Climate Genius Of The Day

Let me be clear. My own reading of the literature and study of paleoclimate suggests strongly that carbon dioxide from burning of fossil fuels will prove to be the greatest pollutant of human history. It is likely to have severe and detrimental effects on global climate. I would love to believe that the results of Mann et al. are correct, and that the last few years have been the warmest in a millennium.

  • Fake climate skeptic Richard Muller and head of Berkeley Earth

Medieval Global Warming – Page 2 | MIT Technology Review

I showed how NASA/NOAA erased pre-1970 warmth from Australia, and this genius responded with a graph of post-1970 fake data from the same fake government agencies. I don’t know how you make up stupid like this.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

17 Responses to Climate Genius Of The Day

  1. Menicholas says:

    My reading of the global warming scam is that the warmistas, including such people as Muller, Mann, and Hansen, will turn out to be among the most scorned, reviled, and disreputable people in the history of science.
    The only real question is how much time will pass before this is so.

    • Brad says:

      Much like Aristotle, and for the same reasons.

    • -B- says:

      Being a government sponsored scam there will be small admission of it 50 years or more after it has faded away. Practically nobody will pay attention. There will be new scams then that people will be going along with.

  2. Advocatus Diaboli says:

    So NASA, NOAA, Hadley etc. coordinate their data fiddling? I’d love to be a fly on the wall when they discuss how to “adjust” the results.

    What I’d like to know is how they rationalize ignoring the satellite data and relying instead on such methods as filling in (making up) temperatures from places hundreds of miles away.

    • RAH says:

      Many of the warmists will tell you that satellite data doesn’t matter because we live at the surface. Never mind that the permanent hot spot in the lower troposphere in the tropics never developed as required by global warming/climate change hypothesis . They are too damned stupid to understand that the physics the hypothesis is based on demanded that hot spot would form. It didn’t and thus the AGW/Climate Change hypothesis was falsified long ago.

      • Smokey says:

        The global temperature TREND is the relevant metric. That’s really all that matters. A single temperature point is meaningless in the context of ‘climate change’ (note the word ‘change’).

        Satellite data records the global temperature trend more accurately than surface stations. That’s why the alarmist crowd doesn’t like satellite data.

  3. wert says:

    The logic behind karlisation of temperature history goes along these lines:

    ‘Oh, the recent warming is not as fast as it should we. We are expecting exponential anomaly increase, and the measured is sub-linear. There has to be something wrong.’

    … a lot of pondering … someone comes up with a suggestion to fix a bias that works in the expected direction …

    ‘Yes, now the anomaly looks linear, so the model is better than it used to be.’

    I just wonder how many rounds of anomaly increase you can run before you run problems because some stations in the past approach imaginary temperatures. To blindly believe what homogenisation process gives out is stupid. The sad thing is the meteorological data 50 years back is not good enough, and the sadder is that there is a declining number of USHCN stations that are measured, not estimated.

    But the worst proof of deliberate karlisation is this.

    • wert says:

      Or the best. I’m not sure how you should look at this.

      • Smokey says:

        The real question: Which is the cause, and which is the effect?

        Does ∆CO2 precede ∆T, or vice-versa?

        All available evidence shows that ∆CO2 is caused by the preceding ∆temperature.

        Draw your own conclusions…

  4. Andy Oz says:

    The climate religion is so strong that they could be disciples of Jim Jones or Marshall Applewhite. Like those cranks, the climate charlatans at the centre of the scam will have their careers destroyed and be denigrated forever by the free thinking scientific community.

  5. AndyG55 says:

    OT Arctic sea ice update

    2017 day 50 is higher than 2016 and 2006.

    2016 – 14.175
    2006 – 14.277
    2017 – 14.328

    • David A says:

      Quick, abandon Arctic ice stories, switch to flood in Calif, all together now.

      Why did Mueller say, “. I would love to believe that the results of Mann et al. are correct, and that the last few years have been the warmest in a millennium.”

      • Hivemind says:

        The obvious question is if he practices science, or religion. The word “believe” is the key. A real scientist would talk about what the data says, not what they want it to say.

  6. Mark says:

    Do all 4 or 5 of these places use the same source data?

    • AndyG55 says:

      Bottom graph: I’m pretty sure NOAA, Hadley, GISS, Cowtan all use the much fudged, fabricated and manipulated GHCN data. It wouldn’t surprise me if Lamar Smith eventually finds emails showing COLLUSION.

      BEST is paid half a million a year by “anonymous 1 & 2” to meet the data manipulations of the other groups

  7. Reasonable Skeptic says:

    The data is indisputable and will be replaced by even more indisputable data on a regular ongoing schedule.

  8. Nicholas Schroeder says:

    So, I thought I’d put Q = U * A * dT to a test. I inserted some assumed values for the earth’s atmosphere to determine U and k, U = k/x.

    Q = 1,368 W/m^2 aka solar irradiance. X = 100 km. Surface T = 288 K. ToA T = -90C.
    U = 13.03, k = 1,303

    Now I doubled the irradiance and thickened the atmosphere by 2.5 times and calculated the surface temperature.

    Q = 2,736 W/m^2 aka solar irradiance. X = 250 km. ToA T = -90C. k = 1,303
    U = 5.211, Surface T = 798 K.

    This result looks just like Venus without any CO2 or RGHE hocus pocus.

Leave a Reply

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