Lorrie Goldstein
Published: September 17, 2019
Updated: September 17, 2019 2:32 PM PDT
Canadians already suspicious of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s carbon tax are likely be even more suspicious given a report by Ottawa-based Blacklock’s Reporter that Environment Canada omitted a century’s worth of observed weather data in developing its computer models on the impacts of climate change.
The scrapping of all observed weather data from 1850 to 1949 was necessary, a spokesman for Environment Canada told Blacklock’s Reporter, after researchers concluded that historically, there weren’t enough weather stations to create a reliable data set for that 100-year period.
“The historical data is not observed historical data,” the spokesman said. “It is modelled historical data … 24 models from historical simulations spanning 1950 to 2005 were used.”
These computer simulations are part of the federal government’s ClimateData.ca website launched by Environment Minister Catherine McKenna on Aug. 15.
She described it as “an important next step in giving our decision-makers even greater access to important climate data for long-term planning. The more each of us uses this type of information, the more it will help.”
They don’t hold back.
Blacklock’s Reporter, which describes itself as “the only reporter-owned and operated newsroom in Ottawa” focusing on intensive reporting of government documents, notes that in many cases the observed temperatures scrapped by Environment Canada in creating its computer models, were higher in the past than today.
For example, Vancouver had a higher record temperature in 1910 (30.6C) than in 2017 (29.5C).
Toronto had a warmer summer in 1852 (32.2C) than in 2017 (31.7C).
The highest temperature in Moncton in 2017 was four degrees cooler than in 1906.
Brandon, Man., had 49 days where the average daily temperature was above 20C in 1936, compared to only 16 in 2017, with a high temperature of 43.3C that year compared to 34.3C in 2017…
And balanced as well.
To be fair, the fact that it omitted observed weather data from 1850 to 1949 in developing its computer models is not evidence in and of itself of an attempt by Environment Canada to mislead the public.
Omitting observed historical weather data from computer models is common in climate science because of differences in the quality of the reporting of weather data today, compared to 1850 when historical records started being kept.
Also, weather is not climate.
Computer climate models don’t claim to predict what the weather will be like on any given day, month or year.
They predict long-term weather and climate patterns.
And then boom.
Having said that, McKenna and other politicians give the public inaccurate information about climate change all the time.
HT/Cam_S
In the grand scheme of things, it’s meta-models of meta-data for extracting meta-trends confirming the meta-models. What a meta-mess.
LOL!
Metaphorically speaking of course!
Metabollockal.😛
🙂
all the result of meta-mucil
The historical data is not observed historical data,” the spokesman said. “It is modelled historical data … 24 models from historical simulations spanning 1950 to 2005 were used.
So they used modeled data (cooked books) of a 50 snapshot and use that to set policy and taxes?
Ya can’t fix stupid, or, apparently, educate stupid. They become journalists and politicians feeding each other.
From the linked article:
“She described it as “an important next step in giving our decision-makers even greater access to important climate data for long-term planning. The more each of us uses this type of information, the more it will help.”
The “She” mentioned above is the government’s mouthpiece.
What climate data do they think they are supplying? Manufactured data … AKA lies.
Long term planning based upon lies never turns out well.
Can anybody and everybody please comment some facts on this video please… Many thanks.. https://youtu.be/8riq9piAdiE
Why? It’s garbage.
Bruce cobb….Because so many people fall for the lies of climate change… Posting a few facts only takes a minute and could help somebody to seek the truth.
First off, Carbon Dioxide is NOT Carbon Pollution. The entire premise of that video is garbage.
Why are they wasting plant food by burying it? That video makes less than zero sense.
Skipping over the AGW over-confidence, and the misrepresentations concerning renewable energy, the process is expensive but appears to be less environmentally damaging than other ideas. The video does clearly state this is a tiny solution and will not save the planet. I found it interesting that part of the CO2 goes to greenhouses. That would seem to defeat much of the argument. The plants are using the CO2 and more plants are cheaper than this CO2 sequestration idea. As a YouTube comment on the video noted, use trees. They’re cheaper.
But trees burn, as we regularly see in Australia, California, Russia, and other places. Trees are simply not a long term effective carbon sequestration solution.
The solution is stop sequestering it.
You are robbing the biosphere of it’s most essential building block which is already in dangerously low supply in our air.
Much of the planet is a desert because of low CO2, which causes plants to require far more water than they otherwise would need to live.
Oh and duh…trees burn, it is an essential part of a forest ecology.
Then they grow back, healthier and more abundantly.
trees burn”; Oh! The horror!
Why you, David Mason-Jones makes it sound like every tree in Australia,California, and other places burns, every year?
A stark raving bonkers claim, David.
A miniscule amount of trees burn every year. Most of the trees involved require fire to release their seeds. What actually burns is the undergrowth and scrub; stuff that easily grows back in a year or two.
Trees are a perfectly natural and highly effective use of carbon dioxide that efficiently deliver oxygen along with lumber and wood for construction, beauty and art.
Amazing stuff, that is absolutely essential to life on Earth, carbon dioxide.
“Posting a few facts only takes a minute and could help somebody to seek the truth.”
Problem is one has to watch mostly garbage to formulate opinions 🙂
That takes more than a minute. I will never get that time back. Thanks.
There is another aspect to this project which has not been mentioned. That is what happens to the carbon dioxide which is injected into the sequestration wells. In the video, the narrator claims that the carbon dioxide is converted to rock. Actually, this is quite true. A carbonate rock of some sort or another is formed with minerals already present down well. In the US, there is (or was) a CCS project somewhere in the Midwest. As it turned out, the carbon dioxide turned to rock not far from the injection site. This has the effect of “cementing” the well shut, as the operators likened the rock formed to cement. As the cement built up, the porosity of the rock around the well decreased to nearly nothing and the capacity of the well fell to zero. After a few test wells rapidly plugged up and became worthless, the experiment was halted.
Back to Iceland:
As you can observe, the test site is right at the big Geothermal plant which provides electricity and domestic hot water for that whole corner of the country. This includes the capital city of Reykjavik. As such, it is of critical importance. I do not think the people running the geothermal plant would take kindly to a CCS project which concretes the porous rock layers they depend on, and renders the whole facility useless. You can bet they are watching this project very closely.
As they say, everything works great right up to the point where something goes terribly wrong.
Best not to spend money doing things which make no sense to begin with.
The opening scene is the wonderful and dramatic waterfall, Skogafoss. There is a long stairway on the right side which goes up about 80% of the way to the top and has an observation platform at the end. The platform sticks out over the cliff and affords a breathtaking view. The platform floor is a steel mesh you can see right through. Do *not* look down. Eeeekkkkk!!!!
The video could have been a great tour of this wonderful island country. Unfortunately, after a strong start, the scenery was constantly interrupted by some woman prattling on about some absurd thing. A bit of a waste, actually.
More to the point, this is one of many CCS schemes out there. A few years ago, it looked like Carbon Trading might be mandated by governments, particularly in light of the Paris Accords. Various Carbon Trading rules might make such an enterprise as this hugely profitable. In short, such a business would cash in by selling “Carbon Credits” to power producers and others who would be required by law to buy them. Iceland was positioning itself to really make a fortune in such an environment.
But times changed. The Paris Accords are in a state of collapse with the withdrawal of the US. Elsewhere all over Europe, the people are getting sick of “Renewables” projects that are hugely expensive and just do not work. Carbon Trading is no longer on the way, and without the US will not happen at all. So Iceland has a stranded bet here. It was a good try.
EU must not burn the world’s forests for ‘renewable’ energy
A flaw in Europe’s clean energy plan allows fuel from felled trees to qualify as renewable energy when in fact this would accelerate climate change and devastate forests
http://bit.ly/2KpZkCx
The Obvious Biomass Emissions Error
http://bit.ly/2YXSJre
February 7, 2019
…The biomass industry and government argue that because wood is a renewable source of energy and trees can be replanted to reabsorb carbon dioxide this policy is good for the environment.
…
The power station giant claims that burning pellets instead of coal reduces carbon emissions by more than 80 percent.
However, Dispatches conducted a simple experiment at a laboratory at the University of Nottingham to compare the carbon dioxide emitted when burning wood pellets, similar to those used by Drax, instead of coal.
Dozens of scientists
It found that to burn an amount of wood pellets that would generate the same amount of electricity as coal it would actually produce roughly eight percent more carbon…
The above are all articles appearing here at WUWT.
This is from Der Spiegal.
Clear-Cutting Romania
Logging Threatens One of Europe’s Last Virgin Forests
http://bit.ly/31rpWZo
…Meanwhile, activist Alexander von Bismarck says he simply cannot get it into his head that one of the last European virgin forests is being illegally cut down so it can be sold to heat homes in Austria.
Cutting down forests to “save” on CO2 emissions makes no sense, especially, when the same ones cutting them down are telling people to plant trees.
Utter BS.
Even the bull would be embarrassed by the lack of quality in that BS.
Oh! Trollops make silly claims while posting false pictures as if that proves their delusions.
Take a close look at those poles in their picture.
All of that cut timber are close in age, and relatively young.
They come from a timber stand planted and harvested. A timber stand with plenty of room for each tree so they can grow lots of limbs to grow fast.
Virginal forest trees would vary greatly in size and would have minimal lower branches.
Besides, mankind’s emissions are minimal compared to Earth’s overall CO₂ emissions, with a relatively short atmospheric lifespan.
The world’s 65,000 km long tectonic rift zones (on which Iceland is located) emit carbon dioxide, the most spectacular example being Lake Magadi in Kenya, home to a vast accumulation of sodium carbonate and sodium bicarbonate. Farmers in Iceland extract carbon dioxide from the ground to promote photosynthesis in ‘greenhouses’.
A simple question to which I’d deeply appreciate an answer,
How does anyone know which CO2 molecules in our atmosphere are of anthropogenic origin and which are from natural sources?
Thanks in advance.
It can be roughly determined because CO2 from fossil fuel contains a slightly larger proportion of the light C12 isotope. Plants preferentially takes up the lighter CO2 molecules and this carries over to the coal/oil/gas.
So burning vegetation and plant respiration are also enriched with C12? Must be a very rough calculation for fossil fuels.
Has there been a dramatic increase in the amount of vegetation being burned since the middle of the previous century?
The source of the carbon is indicated by the isotope ratio of the two carbon isotopes, C12/C13. Plants will selectively uptake C12 due to the well known isotope effect, and so will be relatively enriched in C12 and depleted in C13. This works for fossil fuels because they are all derived from plants and so have isotope ratios akin to plants and not the environment at large. In this way you can tell carbon dioxide from coal as distinct from an erupting volcano, or the atmosphere at large, for example.
All you ever wanted to know about the isotope effect and the associated calculations:
https://www.whoi.edu/cms/files/jhayes/2005/9/IsoCalcs30Sept04_5183.pdf
TonyL – September 19, 2019 at 2:52 pm
But, but, but, ……. TonyL, …… to wit:
So, TonyL even though low altitude growing plants are enriched in 12C, …… their metabolism results in the loss of the lighter isotope (12C) via respiration …… and the sequestering of the heavier isotope (13C) via enrichment of the soil.
Thus said, TonyL, how can one positively claim that the 12C enriched atmosphere is the result of burning fossil fuels ….. rather than due to the respiration of the horrendous increase in “green” growing plants/trees during the past 60 years?
Iffen the “green” growing biomass is increasing, …… so will the respiration of 12C, …. right?
KcTaz, anthropogenic CO2 molecules have “fingerprints” on them, and natural molecules are devoid of human fingerprints. You can search for the term “fingerprints” in the scientific literature, and see for yourself.
I will add I agree with the work of the Isotope Geochemists and in general it was done long before CAGW ever existed as a thing. However it is also worth noting what the conclusions are based around which is tree ring and ice core proxies and much of the work was not rigorous because it was of little significance when it was being done.
The accepted detail on it is Chapter 3 of IPCC report and as that is what is accepted that is the best source.
Since most of the fossil fuels consumed (with a large fraction being converted to CO2 which is dumped into the atmosphere) by humans have a “natural source” dating back hundreds of thousands to hundreds of millions year ago, the question is somewhat non-sensical. The carbon humans burn is almost 100% “natural” (even biofuels meet this definition).
If instead, you meant to question which CO2 molecules come from ongoing biosphere biological activities versus which comes from the burning of ancient fossil fuels, the answer is complex and perhaps the best explanation can be found at https://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/01/28/spencer-pt2-more-co2-peculiarities-the-c13c12-isotope-ratio/
Please note that consideration of CO2 as a gas soluble in ocean waters really complicates matters by the extent to which this introduces temperature-dependent phase lags associated with source/sinks in a dynamic system.
The CAGW secret they don’t want you to know.
There is a nasty ole Anthropogenic Global Warming secret about CO2 that the proponents of CAGW are not telling you. Surprise, surprise, there are actually two (2) different types of CO2.
There is both a naturally occurring CO2 molecule and a hybrid CO2 molecule that has a different physical property. The new hybrid CO2 molecule contains an H-pyron which permits one to distinguish it from the naturally occurring CO2 molecules.
The H-pyron or Human-pyron is only attached to and/or can only be detected in CO2 molecules that have been created as a result of human activity. Said H-pyron has a Specific Heat Capacity of one (1) GWC or 1 Global Warming Calorie that is equal to 69 x 10 -37th kJ/kg K or something close to that or maybe farther away.
Thus, said H-pyron is very important to all Climate Scientists that are proponents of CO2 causing Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW) because it provides them a quasi-scientific “fact” that serves two (2) important functions: 1) it permits said climate scientists to calculate an estimated percentage of atmospheric CO2 that is “human caused” ……. and 2) it permits said climate scientists to calculate their desired “degree increase” in Average Global Temperatures that are directly attributed to human activity.
As an added note, oftentimes one may hear said climate scientists refer to those two (2) types of CO2 as “urban CO2” and ”rural CO2” because they can’t deny “it is always hotter in the city”.
And there you have it folks, the rest of the story, their secret scientific tool has been revealed to you.
Yours truly, Eritas Fubar
Wot in ell is a pylon.? A variety of phlogiston?
Wot in ell is a pyron.? A variety of phlogiston?
Wot in ell is a pyron.? A variety of phlogiston?
Well, that’s very convincing; I’m converted (when I stop laughing). Who knew those ‘climate scientists’ were so clever?
Sunny,
This first part of the video contains standard IPCC claims that have been discussed many times on this blog.
The second part of the video is a discussion of ClimeWorks product to remove CO2 from the atmosphere and either sequester it into the ground or use if for some other purpose. The small-scale plant in Iceland is powered by geothermal energy and probably does take more CO2 out of the atmosphere than the process generates, but if you tried to scale that up to remove the 100 to 1000 gigatones of CO2 that the IPCC claims must be removed from the atmosphere to stop “Climate Change”, using their own figures for energy requirements of 2,000 KWh of heat and 650KWh electricity per metric ton of CO2, it seems unlikely that renewable energy alone could ever provide the required energy.
In engineering we have a term for these inane solutions :
“A bad idea whose time has come.”
My comment on the proposal:
Well, it won’t have any affect on the climate, but it sure will be expensive.
Mankind’s production of CO2 is a non-problem. In fact as CO2 concentration increases in our atmosphere (at extremely low amounts BTW), from both natural sources and the lesser of man’s burning of fossil fuels, Earth is becoming greener, i.e., increasing CO2 levels are beneficial for our planet. While CO2 plays a very small part in atmospheric warming, water vapor plays the greatest role with 95+% of warming influences. And it is important to note that CO2’s atmospheric warming effect is logarithmic – starting from no CO2 in the atmosphere, adding small amounts of CO2 to the atmosphere has a large effect; but at current concentrations, it takes a doubling of CO2 to have any significant effect. Most important about increasing CO2 concentrations is that it will be almost entirely beneficial to mankind; it greens our planet, it increases food productions, less people die, we move in the direction of periods in earth history with much higher CO2 concentrations when many more species lived than now. Pretty much everything alarmist are screaming is pure BS – their goal is to induce fear so that they can tax us more, gain more power, have more control over our lives, reduce freedoms; they hate freedom.
Sunny,
Search the WUWT articles, using the search box on the website, or just Google some topic with WUWT after it, and you’ll probably find lots of comments on whatever you have questions about. There are so many comments at WUWT already on the basic issues that you question that, for those of us regulars here, to repeat these basics is somewhat redundant. That’s why you’ll likely get simple answers like “garbage”, “crap”, “BS”, “propaganda”, “stupid”, “tired-worn-out-easily-debunked”, “all wrong”, “yawn”, etc.
Robert kernodle & everybody Else…. Thank you 😀
It is an avalanche of untruths.
Where to start?
Nearly every word she said is false, or at best highly problematic.
I suspect that the process only works by virtue of the fact that it is drawing power from a geothermal plant. In other parts of the world the power required to drive the process would generate more CO2 than would be injected into the ground.
Another thing: how much CO2-bearing water can be injected into the depths without the aid of fracking? Now there is a dilemma for the Greens.
When the data don’t conform to Warmunist ideology, they are expendable.
I stopped it at .33. False statement to start…the rest is probably false.
not enough info…yet….with 1 thermometer in the southern hemisphere in the early 1900’s….we know the exact temperature for the earth….within +- .1c.
We need to vote the lib’s out (including climate Barbie)
Australia has data back to around 1870 (New Zealand back to around 1850), the whole world and his dog process this data, except for … the Australian BoM, the only entity that has the critical metadata that allows the dreaded homogenization to be done properly.
The BoM has a habit of only reporting on recent data, especially rainfall data only from 1970, which just happens to have been a wet period in Australia.
We rage at scammers trying to get us to pay for nothing, but institutional scamming is widespread.
We have done this dance before Australia does not have data going back to 1870 at all because a couple of the States don’t properly exist at that point most notably Western Australia which is 1/3 the Australian land mass. WA only has a few townships that pre-date 1893, the significance of 1893 is the goldfields goldrush which is the first real mass influx of population and the formation of the township of Kalgoorlie-Boulder.
Western Australia doesn’t have any real government until 1890 and isn’t federated until 1901. Even the BOM doesn’t try to use data for WA prior to 1910. Any climate data prior to 1910 is very Eastern Australia biased it certainly is not the climate of Australia because you have no readings for half the landmass being WA and the NT.
I wonder if Trudeau removed the data while in black face?
No Derg. But the media HAS removed the data and replaced it with black face bs.
That is the real concern in Canada. You can’t really tell the difference anymore between the CBC and any other media outlet.
We’re running out of time :0(
“The scrapping of all observed weather data from 1850 to 1949 was necessary, a spokesman for Environment Canada told Blacklock’s Reporter, after researchers concluded that historically, there weren’t enough weather stations to create a reliable data set for that 100-year period.
“The historical data is not observed historical data,” the spokesman said. “It is modelled historical data…”
This is true for most of the planet; I’d say about 90%, probably more. It all needs to be scrapped. Fake data = junk science.
Check out the number of stations in Canada from 1880-1950 (GHCN V3 uadj) compared to the rest of the planet. The vast majority of the world had less coverage than Canada did.
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data_v3/
icisil
Didn’t one of our resident alarmists claim that only a small number of stations was required to model the whole Earth?
yes….
The last I read was 4: one at each pole and two at the equator. But I don’t know if that was a serious or sarcastic comment.
Isn’t this standard practice for both the Arctic and Antarctica?
Few stations, temps to hundredths/thousandths of a degree.
the honest way to do it would be keep all the old ones…and scrap the new ones
There aren’t enough weather stations NOW to create a reliable data set. But that hasn’t stopped them.
And if the Climate Crisis is an existential threat…why the hell are weather stations all over the globe being decommissioned without replacement? Fewer all the time.
We should be working hard to get better streams of better data going forward…to better predict the devastating droughts and superstorms that will be mowing down the populace…if they were really concerned about a Climate Crisis.
Climate Science is curiously unconcerned about improving global climate data.
In that logic chain:
“The illiterate of the 21st century will not be those who cannot read and write, but those who cannot learn, unlearn, and relearn. ”
― Alvin Toffler
The four warmest temperatures ever recorded in Canada are:
July 29, 1937: 45.0C (113F), Yellow Grass, Saakatchewan
July 11, 1936: 44.6c (112.3F), Fort Qu’Appelle, Saskatchewan
July 11, 1936: 44.6C (112.3F) Emerson, Manitoba
Aug 20, 2004: 44.6C (112.3F) St. Albans, Manitoba)
Three of four highs were recorded during the dust bowl of the economically disastrous “dirty thirties” in North America. I suppose the climate-alarmists who run Environment Canada are delighted to be rid of such inconvenient facts.
Also, weather is not climate. – article
Well, du-u-u-uhhh! Finally, someone besides US said it and printed it and published it. Will this become a trend? I hope so.
and Climate is an abstraction.
Andrew
Not totally true , weather is climate when claiming so promotes ‘climate doom’
“… it omitted observed weather data from 1850 to 1949…”
100 years of weather _is_ climate.
The ‘truth’ appears to be: they know what they want the models to predict, and that is the “climate” that the models will ‘predict’.
The only statement from these guys should be: We have insufficient data to determine any climate trends of Canada.
Anything else is speculative and potentially misleading.
Whenever they make any other statement, the reply should be: you don’t have enough actual data to support that, or any other, conclusion.
“there weren’t enough weather stations to create a reliable data set for that 100-year period.”
If the record for those years had been cooler than for recent years, instead of the reverse, would there have been enough stations? To ask the question is to answer it.
Let’s be honest, there is a need for only one thermometer in the world if a global temperature anomaly is what we are looking for. I know, I know, different locations have different temperature profiles so we need to include many locations to be sure we are capturing possible changes. I call Hokum! We are not capturing things like humidity, altitude, wind velocities, clouds, dew points, rainfall or anything else that would define a locations enthalpy. If you use temperature as a proxy for enthalpy, then you are also assuming everything else must be same, i.e. enthalpy is the same at all locations with the same temperature. We know this isn’t true, so what do multiple temperatures and averaging of them actually buy you?
The uncertainties with so many associated quantities is so high that any projection of temperature must also have similar uncertainty.
The following should be clear to all of us:
Stephen Schneider of the National Center for Atmospheric Research described the scientists’ dilemma this way:
“On the one hand, as scientists, we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but-which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but; human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broadbased support, to capture the public’s imagination.
That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This ‘double ethical bind’ we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.” DISCOVER OCTOBER 1989, Page 47
Basically it boils down to: “We scientists are bound to be unbiased and ethical, however…”
“We scientists are bound to be unbiased and ethical, … unless our paychecks are in danger.”
If you have to lie and exaggerate about an event to garner support, isn’t that fraud? And doesn’t that also say that you adhere to the immoral philosophy that the end justifies the means?
If you can’t garner support for your cause without resorting to lies and fraud, that either says that you are not doing a good job of convincing the public or that your cause is wrong
Being both seems to me to mean that you’re not an honest scientist. You may be an honest advocate (and effective) but you’ve abandoned science to advocate RevealedTruth.
Being both means your position is supported by science, and can attract attention to your position while being honest. Having to make a choice means you’re not honest or a scientist.
Didn’t anyone involved in this mess understand that quality of data does NOT correlate to quantity of data???
I could equally argue that the temperature data from 1950 to 2005 should not be used for “developing” the climate models because it has not been corrected for urban heat island effects and poor citing of many of the more-recently-installed ground temperature measuring stations. Also, the more recent interval of temperature data is all messed up from combining land-based thermometer data with radiance-derived temperatures obtained via satellite-based instruments that monitor both land and sea temperatures.
And from the last boxed quote above:
“Also, weather is not climate.
Computer climate models don’t claim to predict what the weather will be like on any given day, month or year.
They predict long-term weather and climate patterns.”
. . . this leaves me wondering why, then, are they using (the yearly . . . likely more frequent than that) weather records of temperatures to “develop” the climate models?
Ooops . . . mea culpa . . . first sentence in my second paragraph of above post should have stated “siting” (not “citing”), as a verb form derived from “to site”, or to position within a specific area.
“Citing” is for references . . . of which neither I or the above article had any 🙂
Gavin Schmidt is great at making the weather of the past anything he wants it to be. Canadians took notice.
Which is way he got the job in the first place
”Omitting observed historical weather data from computer models is common in climate science because of differences in the quality of the reporting of weather data today, compared to 1850 when historical records started being kept.”
This bit bugges me the most. It suggests that it is ok, but really it proves to me that all models are crap.
In the 1850s, they used mercury thermometers. Mercury expands in a sealed tube reproducibly, according to simple physical LAWS. These laws ensure that a mercury thermometer will be accurate in 1500 AD and just as accurate in 2200 AD. I am more suspicious of modern electronic software algorithms that “interpret” the physical response of the probes, and can possibly be “adjusted”.
There is no “adjustment” possible in a mercury column.
There are plenty of reasons for adjustment, such as lack of proper radiation screening, and local heat traps, one early thermometer in Arizona was on a roof, a suitable place only for a man with a Winchester.
The Stevenson screen was in place by the late 1860’s and the standard used since. In the USA and Canada with some of Europe in the 19th century, had the best world coverage. There are no reasons to not use this data apart for political gain where science is the loser again. Based on these ideas implemented Africa, Antarctica, Siberia, Asia, South America, Arctic and all the oceans/seas would have to scrapped throughout most or all of the record. Only the satellite data give a reasonable reliable accurate dataset that can be used for climate policy.
To think the scientist’s were poor in the past has been truly insulting to the profession. The scientists back in those days were really interested in science, cared about science and weren’t bribed by government agendas. Increasing number of activist are getting into government roles that are not interested in science. Less group think made science inventions great, not so much nowadays.
Blackfaced again.
Watching the press try to spin THAT little deal is amazing – they’re actually trying to minimize it by calling it ‘brownface’.
I guess you missed the second photo found.
“The historical data is not observed historical data,” the spokesman said. “It is modelled historical data … 24 models from historical simulations spanning 1950 to 2005 were used.”
“an important next step in giving our decision-makers even greater access to important climate data for long-term planning. The more each of us uses this type of information, the more it will help.”
Data? Data? We don’t need no stinking data!
It’s so much easier to model it, so we can make it what we want it to be.
Winston Smith has job security.
Instead of using the sparse intermittent data that they had access to, they used none of it.
There, all fixed.
Anyone who can say that that is an improvement in data needs slapping.
Okay, fair enough I guess. If you’re going to scrap the data from 1850 through 1949 for subjective reasons, then they should scrap it through 1968 and just use satellite data that I believe started in around 1969.
Will Canadians continue to worry about global warming during the depths of future winters? Will they demand that their government use tax dollars to make their country even colder?
Any Canadian (or Russian) who wants to make it colder er does not welcome warmth has to be a masochist to the nth degree.
It’s been anecdotally reported that during the Soviet era in Russia heating oil was rationed according to the prior years temps, which led to many observers fudging their reports lower to ensure adequate supplies for the next season. If that’s true then the 30’s and 40’s were actually warmer than recorded in at least the northern part of that continent. Of course since the North American and European temps from the time have been adjusted far below the reality observed then, the two sets appear consistent. The irony of corrupt communist weather observers 80-90 years ago adjusting observations down to acquire more oil, while corrupt climate “scientists” today are adjusting past observations down to deprive us all of adequate oil and energy is comical. Cold days and hot days come and go but corrupt officials are with us always.
So what this really means is that nobody can claim with a straight face to day that the earth’s climate has warmed by any particular number of degrees since 1850.
Well, there goes the whole durned climate alarmist argument, doesn’t it?
WHAT WARMING?
LOLOLOLOL!!!
Is there evidence that fabricated data is any better than incomplete or low-quality data?
I use only the highest quality algorithms in my data fabrication routines. I guarantee the unsurpassed quality and veracity of my data. See me for all your most demanding data fabrication needs.
All major credit cards accepted.
That’s some gold platted data you got there TonyL.
We sure paid top dollar for it, so it must be right, right?
“..The scrapping of all observed weather data from 1850 to 1949 was necessary, a spokesman for Environment Canada told Blacklock’s Reporter, after researchers concluded that historically, there weren’t enough weather stations to create a reliable data set for that 100-year period…”
“Those who control the present, control the past and those who control the past control the future.”
― George Orwell, 1984
Environment and Climate Change Canada explicitly says it has reliable records for Southern Canada, but then decided not to use them!
This is from their “Canada in a Changing Climate Report (CCCR):
“The observing system is also unevenly distributed across Canada, with much of northern Canada having a very sparse network that has been in place for only about 70 years. There is very high confidence1 that temperature datasets are sufficiently reliable for computing regional averages of temperature for southern Canada2 from 1900 to present and for northern Canada2 from 1948 to present.
What if CCCR had used the entire available historical record? The report relies heavily on the work of Vincent et al. This paper has a chart dating back to 1900. It shows higher than current maximum temperatures in the 1930’s and early 1940’s – they elected to ignore this data.
It is modelled historic data. Made with models we know are faulty.
You can’t make this stuff up…Oh..that’s exactly what they are doing.
“Katie Pavlich on the cost of Democrats’ climate change plans”
https://video.foxnews.com/v/6087820162001/#sp=show-clips
Scrapping 100 years of weather data was a necessary adjustment for Canada, to mitigate equipment calibration inconsistencies and resolve siting errors. Yeah…. that’s the ticket!
In one way they are right , there indeed many problems with date from past data collections and there are problems in trying to be compare it to the way this data is collected now .
But then the problem is the ‘worst ever , hottest ever ‘ climate doom screams are based on the exact same data and when it suits they are happy rto use the data .
Bottom line , there is even now, no were near the level, range , accuracy or any meaningful factor that goes into good measure practice to come up with any ‘global temperatures’ or sea level . large parts of the earth have no measurement and large parts little . And past ‘missing information’ is the very reason to use ‘proxies ‘ like magic tree rings in the first place.
And yet none of this stops the claims of ‘settled science’ and unquestionable predictions to two decimal places for many years ahead , in an area that were they cannot tell you if it will rain or not next Wednesday because of the uncertain involved .
Since the data didn’t match the models, it was obvious that the data was flawed and had to be discarded.
Those old, scrapped observations might have been too few to give a Global or Canada wide picture of past temperatures, but they sure as (fill in the blank) gave a picture of the LOCAL past temperatures! (The locals might want to know!)
Why delete them?
Actual past observations at one of those locations might have been different from what the computer-generated fantasy says it was?
Computaguess away where there is no actual data. But delete the actual local data in favor of the Computer Guess of what the local temps were?
Who and how could anybody defend that??!!??
Re. ICISIL, does that mean that all historical data, written down stuff
cannot be used. ?
Sadly that was decided long ago in Villness in Austria .
So known facts such as the Thames freezing over and having fairs held on it
simply did not happen, plus the very detailed records from both Egypt and
China. The MWP and the Little Ice Age too. , plus the Minion, Greek and
Roman civilisations , all the result of warmer periods, simply never happened.
Eric the Red never got to Greenland, and probably Canada and todays America .
Next thing we will be told that the parting of the Red Sea never happened either .
Sark.
Seriously its obvious that the left wing in its never ending quest for World Government will lie and chat till they get their way.
MJE VK5ELL
Measured temps can be used to accurately determine what temperatures were in their local areas, and historical anecdotal data can be used to get a general idea what temps were, but those are different than making up temperature data when no measurement data exist.
Of course they deleted historic data. What else would you expect them to do?
Not surprising, this disappearance of 100 years of data from McKenna, our minister of “environment and global warming”, known here as “climate barbie”. Typical lying Libtard techniques to suppress the truth.
“The end justifies the means.”
Dem DNA.
Boy what a classic misreading
1. They are talking about a web page
2. Here it is https://climatedata.ca/
Basically it is a climate services portal.
nothing here to see.
https://climatedata.ca/about/
So for their WEBPAGE that provide climate services they use data from climate models and ANUSPLIN.
ya, real data
Steve thinks fake, computer-generated numbers are real data. This exemplifies how far science has fallen, and is nothing more than postmodern alchemy of the mind, i.e., change the perception of reality rather than reality itself.
This link describing ANUSPLIN gives a good idea how climate scientists are living in a world of virtual reality that’s completely detached from the real world. This is the type of computer simulation program that generates their fake temperature numbers where no real data exist. How do you measure the average temperature of, let’s say, 100 million sq. mi. (the southern hemisphere) with 100 thermometers? Easy, you use those 100 real data points and make up all the rest. Science has no meaning in this kind of context. It’s fantasy world.
https://fennerschool.anu.edu.au/research/products/anusplin
No!
They used ANUSPLIN only to test the robustness of the BCCAQ method:
“About the BCCAQv2 time-series and maps:
All results displayed are from an ensemble of 24 climate models. Each climate model simulates the climate for the historical period, 1950-2005, and for plausible futures, 2006-2100, in response to three emissions scenarios representing different atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases (RCP2.6, RCP4.5 and RCP8.5).”
Misreading! It is brazen propaganda of the highest order. Just type in a place name and read the dishonest shite that comes up. The so called “historical data” isn’t data and it doesn’t match real observations and makes no pretence of doing so! Temps are all lower, it is always better in the past and the future is always a disaster! As for the RCP scenarios, even the IPCC has disowned them as completely unreal.
Climate MODELS are not actual verifiable data. Never have been, never will be.
So … a curious John or Jane Q Public can go to the web page but they won’t see the observed temperature (if there was one) for a local but a modeled temperature?
And your OK with that because if they know the ins and outs of digging deeper into the web they might stubble upon it?
That’s worse than giving the impression that the most recent year a record high/low for the day was tied is the year it was set.
“Climatedata.ca is a collaboration between Environment and Climate Change Canada, the Computer Research Institute of Montréal (CRIM)…”
CRIMinal!
Data from computer models is real data, since when? All I see at that about link is models models models all the way down, but they do say it all “quality controlled and unadjusted”.
Your comedy class is coming along well.
There WERE not enough weather stations prior to 1950 to determine the Global Average Temperatures.. (with satellite or radiosonde accuracies) period. No pre-1950 Proxies have enough accuracy or resolution to produce valid trends with the accuracies and resolution claimed by today’s climate science crowd. The data is not there. Models may claim to be able to “fill in the holes”, but that is a lie unsupportable by standard statistical analysis.
Models are not able to provide data good enough to “tack onto” the more complete and higher resolution post 1950 climate data. To claim otherwise is a lie.
We are in a war for the preservation of western civilization. Bullets are being fired right at us. How do we fight this…they own the battlefields (Media, Academia, Education, Entertainment, Government, Big Data) and have all the weapons and ammunition (Media and Academia and Education disseminating lies and propaganda).
How NOAA was able to measure a global land and sea average is beyond me. Oh wait! They made it up! Like all averages!
So, as we see, another misuse of “climate models” — they model the past instead of reporting the past.
Models similarly cannot model (project, predict, anything future pointed) past the breakdown of the model mathematics into the chaotic realm discovered and highlighted by Edward Lorentz “who established the theoretical basis of weather and climate predictability, as well as the basis for computer-aided atmospheric physics and meteorology. He is best known as the founder of modern chaos theory, a branch of mathematics focusing on the behavior of dynamical systems that are highly sensitive to initial conditions. His discovery of deterministic chaos “profoundly influenced a wide range of basic sciences and brought about one of the most dramatic changes in mankind’s view of nature since Sir Isaac Newton,” according to the committee that awarded him the 1991 Kyoto Prize for basic sciences in the field of earth and planetary sciences. ”
As there are no valid real-world predictions of future climate states — there is nothing real-world about climate model “predictions” of the past.
Kip, I think the term you’re looking for is the horizon of predictability.
Planetary orbits are chaotic. The horizon of predictability of planetary orbits is on the order of from 1 to 5 million years. Unlike Newton’s clockwork universe, it appears that chaos rules the day.
The horizon of predictability of the Earth’s weather system is less than two weeks. Even if we were to use the exact same equations that the Earth’s weather system uses, we still couldn’t predict weather past that two-week horizon. Such are the limits of a chaotic system.
Jim
Sounds an awful lot like Climate gates natural trick to climate models . Get the results to match the narrative .
Whew what a relief , Liberals lying as usual and now maybe Atwood won’t die in a car crash .
So now they admit after being caught they just made up data for 100 years .
The climate con-game relied on fake data and they got it gift wrapped .
More and more of the outright deceit is going to coming poring out as the noose tights around the fraudsters pumping the scam . We are going to see more volunteer falling on swords like the James Comey set up about leaking data .
Err well the models you know are subject to complex variables that we cannot model to do the model .
So while we do model they are likely hundreds of percent wrong . Of course you knew that all along right ?
I mean that is just settled science right ? Oh no we had no intention of completely bull shitting you for 25 years . Clearly you have misunderstood … we had no intent of enabling the worlds biggest fraud .
So they scrapped the data just made crap up for 100 years and enabled the worlds biggest fraud .
It takes someone doing an investigation to pull the curtain back on the climate sausage factory .
Then they put a little cutie face in front of it to huff and puff about saving the planet .
The planet is more in danger when con-men get away with this fabrication and deceit .
I don’t think this is an accident coming out now . The Liberals are going to get smoked in a couple of months and the last thing the climate manufactures want is an audit trail of the crap they pulled .
Clear evidence of fraud .