica is not warmed by the radiation that its CO2 impedes; it is warmed by the mixed effect from around the whole earth. Just think of the speed of the winds there. CO2 warming is the product of a slight imbalance over years.

      • “Antarctica is not warmed by the radiation that its CO2 impedes”
        Well, if Antarctica isn’t, no place on Earth is, because this is where the CO2 / water ratio is most favorable to CO2, the place that the skeptic argument “radiation out are already blocked by water vapor, more CO2 add no effect” can be discarded, the place so cold that of all place on Earth it requires the smallest increase in back-radiation to have a warming effect on temperature, the place that should experience the most relative heating thanks to non water GHG.
        But you say it isn’t … how strange ….

  5. “Until the 1960s, HadCRUT4 temperature data were collected using mercury thermometers located at weather stations situated mostly in the United States, Japan, the UK, and eastern Australia. Most of the rest of the planet had very few temperature sensing stations”
    Just not true. Here (from here) is a map of the stations in GHCN V3 which were reporting in the 1920’s. I’m sure BEST and ISTI have far more:

    • You never did get around to answering this challenge did you Nick.

      You blithely just waved aside the “data quality” issue.. NOT IMPORTANT to you.

      Show us pictures of the climate stations and surrounds for 6 points

      WAITING !!

    • NS,
      The balloons are much larger than necessary to be seen easily, and tend to give the impression that coverage in the southern hemisphere is more comprehensive than it is. On the other hand, their size makes it impossible to see individual locations in Europe, and the USA, especially. This is a good example of how to lie with maps.

      • The resolution of the map is ample to show the falsity of that. But the source, that I linked to, is a Google Maps gadget. You can do all the usual shifting and zoomong. You can even click on the balloohs to bring up information, which includes a lin k to the relevant NOAA datasheet for the location. Here is an expansion for Europe:

        The USA (ConUS) is basically the familiar set of 1218 USHCN stations.

    • That’s a misleading graphic. The giant balloons make it look like there is good coverage in areas where the coverage is, in fact, poor.

      My well calibrated eyeball has it that South Africa has an area of about four of those balloons. That gives each balloon an area on the order of 300,000 square km. That’s equivalent to a square of around 500 km by 500 km. (Yes, I do realize that the map is a Mercator-like projection.)

      As it is, it is obvious that, on the map shown, and judging by the balloons, there are many places where stations are separated by more than a thousand miles. If smaller markers were used, it would be apparent how sparse stations really are on the map.

      • cB
        I’ll start with what was meant to be the intro to my comment with the Europe map
        The claim was that
        “Until the 1960s, HadCRUT4 temperature data were collected using mercury thermometers located at weather stations situated mostly in the United States, Japan, the UK, and eastern Australia. Most of the rest of the planet had very few temperature sensing stations,”

        And as I said, the resolution is enough to show the falsity of that. And as I also said, I’m snapshotting a Google maps app, which determines the balloon size. The criterion for inclusion is that there is the station started reporting before 1930 (and hadn’t stopped before 1920). Here is South Africa

    • Nick, your 1920 GHCN map does NOT refute Tony Hellers sept 2017 blink comparison just above posted by AndyG55 concerning NOAA in near real time. And it has been repeatedly been shown elsewhere that pre 1940 GHCN has been progressively cooled since about 2000. I gave several examples of others work on this (plus some of my own) in essay When Data Isn’t. You keep trying to defend the indefensible, using indefensible means.

      • Rud,
        “You keep trying to defend the indefensible”
        Seems to me you’re defending the indefensible, to wit:
        “Until the 1960s, HadCRUT4 temperature data were collected using mercury thermometers located at weather stations situated mostly in the United States, Japan, the UK, and eastern Australia. Most of the rest of the planet had very few temperature sensing stations”
        These maps show that clearly isn’t true. People complain about big balloons etc, but nothing matches the sheer falsity of that claim. As I said to AngyG, it seems the argunment here is that, Look, the data doesn’t exist, and besides, it has been adjusted.

        But as to the adjustment, you can take it or leave it. I think it is done for good reason. But I do the analysis without it, and as Mosh says, it makes very little difference.

        And on AndyG’s Heller plot, just check the date. It is Oct 13 for September data. Africa data takes a while to come in. It’s true that they are at that time interpolating using EOF’s, which is a very reasonable thing to do, since they have data from other months.. But it doesn’t represent the totality of the data, as you can clearly see from the other Africa plot (mine) that he put up. And that was also incomplete.

      • Nick doesn’t give a stuff about the quality of the data.

        He is more than happy to smear airport of urban trends over large areas due to his anti-science approach to data.
        GARBAGE IN…. MUCH GARBAGE OUT !!

      • No data is NO DATA, Nick. End of story.

        Just FABRICATE it like the rest of the AGW farce. !!

        Why the continued EVASION , Nick ?

        Show us ALL that you know where your data is coming from.

        or it is MEANINGLESS JUNK.

      • It is not necessary to have garbage in to have garbage coming out. It is more likely that Garbage OUT is due to essential data points being overlooked, being not available or being ignored.

        When something is dogmatized, the dogma will at some point become ‘conventional wisdom’ or ‘consensus reality’ and after that has happened it may be only funerals that cause the consensus dogma to become no longer accepted as reality.

      • I have asked Nick for evidence of data quality many time

        Do you deny that he is evading the issue.

        Do you deny that the lack of knowledge about the quality of the data makes his “colour-by-number” pictures nothing but pretty artwork ?

      • Perhaps YOU would like to do Nick’s quality assurance work for him…

        … as he seems totally uninterested in that part of actual science.

    • Look at all of those mercury thermometers located where the modern map indicates extremely few temperature sensors exist today.

      It seems that the earlier map claims mercury thermometers that are not owned by any weather authority.

    • The vast majority of the planet is unsampled. The temperature above the oceans at the same height as land stations is not sampled at all, and vast swaths of land surface are also not sampled.

      GASTA is a preposterous work of science fantasy.

    • Just not true:

      “For much of the SH between 40 and 60S the normals are mostly made up as there is
      very little ship data there.” ~ Phil Jones.Head of CRUT.

      You lie Nick, and everyone knows you lie and are a troll who has know interest in Science or the truth.

      • Reg,
        “You lie Nick”
        Your quote, even if it concerned data, would not affirm Tim Ball’s claim, which again was:
        “Until the 1960s, HadCRUT4 temperature data were collected using mercury thermometers located at weather stations situated mostly in the United States, Japan, the UK, and eastern Australia. Most of the rest of the planet had very few temperature sensing stations,”

        “much of the SH between 40 and 60S” is not “Most of the rest of the planet”.

        But the quote is not even about data. It is about normals, which are the estimates used to form anomalies. And they are necessarily estimates, so saying they are “mostly made up” isn’t that radical.

    • Nick ,What is your take on the longest running temperature records in the World .Two continuous records have been running from 1880 untill present .These sights are in Geneva and St Peters burg and they show no warming from 1880 till now .That’s right NONE and the 1930s and 40s show that it was warmer then than now .This cannot be explained away saying this is cherry picking as if the climate is controlled by a trace gas that is .04% of the atmosphere and the gas is well mixed then these records would show a trend .It is very obvious that temperature records have been tampered with to make earlier records show colder and recent ones running hotter with urban heat affecting many sites .’
      We will await with interest your observations .

      • Gwan,
        “Nick ,What is your take on the longest running temperature records in the World .Two continuous records have been running from 1880 untill present .These sights are in Geneva and St Peters burg and they show no warming from 1880 till now .That’s right NONE and the 1930s and 40s show that it was warmer then than now .”

        It just isn’t true. Here is the NOAA plot for Geneva. It is nothing like what you say, unadjusted or adjusted. You can read off the trends here. It doesn’t show from 1880, but the trend (unadjusted) from 1907 is 0.914 °C/Century, similar to global.

        Here is the data for St Petersburg. Again, nothing like what you say. The unadjusted trend since 1907 is actually very high, at 2.07 °C/cen.

      • “Nick, why is the raw and adjusted data identical for St Petersburg?”
        That quite often happens. It just means that no events occurred indicating a non-climate influence. I can’t see the issue with 1974?

      • The issue with 1974 is that in 2015 there was no data after 1974.
        But of course there is Final data from 1974, just no Raw data.
        But what data there is shows the 2 to be completely different.
        Unlike your graphs.

      • That was February’s data.
        I see the problem, the Raw data is not in date order as it should be, they have tacked the data from 1944 to 1975 on the end of 2015.

      • I am looking at ghcn data from 02/2015 and 04/2015 which I had already downloaded.
        I will now be able to compare it to the 2017 data.
        But the data that I have from 2015 shows a distinct difference in Raw to Final.

      • Can any readers help here .There was a post about raw temperature data recently and I cannot locate it .The post showed the two longest temperature records in the world were in Switzerland and Russia and it had a graph that showed the records with a rise in the 1940s and no warming .These records ran from 1880 untill now .

    • Stokes

      We note there are 5 stations on Greenland.

      We also not Antarctica is not in evidence. So how many stations there?

      We also not that of all the stations you plot, most of them would have been read by the tea boy, if at all.

      We also note that the article states “data collected at weather stations in this sparse grid had, at best, an accuracy of +/-0.5 degrees Celsius (0.9 degrees F), and oftentimes no better than +/-1.0 degree C.”

      So it’s not quantity, it’s quality of data that’s valuable.

  6. For the last 40 years l have had one form of real data. ln the form of keeping a record of the first winter’s snowfall during this time for the area l live in here in England.
    Looking at this data it suggest to me that here in England any warming of the winters during this time has been due to less cold weather turning up during the winter. Rather then been due to the winter season starting later.

    • I track some monthly snow data from a handful of sites in New England and daily data from home, and have some 20 years of data, see http://wermenh.com/sdd/

      My main conclusion so far is that it takes lots and lots and lots of snow data to be able to say anything meaningful about climate.

      Your area may be more stable thanks to the Atlantic, but Mark Twain declared that New England is where God tries out new kinds of weather.

      • Yes as l have only recorded the first snowfall of the winter l have been recording the weather rather then the climate. So there is a lot of noise in the data. But had there been a trend of the winter season starting later then l would have expected to seen at least some signs of it in the data. With a under laying trend of the first snow turning up later in the season. Which has not been the case.

        Here is the data in full
        77/78 21st Nov
        78/79 27th Nov
        79/80 19th Dec
        80/81 28th Nov
        81/82 8th Dec
        82/83 16th Dec
        83/84 11th Dec
        84/85 2nd Jan
        85/86 12th Nov
        86/87 21st Nov
        87/88 22nd Jan
        88/89 20th Nov
        89/90 12th Dec
        90/91 8th Dec
        91/92 19th Dec
        92/93 4th Jan
        93/94 20th Nov
        94/95 31st Dec
        95/96 17th Nov
        96/97 19th Nov
        97/98 2nd Dec
        98/99 5th Dec
        99/00 18th Nov
        00/01 30th Oct
        01/02 8th Nov
        02/03 4th Jan
        03/04 22nd Dec
        04/05 18th Jan
        05/06 28th Nov
        06/07 23rd Jan
        07/08 23rd Nov
        08/09 23rd Nov
        09/10 17th Dec
        10/11 25th Nov
        11/12 5th Dec
        12/13 27th Oct
        13/14 27th Jan
        14/15 26th Dec
        15/16 21st Nov
        16/17 18th Nov
        Please note these dates are only for my local area in North Lincolnshire and not England as a whole.

        As this data shows there has been little if any signs of the winter season starting later. Which suggests to me that any warming of the winters as been due to a decrease in cold air coming from the North or East and a increase in warmer air coming in from the Atlantic.

  7. The high correlation between Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming cultists and the Pro-Choice (e.g. selective-child) Church should not be underestimated. The conflation of logical domains has been a progressive condition in the post-normal liberal era.

    • nn

      So everyone except a pregnant woman has a say in whether she aborts the child or not?

      Is that what you’re saying?

      If so, it’s socialism in the extreme. Life determined by committee.

      • If you want to make sure that NOTHING of importance ever gets done..

        Form a committee of 20 !

        But HotScot… is it actually a committee….
        ….. or is it just the whim of someone in bureaucracy.

    • nn,

      You’re getting close to religious wing-nut territory with the comments about abortion. Women should be allowed to choose what happens to their bodies, not dictated to by a bunch of people who believe in some ancient and poorly-written fairy tales.

      Let’s stick to exposing the lie that is CAGW

      • Except it’s not just their own bodies in question. There’s a second body involved, that of the unborn.

        Killers get dinged for two murders if the victim was a pregnant woman, all the time, in every legal code I’ve ever seen. The legal personhood of the unborn is a priori assumed in this instance, but a priori rejected in the instance of an abortion decision? One or the other ought to change to address the inconsistency.

  8. All people that make use of goods and services that involve the use of fossil fuels should be banned from such meetings in the future. It is their money that is keeping the fossil fuel companies in business. They should not meet in buildings or walk on surfaces whos construction had anything to do with the use of fossil fuels. They should avoid all towns and cities whose construction made use of fossil fuels in any way. They should avoid any form of transportation that makes use of fossil fuels in any way that includes plastics and construction materials that were transported by the use of fossil fuels. They should not eat anything or wear anything that has been transported via the use of fossil fuels.

    • willhaas

      Good idea. Then the populations of developing countries could be fairly represented by poverty stricken community members who pretty well conduct themselves in precisly the manner you describe.

      I suspect we would then have a very different view of global warming.

  9. How long can all this global warming junk science last? When what they spew does not matching with what is happing in reality and rebukes real science; how long can this craziness last before alarmist either admit error or fade out. So-called scientists who keep spewing skewed data and knowingly making fraudulent claims with there cooked models should be held accountable. Their names should be remembered for the damage they have done to the field of science they represent and the damage they do in pushing a false narrative for a paycheck. NOAA should have their funding cut off for the deceit and manipulation of data they have done and the IPCC should be exposed for the politician puppets they are and dissolved.

    • It’ll keep going exactly as long as grants are written, articles published and citizens keep clicking on the alarmist fantasy crapfling.

  10. “But, starting in the 1970s, less and less ground surface temperature data was used for plots such as HadCRUT4. Initially, this was done because governments believed satellite monitoring could take over from most of the ground surface data collection.”

    Again, complete nonsense. For a start, there were no temperature indices in the 1970’s. Satellite monitoring has never been used in indices for ground data collection, and there is really no way that it could be. And the number of stations in the record peaked just before 1990. There is a simple reason for that. That is about the time the indices did start to report monthly. Initially they could use archive data, which had no constraints on time collection. Butr when you report regularly, you need stations that do the same. The CLIMAT system was organised to do that. It had a reduced number of stations, but the host countries undertook to maintain prompt reporting (which they mostly did). And that gave enough data. Many of the early stations just gave duplicate information about areas already well covered.

    • In addition to Nick’s objections, there is a bit of poor wordsmithing here. The part beginning “So, bureaucrates …” is in the wrong place.

      Initially, this was done because governments believed satellite monitoring could take over from most of the ground surface data collection.
      However, the satellites did not show the warming that climate activists and computer models had forecast. So, bureaucrats closed many of the colder rural surface temperature sensing stations, while many stations in the vast frigid area of Siberia were closed for economic and other reasons.

      The last sentence should be at the end of the preceding paragraph.

      If people believed satellite monitoring could take over, then closing some stations would make sense. Closing stations because “satellites did not show the warming …” is a very different idea and should require unrefutable documentation.

  11. “Today, we have virtually no data for approximately 85% of the Earth’s surface. Indeed, there are fewer weather stations in operation now than there were in 1960.”
    We have no data for approximately 100% of the Earth’s surface. Everywhere outside those little white boxes, or cylinders etc, is not measured. There is a temperature continuum out there, and all we can do is sample it, as with most of our knowledge of the real world. What we can do is to obtain an adequate sample, and we do. It is simply untrue that there are fewer weather stations in operation than there were in 1960. The weather stations still operate. What has happened is that people have figured out the sample they need, and data collections for that use are compiled accordingly.

    • “What has happened is that people have figured out the sample they need, and data collections for that use are compiled accordingly.”

      How do you “figure out” what you need as a sample in a non-linear dynamical system which is unpredictable beyond a few days and compile that accordingly into into a meaningful data set for input into predictive models?

      • “which is unpredictable beyond a few days and compile that accordingly into into a meaningful data set for input into predictive models?”
        The data is not used for predictive model input. It is used for compiling a global average for a period of time (usually a month). That is more nonsense in the post about input to GCM’s. They use measured data for setting up initial state, but that is deliberately done at a point well back in time. GCM’s famously don’t retain dependence on initial conditions, so they initialise as far back as possible, so data errors don’t affect the runs. Despite what people often claim here, GCMs are models, not curve fitting. They run under their own steam, so to speak. They do not input surface temperature measurements. They have nothing to fit to.

      • That is completely nonsensical. The measured data is used for compiling a global average but not for model input you say. But they use measured data for setting up initial conditions? And what would setting up initial conditions be other than data input? Do they use interpolated temperature data input into the models or do they not?

      • NS,
        You claimed, “They do not input surface temperature measurements.” You left out the tuning exercise! Also, if the Earth is under-sampled, then any estimates of the baseline average temperature, used for calculating anomalies, is unreliable. It becomes an arbitrary estimate based on what might well be biased.

      • “used for calculating anomalies”
        GCMs don’t use observations for calculating anomalies. Anomalies of data are always reletive to some average for that dataset itself – in this case, GCM data.

        As for tuning, there is a lot of arm-waving about this. In fact, the entire temperature history is never used for tuning. Occasionally some particular 30 year average may be used to tune some particular parameter.

      • I do have an obvious question Nick why don’t forward predictive control window on the models to drag them back so they track better?

    • It’s intriguing how often my weather station differs from the AWOS at the local airport (1 mile away), by up to 4F, and how often they are right in sync. Not that it matters because neither is used for the official record which uses the AWOS at an airport 25 miles away. It is frequently significantly different in terms of temperature, precipitation, wind speed and direction, cloud cover, altimeter and other (apparently) utterly non-consequential parameters.. The official figures depend absolutely on where the measurements are taken and say nothing about any other measurements that could be taken no matter how close they might be situated to the measuring point.

      • chris Moffatt,
        It’s intriguing how often my weather differs from the forecast at the local weather bureau!

    • “And what would setting up initial conditions be other than data input? Do they use interpolated temperature data input into the models or do they not?”
      Well, they can be anything. I say, yet again, climate models are insensitive to initial state. The whole point of starting well back is to let imperfect knowledge of that state (ewather) dissipate. And as Tim Ball says, they don’t have upper atmosphere data. For initialization, you need to include wind speed at every level, humidity etc. Information you just don’t have. They can use observation, or US standard atmosphere or whatever. The important thing is not getting the weather right, but various other semi-conserved quantities that last for a long time, and where an error might outlive the wind-up period. And, of course, to ensure that the initial state is not so unphysical that it blows up.

    • “We have no data for approximately 100% of the Earth’s surface.”

      Which is why we need better data before committing to suicidal economic policy. For once we agree.

      • Crackers345, we seemingly have minor warming from the end of the Little Ice Age, with lots of short-to-medium term squiggles. No changes in our climate other than the obvious benefits that minor warming.

        Academics, bureaucrats, politicians, commercial profiteers and other beneficiaries leveraged a minor warming trend in the late 20th Century into a very profitable business. Shame on the sheeple.

      • “Which is why we need better data”
        The data is fine. The talk of % coverage is dumb. You could have 100 times as many thermometers and they would still cover 0% of the surface. What counts is how representative they are as a sample. And the are.

      • “The data is fine.”

        BULLS**T.

        You can’t even show where 6 simple weather stations are in their local area.

        How do you have the slightest clue if the data is “fine” or not?

  12. You know, that photo doesn’t look like a protest so much as it looks like a party! We all know the international conferees are on a well lubricated junket, with their respective governments sending them to these COPs to yammer at each other while gobbling down shrimp. But consider all the hangers-on, the dewey-eyed, well meaning NGO members who spend all their time traveling from one Europrotest to another. No doubt they motor or fly to each such event to march uselessly down the street carrying banners or big balloons. Such a huge waste of human capital. Imagine how many lawns they could be moving, or profitably flipping hamburgers.

  13. I wonder if the US will win the coveted Colossal Fossil award this time. Heck, maybe they’ll award us with the All-Time Ginormous Satanic Fossil Award. That would be awesome.

  14. “However, the satellites did not show the warming that climate activists and computer models had forecast. So, bureaucrats closed many of the colder rural surface temperature sensing stations, while many stations in the vast frigid area of Siberia were closed for economic and other reasons. The net result was that cold temperature data disappeared from more recent records – thereby creating artificial warming trends, the very warming that alarmists predicted, desired and needed for political purposes.”
    More nonsense. Again, satellites have never measures ground temperatures. “Bureaucrats” weren’t closing stations after consulting satellite records. Most weather measurements are made for totally non-climate reasons – operating airports, weather forecasting, or just to provide data for the nightly news. But the rest is just the old “langoliers” nonsense. There are two processing steps that ensure that changes in numbers of stations in cold places don’t affect the global averages:
    1. The use of anomalies. The mean, for each site, is subtracted prior to averaging. Cold places don’t necessarily have cold anomalies; in fact, the opposite is usually true. Polar regions make the greatest contribution to global warming. That could be a problem of the opposite kind, except for
    2. Area weighting. Each region is estimated used the data for that region. If some data drops out, that doesn’t mean that the region has less effect on the average. It has the effect appropriate for its area; the estimate for the area is based on the information from the stations available.

      • From the article:
        “Initially, this was done because governments believed satellite monitoring could take over from most of the ground surface data collection.”

      • That does not imply that the measurements are taken at the same altitude. It implies only that one set of measurements was better fit for purpose than the other.

        You know this as does everyone on the site and your comment can only be construed as disingenuous.

      • Thermometers measure air temperatures.
        Unless you have soil temperature probes which are used regularly in agriculture to sow crops to establish when the ground is warms enough for the seeds to germinate and continue growing .

      • And in potato growing areas like SW Idaho and the like, in-ground “5 inch soil temperatures” ARE measured automatically, and ARE reported every hour on the local radio stations.

    • operating airports , what on earth makes you think these places are in any way typical of the wider area , and why do you think data collected only for air movements and out of the airport can be applied in 101 other situations .
      The reality is simply , data is used from these locations , not because it good but because it ‘exist and is better than nothing ‘ In fact the need to use it in the first place is because of the LACK of good coverage from other sources. Although to be fair ‘better than nothing ‘ is a standard practice for climate ‘science’

      • “Although to be fair ‘better than nothing ‘ is a standard practice for climate ‘science’”
        It is standard practice for everything. If you want to know about something, you use the data you have. If you don’t want to know, you can put your fingers in your ears. The question then is, how much better than nothing. Climate scientists spend a lot of time analysing that. Commenters should spend more time reading it.

      • If you listen to Nick and his chorus of straw-men “better than nothing” is interchangeable with “incontrovertible”.

      • Nick fare enough. It is the best we have. But is it good enough to proclaim the hottest year ever to the 100th of a degree? I suggest no. Not even close. Personally I’m fine with reporting the global anomaly. But only if it is made very clear, so the general public understands, what it really is. The best we have and not a definitive value.

      • ‘It is standard practice for everything’
        There are a few in Australia who hope that the standards of practice could be raised.
        We need reliable data that is independently audited.
        Your comments would be useful on this site, or is there a black ban?
        http://joannenova.com.au/2017/11/finally-bom-releases-some-secret-comparison-data-a-snow-job-revealing-new-thermometers-not-comparable/

        I note that the snow job is in action.
        Has BOM done the maths and compared the two instrument technologies?

      • “Your comments would be useful on this site”
        Well, I’d probably better not comment on the site. But on that post, can you make sense of it? They seem to be saying that the digital instruments read 0.3°C lower than the mercury. That is after all the tub-thumping about how they just knew that, well, one second and all that. But the fact that mercury and digital don’t read exactly the same is well-known. That is why we have homogenisation.

        In fact, in a paper from the early days of the changeover (1991), a paper by Karl and others recorded the known difference between thermistor and L-i-G. Oddly enough, they said the effect on maximum temperature came to -0.4°C, very similar to the BoM -0.3 in Mildura.

      • ‘“Your comments would be useful on this site”
        Well, I’d probably better not comment on the site. But on that post, can you make sense of it?’
        Would you let me cross post your reply?

      • I haven’t looked at the link but if you are talking about the Australian spikey sensors the problem isn’t the numbers don’t match it’s that you can’t easily statistically adjust it. It’s a classical signal processing problem where the settling time up and down aren’t uniform and it’s a whole nightmare to correct it.

    • Nick, is it known whether or not temperature swings in urban stations are greater (or lesser) than swings in rural stations? i’ve always noticed that temp swings over land are much greater than those over the sea. i wonder if the same sort of thing might be happening wrt urban/rural stations and more importantly how that might affect the global anomaly overall. Thanx in advance (and also thanx for all your diligent efforts in “red teaming” some of these posts)…

    • “2. Area weighting. Each region is estimated used the data for that region. If some data drops out, that doesn’t mean that the region has less effect on the average. It has the effect appropriate for its area; the estimate for the area is based on the information from the stations available.”

      I’m looking for good paper from a spatial statistics perspective on the error associated with this process. Does anyone have a recommendation?

  15. It is simply no AGW no IPCC , and this parasitic relationships is seen time and again , there are whole organizations, university departments and lots of careers that feed off AGW to such an extent that if it dies, they die to . So it is hardly a surprise to find in these groups little interest in any other result than the one which keeps then alive .
    Science has little to do with , to understand you need to think in terms of religion or politics, hence why some awful science , like Mann’s , becomes so important to the cause , its quality and validity mean nothing its ‘impact ‘ is all.

    • Mann’s hockey stick was so far off from all other reconstructions that its prominence was an obvious political move; IPCC, Gore and alarmists of all stripes.

      To their eternal damnation, no “scientists” with firm contrary information came forward while the lie was bruited about. Shame.

  16. To try to avoid making climate a political issue has been futile for a while. At this point, it would be an understatement to say that the combination of Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS), the surge of socialism, and the fury with which the left is currently invigorating climate alarmists with an onslaught of daily warning reports, fascist media policies (LA Times has refused any further opposing climate views), COP23 2017 Germany, etc., along with taking over the education system with enviro-whackism, we are on a major collision course with these holier-than-thou “believers” as early as the 2018 elections.

    One could make the case alarmists and those on the far left have already been invigorated enough to block and “resist” every move that they can just because they can.

    I know this because I am surrounded by these TDS-afflicted climate socialists in my family. These alarmists are meeting in living rooms, hotel convention rooms, and convention centers across the nation organizing the coalition that the left is so famously better at and like never before. They are mad as hell, vindictive, and blinded to any other way but to mow down anything in their path.

    Keep in mind, “the ends justify the means” with these types. The repeatable, scientific result has been that these whacko’s are so blinded by hate that they either can no longer process Truth or reason. Or they have gone too far down the corruption path to be able to save face and turn back.

    Mark my words, we are in for one hell of a battle. I’m hoping a real climate leader team (at least at the EPA) with some organizational and marketing skills will come up with an effective counter-measure. If we care about this country, we will start planning, grooming, and marketing now.

    • Never mind 2018, I’m wondering how we’ll get through Thanksgiving. The smart thing to do is to ban any talk about either Trump or “climate change”.

      • . . . or gender, religion, marriage, contraception, the Pope, vegetarianism, pet ownership, wild mustangs, NFL protests, Obamacare, the VA, 2nd amendment, butter, tomatoes, . . ., UFOs, and zombies.

      • Ah Thanksgiving dinner, a time for family to gather and sit down and passive-aggressively stare daggers at each other from across the dining room. Likewise Christmas dinner, with the added fun of who-got-what-gift favor games.

  17. More real world data that does not fit in with the claims of runaway warming.
    So far this season the snow cover extent in the NH has been trending in the top half of its 1998-2011 range.

  18. “Sherlock Holmes warned that “It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.””

    Yes this is what always stuck in my craw about CAGW fanatics. We need to stop funding the UN.

  19. “However, we still do not have a comprehensive, workable “theory of climate,” and thus do not have valid formulas to properly represent how the atmosphere functions.”

    How the atmosphere works is called weather and only gets in the way of understanding the climate. It’s far to complicated to try and establish what’s happening within it in order to divine the behavior at the boundaries of the atmosphere with the surface and with space, much less what will happen given some change. It is far more useful to consider only the boundaries of the atmosphere from an energy point of view and establish the macroscopic relationships between the energy fluxes at these boundaries, i.e. the transfer function, which is relatively easy to quantify and measure.

    The resistance to doing this is the specious complaint that the system is more complicated than that. Weather is, but the climate is not and the LTE behavior at the boundaries is relatively simple, easy to quantify, conforms to COE and SB which tells us exactly what the sensitivity is and measurements confirms everything this predicts within the accuracy of the data.

    The equation that tells us everything we need to know about the climate is simple and straightforward.

    Pi = Po + dE/dt

    Pi is the instantaneous post albedo input power from the Sun, Po is the instantaneous output power of the planet and E is the solar energy stored by the planet. The relationship between Po and Ps, where Ps are the emissions of the surface consequential to its temperature is demonstrable linear over all relevant temperatures and is given as,

    Po = e*Ps

    Where e is approximately 0.61 when Ps is calculated as Ps = oT^4, where o is the SB constant and T is the surface temperature in Kelvins. This works from the individual grid cell (providing Pi includes energy to/from other cells) all the way up to the planet as a whole from time steps spanning microseconds to millennia. It’s so simple, so elegant and works so well, it’s absolutely absurd that climate science hasn’t figured this out yet.

    “But the satellites are unable to collect data from the north and south poles”

    Not true. The NOAA polar orbiters have extensive data on the polar regions and have all the same sensors (and then some) as the geosynchronous satellites.

      • It is, but by a very small amount. Moreover; it can be calculated and it’s less than 2% after doubling Co2.

        None the less, it doesn’t really matter since when we say that doubling CO2 is 3.7 W/m^2 of forcing, what this means is that this is the equivalent increase in solar forcing that is equivalent to doubling CO2 while keeping the system (i.e. CO2 concentrations) constant.

        You can’t count the effect twice by adding 3.7 W/m^2 of new forcing (solar energy) and doubling CO2.

      • co2isnotevil November 15, 2017 at 4:39 pm

        Actually there are some stratospheric clouds, but they are exceedingly rare. Primarily polar winter, when the stratosphere comes down closer to the surface.

      • Gabro,
        Yes, that is correct, but too small to affect the result in any meaningful way. Besides, the IPCC defines forcing as the instantaneous difference in power up vs. power down at TOT upon some change, so I’m trying to be consistent with their dodgy definition that hides the cooling from albedo related reflection.

      • Nick,

        Your next question should be how can you calculate the effect on e from doubling CO2? Here it is and I challenge you to try and come up with a way to support the hypothetical 3C rise or to find any fault in my analysis that I can not definitively explain away. No response can only mean that you have no good answer.

        The ‘e’ factor can be calculated top down and bottom up and you arrive at the same answer either way. The top down calculation is (255/288)^4 = .615. The bottom up calculation must account for the different effects from clear and cloudy skies.

        If p is the fraction of the surface covered by clouds (0.67), As is the fraction of surface energy absorbed by GHG’s in the clear sky and can be calculated from HITRAN (As = 0.57), Ec is the emissivity of clouds and comes from the ISCCP cloud data (Ec = 0.71), e can be calculated by first calculating the total fraction of the surface emissions absorbed by the by GHG’s and clouds in the atmosphere assuming clouds absorb 100% of the energy that is not passed through them.

        a = (1-p)*As + p*(1-Ec)*As + p*Ec = .188 + .111 + 0.476 = .775

        Since half of what is absorbed is returned to the surface and half is emitted into space, e can be calculated as,

        e = (1 – a/2) = 0.6125

        To close the loop, the surface power absorbed by the atmosphere is currently .775*o*288^4 = 302.3 W/m^2 allowing about 88 W/m^2 to pass directly into space. Add half of 302.3 to 88 and you get 239.1 W/m^2
        corresponding the required emissions of the planet. Add the other half to the 239.1 W/m^2 arriving from the Sun and you get 390.25 W/m^2 which exactly offsets the emissions of a surface at 288K. Everything works out perfectly within the margin of error.

        According to the IPCC, instantaneously doubling CO2 increases the power absorbed by the atmosphere by 3.7 W/m^2 to 306 W/m^2 leading to an equivalent new value for a of 0.784. Plugging this into the equation for e results in,

        e = 0.6077 (an 0.8% decrease)

        given the same 239.8 W/m^2 (at 255K) incoming solar radiation, the new surface emissions will be 239.8/.6077 = 394.6 W/m^2, corresponding to a new surface temperature of 288.8K, which is about an 0.8C increase and no where near the 3C often claimed as the nominal increase to arise from doubling
        CO2.

        You can get the same answer by recalculating As using HITRAN and a higher CO2 concentration where As increases to about 0.58 for about a 2% increase. Since water vapor accounts for about 2/3 of the absorption, this means that the contribution from CO2 alone increases by about 6% from 96 W/m^2 up to about 102 W/m^2 of absorbed surface emissions.

      • crackers,

        What’s dodgy about the IPCC definition of forcing is twofold.

        First, ice and clouds are part of the response to forcing and cancelling the cooling up front is wrong and misleading. The actual forcing from the Sun corresponds to an albedo of about 0.11, which is about what the albedo of the Earth would be without ice and clouds. The energy reflected by ice and clouds is still properly considered forcing, since without that incident energy, there would be no clouds or ice to reflect it. This also means that the 33C warming from GHG’s and clouds is offset by about 16C of cooling from ice and clouds. Cancelling out the reflected energy is done only to make the GHG effect seem to have a larger effect than it actually does.

        Second is that forcing is defined as an instantaneous difference at TOA (or TOT), which infers that 1 W/m^2 of additional post albedo solar forcing is equivalent to a 1 W/m^2 decrease in emissions at TOA owing to the atmosphere absorbing 1 W/m^2 more. All of 1 W/m^2 of post albedo solar is incident to the surface and all of it contributes to increasing surface emissions and its temperature. Only about half of 1 W/m^2 of incremental atmospheric absorption is returned to the surface to warm it, while the remainder is emitted into space. For some reason, consensus climate science considers all of what the atmosphere absorbs is returned to the surface. Clearly this is incorrect because for an atmosphere absorbing 80% of the surface emissions, it doesn’t leave near enough to offset the total solar forcing and that difference must come from some place and where it comes from is the atmosphere where the energy that leaves the atmosphere originated from the surface emissions absorbed by it.

      • “But who’s to say it is unaffected by GHG increase?”

        PROVE that it is affected.

        EMPTY as usual. !!.

      • evil wrote commented “For some reason, consensus climate science considers all of what the atmosphere absorbs is returned to the surface.”

        absolutely incorrect. for
        crying out loud.

        where did you ever
        get such
        a notion?

      • crackers,

        You don’t understand the concepts of sensitivity and feedback as they are defined by the IPCC (per Hansen, Schlesinger and more recently, Roe as referenced to Bode). The bottom line is that the only thing properly called feedback is the power received by the surface in excess of the power received by the Sun. On average, each W/m^2 of power from the Sun is augmented by 600 milliwatts of feedback power in order to replace the power emitted by the surface as a consequence of its temperature. Hansen, Schlesinger and Roe just implicitly convert W/m^2 into a change in temperature, per SB, and this often leads to confusion.

        The ebb and flow of ice is not properly characterized as feedback, but is more properly quantifiable as a binary temperature dependence of the reflectivity. When the average temperature is below 0C, permanent ice and its attendant reflection exists and when above 0C, it does not. Of course, the average effect of this can be quantified as equivalent to either feedback, gain or a change in input forcing as a function of the fraction of the planet covered by ice. The equivalence of these properties is what often leads to confusion. It’s important to notice that the planet is already close to minimum ice as no matter what melts in the N hemisphere summer, it will come back in the winter and in the Antarctic, the average summer temperatures are still well below freezing and that the ice there is in no danger of going anywhere unless heated by below or by an impact.

        Clouds have some interesting properties. While they continuously vary between transparent and opaque to surface emissions and the average fraction of the surface covered by them is relatively constant, their behavior per hemisphere is quite different. In general, clouds increase with increasing temperatures, except that the temperature dependence of clouds is much more pronounced in the S hemisphere, owing to a larger fraction of water. In the N hemisphere, the clouds still follow temperature, but with a smaller relative magnitude, even though the p-p temperature variability in the N hemisphere is larger than in the S. The global result is that the variability in the amount of clouds appears opposite in phase to the global temperature variability. This another consequence of the all important asymmetry between hemispheres owing the the different ratios of land to water and another source of confusion. Another interesting property is the change in behavior of clouds above and below 0C and which illustrates how they are a controlling variable by compensating for the binary effect of clouds.

        The monthly average cloud coverage of the planet has varied only between 64% and 70% over the last 3 decades varying by no more then 3% across any 12 months where higher global average temperatures result in a larger fraction of the planet covered by clouds. The global yearly average varies between about 65% and 69% with an average of 67%.

        I should point out that the negative feedback like effect of increasing clouds with increasing temperature is almost completely offset by the surface warming arising from increasing clouds. There’s a very fine balance between the two which seems to be modulated by the ratio of cloud area to cloud height. Net cloud ‘feedback’ is almost exactly zero, but on a dynamic basis varies a little bit positive and negative. At the same time, the relative fraction of absorbed energy returned to the surface varies a few percent on either side of 50% up into space and 50% down to the surface.

        It most certainly seems that the 50/50 split is the ‘attractor’ driving the system towards equilibrium and that this is also related to the net cloud ‘feedback’ converging to zero.

      • crakers,
        Climate science assumes all power absorbed by the atmosphere is returned to the surface by considering that the instantaneous 3.7 W/m^2 of power incrementally absorbed by the atmosphere by instantaneously doubling CO2 is equivalent to 3.7 W/m^2 of incremental power from the Sun.

      • I can follow Nick and Co2isnotevil but Crackers just appears to be some teenage kid troll, I wish you would just ignore him. I was actually interested in the discussion.

      • ldb,
        Yes, crackers is clearly a troll with little understanding of actual science. None the less, Nick went silent and I had more to say. Besides, it’s important to feed these trolls real information, not so much to change their mind, but to instil doubt so they have an easier time accepting the truth once it emerges into the public consciousness.

  20. “One prediction stated: “The IPCC recently reported that temperatures will significantly increase in the Sahel and Southern African regions, rainfall will significantly decrease, and tropical storms will become more frequent and intense, with a projected 20 per cent increase in cyclone activity.””

    Is it true that IPCC makes predictions? I thought they only made projections, saying that from a certain starting point -or input- then such-and-such may happen. Scenarios. This is an important difference, predictions say what WILL happen.

  21. Is it not VERY telling how everything is so good nowadays that leftists have had to resort to trying to grasp power money and control based on….THE FROCKING WEATHER…the weather! How cynical can it get?

    • Better yet, they enriched many oil companies and billionaires with their energy from weather. How foolish can it get?

  22. It’s quite obvious that adding the combined heat of 8 billion people and all their various heat generating activities to the planet over the years could have caused the minute increased in regional temperatures that have been intermittently observed.

    The simple solution is often the correct one.

    More people=a barely measureable temperature increase.

    The IPCC reiterating that it is “not able to think of anything else” other than an unproven theory about CO2 from fossil fuels causing the heat, conveniently ignores all of the above.

    Forget about the CO2.

      • Yep jim, its a very low form of writing, isn’t it.

        You have to really try to DUMB yourself down to get to that level.

        Maybe expected from a 5 year old?

      • Heating my home in winter and cooling it in summer doesn’t ‘create heat,’ Crackers345? And UHI doesn’t exist?

      • davefair: yes, that does — but people don’t (directly) get their energy
        by consuming fossil fuels — they eat
        plants,
        or animals that
        eat plants, and that
        energy come from sunlight
        (photosynthesis).

        of course, the tractors and trucks
        etc that harvest food
        use fossil fuels, not
        insubstantial,
        but peoples’ heat energy comes
        almost all from sunlight.

      • Crackers345, you said “sorry – people just transfer heat, they don’t create it”

        When I (just a day ago, for the first time this year) fired up my gas furnace, I created heat. And please don’t play smarmy word games.

      • “but peoples’ heat energy comes
        almost all from sunlight.”

        Via CO2 !

        You must have
        very tasty feet,
        crackers

        You always
        have you feet
        in your mouth.

      • humans get their
        energy from
        carbohydrates.
        Which are formed
        in plant-life from
        CO2 and H2O
        using solar energy.

        Do you
        under-
        stand ????

      • crackers345 November 19, 2017 at 7:24 pm

        Can you possibly really be this ignorant and obtuse? It must be willful.

        Do you really not know that humans get our energy and the building blocks of our bodies from food, which ultimately comes from CO2?

        Most grade school kids understand the elements of this process, but I’ll keep it as simple as I can for you.

        Humans, like all animals and fungi and most heterotrophic microbes ultimately rely upon photosynthesis for our food. In photosynthesis, a photon of sunlight breaks a water molecule into H ions (protons) and oxygen atoms. Then the hydrogen attaches to a CO2 moledule. This process continues until CO2 is turned into sugar. The CO2 comes from the air, through a plant’s leaves, while the water comes from the ground via its roots. The waste product of these reactions in oxygen gas (O2).

        We either eat the plant directly, or other animals eat it and we eat them.

      • Crack pot cracky Crackers you are acting as a troll You have added nothing to this debate and if I was the Mod I would ban you .You are lucky to be allowed to have your say so what about bringing some proof of your beliefs or do you believe in magic because you were told that the world is going to cook .Take time to read the the postings on WUWT and you might learn something .You are just wasting every ones time .

        (What crackers say,is subjective and opinionated,but is on topic and civil. You can ignore it which is free) MOD

      • gwan

        I’m as critical as anyone of crackers trolling, but today he’s actually contributed some comments and numbers relative to the discussion instead of just sniping. Correct or otherwise, they have stimulated co2isnotevil to go into considerable detail. And if it’s not helped crackers, it certainly has me, and I suspect many others.

    • actually, this is very well know:
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_energy_budget#Earth.27s_internal_heat_and_other_small_effects
      ~0.03 W/m² when spread over the whole Earth.
      However, half of the population, and most of the industry, is concentrated on 1% of land, that is, 0.3% of the whole Earth surface
      http://metrocosm.com/world-population-split-in-half-map/
      These area hence receive 300x more human produced energy, that is, ~5~10 W/m² or more.
      Add the effect of asphalt, building etc., and you get urban heat island, and urban weather stations running amok, temperature wise.

  23. Such is the level of servile fanaticism in the mass-belief in warming catastrophe based on pseudoscience, that it is becoming more and more clear that this is going to lead to war.

    The climate flag being waved by the hard left is the flag of war. Another generation will be consumed.

  24. TBall claims:
    “However, we still do not have a comprehensive, workable “theory of climate,”

    why not?

    “…and thus do not have valid formulas to properly represent how the atmosphere functions.”

    you’re a
    scientist — where are
    YOUR formulas here, TBall?

    • Crackers once again shows what a dishonest person he is,which I show by providing the FULL contextual quote he deliberately left out:

      “One prediction stated: “The IPCC recently reported that temperatures will significantly increase in the Sahel and Southern African regions, rainfall will significantly decrease, and tropical storms will become more frequent and intense, with a projected 20 per cent increase in cyclone activity.”

      To make such dire forecasts, the IPCC relies on computerized models built on data and formulas to represent atmospheric conditions, and reflect the hypothesis that carbon dioxide is the principal factor driving planetary warming and climate change.

      However, we still do not have a comprehensive, workable “theory of climate,” and thus do not have valid formulas to properly represent how the atmosphere functions. We also lack data to properly understand what weather was like over most of the planet even in the recent past. Without a good understanding of past weather conditions, we have no way to know the history, or the future, of average weather conditions – what we call the climate.”

      Dr. Ball doesn’t have to provide anything to show to a mealy,mouthed loaded questioner joke like you. He made the point that the overt alarm-ism of the conference, is not backed up by empirical science.

      • “”However, we still do not have a comprehensive, workable “theory of climate,””

        TBall didn’t prove this.
        or even try to.

        isn’t TBall a scientist?
        he doensn’t write like one.
        he makes only complaints,
        without attempting to
        explain them or
        provide his own answers.

      • Dr. Ball correctly states:

        “However, we still do not have a comprehensive, workable “theory of climate”

        Unless YOU can show evidence that we now have a solid understanding of clouds/wind and humidity changes based on the Scientific Method of REPRODUCIBLE research.

        Do YOU have that Crackers?

        I have evidence that Dr. Ball is correct by simply showing how poor a couple of short term modeling guesses are:

        Lack of the Tropical Hotspot,utter failure of the Per Decade warming predictions.

        AGW conjecture as it stands is a failure.

      • TBall proved nothing – he
        only made claims. scientists
        prove things.

        90% of climate changes
        are due to GHGs and ENSOs.

        you don’t need every last
        detail to know that human co2
        is warming the planet.

      • Ha ha ha, notice you didn’t answer my question at all and to my statement about huge AGW failures.

        Why can’t you make an honest comment?

        “Unless YOU can show evidence that we now have a solid understanding of clouds/wind and humidity changes based on the Scientific Method of REPRODUCIBLE research.

        Do YOU have that Crackers?”

        and the well known modeling failures based on the AGW conjecture:

        “Lack of the Tropical Hotspot,utter failure of the Per Decade warming predictions”

        It is clear you have NOTHING useful to post.

      • “scientists
        prove things.”

        Then you are no scientist

        All you do is yap mindlessly

        Here is your chance,.

        PROVE where Tim Ball is wrong.

      • “90% of climate changes
        are due to GHGs and ENSOs.”

        Yap, yap goes crackers.

        NO PROVABLE
        CHANGE DUE
        TO GHGs.

      • I expect the boy is going to ignore the massive Per Decade warming rate FAILURE,which greatly damages the 90% CO2 effect he babbles about.

        Andy,you have pointed out the hard data based evidence that there is a flat trend from 1979 to the big 1998 El-Nino,then a flat/slight cooling trend to another big El-nino of 2016. There is no obvious CO2 in it from 1979 onward.

        Warmists simply try hard to ignore the massive Per Decade warming rate failure, they predicted in the 1990 IPCC report.

      • Sunset, In reality, it looks like there was only any effective warming at the 1998 El Nino, a step of about 0.26ºC over a 3 year period, leveling out by 2001..

        Ocean data seems to show that the 2015 El Nino will not produce a step change, just a great big BURP in the middle of a baroque concert. Satellite data should follow suit next month or two.

        Then , we will most likely ease into a cooling trend.. for how long, and how deep, will depend on what Sol decides to do, but its not looking good for a continuation of highly beneficial warming.

        Let’s all hope like crazy that it doesn’t cascade downwards into another LIA, that would be disastrous.

        Warming to MWP or RWP levels would be FAR , FAR preferable for the whole planet.

      • “Andy,you have pointed out the hard data based evidence that there is a flat trend from 1979 to the big 1998 El-Nino”

        a very big positive trend in ocean
        heat content

        a .16 c per decade
        trend in uah’s
        measurement of the
        global lower
        tropo, from Dec78
        to Dec98

      • Super El Nino endpoint, crackers345? Go to SkS to exercise your ‘there are liars, damned liars and statistics.’

      • NO, there is
        basically NO DATA
        to find OHC before 2003,
        even now, extremely
        sparse.
        You have been
        SUCKED IN
        by your
        ignorance
        and
        gullibility,
        yet again.

        If your think there is
        data, please show
        where it was collected.

      • Your mathematical
        ineptitude leads
        you into erroneous
        trend calculations
        of cyclic data.

        The trend calculated
        is PURELY a
        remnant of where
        the cycles start
        and finish.

        What is the
        trend of this
        curve, bozo?

      • PS.please
        keep posting,
        crackhead.
        You continue
        to show
        just how INEPT
        and
        NIL-educated
        you really are :-)

  25. What is overlooked in the debate on climate change is fundamental economics. Religion and political ideology have always been the tools of the few to control the many, and empty their pockets in the process.

    The people waving flags in the streets have no idea that they are puppets. They don’t know that they are tied up with strings fastened to them by other puppets, and they don’t know who is pulling the strings, or for what purpose. If they knew that their puppet-masters were captains of finance and industry, motivated purely by power and profit, they might not be so idealistic.

    Despite long being criers of “follow the money,” when it comes to climate change (or political change), they do not “follow the money.” They may or may not know how much money is spent on fighting climate change, very few bother to think about where that money ends up, and who it enriches.

    I know little about the climate, science, physics, or other things commonly discussed on this site. But I do know about politics and business. I know that politics IS business, that politics is the most lucrative of all businesses.

    Politics is profitable at all times. But it is most profitable in times of conflict and war. Any war, from the wars on drugs or poverty, to shooting wars, are fought for economic reasons. Excuses are needed to fight such wars, and such excuses are that wars are necessary for things like religious faith, racial purity, securing resources, or preempting attacks. During wartime, the state and it’s cronies have greater reign to control and spend what their economies produce.

    As people have become increasingly knowledgeable and sophisticated, the old excuses for war are less believable (though some people still do believe them). Climate change is a great enemy to fight. It doesn’t require guns or weapons, yet the cost to fight climate change is no less than the cost to fight a shooting war. The more knowledgeable and sophisticated are more easily converted because climate change is based in “science”, and not race, superstition or spirituality. But like all other wars, the fight against climate change is deemed to be for the common good.

    The people protesting in the streets are likely of the socialist bent. But socialism and capitalism are irrelevant, both are mere ideologies which are universally corrupted for the gain of those at the top of the economic ladder. American is supposedly a capitalist society, but when one looks at the number of rules and regulations in the federal code, the number of pages and regulations in the federal tax code (and you must of course add state and local regulations and tax rules to these), it is hard to call America capitalist at all. But you could certainly call it “crony capitalist.” In 2017, how many large industries exist in America? How many car, airplane, motorcycle, or even bicycle manufacturers? How many banks? If we go back one century to 1917, how many of these industries existed then?

    How difficult is it to create a new car, or aircraft company in 2017? How many are established each year? How easy was it to do these things in 1917? How many were established in that year?

    The myriad rules and regulations are created under the guise of safety and consumer protection, or, more laughably, to discourage monopolies. But in reality, they are tools to increase the political power (and personal profit) of those politicians who create them. Also, they benefit the established industries, who grew in the years of less regulation, and who often enjoy exceptions to new rules and regulations. A handful of large industries have virtual monopolies.

    The ironic thing is that the wars on drugs, the wars on poverty, the increased rules, regulations, and taxes enacted to help improve the safety and economic well-being of the people have arguably had the opposite result. Behind climate change, the next largest problem facing the world issupposedly “income inequality.” Poverty, drugs, and climate change are wonderful things to fight wars against, because such wars are unwinnable, and can be fought perpetually. How can one win the fight against climate change when change is the climate’s natural state?

    I am no supporter of the fossil fuel industry. My home is 100% solar powered, I don’t own or drive a car, most of my commuting is done on foot or by bicycle. I don’t live as I do because I think of oil or gas as evil, or because I derive a perverse pride for living as I do, my motivations are economic. Big oil is fundamentally no different from “big green.” both exist to make their owners wealthy. I have no opposition to wealth, so long as people generate their own, and don’t obtain it unfairly.

    What I am opposed to is the way industries of all sorts use the state to tilt the playing field in their favor, against the principles of a free market, and at the cost of personal economic and political freedom. There can be no political freedom where there is not economic freedom.

    The poor fools marching in the streets don’t realize that getting their way would mean jumping from the frying pan and into the fire. That by giving their leaders more power and money to fight climate change, they would have to give up more of their personal freedom and money to do so. The corporations and political systems they detest would only become richer than they already are.

    They always have the same, misguided belief that they themselves do not have to pay the costs. They believe that the rich and the corporations will pay. They believe that there is such a thing as progressive taxation, that the rich should always pay more, and they themselves should pay less, little, or no taxes at all. They never stop to think that these taxes the rich and the corporations pay are passed directly to them. When they buy a new phone, shirt, or cup of coffee, they don’t think about how of the price they pay is used to pay the taxes of the rich. When they collect their paychecks, they don’t consider how much was deducted from the value of their labor.

    They fail to understand the common principle that a tax on any part of the economy is a tax on every part of the economy, and that it is absolutely impossible to isolate the effect of a tax to any income group. A non-smoker does not realize that when a smoker spends more money on increased tobacco taxes, the smoker has less to spend on food, gasoline, clothes, or other goods. This slight decrease in personal consumption is multiplied by the total numbers of smokers taxed, and the economic effect is increased. Decreased demand equals decreased economic opportunities, and lower wages. (BTW, I am not a smoker, and I detest smoking).

    Yet, following the ancient principle of “divide and rule”, the people are manipulated into fear and hatred of each other. And they cede ever more of their rights and money to protect them from these things. That most of these fears are fabricated, and that the hatred is entirely unfounded is never considered.

    (EDITED to create paragraphs,no words changed or added) MOD

    • A bit of a rant and conspiracy thinking. Although it has little to do with the global climate problems we are facing. The latter are outcomes of scientific research, debates and (tentative) conclusions. But on various other issues mentioned it would be more useful and interesting to analyze the mechanics of our democracies. The more capitalistic (mercantile) ones (in particular the US, the UK and Australia) and the more social-democratic ones (such as in Europe, New Zealand) both have inherent inequalities built into the system. All are representative democracies, but each and every one very much depending on the philosophy, quality, honesty, and intentions of those who represent us. Powerful lobbying, and vested interests (large labor- and tax-income providing industries) are other ingredients. Much greater transparency and more information at virtually every level of government, and better build-in check- and balances, would be beneficial in closing the gap between our elected representatives, their output, and the understanding by those who are represented, us, the populace. But to return to the global climate issues, they are discussed at an entirely different level, namely science, which as results/outcomes provides data and suggestions to politicians. If you don’t fully trust politicians, well, analyze their workings. In any case, the science behind the global climate warnings is transparent, peer-reviewed (constantly questioned and poked at) and open minded, and – with undoubtedly exceptions here and there – largely without political drivers.

  26. The BBC’s alarmist-in-chief, Cardinal Roger Harrabin, is in extreme climate change alarmism this morning. He has been ramping up his propaganda level for 2 weeks now. I expect him to implode unless COP23 ends in success (whatever that is).

  27. Sorry how poorly written my previous post was, it is hard to write on smart phone with a small screen and auto-correct when your 3-year-old daughter is yelling “Daddy, look!” every 10 seconds or so.

  28. This all looks very complicated to the ordinary man in the street. Endless arguments about data, satellites, graphs, coloured pictures of the earth or sections of it. It goes on and on.

    Surely the simpler approach is to refute the theory of anthropogenic global warming at the EARLIEST point.
    Forget data entirely, Forget ANY measurements of temperature or any aspect of current OR past climate. If you can refute the theory itself then “Job done”.

    One needs to get back to basics, and by this I mean basic physics and in particular the physics of heat transfer and radiation. There are too many people, even apparently clever ones in this blog, who do not correctly understand the basics. For example we have seen talk about “photons” as if they were real massless particles that immediately transferred heat to any solid object they “hit”.

    This all needs clearing up properly. A book about atmospheric physics starting from the basics and going through it bit by bit should be helpful. It needs to go slowly and provide plenty of references. By building slowly upon solid already established knowledge the correct explanation about the working of the atmosphere can be taught and the theory of global warming thus refuted.

    Once the basic physics errors are exposed it will be clear that AGW is founded on nonsense.

    Getting bogged down in data arguments plays into their court as it looks like you have accepted the theory that CO2 makes the earth warmer and you are just arguing about the amount. (It’s the “prostitute” argument – some of you will know the joke!).

    • The Reverend Badger

      “This all looks very complicated to the ordinary man in the street.”. Yep, and that would be me.

      My understanding is, there are no credible, empirical studies which show that atmospheric CO2 causes the climate to warm. David Middleton tells me there is one and gave me a link, but I’m not qualified to comment on it. Nevertheless, assuming it’s credible (and I have no reason to doubt David) that is one study in at least 40 years of scientific debate on the subject. If the science is so settled, surely there should be numerous independent verifications of it, but there appear to be none.

      We can slice and dice the climate as much as we want, but until that fundamental question is beyond reasonable doubt, climate change predicated on it remains to be demonstrated and should not be campaigned as settled science with harmful and expensive consequences.

      Unless of course, there is a separate agenda, and it’s seems curiously coincidental that the whole subject has been ramped up considerably since the global financial crash in 2008.

      • The fundamental physics – often referred to for shorthand as ‘the greenhouse effect’ – are settled and are not in contention.

        any article or comment which starts from the basis this physics is wrong can surely be discounted from the start.

        We have to look at the rate of change in temperature (and the means by which that evidence is gathered). Then at the projections from the record.

        Anything else, really, is irrelevant.

        [Gosh, Ed, you are quite strong-headed. Here is a recent story that says the “physics” of the “greenhouse effect” as it operates in our atmosphere, is backwards. So much for “settled” science. All you are doing is parroting something Al Gore said about the science being settled. When will you learn to form your own opinions rather than parrot? – Anthony]

      • “The fundamental physics – often referred to for shorthand as ‘the greenhouse effect’ – are settled and are not in contention.”

        Total and absolute malarkey. The only place it has settled is in that blockhead mind of your.

        Reality is that the fundamental physics of the greenhouse effect is totally wrong basically from the start.

        There is no proven mechanism by which CO2 can cause warming in a convective atmosphere.

        CO2 warming has never been measured

        There is no CO2 warming signature in the satellite temperature data

        The whole thing is an anti-science MYTH !!!

  29. Fiji is host in Bonn.
    They have an excellent climate.
    Mean temperature 24,2 C steady since 1900!
    Max and min monthly 26-21 C
    But IPCC anticipate +4 C rise to 2100
    They have cyclones. 25% less than 40 Years ago.
    They have volcanic activity -that can be a real problem beside IPCC prediction.

  30. I’m a geologist, and I agree with Sherlock. I have linked observed processes to a mechanism that explains our climate changes. And it is a new discovery.

    It explains why the ozone hole began in 1983 and remains the controlling factor for Antarctic sea ice and why the SH still is cold while the NH is warming rapidly. It explains how mid-latitude ozone formation accelerates the jet streams and Rossby wave loops and extreme weather changes. It explains the Ice Age cycles.

    The mechanism ties all the current observations into one theory base. You can read about it at my website, but you will need to study the graphics and the evidence to see that it is true. A desk size monitor will help.

    https://www.harrytodd.org

  31. Another excellent essay on the data issue re climate science. However, the carping of many of the comments seems a bit overdone. I would prefer to hear how problems with the data can be overcome. And proposing that data collection efforts need to be redoubled is a non-starter. Who wants to wait 100 years for 3 more points and one or two more significant decimal points of accuracy.

    The discussion should be about how to work smarter with the existing data. If global models are not feasible, scrap the global modeling efforts. Instead, focus on modeling single station data such as the Vostok ice core data and areas of closely spaced stations. The problem would become how to coalesce mini-models into a global model. Calculations would be cumbersome, but the results might lead to a better understanding of climate change.

    My two cents worth.

  32. On belief..I do love me some Isaac Asimov!

    To wit:

    “Don’t you believe in flying saucers, they ask me? Don’t you believe in telepathy? — in ancient astronauts? — in the Bermuda triangle? — in life after death?
    No, I reply. No, no, no, no, and again no.
    One person recently, goaded into desperation by the litany of unrelieved negation, burst out “Don’t you believe in anything?”
    Yes”, I said. “I believe in evidence. I believe in observation, measurement, and reasoning, confirmed by independent observers. I’ll believe anything, no matter how wild and ridiculous, if there is evidence for it. The wilder and more ridiculous something is, however, the firmer and more solid the evidence will have to be.”
    ― Isaac Asimov

    Inspect every piece of pseudoscience and you will find a security blanket, a thumb to suck, a skirt to hold. What does the scientist have to offer in exchange? Uncertainty! Insecurity!
    — Isaac Asimov

    Science is a mechanism, a way of trying to improve your knowledge of nature. It’s a system for testing your thoughts against the universe, and seeing whether they match.
    — Isaac Asimov

    “Scientific truth is beyond loyalty and disloyalty.”
    ― Isaac Asimov, Foundation

    “Clarke’s First Law – Corollary: When, however, the lay public rallies round an idea that is denounced by distinguished but elderly scientists and supports that idea with great fervor and emotion—the distinguished but elderly scientists are then, after all, probably right.”
    ― Isaac Asimov, Quasar, Quasar, Burning Bright

    And finally, a bit of humor:

    “Tell me why the stars do shine,
    Tell me why the ivy twines,
    Tell me what makes skies so blue,
    And I’ll tell you why I love you.

    Nuclear fusion makes stars to shine,
    Tropisms make the ivy twine,
    Raleigh scattering make skies so blue,
    Testicular hormones are why I love you. ”
    ― Isaac Asimov

    It was a sad day when Dr. Asimov left this world.

    Regards,

    MCR

  33. Is the weather worse now than it was 30 years ago? I dont feel it, but we have been told for the same 30 years that it is worse than thaught. Wonder what it is they think. Could’n they just look at the figures instead of all that thinking.

Comments are closed.