Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- Michael Mann Hurricane Update
- Michael Mann Hurricane Update
- Making Themselves Irrelevant
- Michael Mann Predicts The Demise Of X
- COP29 Preview
- UK Labour To Save The Planet
- A Giant Eyesore
- CO2 To Destroy The World In Ten Years
- Rats Jumping Off The Climate Ship
- UK Labour To Save The Planet
- “False Claims” And Outright Lies”
- Michael Mann Cancelled By CNN
- Spoiled Children
- Great Lakes Storm Of November 11, 1835
- Harris To Win Iowa
- Angry Democrats
- November 9, 1913 Storm
- Science Magazine Explains Trump Supporters
- Obliterating Bill Gates
- Scientific American Editor In Chief Speaks Out
- The End Of Everything
- Harris To Win In A Blowout
- Election Results
- “Glaciers, Icebergs Melt As World Gets Warmer”
- “falsely labeling”
Recent Comments
- Francis Barnett on Michael Mann Hurricane Update
- arn on Michael Mann Hurricane Update
- BenV on Michael Mann Hurricane Update
- arn on Michael Mann Hurricane Update
- Greg in NZ on Michael Mann Hurricane Update
- czechlist on Michael Mann Hurricane Update
- Disillusioned on Michael Mann Hurricane Update
- arn on Michael Mann Hurricane Update
- conrad ziefle on Michael Mann Hurricane Update
- arn on Michael Mann Hurricane Update
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Lake Coeur D’Alene frozen over Feb. 15, 1936
http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1338&dat=19360215&id=0dpYAAAAIBAJ&sjid=BfUDAAAAIBAJ&pg=6666,4219487
Does it freeze in winter? No.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Does_Coeur_D'Alene_Lake_freeze_in_winter
Model Ts at the bottom of Lake Coeur D’Alene…
http://www.northidahodreamteam.com/lakes_of_coeurdalene_area
February, 1936 was one of the coldest months in US history.
Playing the devil’s advocate here:
Isn’t starting the temperature trend at 1996 and saying there’s been no warming since the same thing?
Whether it is cherry picking depends on what you are trying to show. For example if someone asks, “How long has it been since we had a warming trend?”, well, you don’t have any control over the starting point. The starting point is now. Go back a few years and the trend is cooling. Go a few more and the trend is still cooling. Finally when you get to 1996 the trend becomes warming. No cherry picking involved — it is just that the answer is what the answer is. Note however how I phrased the question.
Now, what if I had asked “Are we in a warming trend?” or equally “Are we in a cooling trend?” Both of these questions are much more open ended because they do not ask “how long since…”. Are we in a warming trend? You bet! Just start back to the depths of the Little Ice Age, and yes, we are in a warming trend. Are we in a cooling trend? You bet! Just start back to the Holocene Climatic Optimum and yes, we have cooled. Wow, I guess we must be having some of that warm-cold that’s so popular these days!
Anyway, as far as cherry picking goes, unless we are sure of and in agreement on what time periods we are talking about we will always (whether warmist or sceptic) be accused of cherry picking.
Exactly right Jason. There is no ‘normal’ in climate or weather, only ‘observed averages’ over time. The very idea that anyone could identify one point in the history of our amazing planet, and use it as benchmark for ‘average’ or ‘normal’, is pure insanity.
Lock them up and throw away the key.
There’s really no such thing as “climate”, there’s just averaging over larger periods and averaging over smaller periods. The length of the period is what you want it to be.
Yes, that would make me a “climate denier” but explaining signal processing to journalists is a waste of everyone’s time.
That’s probably one of the best synopsis’ I’ve read on temperature trend analysis, Jason. Nice one.
To prove a theory, you have to demonstrate that it is always correct. Disproving a theory requires only one failing case.
Do their thermometers really read in hundredths of degrees or is this just mathematical game playing using averages that don’t take into effect significant digits?
Do their thermometers really read in hundredths of degrees? More material for our host. A comparison of a claimed .01 degree accuracy, to the size of the adjustments.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=03SWGkxt72A#t=207
Steve, totally off topic, but have you seen this transcript of a ABC radio interview with Chris Turney, the expedition leader. Note that the interviewer refers to Turney as a climate specialist early on in the interview and as Professor of Climate Change at the University of New South Wales in conclusion. However, during the interview, the climate specialist Professor makes the following statement.
I don’t believe this is some slip of the tongue. The theoretical mean temperature of the earth without greenhouse gases is 255k (-18 degrees centigrade), It’s a well recognised figure. This guy doesn’t know what he’s talking about – yet he holds a senior position in “climate change” studies at a leading Australian university.
Turkey is a Pommie sock puppet, trying to boost his carbon capture business venture. He is a disgrace to UNSW, and should be sacked from his position on the basis of conflict of interest, lack of professional ethics, misuse of university funding and bringing UNSW into disrepute! And he should have his visa cancelled and sent packing immediately along with the English cricket team.
You can keep the English cricket team. 🙂
Even 255k is a totally bogus figure. You have to assume that albedo is what it is NOW to get that result. But it wouldn’t be 0.306 without clouds, it would be 0.15 (the color of rock, dust, haze, ocean). At 0.306, the difference (aka GHE) is 33.7°C, but at 0.15 albedo (darker surface without clouds, more SWR absorbed as a result), it is 20.5°C. Clouds are a short lived reaction to excess heat that would disappear almost immediately once temperature dropped, and failure to take them out does not give a useful estimate of the GH effect. The difference, 13.2°C is the effect of clouds, the 20.5°C is H2O vapor + CO2 + other.
Using the albedo of 0.306 as the baseline for calculations is absurd, and results in a 40% overestimate of the effect of CO2 and H2O, without even going into the mechanisms of cooling that radiative cooling of water droplets aloft does by bypassing the lower level GHG’s.
If you are as convinced as I am that clouds are the temperature regulation mechanism on the planet, then you have already concluded that they are a REACTION TO excess energy, which, by their very presence, indicates that they are in the process of disposing of or reflecting excess heat already. On average, the cloud albedo will be at such a level to maintain equilibrium by shading and SB radiation of water droplets aloft to space.
The calculations are done as if the clouds would be there regardless of the resulting temperature, and the classical view is that the ENTIRE 33°C is greenhouse effect. Took me a long time, but I realized in the last year or two how stupid that is.
Anybody with me on this?
I understand your point and it is a perfectly valid one. You’re right the earth’s albedo would alter in the absence of water vapour. But the point I’m trying to make is that the UNSW Professor of Climate Change cited a figure which is total nonsense. He also used the term “carbon” rather than “carbon dioxide” which is a bit iffy but I could let that pass.
I don’t think the guy knows what he’s talking about. I can only assume that his role does not involve any of the basic science that underpins “climate change”.
It seems like he’s trying to suggest that CO2 is at an extraordinarily high level. or that he knows what the safe level is.
Real scientists that actually produce beneficial things for society like medicines and such toil in obscurity climate alarmists do media appearances, travel extensively, and rub elbows with politicians all day.
Sorry forgot to provide the link
http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2013/s3846720.htm
Have a look at Burt Rutan’s analysis and find out we’re in a cooling trend for thousands of years.
The Minoan Warmth Period for example was warmer than the Roman Warmth Period and the Medieval Warmth Period was cooler than than the Roman Warmth period.
During all three periods which lasted around 400 years, the poles carried no ice and Greenland was covered with trees.
We all know the Vikings had colonized the South Western coastal regions in Greenland between 1000 and 1400 AC where they farmed the land.
These were the times in Europe when the big Cathedrals were build and Western Europe’s populations prospered.
After the Medieval warmth period came to an end we never matched the temperatures from that period. The Greenland Icecap expanded, the North and South Pole region carried ice again as we sunk into the Little Ice Age. When the Dalton Minimum, the latest cold period of the Little Ice Age ended, warming was fierce and most of the glacier melting took place. The past century had it’s warmest period during the thirties, the years of the Dust Bowls in the USA and the mild winters in Europe but even those maximum temperatures haven’t been matched since.
Despite these facts and despite the lack of industrial activity during those times the AGW scare mongers have made advantage of the relative small temperature variations caused by the Atlantic and Pacific multi decadal oscilations. Relative small temperature variations because during the entire past century we had an active sun. Now the current solar minimum coincides with the Pacific returning to it’s colder phase and the Atlantic following suit their entire scam is collapsing.
The Australian Antarctic Expedition didn’t get stuck in the Antarctic sea ice by accident.
The world is cooling all right and we’re heading for the next Ice Age. Period.
You can find Rutan’s remarkable analysis here:
Also have a close look at his analysis of the biosphere and why our current levels of CO2 are still relative low.
http://rps3.com/Pages/Burt_Rutan_on_Climate_Change.htm#
The lies of the alarmists continue, particularly withe the “5 facts”.
http://m.scmp.com/lifestyle/technology/article/1397449/5-antarctic-facts-climate-change-sceptics
“ABC science broadcaster Adam Spencer took to Twitter to lament that “you’d fail a year 8 science test if you presented the misunderstandings” contained in The Australian’s editorial.”
Adam Spencer is a comedian with ABC radio show and TV appearances. He is also a long term warmist. Saying he is a science broadcaster is like saying Hitler was a humanitarian.
Adam Spencer is a comedian with ABC
Thanks for clearing that up.
Is there any funny material that you can point to that bears out that assertion?
http://youtu.be/P6o3TIzuV_s
“It’s unlikely a single ship getting stuck in ice will cause a major deviation in researchers’ findings.”
What about two ships? Does that make a major deviation in research findings?
He also forgot to mention the calculated rise is from 1970 to 1996 and from there forward (and vastly beforehand), the massaging of data has done its best to hide a downward trend…
The show is over, but the twisted and demented fools have been experiencing dreams of torches and pitchforks, and not in a good way 😉
The full exposure of their collapsing agenda is underway and they have nowhere to hide…