Glaciers Don’t Lie, But Government Scientists Do

Posted on October 8, 2015 by Tony Heller

During the 1950’s and 1960’s, glaciers in Europe and the US were growing, for the first time in hundreds of years.

ScreenHunter_3425 Oct. 08 15.20

18 Jul 1963 – Glaciers Grow In Norway

PaintImage471

TimesMachine: October 16, 1955 – NYTimes.com

Scientists reported that the Earth had cooled sharply.

ScreenHunter_393 May. 21 04.35

NCAR  newsweek_coolingworld.pdf

ScreenHunter_394 May. 21 04.37

National Academy Of Sciences  Science News

National Geographic reported the same thing.

PaintImage469

The US and Russia were concerned about Arctic cooling.

ScreenHunter_1434 Jul. 30 06.37

ScreenHunter_1435 Jul. 30 06.37

TimesMachine: July 18, 1970 – NYTimes.com

Scientists said that global cooling was “indisputable”

ScreenHunter_770 Dec. 24 22.36

ScreenHunter_771 Dec. 24 22.41

ScreenHunter_768 Dec. 24 22.32

Lawrence Journal-World – Google News Archive Search

There was unanimous consensus that the world was getting colder.

ScreenHunter_7303 Feb. 19 06.36

SCIENTISTS AGREE WORLD IS COLDER – – NYTimes.com

There was never any question that the earth cooled sharply after the 1930’s, but it didn’t fit the political narrative, so NASA and NOAA simply made the cooling disappear.

Fig.A (7)

In the Climategate E-mails, they were very up front about their intentions to do this.

From: Tom Wigley <[email protected]>
To: Phil Jones <[email protected]>
Subject: 1940s
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 23:25:38 -0600
Cc: Ben Santer <[email protected]>

It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip, but we are still left with “why the blip”.

di2.nu/foia/1254108338.txt

The temperature record from government agencies is completely fraudulent and has no scientific value. Its sole purpose is to assist political agendas.

About Tony Heller

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

28 Responses to Glaciers Don’t Lie, But Government Scientists Do

  3. gofer says:
    October 8, 2015 at 9:51 pm

    But, but, but, it was only a couple articles in Time that supported cooling. 99.9% of scientists believed in warming. /s for the slow.

    Reply
  4. Jim Steele says:
    October 8, 2015 at 10:26 pm

    In a 2012 video PHil Jones admitted adjusting ocean temperature data to match warmer land data as discussed here at WUWT arguing the “bucket data” was too cold because canvas bags have a cooling effect http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/17/phil-jones-2012-video-talks-about-adjusting-sst-data-up-3-5c-after-wwii/

    Now Karl adjusts the data again to eliminate the warming hiatus by arguing state of the art ARGO floats didn’t match the warmer “bucket data.” Its amazing they don’t smell their own stink and/or assume they can fool the public.

    Reply
  5. Koop in VA says:
    October 8, 2015 at 11:41 pm

    I’m trying to follow here and better understand the argument so let me see re-phrase and you all can correct any misunderstandings.

    http://futurepath.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/770px-Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png

    Ok, so the above is a global temperature chart that is slightly different than what Tony posted. I just did a quick search on bing for global temperatures 20th century and this is one of the first that popped up.

    So what do we see? As the scientists point out in the articles that Tony links to they said it was indisputable that the world cooled after the 1940’s. That is shown in Tony’s map, that is shown in the map that I show. So I don’t think there is any dispute now or then, right?

    Despite the hyperbolic body of the article (earth cooled in the 40’s!), the point seems to be to set up the climate gate quote about fixing the 1940’s blip. Obviously, in my graph there is a much more pronounced blip in around 1940 that went real high. In Tony’s graph it is obviously not nearly as pronounced. So they appear to have “fixed” this blip.

    From the skeptics point of view you seem to imply that it is nefarious. So can someone enlighten me as to what the scientists said about why it needed to be fixed? And then from the skeptics point of view why is that wrong and why is it therefore sketchy that the graph went roughly from mine to roughly Tony’s?

    Appreciate it.

    Reply
    • rah says:
      October 9, 2015 at 12:49 am

      Fixing the 1940s blip

      Reply
    • DD More says:
      October 9, 2015 at 6:54 pm

      Koop, I count 11 dots (annual) after 2000, making your 1st found chart 2011. Thanks, you have just provided more evidence that there is nefarious-ism going on. Keep up the good work, but most here have witnessed the annual adjusting.

      Reply
      • AndyG55 says:
        October 10, 2015 at 12:21 am

        Yep, they have gradually chipped away (re Tom Wiggly’s suggestion) at the 1940’s PEAK.

        Its now nearly flat , such is the erosion of science by these guys.

        Reply
  6. Gail Combs says:
    October 9, 2015 at 12:01 am

    This is the clincher graph for me. You do not get perfect correlation (R=1.0) by happenstance.

    https://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2014/08/screenhunter_1618-aug-03-09-45.gif

    “The most damning graph of all though is the one below, showing how NOAA (red) is cooling the past relative to their own thermometer data (blue)”

    https://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/bgqd5wpcmaajkg3.png

    “Before data tampering by NCDC, US temperatures show essentially zero correlation with atmospheric CO2. Climate sensitivity of zero.”

    https://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2014/12/screenhunter_5685-dec-30-18-55.gif

    Reply
  8. Gail Combs says:
    October 9, 2015 at 12:03 am

    CONTINUED (so I don’t get kicked into moseration)
    UHI
    They reckon the UHI in Peking is at least 3’C,
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3002906/Electric-cars-combat-urban-heat-problem-study.html

    E.M. Smith’s summary post: https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2012/06/20/summary-report-on-v1-vs-v3-ghcn/

    The EFFECT:
    https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2010/01/08/ghcn-gistemp-interactions-the-bolivia-effect/

    “Urban Island Heat” effect. NOAA and a rebuttal by Steve McIntyre
    https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/09/17/fake-adjustments-from-fake-scientists/#comment-424001

    Roy Spenser on Heat Island Effect
    paper: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/03/the-global-average-urban-heat-island-effect-in-2000-estimated-from-station-temperatures-and-population-density-data/

    Las Vegas: Poster Child for the Urban Heat Island Effect – a good demonstration
    http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/06/las-vegas-poster-child-for-the-urban-heat-island-effect-updated-corrected/

    As you can see from the above, whenever you do a ‘dig here’ on the explanations for the different adjustments you find a thin veneer covering a lie.

    Reply
  9. Gail Combs says:
    October 9, 2015 at 12:08 am

    This one is a real kick in the teeth to the CAGW conjecture.

    Misunderstanding of the Global Temperature Anomaly from Chem Engineer John Kehr
    (Word Unpress censors the link to this website so I can not post it.)

    ….Now for something interesting. In January [2013] the anomaly in the Arctic was well above average. By simple physics that meant the Arctic was losing energy to space at a much higher rate than average. Normally the Arctic is losing energy at a rate of 163 W/m^2. In January of 2013 it was losing energy at a rate of 173 W/m^2. That 6% increase in rate of energy loss meant that the Arctic ended up with a negative anomaly in February. The dramatic change in Arctic anomaly played a big role in the drop of the global anomaly in February.

    The rate of energy loss is a self-correcting mechanism. Physics don’t allow it to operate in any other way. As a whole the Earth lost ~ 4 W/m^2 more than average over the entire surface in the month of January. Data for February is not yet available, but it will be close to average because the anomaly was closer to average. The higher rate of energy loss in January resulted in a more average February. That is how the climate operates.

    Finally I have to get a dig in at CO2. In January of 2013 it was 395 ppm and in 1985 it was 50 points lower at 345 ppm. So despite the fact that CO2 was higher, the Earth was losing energy at a higher rate to space. CO2 was not blocking the energy from escaping despite all the claims that increased CO2 prevents heat from escaping the Earth. The Earth 30 years later was losing a significantly larger amount of energy to space than it was in the past….

    You will find skeptics are often either engineers or geologists or people with a bit of training in geology and thermo.

    Reply
    • Robertv says:
      October 9, 2015 at 6:08 am

      http://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/CO2-chart-780-600×412.jpg

      We know co2 is a coolant. Every time in the past 800 k years when co2 was high temperatures went down.

      Reply
      • Gail Combs says:
        October 9, 2015 at 6:41 am

        http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/global_warming/images/stratospheric_cooling.jpg

        CO2 radiates above the bulk of the atmosphere at COLD TEMPERATURES. This jives with what Mike Sanicola, a professional infrared astronomer said

        I’m a professional infrared astronomer who spent his life trying to observe space through the atmosphere’s back-radiation that the environmental activists claim is caused by CO2 and guess what? In all the bands that are responsible for back radiation in the brightness temperatures (color temperatures) related to earth’s surface temperature (between 9 microns and 13 microns for temps of 220K to 320 K) there is no absorption of radiation by CO2 at all. In all the bands between 9 and 9.5 there is mild absorption by H2O, from 9.5 to 10 microns (300 K) the atmosphere is perfectly clear except around 9.6 is a big ozone band that the warmists never mention for some reason. From 10 to 13 microns there is more absorption by H2O. Starting at 13 we get CO2 absorption but that wavelength corresponds to temperatures below even that of the south pole. Nowhere from 9 to 13 microns do we see appreciable absorption bands of CO2. This means the greenhouse effect is way over 95% caused by water vapor and probably less than 3% from CO2. I would say even ozone is more important due to the 9.6 band, but it’s so high in the atmosphere that it probably serves more to radiate heat into space than for back-radiation to the surface. The whole theory of a CO2 greenhouse effect is wrong yet the ignorant masses in academia have gone to great lengths trying to prove it with one lie and false study after another, mainly because the people pushing the global warming hoax are funded by the government who needs to report what it does to the IPCC to further their “cause”. I’m retired so I don’t need to keep my mouth shut anymore. Kept my mouth shut for 40 years, now I will tell you, not one single IR astronomer gives a rats arse about CO2. Just to let you know how stupid the global warming activists are, I’ve been to the south pole 3 times and even there, where the water vapor is under 0.2 mm precipitable, it’s still the H2O that is the main concern in our field and nobody even talks about CO2 because CO2 doesn’t absorb or radiate in the portion of the spectrum corresponding with earth’s surface temps of 220 to 320 K. Not at all. Therefore, for Earth as a black body radiator IT’S THE WATER VAPOR STUPID and not the CO2.

        Reply
        • Morgan Wright says:
          October 9, 2015 at 11:44 pm

          Gail, just to keep things in the open, Mike Sanicola was a pseud I was using for a while due to some legal papers I had signed when working for GE’s infrared division back in the 1980’s designing IR telescopes. I’m not using a pseud anymore.

    • Andy Oz says:
      October 9, 2015 at 6:28 am

      Guilty.
      Engineers can do math. “Alarmist scientists” cannot or rather they “modify data to give a desired outcome”.
      Politicians & govt bureaucrats prefer to work with malleable (see def. – weak minded) fools who can be easily influenced. Then these politicians/bureaucrats get a high paying job in academia, finance or industry which benefits from the various carbon tax, carbon credit, “renewable energy grant” boondoggles.
      It’s all in plain sight.

      Reply
  10. Marsh says:
    October 9, 2015 at 12:28 am

    Powerful stuff Gail ; this will certainly upset the Warmist cult……

    Reply
    • Gail Combs says:
      October 9, 2015 at 6:23 am

      Thanks Marsh.

      Every time you actually look at what is being shoveled by the ClimAstrologists you find it has been ‘Adjusted’ to match the models. NONE of the data sets are pristine ALL have been tampered with,
      Temperature data
      CO2 data
      Sea level data
      ocean temperature data.
      now solar data

      and I understand they are even going after the radiosonde data to ‘adjust it’ so it shows the missing ‘hot spot’

      Reply
    • AndyG55 says:
      October 9, 2015 at 5:38 am

      Wouldn’t it hilarious if it climbed up somewhere near the 1981-2010 average by December 😉

      Reply
      • Gail Combs says:
        October 9, 2015 at 6:33 am

        Unfortunately it would not matter. The Paris-ites meeting has nothing to do with climate and everything to do with making the UN a world government with the RIGHT to directly tax us. It is also about wealth redistribution.

        They have point blank said they want to strip the middle class of its wealth and ‘redistribute it’ as bribes to the corrupt leaders of third world leaders. The real goal is a return to the dark ages with an Aristocracy and a serf class. The elite have hated the middle class since the time of the American and French revolutions and they now see the goal of destroying middle class prosperity and freedom almost within their grasp. I doubt if anything will stop them especially since we have so many ignorant fools begging for their slave collars.

        I am very very glad I am old and have no offspring.

        Reply
    • Koop in VA says:
      October 10, 2015 at 12:06 am

      http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.recent.arctic.png

      Wow, look at the arctic sea ice growth stall.

      But seriously, if the ice is growing at record rates why is the anomaly growing when it is already negative?

      Reply
  12. Hifast says:
    October 21, 2015 at 2:02 am

    Reblogged this on Climate Collections and commented:
    Good post and comments.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

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