Cherry Picking For Fun And Profit

Today’s climate scam of the day is blaming heavy rain on “global warming” (That is when they are not blaming drought on global warming)

In the last decade record-breaking rainfall events have occurred in many places around the world causing severe impacts to human society and the environment including agricultural losses and floodings. There is now medium confidence that human-induced greenhouse gases have contributed to changes in heavy precipitation events at the global scale. Here, we present the first analysis of record-breaking daily rainfall events using observational data. We show that over the last three decades the number of record-breaking events has significantly increased in the global mean. Globally, this increase has led to 12 % more record-breaking rainfall events over 1981–2010 compared to those expected in stationary time series. The number of record-breaking rainfall events peaked in 2010 with an estimated 26 % chance that a new rainfall record is due to long-term climate change. This increase in record-breaking rainfall is explained by a statistical model which accounts for the warming of air and associated increasing water holding capacity only. Our results suggest that whilst the number of rainfall record-breaking events can be related to natural multi-decadal variability over the period from 1901 to 1980, observed record-breaking rainfall events significantly increased afterwards consistent with rising temperatures.

Increased record-breaking precipitation events under global warming – Online First – Springer

Here in the US, there has been an increase in heavy rainfall events since the 1950’s. However, there has been a large decrease in heavy rainfall events since the 19th century, when NASA says temperatures were very cold.

ScreenHunter_9896 Jul. 09 10.20

If you are a climate scamster, a favorite technique is to cherry-pick the most misleading interval possible – and blame it on global warming.

About Tony Heller

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

21 Responses to Cherry Picking For Fun And Profit

  1. gator69 says:

    This increase in record-breaking rainfall is explained by a statistical model which accounts for the warming of air and associated increasing water holding capacity only.

    Gee, why don’t they ever program their models with real data?

    From AR5…

    “Therefore, at this time, we can neither prove nor disprove a robust trend in the global water vapor data.”

  2. From IPCC AR5 TS.6
    “There is low confidence in an observed global-scale trend in drought or dryness (lack of rainfall), due to lack of direct observations, methodological uncertainties and choice and geographical inconsistencies in the trends. {2.6.2}”

    Translation: Drought happens, IPCC doesn’t know why.

    “There is low confidence in semi-empirical model projections of global mean sea level rise, and no consensus in the scientific community about their reliability. {13.5.2, 13.5.3}”

    Translation: DON’T KNOW!!!!

    “There is low confidence in projections of many aspects of climate phenomena that influence regional climate change, including changes in amplitude and spatial pattern of modes of climate variability. {9.5.3, 14.2–14.7}

    Translation: Haven’t got a clue about the weather.

    IPCC can’t connect alleged man induced climate change and weather, what does the internet guild of uninformed trolls sitting in their mother’s basement with time on their hands know that IPCC doesn’t?

  3. “It’s rained before and it’s raining again,
    But this time its “climate change”.
    Compensation I’ve been promised by President Obama,
    So a claim form I need to arrange.

    Although it has rained many times before,
    I think I can claim “extreme” drops.
    So I must get my form submitted, quick, quick,
    Before this extreme weather stops…..”


  4. Tom Moran says:

    Where is this “warm air”? Is it hiding in the lower troposphere?

    • Gail Combs says:

      I think it is hiding in my backyard. A lot of 90+ degree days the last month or so.

      • Gail Combs says:

        I would be happy to package up 5C and ship it to you if I could figure out how.

        • rah says:

          You can keep those 5Cs Gail. It’s 69 deg F right now and I like it. But I sure wish I could send some of the rain we’ve been having somewhere else. Rained this morning until 06:30 and we have another patch coming in shortly.

        • Gail Combs says:

          We will be heading to near Seymore Indiana (Jim Jessup) to have are diesel pick-up tuned. Since we do not have a Jake would you recommend 75 or 77 returning to North Carolina.

          We are worried about the section of 77 near Mt Airy with sudden fog where the road drops like a rock in 6 miles.

          (I really wish I had a jake)

        • rah says:

          Not knowing exactly where your heading to go home I’m basing this on heading towards Charlotte, NC. I guess your asking if I would take I-65 south of out Seymore, IN to I-64 W at Louisville to catch I-75 S at Lexington and take it down to I-40 E to catch I-26 E near Ashville? If so, that is the way I would go.

          BTW major construction along I-65 in southern Indiana and also right before you get to the bridge. They’re building a new bridge over the Ohio there to reroute I-65 so I will avoid downtown Louisville. Avoid going through there during heavy traffic times if possible.

        • rah says:

          Should have been I 64 E (sorry)

        • Gail Combs says:

          Thanks, Rah,

          Charlotte NC is close enough since we are smack in the middle of the state.
          I do try to time our driving so we drive mostly at night. I am more or less a night owl and have no problem with driving 7 PM to 3 AM or so. Hubby is only good for a few hours since Narcolepsy runs in his family.

          It is about a ten hour drive so shouldn’t be too bad. We just want to make sure we miss the worst of the traffic, hazards like steep mountains and the trip is short enough the critters don’t run out of water. (A three day supply with the neighbor checking should do it.)

      • rah says:

        BTW Gail I go down I-65 quite often flying by Seymore. If you run into a back up there you might be tempted to jump off at the TA truckstop to catch US 31. It may be ok now but last time I tried it, it cost me time.

  5. Andy DC says:

    What is worse, a few more heavy showers, which are good for the flowers, or the 1930’s Dust Bowl and repeated crop disasters?

  6. DD More says:

    Climate Scientific speech translation.

    There is now medium confidence that human-induced greenhouse gases have contributed to changes in heavy precipitation events at the global scale.

    The standard terms used to define levels of confidence in this report are as given in the IPCC Uncertainty Guidance Note, namely:

    Confidence Terminology–Degree of confidence in being correct
    Very high confidence—-At least 9 out of 10 chance
    High confidence———About 8 out of 10 chance
    Medium confidence——-About 5 out of 10 chance
    Low confidence———-About 2 out of 10 chance
    Very low confidence—–Less than 1 out of 10 chance

    Whoa, 50 / 50. Real strong statement here. But what was the likelyhood of this happening?

    Also from the IPCC Climate God Bible.

    3) Be aware of a tendency for a group to converge on an expressed view and become overconfident in it. Views and estimates can also become anchored on previous versions or values to a greater extent than is justified.

    4) Be aware that the way in which a statement is framed will have an effect on how it is interpreted (e.g., a 10% chance of dying is interpreted more negatively than a 90% chance of surviving).

    8) Use the following dimensions to evaluate the validity of a finding: the type, amount, quality, and consistency of evidence (summary terms: “limited,” “medium,” or “robust”), and the degree of agreement (summary terms: “low,” “medium,” or “high”). Generally, evidence is most robust when there are multiple, consistent independent lines of high-quality evidence. Provide a traceable account describing your evaluation of evidence and agreement in the text of your chapter.

    9) A level of confidence is expressed using five qualifiers: “very low,” “low,” “medium,” “high,” and “very high.” It synthesizes the author teams’ judgments about the validity of findings as determined through evaluation of evidence and agreement. Figure 1 depicts summary statements for evidence and agreement and their relationship to confidence. There is flexibility in this relationship; for a given evidence and agreement statement, different confidence levels could be assigned, but increasing levels of evidence and degrees of agreement are correlated with increasing confidence. Confidence cannot necessarily be assigned for all combinations of evidence and agreement in Figure 1 (see Paragraph 8). Presentation of findings with “low” and “very low” confidence should be reserved for areas of major concern, and the reasons for their presentation should be carefully explained.

    10) Likelihood, as defined in Table 1, provides calibrated language for describing quantified uncertainty. It can be used to express a probabilistic estimate of the occurrence of a single event or of an outcome (e.g., a climate parameter, observed trend, or projected change lying in a given range). Likelihood may be based on statistical or modeling analyses, elicitation of expert views, or other quantitative analyses. The categories defined in this table can be considered to have “fuzzy” boundaries. A statement that an outcome is “likely” means that the probability of this outcome can range from ?66% (fuzzy boundaries implied) to 100% probability. This implies that all alternative outcomes are “unlikely” (0-33% probability). When there is sufficient information, it is preferable to specify the full probability distribution or a probability range (e.g., 90- 95%) without using the terms in Table 1.

    Table 1. Likelihood Scale

    Term*———————Likelihood of the Outcome

    Virtually certain———99-100%
    probability Very likely—90-100%
    probability Likely——–66-100%
    probability About as——33 to 66%
    likely as not
    probability Unlikely——0-33% probability
    Very unlikely————-0-10% probability

    Exceptionally unlikely—-0-1% probability

    • gator69 says:

      There is now medium confidence that human-induced greenhouse gases have contributed to changes in heavy precipitation events at the global scale.

      I guess this gets more funding than “we have no f’ing clue”.

  7. omanuel says:

    They are not at fault for cherry picking data. We encouraged them every time we accepted the last basket of cherry-picked data. Every lie (fable) that we accepted as truth increased the likelihood that another lie would be forthcoming. E.g.,

    Consensus Fable: Reality

    1. AGW Fable: The fountain of energy Copernicus reported in 1543 at the gravitational center of the solar system provides heat and light and obviously controls the climate of every planet in the Solar System.

    2. SNM Fable: The nucleus (core) of heavy atoms like uranium and plutonium fission (fragment, explode) because neutrons repel other neutrons.

    3. SSM Fable: The Sun and other ordinary stars make hydrogen (H) and discard hydrogen (H) to interstellar space in the solar wind.

    4. BBC Fable: The universe is expanding and entropy is increasing as compressed electron/proton pairs (neutrons) decay into expanded electron/proton pairs (H atoms).

  8. omanuel says:

    Thank you, Tony aka Steven, for allowing us to expose the game plan that imprisoned society for the last seventy years. Many good scientists died trying.

  9. omanuel says:

    Dr. Peter Toth, Dr. Carl Rouse, Dr. Paul K. Kuroda, etc., etc.

    • omanuel says:

      This is a Dr. Carl Rouse, probably the most intellectually honest and certainly one of the most abused astrophysicists of the past century.

      He received a PhD in astrophysics from CalTech or Stanford in the late 1950’s, lived in LaJolla, CA with his lovely wife, and spent his career pointing out errors in the Standard Solar Model of hydrogen-filled stars.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *