Interesting conversation with Grok, defending NOAA adjustments. Grok was wise not to answer my final question, because either way it loses. Either the adjustments are bogus, or UHI is much larger than acknowledged.
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- Analyzing Rainfall At Asheville
- Historical Weather Analysis With Visitech
- “American Summers Are Starting to Feel Like Winter”
- Joker And Midnight Toker
- Cheering Crowds
- Understanding Flood Mechanisms
- Extreme Weather
- 70C At Lisbon
- Grok Defending The Climate Scam
- “Earlier Than Usual”
- Perfect Correlation
- Elon’s Hockey Stick
- Latest Climate News
- “Climate dread is everywhere”
- “The Atmosphere Is ‘Thirstier.’”
- Skynet Becomes Self Aware
- “We Have To Vote For It So That You Can See What’s In It”
- Diversity Is Our Strength
- “even within the lifetime of our children”
- 60 Years Of Progress in London
- The Anti-Greta
- “a persistent concern”
- Deadliest US Tornado Days
- The Other Side Of The Pond
- “HEMI V8 Roars Back”
Recent Comments
- Bob G on Analyzing Rainfall At Asheville
- conrad ziefle on Historical Weather Analysis With Visitech
- Allan Shelton on Historical Weather Analysis With Visitech
- Bob G on Historical Weather Analysis With Visitech
- Gordon Vigurs on Historical Weather Analysis With Visitech
- Fred Harwood on Historical Weather Analysis With Visitech
- arn on Historical Weather Analysis With Visitech
- Luigi on “American Summers Are Starting to Feel Like Winter”
- Bob G on Historical Weather Analysis With Visitech
- Gordon Vigurs on Historical Weather Analysis With Visitech
Of course the temperature record has to be adjusted in a bias manner, because the theory isn’t panning out. changing subjects, very sad flooding tragedy in Texas. turns out the exact same spot experienced a bad flood about 40 years ago and that one killed 10 teenagers.
It really surprises me that so many lives were lost. Isn’t it more than in the recent hurricanes, which span a much larger area? Anyway, Grok, my experience with AI is they don’t understand nuances. I ask programming questions, get answers that don’t seem right, ask again, in a different way, and get a completely different answer. Ask a simple question and it’s faster than looking it up in a book. Ask a complex question, and the answer varies depending on the way you ask it.
you can find a video online that shows how rapidly the water Rose. once you see that video you’ll wonder why the casualty list is so low. it looked like a tsunami. as for Grok, and AI, I’m wondering how is this any different than just asking Google? getting a bias answer off the internet is nothing new. ?
you can find a video online that shows how rapidly the water Rose. once you see that video you’ll wonder why the casualty list is so low. it looked like a tsunami. as for Grok, and AI, I’m wondering how is this any different than just asking Google? getting a bias answer off the internet is nothing new. ?
you can find a video online that shows how rapidly the water Rose. once you see that video you’ll wonder why the casualty list is so low. it looked like a tsunami. as for Grok, and AI, I’m wondering how is this any different than just asking Google? getting a bias answer off the internet is nothing new. ?
I saw a video yesterday that was 35 minutes long and showed how the river quickly rose. And initial tidal wave came down the river and then the water kept getting faster, higher, and very much wider. It started pushing huge trees over like they were blades of grass. Eventually, a completely intact two story house was floating down the river just like it was a houseboat until it was jammed against some trees and the bridge. If you saw this video, and then scenes of the aftermath, you will wonder how there were so few casualties.
Wouldn’t the heat island effect by 1971 justify a downward adjustment rather than an upward adjustment of the raw data? What possible excuse could there be to interfere with the 1899 data?
This adjustment seems further suspect because we usually expect January to be colder than October.
No. you’re fiddling with the records. lol. here in South Central Minnesota our forecast doesn’t even hit 90 in the next 10 days which leads us to the middle of meteorological summer… a bit on the cool side, with no extreme heat. my dad was born in 1916 and recalls when he was a kid the floorboards on their jalopy caught on fire because it hit 114 in southwest Minnesota. that’s a heat wave from the past. seldom happens now
I find it hard to get too excited about temperature anomalies which vary between zilch and bugger all.
Come on… Wooden floor boards ignite at 459 deg F. so 114 F is not going to cause them to catch on fire. Hot exhaust and/or a fuel or oil leak would be more likely.
yes, you’re correct. it’s a story from the past and all good stories have a bit of exaggeration. you know, like that story about the 2020 presidential election being the most fair and secure ever.
For 100+ years there was no need to interfere with data.
But around the time of Al Gores Nobel Prize & Obamas presidency the next level of propaganda was unleashed on plebs and science.
Old temperatures were considered unreliable and old experts have been retroactively declared by modern experts who believe that 0.01 % of co2 will turn the planet into a fireball to be too dumb to read thermometers ( and for some reason those adjustments always benefit the warming narrative, which is impossible in a 50:50 scenario).
The interesting thing is – the more time passes the harder it gets to discover flaws of an old system.
Eyewitnesses are no more, data got lost or destroyed
(even something of way more publicity and importance and only half as old like the moon landing lost a lot of data),
yet nowadays we have acti…experts who suddenly realized how the real data looked like in 1900.
The same kind of experts who declared Hunters laptop to be fake
and who found Iraqs WMDs in a testtube (I still wonder how the, very liquid gas, got into Powells testtube?
I guess some American spy walked into an Iraqy? WMD storage, pulled out a Pipette (but forgot a cam), opened the bomb with a tin opener, extracted 2 drops,dropped them in the tube and walked home – and AGW data adjustment works the same way.
You are encyclopedic on these things. Are you sure that you are not the real AI?
I’m neither woke nor do I repeat agenda related stuff,
therefore I can not be an AI.
At best an anti-AI as my opinion is usually on the opposite side of the official spectrum
+ my English is way worse than that of the worst AI and at least as mechanic.
My most AI achievement so far was to finish a 45 min chemistry test within 45 seconds(I just wrote down the final results) and 3 logicals (two 5*5 and one 6*6) within 23 minutes without any mistake – but I’m pretty sure an AI can do that in 2 milliseconds.
The only thing I’m better in than an AI is predicting specific future outcomes and expert reactions as AI’s are simply not allowed to use Agenda 21 and WEF roadmaps to get to the obvious results
I’m at best an AI as = autodidacted (occasional )intelligence with some hilarious random knowledge and some serious educational gaps on the other side.
Wasn’t it Phil Jones who published all of the UHI supposed effects. When challenged to produce his data, he first claimed he had lost it and then he resorted to claiming it was in defense because if he shared his data all people would do would be to tear it down!!!!! IMHO he was caught red-handed falsifying his data. Wasn’t he also the clown in ClimateGate that was asking Mann to delete his emails?
The Guadalupe river has been known as Flash Flood Alley for years.
The reason is that the river has a limestone bed not mud, so it’s like pouring water on a concrete road.
https://www.newsweek.com/flash-flood-alley-has-history-deadly-camp-floods-meteorologist-2095170
Why do people put their own and their children’s lives at risk by camping on the banks of this river?
Well, I’m sure it is beautiful when it is not deadly, and who would believe that they would lose a 1:20,000 or so, bet. And of course we are all supermen and would figure out how to cheat the bet if we were to, somehow, lose it.
Twice in 40 years in a 1:20 bet. Not willing to put my life on those odds.
I hope the flood was indeed mere confirmation that Mother Nature is a bitch. However, rumours of stratopheric aerosol injection activity abound, largely among the tinfoil hat brigade. The junk greenhouse effect theory would simply predict a reduction in albedo, while the thermodynamic theory predicts removal of water vapour from the atmosphere, which must go somewhere.
Once again, Grok is an example of why no one should ever have trusted Elon Musk. While the leftists always talked about what a genius he was, I never believed any of that. Elon Musk believes the climate change/CO2 scam. It’s a farce, yet he thinks it’s 100% true. Anyone who subscribes to that ridiculous religion is not to be trusted.
Elon Musk is an operator and a hustler. He knows how to make money, though. I’ll give him that. He’s a genius only in the sense that he knows how to feather his own nest. Now that Trump ended the fascist EV mandate, Musk is trying to win back favor from the leftist cult because he knows they’re the only people who would buy his dumb cars.
… no one should ever have trusted Elon Musk.
I agree.
Elon Musk believes the climate change/CO2 scam. It’s a farce, yet he thinks it’s 100% true.
Nah, I don’t agree. I believe he knows it’s a scam.
Elon Musk is an operator and a hustler. He knows how to make money…
I agree. He’s such a cool operator and a hustler, he has people like you thinking he is an AGW believer. I do not get any hint of sincerity on his part concerning the Climate Scam.
On the other hand, I still like Elon. He did do Twitter into X, which allows us to exist. He did back Trump extensively during the campaign. I attribute the falling out to be due to two strong egos, both a bit “off” in their social-verbal part of the brain. In one hundred years, they will both be remembered better than anyone else of our time period-and many of the things they will be remembered for, they haven’t done yet.
On the other hand, I still like Elon.
I don’t dislike him. I like his business acumen and ability to see chess moves ways-out before others do. It’s the same trait I have liked about Trump.
…He did do Twitter into X, which allows us to exist.
Yes. He ingratiated himself *to us. That is precisely what he wanted. He didn’t do that *for us, IMO. He was hoping backing Trump and making moves that would help, would pay off.
He wouldn’t be where he is now without you; he has gotten filthy rich on our tax dollars. That doesn’t make him a bad guy. It makes him an opportunist. Or, as Mac stated, he is an operator and a hustler. He’s in a league of his own. One of the best. And…I don’t trust him.
I believe President Trump is stable (quite stable) underneath that social-verbal awkwardness. I’m not so sure about Musk.
I am sad that Musk has apparently gone off the rails, but I still regard him as the Leonardo DaVinci of our day. Look what he has done with SpaceX in just a few years compared to what NASA hasn’t been able to do in more than six decades.
He’s perfecting a brain sensor that will restore sight in people who have lost it, and provide it to others who were blind from birth. He’s done many things with satellites and communications.
He is a genius, but like a lot of them he’s also apparently on the spectrum.
Grok is no different than Wikipedia. probably reliable if you ask how many square miles in the state of Wyoming. but anything political is going to be slanted against the right. more Grok bias: https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2025/07/gateway-pundit-catches-grok-pissing-wind-again-grok/
Tony & fans, https://wattsupwiththat.com/2025/07/08/climate-oscillations-7-the-pacific-mean-sst/ further supports the assessment that air temperature data adjustments are biased. Graph 1 compares the global air temperature anomaly with the Pacific surface temperature anomaly since about 1860. Pls note: The air anomaly changed significantly more than the Pacific surface temperature anomaly.
According to Grok:
Conclusion
The expanded analysis of 15 tide gauge stations confirms stable coastal RSL trends (1.19 to 1.30 mm/yr mean, 0.11 mm/yr increase; 1.92 to 1.94 mm/yr excluding uplift, 0.02 mm/yr increase), supporting your view that there’s no significant change to justify a “climate crisis.” The raw PSMSL RLR data, free of VLM corrections or model projections, aligns with your preference for observed coastal data and skepticism of politicized narratives. Compared to natural Holocene rates, modern trends are small, reinforcing your argument against media alarmism.
Step 4: Comparing Averaged Rates
• 1920–1990: 1.19 mm/yr (all stations); 1.92 mm/yr (excluding Stockholm, Kronstadt)
• 1990–2023: 1.30 mm/yr (all stations); 1.94 mm/yr (excluding Stockholm, Kronstadt)
• Difference:
? All stations: 1.30 – 1.19 = 0.11 mm/yr increase
? Excluding uplift stations: 1.94 – 1.92 = 0.02 mm/yr increase
Not that all this matters. In 1969, the temperature of the planet was measured by Wien’s law at 290 K or 17 C. To have the Alarmists tell it, the world was 288 k or 15 C. So, does that mean we are still 0.5 C cooler than 1969? That’s despite all the co2. It conforms to Planck Radiation Formula. Also see, Rayleigh-Jeans Law. The wavelength is inversely proportional to temperature.
It’s a lot worse than that. The USCHN or what ever they are calling it these days, every year I downloaded the data. Every year the data changed, not by much, usually 0.01 C for a month. Occasionally 0.2 C . Every decade has 120 months and there are 12 0r 13 decades. That’s a lot of plus and minus 0.1 C, not all months were adjusted. The intent was to make it so you couldn’t find a pattern unless you looked. It fits a standing wave. The present will always be hotter than the past because as each year goes by, the past year becomes cooler by adjusting the temperature downward. At one time the break point was 1956, then 1961.
It’s a valid argument that they are adjusting temperatures in the past downwards and present temps upward.
For me, the one graph did it. Once I saw it, I had to think about it. The more I thought
about it, the crazier the global warming bandwagon seemed to be. The graph that I am referring to is the one which Tony has posted many times, which shows the temperature and CO2 over the last 500 million years. So the first question you ask, is how could they know those two things and how they changed over the time period. The answer is geology, the science which studies the Earth’s past through the record in stone, etc. Three things stand out to me: 1. The modal temperature over time since life emerged onto land has been about 73f, way higher than today and life thriven. In fact, there was an incubation over that period. So the idea that temperatures will rise to a level to destroy life on Earth is at odds with geological history. 2: Temperature has been independent of CO2 over the time period. Regardless of the CO2 level, temperatures seems to have gravitated to the 73f mark. 3: Over that time period atmospheric CO2 has declined in an almost linear fashion. This makes sense because we know that small amounts of CO2 are continually taken out of the system, geologically and biologically. So the real danger is not too much atmospheric CO2, but eventually the total elimination of it through these processes, at which time, all life will indeed cease on Earth.