Maximum temperatures in the US have not changed since 1895, and 2012 was only fourth hottest after 1921, 1925, and 1934.
July temperatures have cooled slightly.
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- Up Is Down
- The Clean Energy Boom
- Climate Change In Spain
- The Clock Is Ticking
- “hottest weather in 120,000 years”
- “Peace, Relief, And Recovery”
- “Earth’s hottest weather in 120,000 years”
- 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
Recent Comments
- dm on The Clean Energy Boom
- arn on Up Is Down
- Bob G on Up Is Down
- arn on Climate Change In Spain
- conrad ziefle on The Clock Is Ticking
- conrad ziefle on Climate Change In Spain
- conrad ziefle on Climate Change In Spain
- conrad ziefle on “Peace, Relief, And Recovery”
- arn on The Clock Is Ticking
- Mike Peinsipp on The Clock Is Ticking
While nothing has happened with respect to warming, we have been subjected to an endless cacophony of lies and drivel from alarmists over the past 30 years. As a result, we have squandered untold millions on climate “reseach” (results rigged) as well as untold trillions with respect to the mindless rush off a cliff in the name of “going green”. Not to mention the irreparable damage to the economy and national security as a result of not exploiting the various sources of cheap energy. This green movement is an abomination, which needs to be thwarted and swept into the dustbin of history. Hopefully, the next election will get us pointed in that direction.
The Drug War on creativity (Hendrix, PCR, Apple Macintosh etc.) also spells trillions after 30 X $50 billion years. When responsible people lack access to smart drugs, only psychos delve deep into the human psyche, or string theory.
Well put, Andy. +1
“research”
Try this report from the UK Met Office, sneaked out without a “Press Release” on the internet while they hoped no one was looking. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2217286/Global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago-reveals-Met-Office-report-quietly-released–chart-prove-it.html?ITO=1490
The Drudge Report just put on a link to it.
http://www.drudgereport.com/
Instapundit, too. Day’s work.
But, but, that’s not what we said!
http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/2012/10/14/met-office-in-the-media-14-october-2012/
I find this statement rather misleading…
“The linear trend from August 1997 (in the middle of an exceptionally strong El Nino) to August 2012 (coming at the tail end of a double-dip La Nina) is about 0.03°C/decade…”
Hold on, August 2012 was at solar max and there were El Nino type conditions in the pacific. How is the fact that there was a prior La Nina relevant if they are discussing end points?
Ricochet has a good and short take on the global temperature stall here: http://ricochet.com/main-feed/Global-Climate-Status-Quo
Actually, with graph, nearly the entire article is just this (but read also the excellent Ricochet comments): First it was termed Global Warming — signifying runaway heating of the earth’s atmosphere brought on by an excess of capitalism and freedom producing too much carbon dioxide — then, in light of inconvenient temperature moves to the downside, Global Climate Change, caused by the same thing. [LOL:] Now the data show only oscillations around a mean — call it Global Status Quo: no doubt cataclysmically harmful, somehow. Just wait a week or so for an explanation to be expelled from the bowels of the UN creative writing department.
We’re alive…we’re alive. Party at Hansen’s Manhatten penthouse tonight?
Somehow we need to get back to robust individual station readings. For instance, according to NOAA, Virginia had a record temp for July, but an analysis of all the USHCN stations says this is BS.
http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2012/08/29/hottest-july-in-virginia-or-maybe-not/
And the same in Alabama.
http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2012/07/11/ncdc-temperature-adjustments-in-alabama/
Since y’all are so fucking cock-sure that climate scientists are cooking the books, why don’t you put your money where your mouth is? Why don’t you do some RealScience? Why don’t you publish your analyses? Why don’t you submit your analyses as a paper at the annual meeting of the American Geophysical Union – you know all those folks doing the climate science? Do you have the guts to stand up to the scrutiny?
Hint: Just plotting raw data is not RealScience. You do have to account for instrumental drift, changes in calibrations, systematic errors, etc. But you all are so smart I’ve got great confidence in you.
Better yet, how about another paper for the AGU based upon all those old newspaper articles. There must be some fundamental science to report on.
I bet there is even a Nobel Prize in there. I can even see the headlines. “RealScience Blog Team wins Nobel Prize.” “Old newspaper articles found to disprove 180 years of climate science.”
But I suspect that there is something else going on.
Climate science doesn’t agree with right wing ideology, climate scientists must be cooking the books.
Polling results don’t agree with right wing ideology, pollsters must be cooking the books.
Bureau of Labor Statistics jobs numbers don’t agree with right wing ideology, the BLS must be cooking the books.
There is a pattern there. You are welcome to you own opinions, but not your own facts.
Why don’t you move to North Korea where scientists are not subject to annoying things like freedom of speech?
the old favorite ‘why don’t you move’ argument. can’t you do anything better than that?
you are free to say as many ignorant things as you wish.
I perceive a certain lack of courage to take your ideas and present them to real scientists, as opposed to RealScientists, for critique. sort of like the monday morning quarterbacks who would never have the real courage to hang in the pocket with a 300# lineman bearing down on them.
LOL. Do you know what ignorant means?
Your original statement is amazingly egocentric and condescending.
Taxpayers pay for all of the climate science research that’s criticized here. Taxpayers don’t need to ask Climate Scientists if it’s OK to criticize their work. It’s up to Climate Scientists to produce something of use to taxpayers and for tax payers to determine it’s value. I’ve contacted all my representatives regarding the rampant waste in climate research. Steven had a post the other day that listed the benefits of climate research. It’s a very short list. You’re welcome to add to it if you’d like.
Reading your post again, it seems quite obvious that your drunk. If I I was you I’d start with the addressing your drinking problem. Your other problems are probably incurable.
This data has already passed climate scientist peer review, has already been published. We’re just helping get that product shipped and into the hands of consumers.
Your argument worked fine before Climategate. Now it literally fails to pass the laugh test:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q20cnn8vOfg
I published it right here. Be a hero to your cause and prove me wrong, if you think you are up to it.
Because the Church Climate Change isn’t going to allow anything to be published that contradicts their religion. Scientists observed what the Catholic church did to the heretics in the 17th century who dared to contest their power structure (and clergy like Martin Luther in the 16th century) and the Church of Climate Change said, ‘hey, we can do that’.
So this is basically how it works. Any scientists who contests the Church of Climate Change is immediately fired or forced to resign. If for some reason he has a backbone or a really good lawyer and you actually have to abide by the law and keep him employed because he won’t be bought out by a bunch of corrupt priests then you never, never ever and I mean never ever allow any of his work to be published and you accomplish this because all of the people who publish scientific journals are themselves priests of the Church of Climate Change.
This is like my son’s High School Biology teacher calling me up years ago and we actually have this conversation:
“Hello Mr. Powell. I have a problem with your son.” (Teacher)
“I’m sorry to hear that. Tell me what it is and I will take care of it. (Myself)
“Your son is asking me questions in class.” (Teacher)
[Complete and total awkward silence for 15 seconds] (Myself)
“I need him to stop asking me these questions.” (Teacher)
“What questions is he asking you?” (Myself)
“He is asking questions about evolution.” (Teacher)
[Silence again as I control my composure] “You teach science. Correct?” (Myself)
“Correct.” (Teacher)
“And science is about asking questions and finding answers, correct?” (Myself)
“Correct.” (Teacher)
“So why don’t you just answer his questions?” (Myself)
“Because he is answering questions I don’t have answers for.” (Teacher).
“So why don’t you find out the answers, or just tell him there are presently no answers for his questions? Evolution is a theory, correct?” (Myself)
“Sir, evolution is a fact.” (Teacher)
“You mean evolution as in a species mutates to adapt to its environment, which is a fact, or evolution as in a species through random mutation and natural selection evolves to another species, which is a theory.?” (Myself)
“What are you talking about?” (Teacher)
[Really, really trying to keep my calm at this point]. “Look, I know your busy, but can you do me this favor? He’s a smart kid. He asks a lot questions. Your a teacher. A SCIENCE TEACHER. You think you can answer his questions or maybe like do some RESEARCH into the answers?” (Myself)
[Click]. (Teacher).
BTW — my son, who finished all his High School Credits needed by his Junior year in High School and loves science is pursuing a degree in Computer Engineering. I don’t think I have to tell you why.
If you would take the effort to look, this site has posted tons of documentation backing its case. The only period where there has been significant warming since 1940 is from 1980 to 1997. There was net cooling between 1940 and 1980. So 17 years of warming out of the last 72 years does not make much of a case for catastrophic warming and the need for drastic action, which would destroy our economy and way of life.
Anyone with a rational mind should question data manipulation by agenda driven, highly politicized concerns. The adjustments to the raw data have a strong warm bias that makes no sense.
Write it up and publish it. Prove it. Otherwise, it does not mean jack shit.
You can’t claim to be a championship tennis player, unless you enter tournaments and prove it.
All scientists are skeptics, but not all skeptics are scientists. And it shows.
What a load of crap. I am making simple assertions based on readily available data. Prove me wrong.
Doesn’t work that way. You have to prove you are right.
And you have to prove it to those whose data analysis, not to mention ethics, you are questioning.
I know it takes a little courage to stand up to those you are accusing of manipulating data, lying, etc. But you have to get off the sidelines, and engage. Right now you are just trying to throw grenades from the sidelines. Otherwise you know, it’s just chicken shit.
You are wasting everybody’s time. The emperor is naked, and you are too dense to see.
“You can’t claim to be a championship tennis player, unless you enter tournaments and prove it.”
Physicist, you are purposely confounding publishing scientific papers and truth, and you are only doing this because you know the case for AGW is extremely weak. Go find something else to do (besides drinking).
Like a lot of warmists, “physicist” doesn’t have the brains to repeat the straightforward data analysis Steve has done.
All you are saying is that Mr. Goddard needs validation from agenda driven alarmists to make his case. That makes no sense at all.
What you say makes too much sense.
It is not about science, it is about the worldwide conspiracy and how the UN is trying to enslave us.
Another idiot who will do anything to avoid discussing the spectacularly bad USHCN adjustments.
They make such fools of themselves their own postings are self rebutting.
And coolwhip is right on time too! LMAO!
😆 the pHDouche err I mean pHCyst is having a tantrum! LMAO!
Yes,” reason has forsaken him, but he can still shout.”
The emperor has no clothes. The emperor cherry picks data. The emperor posted a chart of a ONE tidal gauge at ONE location (there are over 2000 tidal gauges) that showed no increase in sea level at that one point I think on the west coast of the US (i.e., the eastern Pacific). Ergo, that proves that sea level must not be rising anywhere. Classic cherry picking
I suggest you peruse the satellite (yes, satellites do orbit, they do follow the laws of physics, or do we have another conspiracy theory about Newton) altimeter data: http://ibis.grdl.noaa.gov/SAT/SeaLevelRise/slr/map_txj1j2_no_green.png
You will see indeed a large area of the eastern Pacific where essentially there is no sea level rise.
But check out the rest of the oceans, up to 10mm/year.
So keep on cherry picking, and the conspiracy theories coming, I need a little humor.
Next conspiracy theory about NOAA and satellite altimetry is………… I’m waiting anxiously for the next piece of comic relief.
BTW, those newspaper articles really are interesting history to read, I do enjoy them, but they don’t prove anything.
Is there something wrong with you which makes it impossible to discuss the topic of the post – USHCN adjustments?
Just having fun. Do you know the difference between maximum value and average value?
You continue to demonstrate that you are a complete moron. I plotted average values in two other posts on October 14.
AMS has already established the parameters of falsification of the IPCC climate models and they have been falsified according to the HadCrut4 data. Nature just wrote their “Caveat Emptor” article on models as they are slowly backing away from the models. You sound much more like a crazed Al Gore warmist/activist than a physicist. If you would like to see how a real published physicist approaches the science on this topic, look here. Note his tone and his data presentation. 🙂
http://clivebest.com/blog/?p=3303
aphysicist not; Steve has posted dozens of SL charts from many locations, usually in response to some claim of upcoming tragic SL rise in that area if we don’t do something now (usually involving stealing other peoples money) Each time the chart for that area shows the same thing, basically flat to very minor SL rise. So you are apparently cherry picking without a reference or link to what you are talking about.
I suspect you don’t know what cherry picking means:
http://ibis.grdl.noaa.gov/SAT/SeaLevelRise/LSA_SLR_maps.php
Quick – run out of the house, one side of your bathtub is filling up much faster than the other side.
You are an inane imbicil. I was refering to your unreferencd claim about Goddard cherry picking. I was asserting that he usually picks a location based on an idiotic assertion of disaster in a particular location. Steve then shows how there is no historic threat of disastourus SL rise in that location. You, with no link to your off topic attack on Goddard, then accuse him of trying to say there is zero SL rise via showing one location. This was BS strawman cherry picked illogic, and even you know it.
@Physicist: I thought you might be interested in this. I had a quick look at it, but will read more later:
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.ca/2012/10/new-paper-shows-sea-levels-around.html#comment-form
There are millions of people living at or near the coast, some for a very long time. If there was significant sea level rise, wouldn’t those people have noticed by now? Where are the stories about mass migrations away from the shoreline? To the contrary, development along the shoreline keeps increasing.
I guess you haven’t heard about the Pacific Island nations that are going under, and thier peoples are already planning their moves.
http://yubanet.com/usa/Floridian-Scientists-Officials-Call-on-Presidential-Candidates-to-Debate-Sea-Level-Rise-Threatening-40-of-U-S-Population.php#.UHvt4I7FXog
I guess you haven’t heard that it is all bullshit
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2012/10/06/michael-mann-strikes-out-with-breathtaking-stupidity/
He is an endless source of amusement though. “Dumb as dog shit” springs to mind as an appropriate euphemism.
@Physicist: The article you reference doesn’t mention anything about Pacific Island nations. The only planning I see going on is a new airport being built in the Maldives, where the highest point above sea-level is 3 metres:
http://www.anna.aero/2012/01/05/maldives-prepares-for-growth-with-ground-breaking-ceremony-for-new-terminal/
physicist says:
October 15, 2012 at 11:05 am
I guess you haven’t heard about the Pacific Island nations that are going under, and thier peoples are already planning their moves.
—————————–
Are you off your medication? The article you link to says nothing about any Pacific Island nation going under. You talk of plans to move but how many have moved. Sea levels have been rising since the end of the last ice age. Now I may be wrong here but a vaguely recall that the pacific islanders colonized the islands during the Roman Warm Period.
Have your read about Darwin’s observations about certain islands? 😉
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818110001013
“The dynamic response of reef islands to sea-level rise: Evidence from multi-decadal analysis of island change in the Central Pacific”