Plummeting Summer Temperatures At Lincoln, Virginia

Lincoln, Virginia is the closest Virginia USHCN station to Washington, DC. The frequency of hot days has plummeted there over the last 90 years.

Google Earth

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

141 Responses to Plummeting Summer Temperatures At Lincoln, Virginia

  1. Scott Koontz says:

    It is best to look at three months of a specific small area to determine global temperature trends. All the great scientists do this. Be sure to cherry-pick the right location and season.

    • Colorado Wellington says:

      Reading comprehension difficulties?

      • Scott Koontz says:

        Not at all. I read the article about a single city.

        If you read it as a global trend, then you were duped.

        • pinroot says:

          The problem is, the same trend occurs in multiple cities. At some point it’s enough to make you go “hmmm…”

          • Scott Koontz says:

            The problem is, a warming trend occurs when you consider the entire globe.

            The opposite trend occurs in multiple cities. In fact, in more cities. More of rural areas. More mountains. More valleys.

          • tonyheller says:

            There are very few places outside of the US with high quality data. The concept of a global temperature record is a complete farce.

          • AndyG55 says:

            Latest unaffected , untampered data shows 1940’s warmer than now.

        • paul courtney says:

          Nobody was duped, including you. Anything else?

        • Colorado Wellington says:

          Scott Koontz says:

          If you read it as a global trend, then you were duped.

          Tony’s post said nothing about “global trend“.

          I did not read it that way and nothing in my comment suggests that I did.

          Scott Koontz is trying hard to prove that he suffers from reading comprehension difficulties.

      • Gator says:

        Definitely. Scott believes that NASA has identified, organized by hierarchy, and quantified all climate forcings. He even provides a link that he believes backs this claim, so clearly there is a comprehension issue.

    • Steve Case says:

      Hi Scott – I was busy cut&pasting links when you posted. Sarcasm is always a great tool to convey your point. But it’s misplaced – see my post that follows, and understand that TMAX for most of the United States east of the Rockies has been on a decline May through October for a very long time. Since the 19th century for a lot of it. This isn’t pointed out by our wonderful news media.

      The media also doesn’t point out that GISSTEMP, the other mouthpiece that they use shows that over 50,000 adjustments have been made to the monthly average temperatures for the world – Land Ocean Temperature Index (LOTI) they call it – since 1880.

      • Scott Koontz says:

        Your use of cherry picks is misplaced. See below.

        You think that using very specific cities, for specific seasons, for high temps only is science.

        I pointed out that if you change a single parameter your personal fight to show how wrong climate scientists are falls apart. Pick another city. Pick another season. Pick minimum temps.

        It is very telling that you are sticking to the carefully crafted inputs to “prove” that warming is not happening. The most basic science 100 classes teach not to do that in the first week.

        • Gator says:

          Agreed! Cherry picking is wrong. So let’s consider today’s climate in context with the entire interglacial.

          Conclusion: NBD.

    • tonyheller says:

      Actual verifiable data confuses climate alarmists like Scott Koontz, and causes them to read things which weren’t written.

      • Scott Koontz says:

        Tony, why are you still confused? You picked a single city, as I described. Why are you cherry picking a single city (cherry pick), used only summer (cherry pick), and only high temp (cherry pick.)

        Climate scientists will tell you that the summer high temps of Lincoln VA are duly noted in the big picture.

        Actual verifiable temperatures used to show global temperatures confuses climate science deniers like Goddard.

        • AndyG55 says:

          Poor confused, Koon. !!

          Even a simple graph is too much for him. !!

          • Disillusioned says:

            Ah, but self-important Scott is of superior intelligence. Just ask him (or, read what he says about himself). Anyone that smart would know when they’re positing a straw man argument. It is intellectual dishonesty. Tony didn’t peg him. He pegged himself.

        • Anon says:

          /Tony, why are you still confused? You picked a single city, as I described./

          Scott, you seem to be upset about a tactic AGW alarmists commonly use to deceitfully garner National & International publicity. For example:

          Weather History Offers Insight Into Global Warming

          The record shows that on this ridge in the Shawangunk Mountains, about 20 miles south of the better-known Catskills, the average annual temperature has risen 2.7 degrees in 112 years. Of the top 10 warmest years in that time, 7 have come since 1990. Both annual precipitation and annual snowfall have increased, and the growing season has lengthened by 10 days.

          Articles like the one above are where the AGW alarmists do the most damage to themselves:

          https://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/22/how-not-to-measure-temperature-part-84-pristine-mohonk-lake-ushcn-station-revisited/

          https://realclimatescience.com/2018/03/mohonked-by-the-new-york-times/

          I understand that you eschew “cherry picking” and that is GREAT. But Instead of policing this small blog, I suggest you get in touch with the NYT. Write an editorial about your concerns, I am sure it will be immediately published (lol).

          Furthermore, as “cherry picking” is the weapon that AGW embrace and have no qualms about doing, to expect the other side not use the methodology to counter illustrate strikes me as naive.

      • tonyheller says:

        Scott,

        Besides being not very bright and dishonest, you also appear to be a very nasty person. Hope this helps.

        • Scott Koontz says:

          “Actual verifiable data confuses climate alarmists like Scott Koontz” Heller, dishonest and nasty comment.

          “Besides being not very bright and dishonest”

          Tony, would it upset you that I know more about climate science than you AND was brighter? I’ve seen you talks, and you’re no Einstein. When Watts turns you away, you know you’re more than off base.

          Hope this helps!

          • Gator says:

            Yeah Tony! Scott knows more about climate than even NASA and God, he knows it all! He can identify, organize by hierarchy, and quantify every climate forcing, even the forcings that nobody else has yet identified.

            Great Scott! LOL

          • AndyG55 says:

            ” know more about climate science than ”

            Utter BS.. You know NOTHING but mindless programmed propaganda.

            Probably just done the Al Gore course.

        • Scott Koontz says:

          Net time, please try to respond to my comment without the childish insults.

          You did not address the fact that you cherry pick. I was pretty clear in my comment, and you ignored the content.

          Is there a reason you shy away from actual conversation? It is obvious that you do not wish to have a rational science conversation. You would be laughed out of a debate with such replies.

          • AndyG55 says:

            You ARE being laughed out of the argument

            Everybody laughs at a clown.

            All you have is brain-hosed AGW-cult ranting !!

            Waiting for empirical proof of CO2 warming anything, anywhere, anytime.

            waiting , waiting.

    • Al Shelton says:

      Scott please explain how 3 months of a specific small area can determine Global temperature trends

      • Disillusioned says:

        He was using sarcasm as support for his straw man argument.

        • Scott Koontz says:

          Straw man? I was using the article itself. Not my straw man.

          • Disillusioned says:

            “Straw man?”

            Yes. Miserably trying to float the meme that Tony has represented USHCN stations as evidence of global trending is a straw man.

        • Scott Koontz says:

          Tony continues to cherry pick USHCN stations as evidence of global cooling.

          Why doesn’t he use all stations? Or even all stations in the country, not near any city?

          W all know why: they show the same warming.

          • Disillusioned says:

            “Tony continues to cherry pick USHCN stations as evidence of global cooling.”

            “Why doesn’t he use all stations? Or even all stations in the country, not near any city?”

            You’re making gross assumptions and slandering him with them. That’s not very smart.

          • AndyG55 says:

            “Tony continues to cherry pick USHCN stations as evidence of global cooling.” Which is one heck of a lot of the.

            Thing is, he uses original in-tampered data, so he actually shows the REAL story.

            ie a COOLING in the US.

      • Scott Koontz says:

        Sorry, I was pointing out that this article is doing just that: 3 months only, one station, and thus people are supped to get all excited that the earth is not warming.

  2. Steve Case says:

    I bet Lincoln Nebraska shows a similar record. NOAA’s Climate at a glance doesn’t have Lincoln but it does have these three cities that show a decline:

    Scottsbluff
    Grand Island
    Omaha

    Tony will tell you that NOAA’s Climate at a Glance is fake data, and I don’t dispute that, but it does show some of the decline of summer temperatures he posts up here nearly every day.

    Nebraska as a whole shows a slight decline since 1895:

    Nebraska TMAX May-Oct

    Let’s see if all those links work (-:

    • Scott Koontz says:

      “Tony will tell you that NOAA’s Climate at a Glance is fake data…”
      Yes, he will tell you that, which is absurd. Some engineers with no background in climate science will tell you anything. Once he understands adjustments he will issue his mea culpa. Kidding.

      When you look at your cherry picked cities for the cherry-picked winter, one thing that escaped you is that the minimum temps have quite a decadal increase. For all three cities.

      Lok at the minimum temp trend entire state of Nebraska. Up again. Interesting!

      When you look at other cities (as long as you’re sill OK with cherry-picking) you can see quite a nice trend in maximum temperature, like Williamsport PA. Why not include a link to Williamsport? Because it doesn’t fit your narrative. Look at the PA state trend we see a similar situation.

      Better yet, take a look at the global trends. It’s the G in AGW. Look at ice melt. Look at migration patterns and blooms. Nature knows we are warming, along with all climate scientists. It appears to be a handful of non-scientists who are vocal about the opposite.

      • Gator says:

        Lok at the minimum temp trend entire state of Nebraska. Up again. Interesting!

        Not really. Intelligent people have been aware of UHI for centuries now. Alarmists, however, believe it is man made CO2 at work, and spread it across the globe.

        • AndyG55 says:

          Massive UHI from a city area of maybe a couple of hundred square km gets spread like dog-doo over huge areas that have zero resemblance to the city when it comes to temperatures.

          Its a total FARCE !!

          Then you have ” regional expectations” to guide the corruption of data.

      • Disillusioned says:

        “Once he understands adjustments he will issue his mea culpa. Kidding.”

        “Once I understand adjustments, I will issue my mea culpa. Kidding.”

        There. Fixed it for you.

        • Scott Koontz says:

          Was I wrong? No. Why should I issue a mea culpa?

          • Disillusioned says:

            I was like you once – a true believer. I ignored their cherrypicked data and accepted their excuses for all their adjustments, accepted their lame TOBs excuses for the fact that they lowered the past and raised recent years; I ignored the fact they cherrypicked the start dates, etc., etc. My deprogramming took years. Because I fought it – I fought for your religious leaders, against all the disillusioning data that’s available… until I finally became disillusioned and could no longer ignore reality. The CO2 hyped-othesis scamsters are making it up and adjusting everything, in one direction, to keep the scam going as long as possible.

            Stick around. There is hope for you.

            Disillusionment is a good thing.

      • AndyG55 says:

        “Why not include a link to Williamsport?”

        Do you have a picture of Williamsport weather station?

        You want to use it show it is worth using .

        No scientific background, have you, Koon.

        • Scott Koontz says:

          If you were to use only the best (according to Watts) stations in the US, what decadal trend do you expect?

          Do you think you would be able to distinguish a graph of “best station” trends from all stations?

          Be careful with your answer, because such a test has already been run. And remember that you are insisting that we use only the stations that are “worth using.” Let’s pick Watts Grade-A stations.

          • Disillusioned says:

            You can distinguish with aerial photographs. They only seem to adjust in a direction that helps AGW. Do they adjust for creeping UHI?

            Keep trying to defend what they do. That’s what I did. Until I could no longer defend that which is indefensible.

        • AndyG55 says:

          So, I take that as a NO. you don’t care where the data comes from
          Only in “adjusted ” data after its been though the GISS-mill is the warming in the USA in over 100 or so years.

          SAW untampered data shows that FACT. !!

      • AndyG55 says:

        “Look at ice melt”

        Been steady for 10 years,

        Still in the top 10% of Holocene extents.

        Only marginally down from the extremes of the anomalous LIA.

        The RECOVERY from those extremes seems to have stalled, doesn’t it…. mores the pity.

        The people living up there could do with a longer period of open seas.

        Do you have an actual point to make.?

        Or just more mindless brain-washed yabbering ??

      • Steve Case says:

        Hi Scot – again (-:

        Yes the TMIN is up nearly everywhere. The IPCC tells us in their periodic assessment reports that the warming will be at night, in the winter and higher latitudes. That implies daytime, summertime, and in the tropics, not so much. And that’s exactly what we are seeing.

        What we are also seeing is TMAX is decreasing at various locations. The eastern United States is one of them. I don’t have access to Max and Min temps around the world, but I’d bet even money the eastern U.S. isn’t unusual in that regard. Here’s a link to show you what the U.S. looks like:

        http://oi67.tinypic.com/10er3ps.jpg

        Most of those showing a decline for over 80 years have declined since the 19th century.

        • Scott Koontz says:

          Yes, as we both know the global average for both min and max are increasing.

          We do have access to all Max and Min temps around the world, and that is why the term global is used.

          • MrZ says:

            You do, but only since 1950. Before then not so much…

          • MrZ says:

            … and Max is NOT increasing

          • paul courtney says:

            “We do have access to all Max and Min temps around the world, and that is why the term global is used.” Why is the term “infilling” used? According to Scott, we have temps around the world, there’s nothing left to infill. So why do they?

          • AndyG55 says:

            And why does the infill data ALWAYS have a warming trend, even when the original data often has a zero or cooling trend

            And the quality of some of the so-called land data is absolutely ABYSMAL.

            But the more GI then the more GO…. ala BEST. !!

      • feathers says:

        Scott,

        Ithaca was another example of a non-urban area showing no warming. Tony’s Ft. Collins post is a perfect example of the urban heat island effect influencing temps over the past 25 years.

        So shouldn’t we be banning any and all forms of urbanization – its clearly bad for the environment. I’m only half joking, compared to Co2, urbanization is clearly a far greater influence of median temps in people’s lives (since urbanization has increased dramatically over the last 100-years and most people live in urban areas).

      • Anon says:

        Scott Koontz,

        /It appears to be a handful of non-scientists who are vocal about the opposite./

        I think your attempts here are admirable, to debate the issue, but you are essentially a little misinformed and spitting in the wind here. If you really want to make a HUGE argument in favor of AGW I suggest you read this and then refute it.

        Climate Science: Is it currently designed to answer questions?
        Richard S. Lindzen: Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology
        Program in Atmospheres, Oceans and Climate MIT, Cambridge MA 02139, USA

        The above factors are all amplified by the need for government funding. When an issue becomes a vital part of a political agenda, as is the case with climate, then the politically desired position becomes a goal rather than a consequence of scientific research. This paper will deal with the origin of the cultural changes and with specific examples of the operation and interaction of these factors. In particular, we will show how
        political bodies act to control scientific institutions, how scientists adjust both data and even theory to accommodate
        politically correct positions, and how opposition to these positions is disposed of.

        http://blog.friendsofscience.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Lindzen12-March-ClimateScienceNOTansweringQ.pdf

        Lindzen is no joke: He was a lead author of Chapter 7, “Physical Climate Processes and Feedbacks,” of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Third Assessment Report on climate change. Take him on and you will score much more points than playing wacka-mole here.

        Other articles and interviews worth attacking are these:

        In Their Own Words: Climate Alarmists Debunk Their ‘Science’

        https://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/02/05/in-their-own-words-climate-alarmists-debunk-their-science/

        How Government Twists Climate Statistics
        Former (Obama) Energy Department Undersecretary Steven Koonin on how bureaucrats spin scientific data

        https://www.wsj.com/video/opinion-journal-how-government-twists-climate-statistics/80027CBC-2C36-4930-AB0B-9C3344B6E199.html

        The Big Bad Forces of Censorship and Intimidation in Climate Science.
        Willie Soon, PhD Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aYAy871w9t8

        Those are the big guns of the movement that are worth understanding and the challenging. If you can.

    • Disillusioned says:

      I’m sure NOAA appreciate you pointing that out. Not enough for TOBs adjustments to take care of it. Not to worry. They’ll fix it. ;-)

      • Scott Koontz says:

        Why not use the best stations? Why not use aerial photographs?

        Note that Watts already rated the stations, and use only the best of the best.

        Still warming.

  3. Scott Koontz says:

    BEST already settled the station placement question. Skeptic scientists with funding from skeptic organizations ran their own code on the best-placed stations and the results were the same.

    In fact, if you randomly picked 50 US stations, you would consistently get a graph that would be indistinguishable from the graph of all stations.

    • tonyheller says:

      I don’t get any funding other than individual donations to this blog. But thanks for making a fool out of yourself Scott.

      • Scott Koontz says:

        I never mentioned your funding. Do you work for BEST?

        You seem to be unable to respond to what people are writing. Read my post, come back with an explanation as to why you think I was commenting on your funding.

        You continue to make a fool out of yourself, Anthony.

        • Gator says:

          Isn’t it cute when little fellas believe climate science is settled? I remember being young and ignorant.

          • Scott Koontz says:

            I agree. Heller seems to be losing it. He thinks I posted something about his funding.

          • Gator says:

            Little Scotty, Tony did not claim to be omniscient. Your attempt at being cute is dead on arrival, just like your hokey hypothesis.

    • AndyG55 says:

      Koch withdrew from funding after the first year, once he realised Muller was NOTHING but a lying con-man.

      It is now funded by the ultra far left. as part of the socialist endeavour.

  4. feathers says:

    My takeaway from this post is just how influential the “urban heat island effect” is in skewing historical weather data. Tony picked a great location – a weather station that’s still not consumed by the DC sprawl. Here we can see little change in temps whereas even 10 miles east at Dulles airport we’ve seen significant concreate development. Remember Virginia’s state motto “Virginia is for Builders.”

    So why isn’t the urban heat island effect bastardized by climate scientists/media since it almost certainly contributes more to higher temps than CO2?

    • Scott Koontz says:

      “Tony picked a great location”
      He did, but he picked a single location. Others can be picked that show warming. Specific location that show no day trends tend to show warming nights, something predicted by an increase in CO2.

      The heat island issue can be put to rest when you use all of the best-located stations. In particular, if you use all US stations that look like the one in this article, you get a warming trend indistinguishable from the chart when you use all US stations, or even a random sample of 50 stations.

      • Gator says:

        How many of Watts grade A stations are not effected by UHI? UHI is not just an urban problem, it can arise anytime there is a land use change. Ever heard of urban sprawl? Suburbia? Walmart parking lots?

        Now, what is the adjustment for UHI?

        The Great Scott has stepped in it again.

        • Scott Koontz says:

          How many? Not sure of the number, but they are the best ranked because they are NOT near UHIs. That s why they are ranked highest.

          What happens when you use the best stations that are not anywhere near heat islands? Warming trend.

          Better yet, what happens when you use only the worst-ranked stations? There is a cooling bis, not a warming bias.

          “On the Reliability of the U.S. Surface Temperature Record (pdf), concludes that the instrument issues, as long acknowledged, are real, but the poor stations tend to have a slight cool bias, not a warm one.”

          https://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ushcn/v2/monthly/menne-etal2010.pdf

  5. Scott Koontz says:

    “Besides being not very bright and dishonest, you also appear to be a very nasty person. Hope this helps.”
    — Heller

    This is in response to my comment that he is cherry picking, which is pretty clear. Here is my post. Note that Tony avoided the points completely, but decided that he would get his base excited by calling me “not very bright.”

    Stay classy, Heller-Goddard. I think we should get together to debate climate science at a high school so you can see just how little you know.

    —————

    Tony, why are you still confused? You picked a single city, as I described. Why are you cherry picking a single city (cherry pick), used only summer (cherry pick), and only high temp (cherry pick.)

    Climate scientists will tell you that the summer high temps of Lincoln VA are duly noted in the big picture.

    Actual verifiable temperatures used to show global temperatures confuses climate science deniers like Goddard.

    • tonyheller says:

      Weird, I thought I posting data from lots of different cities. What a clown.

      • Scott Koontz says:

        Plummeting Summer Temperatures At Lincoln, Virginia

        That’s your title, not mine. Links are to graphs of Lincoln, Virginia only. A single location.

        Are you sure you’re reading comments before you reply?

        • Gator says:

          Are you reading your links before you post them?

          • Scott Koontz says:

            Are you the new Blowtorch Reggie?

          • Gator says:

            Did you hit your head?

            Let’s try again…

            1- List all climate forcings, order them from most to least effectual, and then quantify them all.

            2- Please provide even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.

            There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our climate, or how we got here. For 4,500,000,000 years climates have always changed, naturally. This means there has been a set precedent, and the burden of proof falls on natural climate change deniers like yourself.

          • Scott Koontz says:

            Did you hit your head, Reggie?

          • Gator says:

            So… Little Scotty has learned a lesson, ignore my question and pretend to be drunk.

            Good strategy Little Scotty!

          • Scott Koontz says:

            Read my links before commenting. Are you drunk?

          • Disillusioned says:

            Scott,

            Answer Gator. List and quantify them.

          • Disillusioned says:

            Scott asked, “Are you drunk?”

            This kind of talk from the natural climate change denier who whined about being ridiculed. Hypocrite.

          • Scott Koontz says:

            I already answered you in a previous blog. You failed to read it, and worse pretended that it did not show forcings or their ranking.

            Why lie?

          • Gator says:

            Little Scotty, I read your NASA link before you knew it existed. Now it is your turn…

            1- List all climate forcings, order them from most to least effectual, and then quantify them all.

            2- Please provide even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.

          • Scott Koontz says:

            What’s up, Little Gator?

          • Gator says:

            So you still got nothin’. Thanks for confirming that Little Scotty.

          • Scott Koontz says:

            So you still got nothin’. Thanks for confirming that Little Gator.

          • Gator says:

            I may have been wrong about Little Scotty. It appears he is no more than a parrot, like most science deniers.

            List all climate forcings, order them from most to least effectual, and then quantify them all.

            2- Please provide even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.

            It is a very simple puzzle really, and only a fool’s errand for a select few.

          • AndyG55 says:

            And still ZERO empirical proof that enhanced atmospheric CO2 does anything apart from enhancing plant growth.

            …waiting , waiting !!! nope, just EMPTY !!!

            What a NIL-EDUCATED twit this Koon is.

  6. Pathway says:

    Is Scott the new Blowtorch Reggie?

  7. Scott Koontz says:

    https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/national/time-series/110/tavg/12/2/1895-2018?base_prd=true&firstbaseyear=1901&lastbaseyear=2000&trend=true&trend_base=10&firsttrendyear=1895&lasttrendyear=2018

    Anyone get a cooling trend yet? I tried average, max, and min, and all show a warming trend.

    Then I went to BEST to see what actual climate skeptics discovered. Same results:

    http://berkeleyearth.org/summary-of-findings/

    • Gator says:

      BEST was a Richard Muller invention. Richard Muller who lied about being a skeptic, in 2017 he claimed he had been a skeptic until he saw evidence that convinced him otherwise. Problem is, Muller told Huffpo in 2012 that he was never a skeptic. In 2003 Muller said he said CO2 is the greatest pollutant in human history.

      Great source Little Scotty! Got any more proven liars you wish to put forward.

      • Scott Koontz says:

        “Richard Muller who lied about being a skeptic, in 2017 he claimed he had been a skeptic until he saw evidence that convinced him otherwise.”

        Science for the win!

        Oh, I see you like deniers, not skeptics.

        • Gator says:

          Great company you keep Little Scotty, liars of a feather…

          • Scott Koontz says:

            You just ran out of skeptics, and are left with deniers.

            Why are you still writing like a child? Do most deniers write like you?

          • Gator says:

            Well at least we know Little Scotty is trainable, he has learned not to claim that he can…

            1- List all climate forcings, order them from most to least effectual, and then quantify them all.

            2- Please provide even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.

            Little Scotty is a science and nature denier.

          • Scott Koontz says:

            You seem to be untrainable.

          • Gator says:

            I am, Little Scotty.

            I trained as a climatologist at a major university four decades ago, after studying geology for years. I learned that the Null Hypothesis must be disproven.

            Care to try again little one?

            1- List all climate forcings, order them from most to least effectual, and then quantify them all.

            2- Please provide even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.

            It is really a very simple puzzle Little Scotty, and only a fool’s errand for a select few.

          • AndyG55 says:

            Poor koon.

            You seem to be untrained. !!

            Muller was NEVER a skeptic, always very much on the AGW gravy-train.

            A CON-MAN…. most definitely.

  8. Stewart Pid says:

    Tony please give little Scotty a time out or a full ban as he is simply thred bombing at this point.

  9. Anon says:

    /You seem to be untrainable./

    Scott Koontz,

    What you are experiencing is a reaction to stuff like this:

    Tuvalu Prime Minister Enele Sopoaga says climate change ‘like a weapon of mass destruction’ “We only need to garner strong, collective leadership – we simply are going to again underscore the message that we are dying.”

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-08-15/an-tuvalu-president-is-climate-change-27like-a-weapon-of-mass-/5672696

    Pacific islands ‘growing not shrinking’ due to climate change

    Scientists have been surprised by the findings, which show that some islands have grown by almost one-third over the past 60 years.

    Among the island chains to have increased in land area are Tuvalu and neighbouring Kiribati, both of which attracted attention at last year’s Copenhagen climate summit.

    n Kiribati, the three of the most densely populated islands, Betio, Bairiki and Nanikai, also grew by between 12.5 and 30 per cent.

    Professor Paul Kench, of Auckland University, who co-authored the study with Dr Arthur Webb, a Fiji-based expert on coastal processes, said the study challenged the view that the islands were sinking as a result of global warming.

    “Eighty per cent of the islands we’ve looked at have either remained about the same or, in fact, got larger.

    “Some have got dramatically larger,” he said.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/australiaandthepacific/tuvalu/7799503/Pacific-islands-growing-not-shrinking-due-to-climate-change.html

    Now lets look at the Tide Gauge in Tuvalu:

    http://www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/stations/1839.php

    So the Prime Minister is at the UN saying Climate Change is a weapon of mass destruction pointed as his island. Meanwhile “unbeknownst” to him his islands have been growing and he forgot to check his tide gauge? C’MON MAN!

    Now this might be a joke to you, but as a scientist and past AGW educator, it is not to me. It is UNETHICAL.

    And once you have shown me that you are unethical, I am going to be very skeptical of any future claims you make.

    If you really want to understand what this blog is all about, take a close look at all the links I have posted above. If you are going to argue against something it is always a good idea to be able to completely articulate both sides of the issue. (As a former AGW educator, I can.)

    • Scott Koontz says:

      Those are neat anecdotes, most of which I knew about. Who didn’t know about sediment shift? You could convince a non-scientist who wished the earth was not warming that sea levels are falling, but that’s laughable between scientists, right?

      I agree that lies about AGW are unethical, and it’s a shame that educators like me have to put up with students who will insist that they referenced a legitimate science source and I have to tell them that Watts, Monckton, and Heller (and anyone associated with Heartland, of course) are clearly not going to help your argument. They will give you small pieces that may hold a few grains of truth but are wholly false and/or misleading.

      So we would both be teaching that the earth is warming, sea levels are rising, but a small percentage of islands are growing because of land shift.

      • AndyG55 says:

        “I agree that lies about AGW are unethical”

        THEN STOP DOING IT !!

        You an “educator”……. BS !!!

        Making the children suffer through your own demented brain-washing…. is NOT educating

      • AndyG55 says:

        “So we would both be teaching that the earth is warming,”

        The planet hasn’t warmed apart from El Nino steps in the whole satellite record. Nothing to do with CO2, that’s for sure, unless you are nil-educated enough to blame CO2 for El Ninos
        Sea levels are rising at around 1-3mm a year.. (depending on if you use tide gauges or “adjusted” satellite altimetry. Be very SCARED.

        That trend is also decelerating.

      • Anon says:

        Scott Koontz,

        At least we reached an agreement about proponents of AGW being unethical. So what is the solution? How do you ascertain who is and who is not being unethical? I referenced a link above about NASA & NOAA not being ethical. (Hiding the Hurricane data prior to 1980.) Yet, you link to NASA and NOAA. (What part of their data do you find trustworthy?) I don’t know what to make of your links to these organizations??? Why would you trust an unethical organization? That does not square.

        While we are on the subject of ethics, do you find this ethical?

        WikiLeaks Exposes Podesta-Steyer Climate McCarthyism

        So there you have it: One of Podesta’s highest-profile operatives is bragging to one of America’s richest climate activists that he and his team have silenced a prominent academic for the sin of disagreeing with Mann and other climatologists.

        In a concluding thought, Pielke told me: “After all this, I’m a big supporter of academic tenure. I have no doubt that if I didn’t have tenure, I’d be doing landscaping now.”

        https://www.nationalreview.com/2016/10/wikileaks-john-podesta-silenced-climate-change-dissent/

        This article really got the ball rolling for me, why would John Podesta be interested in destroying the reputation of a mid-level scientist doing actuarial research for the insurance industry?

        At this point we are beyond unethical and onto CORRUPTION and this concerns me even more as a CITIZEN than a scientist.

        As far as your decision to keep teaching AGW, an ethically tainted and corrupt discipline, it is not my decision. You all can get back to me when I see some evidence of integrity from the scientists and their political proponents.

        *PS. As you can see, due to the John Podesta types in the world, it is difficult to find funded scientists who report findings contrary to the AGW hypothesis. (hence the lack of student references) So, now that you are aware of this, maybe you will allow your students to reference Roger Pielke Jr.?

      • Anon says:

        No, I am teaching that I can’t make sense of the scientific data. I can do that spectroscopy but not AGW. And if I find something unethical or corrupt, I report that as well. You should try it. I have also gone back to my prior students and told them that I was misinformed about what I had be teaching as things come up in my reading. There is no need to propagandize them or hide them from different scientific findings. Ultimately, they can draw their own conclusions. Pretty reasonable, right?

    • Scott Koontz says:

      BTW, sea levels around those islands are rising, and faster than the global average. I’m not sure what your point is, but it appears you believe that sea levels are dropping.

      To summarize what we all know: earth warming, CO2 levels rising, CO2 is a greenhouse gas and a primary forcing, sea levels rising, a small percentage of islands gaining surface area because of land shift and/or coral.

      • AndyG55 says:

        “CO2 is a greenhouse gas and a primary forcing, sea levels rising,”

        BULLSHIT

        You have zero empirical evidence that CO2 causes any warming what-so-ever.

        No evidence of any effect of enhanced CO2 on sea levels.

        Yes CO2 is a gas used in greenhouses to enhance plant growth.

        About the only thing you got correct.

        Even the term “greenhouse gas” are a total anti-science farce, because even any mythical, unproven action of CO2 in the atmosphere does NOT include blocking of convection

        Learn some actual science, dumbo, call it by its correct terminology, at least !!!

        its a “radiative” gas, and its emission time is magnitudes more than its collisional time in the lower atmosphere.. but I suspect you don’t have a clue what that means…

        Its not something brain-hosed into you in an Al Gore climate propaganda -101 class.

        • Scott Koontz says:

          You sound unhinged. CO2 is definitely warming the planet.

          • Disillusioned says:

            “You sound unhinged.”

            You sound indoctrinated.

            “CO2 is a greenhouse gas and a primary forcing”

            Data please. Quantify it. Does it shoot its wad early, or does it not? Is it logarithmic? So, it doesn’t begin to peter out radiative forcing capability as it gets higher? Is that “warming” effect just as strong now as it was at 100 ppm? How much radiative forcing does CO2 have at 40 ppm? At 100 ppm? At 800 ppm? At 1600 ppm?

          • AndyG55 says:

            ZERO EMPIRICAL PROOF. koon

            Produce it if you have it, rather than your pathetic ranting. !

            You have been tested.. and found EMPTY !!

            GET OVER IT !

            It is a FAILED suppository !!

          • AndyG55 says:

            The AGW conjecture depends on the existence of a radiant greenhouse effect caused by trace gases in the Earth’s atmosphere with LWIR absorption bands.

            Such a radiant greenhouse effect has not been observed in a real greenhouse, in the Earth’s climate system, or anywhere else in the solar system.

            The radiant greenhouse is science fiction so hence the AGW conjecture is science fiction as well.

            If you have any such observational data

            … please present it…. or STFU !!

      • Anon says:

        Scott Koontz,

        This ought to help you with your sea level arguments. 120 pages of unedited scientific comments on Chapter 13. Good luck in finding a consensus:

        Good quality graphs of full-length tide gauge
        records from high-quality tide stations are absolutely essential for “grounding” the reader’s understanding of
        sea level, in particular the (lack of) response (thus far) in rate of SLR to GHG forcings, and the amounts and
        timescales of typical fluctuation in relative sea level, and the variation in relative sea level trends between
        locations. The omission of such graphs appears calculated to hide the fact that, thus far, sea level rise has not
        increased in response to GHG forcings, and will surely be powerful ammunition for critics of the IPCC and its
        Reports.
        ————–
        There is no mention of the fact that, over the nearly 20 years for which we have data, satellite measurements of global MSL have exhibited a deceleration in rate of sea level rise; nor is it mentioned that the various satellites differ significantly from one another in the rates of SLR they are measuring; nor is it
        mentioned that the satellite which had the broadest coverage of the world’s oceans, Envisat, has had ex post facto revisions to its data so dramatic that the corrections more than tripled the “measured” rate of sea level rise. Instead, it is claimed that the satellites (as if they were unanimous!) have been measuring about 3.2 mm/yr SLR. That is misleading. Moreover, the reference to agreement between different data processing
        groups, without mentioning either the disagreement between the data from the different satellites or the huge.

        http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/drafts/Ch13_WG1AR5SOD_RevCommResponses_Final.pdf

      • Jl says:

        “CO2 levels rising, CO2 is a greenhouse gas, sea levels rising..”. Good job, but you left out probably the most important part-any proof that warming is bad for the planet,

    • AndyG55 says:

      “sea levels around those islands are rising, and faster than the global average.”

      Just ignore the real data, and go with the propaganda, koon. !!

      • Scott Koontz says:

        https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/02/150213-tuvalu-sopoaga-kench-kiribati-maldives-cyclone-marshall-islands/

        Science for the win. Rising sea levels, shifting sand perimeters.

        “Satellite data indicate the sea level has risen near Tuvalu by about 5 mm per year since 1993 (a total of 9 cm over this period). This is larger than the global average of 2.8–3.6 mm per year.”

        https://www.pacificclimatechangescience.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/4_PCCSP_Tuvalu_8pp.pdf

        Satellite data.

        • AndyG55 says:

          Tide data.. measured at site, where it actually EXISTS. !!

          Apart from that just ASSumption driven climate model garbage.

          Does 3mm per year of “adjusted” sea level rise REALLY SCARE YOU, koon??

          No sign of any CO2 effect on sea level is that , unless of course enhanced CO2 cause sea level deceleration

        • Disillusioned says:

          You do realize that the global average is equivalent to the diameter of your smart phone’s earbud jack, or two Lincoln head pennies stacked, don’t you?

          Sea level rise has been around today’s average for several thousand years.
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise#/media/File:Post-Glacial_Sea_Level.png
          You’re picking the fly shit out of the pepper trying to scare people (more so to keep yourself convinced there’s a man-made problem).

          • Scott Koontz says:

            9 cm earbuds ae all the rage with the kids.

          • AndyG55 says:

            EMPTY of any science to back up even the most basic fallacy of the AGW cult-meme… the standard AGW suckophant

          • Disillusioned says:

            “9 cm earbuds ae all the rage with the kids.”

            Cute. The amount of rise according to, “Satellite data [which] indicate the sea level has risen [9 cm] near Tuvalu… since 1993….”

            9 cm in 25 years is not scary. It’s what happens near the end of an interglacial, and has been going on for about 8,000 years. Sea levels rose much faster during the first two-thirds after the last glaciation.

            It’s cooler now, and sea levels are rising slower than during the Holocene Optimum.

            Regurgitating sea level scare stories doesn’t make you look smart, let alone scientific. It makes you look programmed.

        • Anon says:

          Between the “reconstructed” purple data and the future “projections” lies the blue actual tide gauge data (page 7):

          http://www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/stations/1839.php

          Do you see an increase there?

          • Disillusioned says:

            Disillusioning, isn’t it? You’re doing a fine job, but I’m afraid that troll is not going to “see.”

            When they get to scaremongering a silly few mm/yr, or 3.5 inches in 25 years (9 cm) of sea level rise, and blame it on mankind (although it’s been going on for thousands of years) they are usually not going to look at disillusioning data.

            It takes a desire to learn. Great Scot isn’t there yet. He’s still too busy trying to keep himself convinced that The Big Lie is truth – that the still-unproven, unraveling CO2 hyped-pothesis – is solid science.

  10. AndyG55 says:

    Latest papers show the same pattern in Tmax over the whole of the US.

    Peaking between 1930-1950s

  11. Scott Koontz says:

    Tony must be so proud of the way most “skeptics” write on this little blog. Lots of ranting and name-calling, and few facts.

    Worse, we see outright deniers of basic science. This id definitely not the place to discuss science, because there are too many readers who think NASA, NOAA and all major science organizations are keeping some secret, and only people like Monckton can uncover the truth.

    • AndyG55 says:

      Poor EMPTY koon.

      You have ZERO-SCIENCE to back up your mindless brain-hosed AGW-cult mantra.

      You haven’t produced any “science”.

      We are STILL WAITING for you to produce empirical evidence that enhanced atmospheric CO2 does anything other than enhance plant growth.

      waiting, waiting…. yawn.. wai.. zzzzzz

      or you could just “believe” .. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0s_YFLI4G1M

    • Disillusioned says:

      “Tony must be so proud of the way most “skeptics” write on this little blog. Lots of ranting and name-calling, and few facts.”

      That’s known as projection. You have been ranting and parroting thread-bare claims, but never providing empirical proof that’s been asked that could back up those claims.

      You wouldn’t be spending this much energy here if you had no doubts in your religion. You’re desperately trying to protect your cracking paradigm. That’s where I was. Keep it up. Maybe one day you’ll be able to admit your emperor is wearing no clothes.

      • Scott Koontz says:

        Why is science denial your religion? You sound desperate. No real science to back anything up.

        Did you try reading the most basic sites on this topic?

        • AndyG55 says:

          STILL no evidence of CO2 warming ANYTHING anywhere, anytime

          Why are you a member of the farcical AGW-cult, koon?

        • Disillusioned says:

          “Did you try reading the most basic sites on this topic?”

          Of course. All sides of the argument. Remember, in the beginning, like you, I was trying to convince those “climate deniers” that they had “no science to back anything up.” It was only with those discussions when I began to realize, they were anything but what I had been told (science deniers) – they knew more than I. So I studied more. I began to have doubts about what I had been programmed was solid science. But, surely the whole establishment couldn’t be wrong! So I studied even harder. The disillusionment that came from that was painful, but oh, so very freeing in the end.

          There’s something about becoming disillusioned by facts, or being deprogrammed from a cult. You can’t ever go back to believing The Big Lie, no more than one can successfully get all the toothpaste back in the flatenned aluminum tube.

          You have no science to back up your beliefs. Deep down you know that, because none of your links provides it. You know that also, but cannot yet admit it. Read the posts by Anon here. Read Steve Case. You’re so far gone you think AndyG55 is nuts. But, if you care about science and truth as much as you say, you’ll get there. But, right now your mind is closed shut. Open that mind and let some light in.

          Disillusionment is a good thing.

          • Anon says:

            Hi Disillusioned,

            /There’s something about becoming disillusioned by facts, or being deprogrammed from a cult. You can’t ever go back to believing The Big Lie, no more than one can successfully get all the toothpaste back in the flatenned aluminum tube./

            This passage of yours caught my eye. If you are interested in what drives cults and ideologies, check this video from Jordan Peterson, about Alexander Solzhenitsyn from the Gulag Archipeligo, from one of his Harvard lectures. They are on a prison train with a Marxist intellectual:

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63NG7LbBRA4

            Even when the guy is being sent to die in the gulag, the guy is completely impervious to any facts that contradict his ideology and that the system is responsible for his current plight.

            It is a little long, but very worth it if you want to understand how these people are created. To understand how it happens, you need to watch Peterson’s Maps of Meaning: The Architecture of Belief course (also taught at Harvard and on line).

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4tQOlQRp3gQ

          • AndyG55 says:

            “You’re so far gone you think AndyG55 is nuts.”

            And purely because I ask for actual scientific evidence. (which I happen to know DOES NOT and CAN NOT exist).

            May as well ask him to provide measurements of the length of a unicorn’s horn.

            You cannot measure a fantasy !!

          • AndyG55 says:

            I once worked for “Climate Action Newcastle”

            Then someone asked me a simple question.

            “Where is the empirical scientific evidence for CO2 warming. ?”

            I couldn’t find any..

            lots of models,

            lots of assumptions.

            lots of conjecture and rhetoric…

            …. and a whole heap of manic but baseless “belief”

            BUT NO EMPIRICAL PROOF !!!

            … apparently no-one else can find any, either, and believe me, I have asked. !! ;-)

  12. Disillusioned says:

    Anon,

    Thank you!

    • Anon says:

      Hi Dis,

      That Peterson course is mind blowing, if you are into that sort of thing. Not the usual sound bites or pop psychology stuff from him you see on the news.

      “In 1995, Peterson was profiled in The Harvard Crimson, an article that reads like an award introduction. One undergraduate told the newspaper that Peterson was “teaching beyond the level of anyone else,” and that even “philosophy students go to him for advice.” A graduate student from back then, Shelley Carson, who now teaches at Harvard and writes about creativity, recalled that Peterson had “something akin to a cult following” in his Harvard days. “Taking a course from him was like taking psychedelic drugs without the drugs,” Carson says. “I remember students crying on the last day of class because they wouldn’t get to hear him anymore.”

      It is a bit off topic on this blog, but it really helps explain the Cult of Climate Change. Once you get through that course, you can see the folly of any interviewer trying to casually take him on.

  13. Scott Koontz says:

    Someday you’ll take a science class and be floored by what real scientists know.

    Good luck with that first quiz.

    • Anon says:

      Scott, Please give us a little hint a hint about the scope of your your first quiz: A suggestion would be to compare and contrast carbon dioxide and water vapor in terms of their response to Raman and Infrared Spectroscopy. (Why are the two techniques complimentary and can you recommend a third?) Start with a dipole analysis of the ground states of each and explain what changes might occur after excitation, if any. Then give us a little run down on the challenges of each method. For example the interrelationships between Raleigh, Stokes and Anti-Stokes scattering and the methods used to discern them from each other. What excitation sources would you recommend? Which vibrational / rotational modes of each molecule will produce the strongest signals from each type of spectroscopy? (Just Junior level university chemistry or physics stuff will suffice I think.)

    • AndyG55 says:

      You obviously never took a science class…

      We are floored by what you DON’T KNOW.

      Your ignorance surpasses even your arrogance.

Leave a Reply to Al Shelton Cancel reply

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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.