Scientific Integrity Plummets To Lowest Level In The Last 12,000 Years

Government climate experts say sea ice is at the lowest level since records began in 1979. Or sometimes they say records began in 1981.

NOAA uses 1979 as their start date for sea ice records, calling it the beginning of the satellite era.

ftp://ftp.oar.noaa.gov/arctic/documents/ArcticReportCard_full_report2016.pdf

More than 60 scientists from around the world say Antarctic sea ice is at the lowest level since records began in 1979.

Antarctic sea ice levels hit record low, but experts are not sure why | World news | The Guardian

I’m 60 years old, and I know that humans have had satellites photographing earth for almost my entire life. The November, 1976 issue of National Geographic had a satellite image of Antarctic sea ice – which was essentially gone in January 1976, during the global cooling scare.

In late January … sea ice barely fringes the (Antarctic) landmass

  • National Geographic   November, 1976

The same issue of National Geographic explained how Earth’s temperature was plummeting, Arctic sea ice was at it’s highest level in 40 years, and glaciers were expanding.

The National Geographic Archive | November 1976 | page 1

There was unanimous consensus that earth was cooling.

January 30, 1961 – NYTimes

U.S. and Soviet Press Studies of a Colder Arctic – The New York Times

The 1990 IPCC report had NOAA Antarctic and Arctic sea ice satellite records back to the Early 1970’s. It showed that Antarctic sea ice extent was very low in the late 1970’s.

The Navy has been using satellites to map sea ice since the early 1970’s.

ipcc_far_wg_I_full_report.pdf

NOAA now pretends all of their satellite data prior to 1979 doesn’t exist, because it wrecks their fake graph showing Arctic sea ice linearly declining.

1990 IPCC Report

It is not a coincidence that government climate criminals throw out pre-1979 data.  That was the coldest year on record in the eastern Arctic, and Arctic sea ice was at a century high.

Data.GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis

In order to hide their malfeasance, NOAA and NASA now simply erase the prior warmth in the eastern Arctic by tampering with the data.

Data.GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis

Government climate science is the biggest fraud in science history, and these crooks need to be shut down and shown the door.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

80 Responses to Scientific Integrity Plummets To Lowest Level In The Last 12,000 Years

  1. Robertv says:

    Government Is Like Fire, a Dangerous Servant and a Fearful Master

    Steve Milloy – Draining the Climate Swamp

    https://youtu.be/vXZ3c5UkkCA

  2. Jackson says:

    Maybe they are just unblinded researchers ‘hitting the target’.
    They do all this number crunching– these are unblinded experiments. The problems with unblinded experiments are well known and match the ‘troubles’ with climate science rather well (people see what pleases them).
    I mention this because ‘fraud’ implies an intent I’m not so sure exists, whereas ‘unblinded experimenters’ covers the problems without having to get not intent.
    (I’m not sure the intent isn’t there, I’m just saying it need not be there for the results to be skewed exactly like they are).

    • Jackson says:

      That should be ‘without getting into intent.’
      Should of had my coffee before sending…

    • Andy DC says:

      They certainly have a vested financial interest in producing a certain result, so with human nature being what it is, it is not difficult to conclude that they will produce whatever untruths that are necessary to protect that financial interest. Tony has demonstrated repeatedly that they are lying, so what else do you need to know in order to prove intent?

      • jackson says:

        I don’t think the doctors who do bad studies because they are unblinded are necessarily bad people out to produce a fraud.
        My point is we would expect this behavior from any human– we don’t need some nefarious intent.
        With that said, I have no proof there isn’t intent- the political stuff gets very suspicious.
        I am saying there are probably researchers who have gotten caught up in the hype and excitement of ‘saving the world’ and are not trying to do anything wrong. It is those people who are most likely to see through the BS and recognize the errors being made.
        And it is easy to see the problem of unblinded researchers…

        • arn says:

          It is the combination of
          “saving the world”
          +”Groupthink”
          +”intimidated by taboos”
          +”Not risking carreer and reputation and being ridiculed and crucified”

          That’s how religion works
          and that’s why a lot smart educated people
          (priests) are doing and saying stupid stuff
          and turning their herd into idiots instead of strong individuals with critical thinking skills.

          And this is not unprecedent:
          The destruction of ozon layer
          the tree dying(a big think in germany in the 80ies)
          the ice age scare

          and in russia it was lysenkoism.

  3. Robertv says:

    Because it depends on models predicting the future which all have been wrong but maintain an enormous group of people who depend on the funding to make a living and/or have more power.

    Professor Matt Ridley; Global Warming vs Global Greening
    https://youtu.be/YCcLggcPcj0

  4. Andy says:

    I don’t think much of winter Arctic values due to the constraint of the land masses around it. Summer minimum extent is a better thing to look at.

    Andy

    • Andy says:

      Having said that of course, it has been trending lower of course in general. It will be interesting to see if there is any knock on effect for the summer extent. In the past there has been little correlation, but I wonder if that has changed now.

      Andy

      PS If the values were really high at the moment no doubt that would be shouted from the roof tops around as proof the scientists were wrong too :)

    • AndyG55 says:

      You mean like the often NEAR ICE FREE conditions during the first 3/4 or so of the Holocene, right, little-andy !

      • Andy says:

        Are you trying to sound like Donald T with that last sentence?

        The Holocene is not relevant to this current post by Tony, feel free to mention it in the Holocene threads though. You seem obsessed by that time period and mention it all the time.

        ” Is it going to rain today?” AndyG55 ” Not sure but it was really rainy in the Holocene”.

        “The price of this new Chevrolet is normally $34 999, but I can knock it down to $32 000″ AndyG55 ” In the Holocene it was a lot cheaper than that”

        “Do you fancy watching Ice Age 5 Andy ?” AndyG55 “Not really, is there an animated comedy film set in the Holocene we could watch instead with no ice at all ? ”

        :)

        Andy

        • AndyG55 says:

          And who the F*** do you think you are to tell me what I can mention

          Your baseless arrogance is only exceeded by your ignorance.

        • Griff says:

          Ha! Nailed him there…

          I’ve told the G55 dozens of times that the earth was in a very different part of a Milankovitch cycle back at the start of the holocene and that conditions then are totally irrelevant now.

          (I’m amazed that this site is still turning out this stuff given the record warm arctic winter and record low sea ice extent… )

          • AndyG55 says:

            The IDIOT griff, a manic arctic bed-wetter returns.

            HAVING LEARNT NOTHING !!

            Still thinks the ANOMALOUSLY HIGH Arctic sea ice extent is more than MWP, RWP and the first 3/4 + of the Holocene. So DUMB. !!

            STILL DENIES that ONLY time Arctic sea ice levels have been higher has been a short 500-600 year just before, during, and just after, the Little Ice Age, the COLDEST PERIOD IN 10,000 years.

            CLIMATE CHANGE DENIAL in all its idiocy.

            Griff must have finally got around to getting his bed-sheets washed after all last year’s bed-wetting.

            How’s that temperature in the UK going .. griff. Have you got frozen yellow sheets

            https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/03/01/uk-weather-storm-emma-brings-snow-sub-zero-britain-latest-news/

          • BruceC says:

            And I’m sure you have the evidence at hand that proves man’s 4% of 0.04% is wholly responsible for that.

          • AndyG55 says:

            And of course the Milankovitch cycles EXCUSE is a load of bollocks.

            13,000 years ago the NH summer was at perihelion, so the idiot griff uses that to say it caused the NH, first 3/4 of the Holocene, warming (even though science says it was whole planet warming)

            Now the SH summer should be approaching perihelion…… and guess what ..

            THE SH IS NOT WARMING….

            The ONLY warming in the whole satellite record has come from ocean distribution of SOLAR energy, in the form of El Nino releases.

            Between those Release, there has been NO WARMING.

            Class dismissed griff, so you can now slither back into your troll hole and squish around in your bed-wettings.

          • AndyG55 says:

            Griff thinks that tilting the Earth differently effects the TOTAL energy reaching the Earth.

            Guess what , idiot-griff,

            the Early Holocene warmth was GLOBAL ,
            so NOTHING to do with axial tilt, which is the only part of the Milankovitch cycles it could be.

            Or are you going to bring up the Eemian again, and REALLY prove that the chief idiot has returned. !

          • Griff says:

            https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277379113004162

            “Arctic Ocean sea ice proxies generally suggest a reduction in sea ice during parts of the early and middle Holocene (∼6000–10,000 years BP) compared to present day conditions. This sea ice minimum has been attributed to the northern hemisphere Early Holocene Insolation Maximum (EHIM) associated with Earth’s orbital cycles. ”

            “Keywords
            Arctic climateHoloceneMilankovitch cyclesBølling–AllerødAlbedo feedbackArctic sea ice”

            That’s what we call science Andy G… you should look into it sometime

          • David A says:

            Poor Griff, 90-95% of the last 10,000 years had less ice then now. What part of GLOBALLY warmer are you missing concerning earlier periods within the CURRENT climate epoch?

          • AndyG55 says:

            Poor griff, (Arctic sea-ice bed-wetter, and manic Climate Change DENIER) shows that he can copy/paste…….

            but with ZERO COMPREHENSION !!

            So bizarre.

            He always was a good source of humour.

            NOBODY can be as remarkably dumb as he is, without being rather somewhat HILARIOUS.

          • AndyG55 says:

            “generally suggest”

            These are “science” words to little-griff.

            Poor little cretin should look up actually try to LEARN something about Milankovitch cycles instead of yapping mindlessly.

            Maybe then he would realise that the only cycle that could apply would be the axial tilt, which would NOT make the WHOLE PLANET warmer.

            But he will continue to slosh about in his bed-wetting ignorance.

            Maybe one day he will leave his yellow-stained bed and actually see the SUN !!

          • AndyG55 says:

            Quite bizarre to see griff commenting on a topic with the words “scientific” and “integrity” in it.

            He knows NOTHING of either.

            But I guess knowing nothing has never stopped him commenting about any other topic.

          • Griff says:

            northern hemisphere Early Holocene Insolation Maximum, G55…

            Research them science words and how they affected arctic sea ice

          • AndyG55 says:

            Griff yet again displays his IGNORANCE of Milankovitch cycles.

            Warming was GLOBAL , little griff-fool

            So it cannot have been because of axial precession.

            You comprehension is very limited, isn’t it your poor nil-educated chicken-little, bed-wetter.

          • AndyG55 says:

            “how they affected arctic sea ice”

            Griff is saying warmth affects Arctic sea ice.

            Now as the Arctic sea ice extent is ABOVE 90% of what it has been for most of the last 10,000 years, the only conclusion is that ..

            IT MUST BE DARN COLD UP THERE. !!

            FAR COLDER than at any time apart from the LIA. (and a short period before and after, that we have THANKFULLY just climbed out of)

            Wouldn’t you agree, griff-fool

            You do know that Arctic sea ice extent in the late 1970s was right up there with the EXTREMES of the LIA, don’t you griff-fool?

          • AndyG55 says:

            See that short period from about 1600 -1870 in the chart above…..

            That is the period that griff-fool wishes the world was stuck in. How STUPID is that !!!

            Yet I bet he has been using fossil fuel powered heating like crazy this winter.. right, hypocritical little griff-fool.

      • AndyG55 says:

        Remain IGNORANT , little-andy.

        Its all you have,

        You are a rampant Climate Change Denier…

  5. Andy says:

    March NSIDC update now out by the way

    https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

    Andy

    • AndyG55 says:

      WOW,

      There really is ONE HECK OF A LOT OF SEA ICE up there, isn’t there little-andy..

      Far more than for 90-95% of the last 10,000 years. !

      Amazing how well its going this year considering HUGE amounts of cold air being funnelled over different parts of the NH, wouldn’t you agree, little-andy. !!

      • Freddy Boom-Boom says:

        I’m confused. I see the map and it’s covered with ice, but the accompanying chart depicts this year’s trend as below the two standard diviations from normal. These seem contradictory. Then, the rest of the page is dedicated to talking about how low it is and even discusses sailing w/o an ice breaker!? (while again, the map looks covered in ice!) So….what gives?

        • Latitude says:

          ok…here’s the code

          If they are talking about record low extent…you know volume is record high

          …and the opposite

        • Andy says:

          “I’m confused. I see the map and it’s covered with ice, but the accompanying chart depicts this year’s trend as below the two standard diviations from normal.”

          Here’s a clue for the confused, look at the chart when it was more than normal and compare.

          ” These seem contradictory”

          No they are not, you are just confused as you admitted.

          “Then, the rest of the page is dedicated to talking about how low it is and even discusses sailing w/o an ice breaker!? (while again, the map looks covered in ice!) So….what gives?”

          Where do they discus talking about without an icebreaker? They actually talk about modern technology making icebreakers go through thicker ice.

          Comments?

          Andy

      • Andy says:

        Please do not use graphs that were modified by a web blogger and that the original scientist who did the graph objected to being changed.

        We have gone through this more than once and you are still using it, even though it is bogus.

        The original scientist

        “thanks for your email and making me aware about this online news citing our study not in a correct way. The author has even changed one of our main figures by adding „20th Century“ and „Little Ice Age (LIA)“. In our paper we say no word about the most recent past as our age model is not good enough to identify specific warm or cold periods (e.g., the Medieval Warm Period and theLIA) are the 20th Century”

        So stop using it and instead use the proper graph from Prof. Steins work.

        You are posting fakescience

        Andy

        • AndyG55 says:

          Your IGNORANCE yet again

          The data in the graph has not been modified in any way what so ever.

          Turn your head sideways, DOLT. !!

        • AndyG55 says:

          And maybe you could try posting some actual science, instead of ranting like a brain-hosed moron.

        • AndyG55 says:

          So, you think marking the LIA and MWP in their correct place on the UNTAMPERED diagram makes it wrong??? Are you REALLY THAT IGNORANT?

          How does that change the actual data in the chart.

          The graph IS from Dr Stein’s work

          Turning it sideways obviously is enough to confuse your non-functional child-mind.

          Are the LIA and MWP enhancements in the wrong place? NO

          Do they change the data in any way , NO

          You are just an ignorant parrot, little-andy.

          Go and get an education of your own and start to think for yourself, instead of copying scammers like Stokes, SkS etc.

        • AndyG55 says:

          “You are posting fakescience”

          There is NOTHING fake about the data on that graph.

          Why are you accusing Stein of fake science????

          and YOU are posting ZERO-science, because you have none, you poor mindless twerp.

          • Andy says:

            As a summary, from the orgiginal scientist who posted those graphs

            “Looking again at this news article that does not cite our work correctly, I have to say that I should have mention in the introduction of our last article more clearly the influence of CO2 on climate change as we have done in several other articles of our work. In one of our most recent work dealing with past Arctic sea ice in the Miocene, for example, we have shown that ice-free summers were only possible under quite high CO2 concentrations of about 450 ppm (a value that we may reach in the near future).

            Read it again

            “I have to say that I should have mention in the introduction of our last article more clearly the influence of CO2 on climate change as we have done in several other articles of our work.”

            Thoughts and comments on those words from the scientist involved?

            Why don’t you contact him directly like I did to try and clear this bogus graph up? Too lazy?

            You still keep posting it though…..

            Andy

          • Andy says:

            You didn’t post the graph from Stein though, you posted the graph from

            http://notrickszone.com/2017/03/02/new-paper-indicates-there-is-more-arctic-sea-ice-now-than-for-nearly-all-of-the-last-10000-years/#sthash.PuVHIiyM.ckz6wiKU.dpbs

            No tricks Zone. Obviously No tricks not including adding you own spin and labels on a scientists work … doh

            Andy

            PS You will never win this, stop trying, on this real science blog you are posting FAKEGRAPHS

            ;)

          • Andy says:

            ““You are posting fakescience”

            There is NOTHING fake about the data on that graph.

            Why are you accusing Stein of fake science????”

            I posted if when you posted the fakegraph, you then posted some proper graphs on their from Stein which does not show the additions the web blogger put on as some sort of repost???

            Stop trying to change history. Fail

            Andy

          • AndyG55 says:

            Poor little-andy, doesn’t have the ability to see that NOTHING about the facts of the graph have been changed.

            So sad to see someone SO DUMB.

            The graph on the right of the Stein graph conveys the EXACTLY same data as the graph I initially posted.

            The labels are for illiterate fools like you that don’t know when the LIA and MWP were.

            I know you HAVE to DENY actual climate history, otherwise you wouldn’t have a reason for your constant bed-wetting about sea-ice.

  6. Phodges says:

    How do you get the raw data to show here:

    https://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/show_station.cgi?id=620040300000&dt=1&ds=1

    All I can get from the station selector is adj/Homo data.

    Thanks

  7. oldbrew says:

    It’s ‘ominous’ if Arctic sea ice gets thicker, and ‘alarming’ if it gets thinner.

    What is it supposed to do?

  8. Don B says:

     
    “New Paper Indicates There Is More Arctic Sea Ice Now Than For Nearly All Of The Last 10,000 Years”

    http://notrickszone.com/2017/03/02/new-paper-indicates-there-is-more-arctic-sea-ice-now-than-for-nearly-all-of-the-last-10000-years/#sthash.9TKfXvsR.dpbs

    • Andy says:

      STOP POSTING THIS STUPID WEB BLOGGERS PHOTOSHOP

      Or are you just trying to wind me up now.

      This graph was debunked last year, stop regurgitating it

      Andy

      • AndyG55 says:

        You are an AROGANT , and VERY IGNORANT FOOL, little-andy.

        STOP being such a GULLIBLE AGW suckophant !!

        The graph shows EXACTLY the same data as the original graph, just rotated and notation added to show where the LIA and MWP would be.

        Are those labels in the wrong place? NO.

        Has the data been “adjusted” in any way, NO

        Has the graph been displayed in a more readable format.. YES.

        Why are you so intent on DENYING CLIMATE CHANGE ?

      • AndyG55 says:

        And..

        IGNORE THE FACTS,

        DENY CLIMATE CHANGE

        Its the only way you can excuse your innate bed-wetting and your moronic chicken-little ignorance that Arctic sea ice is currently well and truly in the top 10% of Holocene sea ice extents.

        ANOMALOUSLY HIGH.

        GET OVER IT .

      • AndyG55 says:

        Let’s look at the Canadian Arctic temperatures shall we.

        Again a couple of notes added for the ignorant.

        OH LOOK , the same pattern as the adaptation of the Stein graph.

        VERY MUCH at the cold end of the Holocene,

        wouldn’t you agree, little-andy !!

      • AndyG55 says:

        And another.

        Seems the adaptation of the Stein graph is pretty much SPOT-ON, wouldn’t you agree, little-andy.

        NOTHING FAKE ABOUT IT,

        Anyway, as is obvious to EVERYBODY, the adapted Stein graph has all its data intact, unchanged, NON-adjusted….

        …., which is more than can be said for 97% of AGW garbage. !!

  9. scott allen says:

    I have been looking at the land surface temperatures and the locations of the sites in the norther hemisphere. Weather stations are few and far between above 75 degrees latitude, more sites are located below 50 degrees in latitude. So this winter during the great warm up of the arctic and the record cold in not only the US but all across Europe and Russia more stations are going to report colder then normal temperatures while the sparse stations will report higher then normal temperatures. The result will be much lower land average temperatures. I wonder how NASA/NOAA are going to explain the upward adjustment in land temperatures to conform to the models that predict global warming.

  10. Steve Case says:

    I had never been interested in the whole Sea Ice Extent issue because Uh I dunno but just today I got involved on Dr. Roy Spencer’s blog and I dived into it. What I found was that the 1973 start date for satellite evaluation was used for the 1990 FAR, 1995 SAR, 2000 TAR, The IPCC didn’t drop those first 6 years of the record until the 2007 AR4 report. But more importantly each iteration from the 1995 FAR to the 2014 AR5 the bumps and squiggles were removed and replaced with a steady decline. So I loaded all the graphs from the five IPCC Assessment reports in a single image. Let’s see if I can paste it up here:

    • Steve Case says:

      Oh I forgot to add that I ran across this NASA article:

      Four Decades of Sea Ice From Space: The Beginning

      NASA bragged about how great their original 1973 satellite data turned out to be after they spent years fixing two different glitches – might have been a solder joint – they said. But yeah it was so great they published an “Arctic Atlas” in 1983 and the Russians copied it color and all plus all the ships at sea had a copy on the bridge. So one has to wonder why in 2007 the IPCC decided that data wasn’t good enough to make into their AR4 report.

    • barry says:

      Looking at the Antarctic sea ice graph in the OP, including mid-70s data would give a downwards trend overall. So the IPCC dropped the mid-70s data and the downward trend for the Antarctic sea ice disappeared. That works against the alarmist agenda.

      Keeping it wouldn’t hurt the Arctic sea ice record per any warmist agenda – recent values are still lower (with caveats) than the mid-70s.

      Maybe there are reasons other than a warmist agenda that the mid-70s sea ice data was dropped. Anyone bothered to investigate beyond the soundbyte?

      • Steve Case says:

        So you’re going to tell us what? The early 1970s data couldn’t be intercalibrated , whatever that means. You know Barry you really are good at slinging the bullshit. But it does make me smile that you’ve shown up here.

        But, whatever, at the end of the day, it still stands that the IPCC didn’t throw the 1973 start date under the bus until 2007.

      • barry says:

        You don’t know what intercalibrating satellite data is? From this position of ignorance you claim it’s bullshit.

        Do you also claim that you’re a skeptical person?

        The sea ice (and global temp) data is knitted together from various different satellites with different orbits and instruments. This makes for instrumental differences on data from one satellite to another. you can’t just arbitrarily stitch them together, you have to align the overlaps.

        For the various sensor data since 1979, there is an overlap of data as one satellite is launched, and another fails months or years later. This overlap is where the data can be compared and calibrated to keep it consistent.

        The mid 70s satellite data ends about 2 years before the continuous data stream from late 1978 begins.

        There is no way to directly calibrate the Nimbus 5 data to Nimbus 7.

        That’s not bullshit. That’s the straightforward facts.

        How would you go about ensuring that the Nimbus 5 and Nimbus 7 sea ice data are aligned properly?

        • Andy says:

          Forgetting the past currently scientists are wondering why the SAM is now positive but sea ice extent is still dropping.

          The theory from last year was that negative SAM would provide a reason for low extent in the last 2 years, but it does not seem to be playing ball. Worth watching

          Andy

          • AndyG55 says:

            A LONG way to drop until Arctic sea ice gets anywhere near MWP levels.

            Still ANOMALOUSLY HIGH compare to the last 10,000 years.

            No need for your constant sea ice bed-wetting.

            Please take off your chicken-little costume it make you look incredibly stupid.

          • AndyG55 says:

            ps, little-andy, the arctic sea-ice bed-wetter…

            …have you notice just how well the Stein data matches to GSIP temperature data.

            Here, I’ll first display the Stein data in a nice readable format that even you can understand..

            then I’ll display the GISP data next post, turned upside down.

          • AndyG55 says:

            now the GISP data.

            But you can stand on your head for that (sky can’t hit you on the head then, chicken-little.)

        • Steve Case says:

          barry says – at 8:32 am
          You don’t know what intercalibrating satellite data is? From this position of ignorance you claim it’s bullshit.

          We live in a world where scientists use proxies and computer models as real reportable data. But in this case we have data good enough that ships at sea kept it at the ready on the bridge and the Russians copied it, however NASA couldn’t reconcile it with newer equipment? Really? And they tossed it out as unreliable? Do you think that 1973 stuff was unreliable? Couldn’t be intercalibrated you said. So I looked it up:

          intercalibration[‚in·tər‚kal·ə′brā·shən]
          (analytical chemistry)
          A state achieved by a group of laboratories engaged in a monitoring program in which they produce and maintain compatible data outputs.

          In other words they look over each others shoulders to make sure they all agree. Or worse, pick the data they like and toss the stuff they don’t. I have to wonder if the 1973-1978 ESMR time series had shown a decline if the IPCC would have tossed it out. Were there emails saying, “We have to get rid of the Nimbus 5 ESMR blip”?

          You know Barry, I keep seeing this pattern of data correction, deletion, creation that nearly always points in one direction. You either don’t see it or make excuses for it. How deep does the bullshit have to be before you cry uncle?

          • barry says:

            This is really how you interpret stuff?

            intercalibration[‚in·tər‚kal·ə′brā·shən]
            (analytical chemistry)
            A state achieved by a group of laboratories engaged in a monitoring program in which they produce and maintain compatible data outputs.

            Your interpretation?

            “In other words they look over each others shoulders to make sure they all agree.”

            Are you for real?

            That definition was for chemistry.

            Take a really simple example.

            3 temperature monitoring groups use Celsius, and 1 uses Fahrenheit. They intercollaborate and the 4th group agrees to use Celsius to make linking their data more efficient.

            In this way they “maintain compatible data outputs”. It’s not treachery for crying out loud.

            A large number of countries converted to the metric system over time. This isn’t “looking over each other’s shoulders.”

            I’ve outlined the need for intercalibration of satellite data.

            In one ear and out the other? Does the conspiracy filter sift that out or what?

            UAH have to interbalibrate data from different satellites for their global temperature product. The satellites weren’t meant to measure long-term climate, so they weren’t designed to seamlessly fit together between missions. Roy Spencer and John Christie have to figure out how to account for instrumental and orbital differences to get the data from different satellites to line up. They’ve written papers about it.

            But hey, I guess they’re fudging the data, too.

            Seriously, your answers suggest to me that you don’t want to understand. I have no doubt you’re capable if you bent your attention to it. The bah humbug routine is just laziness.

          • barry says:

            I looked in a dictionary for the meaning of anomaly and got:

            (astronomy) position of a planet as defined by its angular distance from its perihelion (as observed from the sun)

            So temperature anomalies are about planets. Because dictionary.

            Some synonyms were also given:

            oddity, peculiarity, abnormality, irregularity, inconsistency, incongruity, aberration, quirk, freak, exception

            Thanks dictionary. Now I know what temperature anomalies are.

            Dictionaries don’t always give definitions for terminology in highly specialized fields. If you want to know what intercalibration between satellites is, look at a paper on it.

            http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?arnumber=6410022

            If you read that, you will know quite a bit about the whys and hows of intercalibration between different satellites. It’s longer than a dictionary entry, so open a bottle of red.

    • KTM says:

      How does ice extent change from 1975 – 1995 go from +500k to -2.5M between SAR and TAR?

      What a bunch of crooks.

      • barry says:

        Different baseline.

        Seriously, there are answers if you have the time to investigate. Or the will.

      • barry says:

        Oh, I see what you mean. Though there was a different baseline, there is a different profile for the period. As Steve alluded to, there’s no data overlap between the 1972-77 data (Nimbus 5) and the data from late 1978 (Nimbus 7), so calibration is very problematic. Different people tried to do it and came up with different results.

        One of the main reasons that the 72-77 data is now dropped.

        • Steve Case says:

          One of the main reasons that the 72-77 data is now dropped.

          It was good enough for the three previous IPCC assessment reports, ships at sea and the Russians.

          • David A says:

            Also, unlike a temperature calibration, it is a visual, meaning directly seen. As Steve Case says, used accurately for navigation. As annual flux within one year periods is not radical daily, one does not require daily real time images accurately approximate sea ice extent. The earlier 1970s data is accurate, but politically incorrect.

          • Steve Case says:

            David A says: March 8, 2018 at 9:25 am
            …The earlier 1970s data is accurate, but politically incorrect.

            I forgot to add that it took the IPCC 17 years to decide to ignore it.

          • barry says:

            David A,

            Calibration is difficult for numerous reasons, regardless that the view for sea ice is more 2D than that for atmospheric temps derived from radiance brightness of O2 molecules.

            http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?arnumber=6410022

            The earlier 1970s data is accurate, but politically incorrect.

            Including the mid-70s data would give a declining trend for Antarctic sea ice – see Heller’s graph in the OP.

            https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/2018_03_06_04_13_45-down-559×1024.png

            Including the Nimbus 5 data would still yield an overall negative trend for Arctic sea ice. If you think there’s a political agenda, how do you explain the varmint scientists denying themselves the opportunity to have a negative trend in Antarctic sea ice?

          • barry says:

            The 2001 IPCC report included the mid 70s data. Here’s their Antarctic chart.

            That’s a big negative trend in sea ice that they removed. Not sure how this fits with ‘political correctness’.

          • barry says:

            Failed to tag image right – here’s the link to Antarctic sea ice from 1973 from the 2001 IPCC.

            https://i.imgur.com/21sA19e.png

          • Steve Case says:

            barry says:
            March 8, 2018 at 9:57 pm
            The 2001 IPCC report included the mid 70s data. Here’s their Antarctic chart.

            That’s a big negative trend in sea ice that they removed. Not sure how this fits with ‘political correctness’.

            You know Barry, you brought up the topic of that 1973 data regarding Antarctica as not being “political correct” not me or anyone else, and I let you get away with it. This little discussion here and on Dr. Spencer’s page is about tossing out what appears to be good data. It was good for 17 years, good for three IPCC reports, good for ships at sea and good for the Russians, but NASA tossed it. For whatever reason they tossed out a time line of data that appears to be good enough.

            They tossed it after all those years, according to you because of intercalibration issues. They would have had intercalibration problems for the 1990 FAR, 1995 SAR and the 2000 TAR. But come 2007 and the AR4 and they finally noticed it.

            Besides all that it needs to be pointed out that the instrument record was spliced onto the tree ring record, the satellite record was spliced onto the tide gauge record, the Argo deep sea temperatures were adjusted right out of the box, the 1940s blip was removed, and they finally did get rid of the medieval warm period.

  11. John Niclasen says:

    Science is in a very bad condition, also here in Denmark.

    At least one professor in Glaciology found his way from Colorado to Denmark, from where he is spreding his propaganda now.

    “Freakishly Warm” Arctic Weather Has Scientists Reconsidering Worst-Case Scenarios on Climate Change
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=01Woj4OyIY0

    They talk about Arctic, even if many of the images in the video are from Antarctic:

    http://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2017/01/20/antarctic-ice-shelf-crack-iceberg/96841060/

    In September 2016, Jason Box predicted a Manhattan sized ice shelf in Greenland would split into pieces and float away before 2018:

    http://www.jasonbox.net/separation-manhattan-sized-ice-shelf-pieces-79-glacier-far-northwestern-greenland/

    As with more then 97% of these fraudsters predictions, it hasn’t happened yet. The “Spalte” ice shelf (or fjord glacier) is in lower left of this recent satellite image:

    http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/images/MODIS/NEW/20180308s01a.ASAR.jpg

    You guys have to drain the swamp in Denver/Boulder, Colorado.

    • Colorado Wellington says:

      He looks very concerned and he measures ice in manhattans. He must be a concerned scientist.

Leave a Reply

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