Time Travelling Climate Scientists

Zeke Hausfather has determined that he knows more about the weather of the 1970s, than all of the scientists who were studying it at the time.

By definition, the temperatures recorded 40+ years ago are at least 40 years old.  Zeke is arguing that history should be ignored, because it is old. He thinks he knows better than the scientists who actually observed the global cooling in the 1970s, like NCAR, the National Academy of Sciences, and NOAA.

National Academy Of Sciences

NOAA showed cooling in both hemispheres from both surface and radiosonde measurements.

NOAA

There was no question earth was cooling sharply after the 1940s. Ice was increasing. Ice doesn’t lie, but climate scientists do.

14 Apr 1973, Page 8 – Iowa City Press-Citizen

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

18 Jul 1963 – Glaciers Grow In Norway

29 Jan 1974, 5 – The Guardian at Newspapers.com

The National Geographic Archive | November 1976 | page 1

March 1, 1975 | Science News

International Team of Specialists Finds No End in Sight to 30‐Year Cooling Trend in Northern Hemisphere – The New York Times

Forty-two top American and European researchers sent a letter to the president warning that the current rate of cooling would lead to a new ice age in about a century.

THE ROLE OF NOAA’S CLIMATE PREDICTION CENTER IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF CLIMATE SERVICES

This Climategate email shows that scientists at multiple agencies and different countries colluded to remove the warmth of the 1940s, and subsequent cooling.

di2.nu/foia/1254108338.txt

Zeke brags that they are using a lot more stations now, but note that there has been essentially no change in historical coverage.  All they have done is add a lot of fragmented, low quality data which scientists 40 years ago were wise enough to ignore. In the 1970s they used only high quality data, because they were actual scientists.

The only thing Zeke has accomplished is he has added a huge number of broken, fragmented stations.  Here is every single daily temperature record for Brazil, Argentina and Uruguay in the GHCN database. The vast majority of these stations should never have been used.

Zeke claims they have millions of ocean temperatures from the “mid-century period”

In this Climategate e-mail, Phil Jones said much of the Southern Hemisphere data was “made up.”

di2.nu/foia/foia2011/mail/2729.txt

NASA didn’t even pretend to have usable pre-1950 ocean data until about 15 years ago.

2001 GISS Land/Ocean Data

The methodology for collecting ocean data has created an error bar which is much greater than the claimed trend.

Zeke claims that all of these independent agencies agree, but when Gavin Schmidt at NASA was confronted obviously fraudulent temperatures in Iceland, he responded by saying his data comes from NOAA. There is nothing independent about the data.

Senator Malcolm Roberts confronted Schmidt about this data tampering.

Gavin responded with this ad hominem attack.

NASA chief slaps down climate sceptic senator Malcolm Roberts: ‘You hold a number of misconceptions’

Then he responded by saying that NASA data actually comes from NOAA. So there is nothing independent about the data sets.

robertsnasags.pdf

Zeke claims there were no cooling outside of the Northern Hemisphere higher-latitude regions

The US is the only large area with a high quality long term temperature record, and it shows sharp cooling into the 1970s, and temperatures no warmer now than 80 years ago.

Summers were much hotter in the US 80 years ago.

Zeke says he has explained his BS to “folks like me” time and time again, and that he knows better than all of the scientists who lived through and studied the warmth of the 1940s and subsequent cooling.

Then Scott Denning at CSU jumped in with a spectacular and disgusting ad hominem attack.  I have no relationship with Ned Nikolov or any Kardashian.  I did however have a relationship with Denning’s far more accomplished colleague Dr. Bill Gray, who asked me on his deathbed to carry on his climate legacy. I tried for nearly a year to get Denning to join Bill and myself for lunch in Fort Collins, and Scott found an excuse to chicken out at the last minute every time. Bill is gone now and I intend to ramp up my effort to expose climate misinformers like Denning and Hausfather.

Bill Gray: A Towering Figure in Hurricane Science | Dr. Jeff Masters’ WunderBlog

Speaking of which, I attended a lecture at CSU about ten years ago, which I believe was given by Denning. A woman asked him if global warming would produce more extreme weather.  He gave an emphatic no, other than the possibility that some hurricanes may get stronger.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

23 Responses to Time Travelling Climate Scientists

  1. Gator says:

    “Who you gonna believe, me or your own eyes?”
    – Zeke Horsefeathers

  2. Joel says:

    So I have a question…

    When Zeke posted his “number of stations” and “coverage” charts, the graphs reference the following:

    Number of Stations:
    GHCN v4.0:all
    GHCN v4.0:long records
    GHCN v3.0:all
    GHCN v3.0:long records

    Coverage:
    GHCN v4.0:SH
    GHCN v4.0:NH
    GHCN v3.0:SH
    GHCN v3.0:SH

    What are these datasets and what, if anything, makes them different from the v2.5 data Tony linked to back on October 6th when he showed us his source/data links?

    I ask because part of my job is data-mining and warehousing, and I always get a bit nervous when someone comes to me with “new-and-improved” versions of the same data.

  3. Winston says:

    I’m not sure I am following Zeke’s logic:

    1. We have far more monitoring stations today that we did mid-20th century
    2. Therefore we know that the mid-century data was incorrect and we can provide a more accurate reconstruction of the temperature data today.

    This is not a logical argument. Whatever data you have from the mid-century is what it is; you don’t get more accurate data from 70 years ago because you now have more monitoring stations today.

    Also, this part of his post doesn’t make sense: “Today we have tens of thousands of stations all around the world on the land, and millions of ocean temperature measurements available during the mid-century period, allowing us to create a much more accurate estimate of the Earth’s temperature.”

    He’s mixing time periods here and their relative number of data points, so I can’t follow this.

    First Clause: Today we have 10s of thousands of stations on land…Ok, great.
    Second Clause: We have millions of ocean temp measurements from the mid-century period…Ok, but if you do have those, they were from stations/instruments in place in the mid-century, not now. Also the first clause is referring to land-based stations, the second is referring to oceanic stations.
    Third Clause: Therefore, we can create a much more accurate estimate of the Earth’s temperature….Ok…sorry, this doesn’t make sense. You can’t create a more accurate estimate of the Earth’s temperature from the mid-century due to having more instruments today. You can get a more accurate estimate of *today’s* temperature relative to the estimate of the mid-century temperature, but that’s not what he’s apparently saying.

  4. Spiritus Mundi says:

    Zeke brags that they are using a lot more stations now, but note that there has been essentially no change in historical coverage. All they have done is add a lot of fragmented, low quality data which scientists 40 years ago were wise enough to ignore. In the 1970s they used only high quality data, because they were actual scientists.

    Actually, based on the graphs he provide, both number of stations and coverage are lower today than in the 1970s. It is also a little odd that the 1987 data set has the same coverage with 10% of the stations.

  5. KevinPaul says:

    Zeke the shill.
    His claim that the cooling of the seventies was only in the Northern hemisphere is an out right lie, and he must know it!
    We have a local pond that started freezing over in winter during the mid 60s to mid 70s, ice so thick we could walk on it. Since then it has never frozen over again to my knowledge.
    I will believe my own eyes not these political-scientist morons.

    • KevinPaul says:

      I just read Dennings ignorant coment about Tony, an obvious attempt to cuddle up to Zeke (got to keep your job options open). Denning’s false appraisal of Tony underscores why his scientific judgements are also flawed.
      Anyone with two brain cells to rub together can see that Tony would much rather be out ranging the hills with Toto enjoying life than stuck behind a screen dealing with creeps like Zeke and Scott.

      I remembered another physical proof that the mid century cooling occurred downunder. Along the shady side of the foothills quite a number of small ponds were built in the late 50s and these would freeze over in mid winter and people would flock there to ice skate on them. Buildings were erected to store equipment and sell hot pies and drinks etc. These are now all defunct, only puddles remain and the frost on them would hardly hold a kid let alone a mass of skaters.

      I hope this Zeke blokes comments are being held in some sort of repository so that in future when this sham unravels he will be exposed as the fraud he is.

      • Aussie says:

        KevinPaul
        The 1970s were a colder period “down under” as well. I lived through it and can remember the press putting out quite a lot of stuff on it.

        Tonys graph taking the data from the 25 long term weather stations here in Australia shows steady cooling into the mid 70s. (this data is unhomogenised). Of course the BOM graph almost completely irons out the 1970s with the 1930s and 40s being supposedly significantly colder.

        Zeke with his fallacious “appeal to authority” arguments obviously has not realised that the NOAA NASA BOM etc graphs do not line up with the actual temperature record. He has not bothered to “fact check” and his blind faith in such organisations is badly misplaced. The heads of these organisations sack anybody who questions the politically correct climate change view.

        Personally I would love to take over one of these organisations and “clean house” of the idiots who just parrot what they are told to, and whose idea of science is to throw out data that does not agree with their version of reality…They are not scientists at all, rather they are marketing people designing campaigns around false data .

        With the temperatures heading for colder times how long will Zeke be able to keep up his delusions?

  6. Stephen Reiss says:

    What are the specific scientific reasons (if any) given by NOAA for the “adjustmentsa” made to the record that eliminated the mid century cooling?

  7. Richard Smith says:

    I am old enough to remember the ‘coming Ice Age’ scare. I read what Nigel Calder wrote about it as the then editor of New Scientist – it was rather scary as an Ice Age is far worse than global warming. (Subsequently Calder became a climate sceptic.) It is extremely annoying to be told by young whippersnappers who’ve been misled by climate ‘scientists’ like Hausfather that there was no cooling when I lived through it. We are increasingly living in a world with no memory of the past and no regard for it either.

    • Gator says:

      They are just waiting for us to die, then nobody alive will be able to bear witness to their fraud. I lived in the US and in Europe during the cooling scare, and it was being discussed on both continents. It was as much a consensus then as the great global warming swindle is today. But we were smarter than the current crop, and the madness passed.

    • Disillusioned says:

      Ayup, there was no cooling from the ’50s through the ’70s. The properly adjusted graphs are correct – it was global warming that made it possible for me to walk across the Ohio River in ’78-’79. /

  8. Jeff says:

    Tony,

    Don’t forget to include the very terrifying “In Search of: The Coming Ice Age” Season 2, ep 23, 1978, Hosted by Mr. Spock, “science” officer, so it must be true.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSDLRm3jhc8
    with YouTube Wiki ‘rebuttal’

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xPpXHX-Tu5U
    Without ‘rebuttal’

  9. Gamecock says:

    ‘millions of ocean temperature measurements available during the mid-century period’

    Wut? This is profoundly stupid. Argo wasn’t launched until the 21st century. And even Argo is fatally flawed: each buoy represents 50,000 square miles. We know jack about ocean temperatures.

    Suggesting we have ocean data for mid-20th century is an outlandish LIE. Zeke can only survive in an uncritical environment.

  10. Robert Gipson says:

    Yes, AGW is indeed abject, shameless propaganda, but we should be sensitive to the fact that it’s also become a religion to some, or, rather, a cross between a religion (e.g., Hari Krishna) and pyramid sales (e.g., Amway). Analogous to Scientology. Ergo, for several years now, whenever AGW pod-people have derisively labeled me an AGW “sceptic” or “denier,” I’ve quickly corrected them, calmly asseverating that I’m an “infidel.”

    • Disillusioned says:

      I am pretty sure that reply would almost always leave the average AGW apologist with a blank or quizzical look. Useful idiots have no clue that they are useful idiots.

  11. richard says:

    Poor Zeke,

    Africa , one fifth of the world’s land mass- It covers the same surface as 13 countries – including the United States, China and India – and the whole of Eastern Europe.

    WMO- “Because the data with respect to in-situ surface air temperature across Africa is sparse, a oneyear regional assessment for Africa could not be based on any of the three standard global surface air temperature data sets from NOAANCDC, NASA-GISS or HadCRUT4. Instead, the combination of the Global Historical Climatology Network and the Climate Anomaly Monitoring System (CAMS GHCN) by NOAA’s Earth System
    Research Laboratory was used to estimate surface air temperature patterns”

  12. dougmanxx says:

    I gave up on the so called “climate scientists” when I asked why the temperatures from 1934 were still changing? (I was doing an intra-database comparison taking the same database downloaded at different times and comparing the results.) You’d think 80 year old weather “data” would have stopped happening by now, but apparently not. That’s when I completely quit listening to their nonsense.

  13. dougmanxx says:

    I gave up on the so called “climate scientists” when I asked why the temperatures from 1934 were still changing? (This happened years ago when I was doing an intra-database comparison taking the same database downloaded at different times and comparing the results.) You’d think 80 year old weather “data” would have stopped happening by now, but apparently not. That’s when I completely quit listening to their nonsense.

  14. HadenoughBS says:

    Zeke must have a degree from Yale Communications in Climate Bafflegab.

    As you have clearly shown Tony, back in the 1970s, the first large scale data reconstruction was NHEM Land because ocean temperatures (and land in SHEM) were very limited (mostly NHEM shipping lanes).

    Tom Karl whose paper in 1988 defined the UHI adjustment for the first version of USHCN (which was removed in version 2) wrote with Kukla and Gavin in a 1986 paper on Urban Warming:

    “MeteoSecular trends of surface air temperature computed predominantly from [urban] station data are likely to have a serious warm bias… The average difference between trends [urban siting vs. rural] amounts to an annual warming rate of 0.34°C/decade. (6F/century!) … The reason why the warming rate is considerably higher [may be] that the rate may have increased after the 1950s, commensurate with the large recent growth in and around airports. …”

    “Our results and those of others show that the urban growth inhomogeneity is serious and must be taken into account when assessing the reliability of temperature records.” 

    Inexplicably, the UHI adjustment Karl argued for was removed in USHCNv2.

    This concerned Dr Easterling, then Chief Science Services Division NOAA NCDC to express a concern “One fly in the ointment (w/r USHCNv2), we have a new adjustment scheme for USHCNv2 that appears to adjust out some, if not most, of the local trend that includes land-use changes and urban warming”

    Doug Hoyt, once chief scientist at Raytheon wrote: “It is not out of the realm of possibility that most of the twentieth century warming was urban heat islands.”

    It continues to show up in the data. The nighttime temperatures the last 17 years (NASA AIRS) have warmed in the United States while daytime changes have been very small. (thx to DrRoy)

Leave a 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.