Alterations To Climate Data

GISS2001_2015 GISS2014_2015_2 ScreenHunter_3127 Sep. 21 10.12 NASASeaLevelRise1983-2015 ScreenHunter_3123 Sep. 21 09.01 GISS1982_2002_2014_2015 GISSFigA2Changes-Sept2005-March2015-Sept2015_2 ScreenHunter_2900 Sep. 04 06.50 GISSUS1999-20151

Changes to GISS surface temperature from 2002 to 2014

GISSFigA2002-2014

Changes to GISS surface temperature between 1981 and 1991, and between 1981 and 2014

NASASurfaceTemp1981-1999-2014

Changes to Northern Hemisphere surface temperature between the 1975 National Academy of Sciences Report, and current CRUTEM

NorthernHemisphereChanges

Changes to GISS US temperatures between 1999 and 2014

GISSUS19992014

Changes to Northern Latitudes (north of 23.6N)

NASANorthernLatititudes1981-1999-2015

1981 version : 1981_Hansen_etal_1.pdf

1999 version : 1999_Hansen_etal_1.pdf

Current version : Fig.B.gif (407×678)

Changes to NCDC US temperatures from 1991 to 2014

NCDCBaseline1990-2014

Changes to GISS Iceland temperatures between V2 and V3

ReykjavikGISS2012-2013

AliceSpringsGISS2012-2014

PuertoCasado

 

NCDC has dramatically cooled pre-1963 Northern Hemisphere temperatures since the 1975 National Academy of Sciences report.

 

NCDCvsNASNH

GISSFigC2001-2015.txt

Odds Of Gavin And Tom’s Data Tampering Being Correct Are Close To Zero

NCDCLandRealVsPublished

NCDC Data Fabrication Is Skewed Towards Warming

 2015-11-17-02-14-42

Yet Another Smoking Gun Of Temperature Fraud By NOAA

95 Responses to Alterations To Climate Data

  1. I’m sure all those changes to the data are honest and have valid reasons. After all, they are scientists.

    • Robert Weekes says:

      They should have good reasons to update the data if they want to do good science, which is their ethical and professional obligation. Updating data as new measurements are acquired is a standard process and the way science is done over time. You can’t measure a complicated system like the earth’s climate patterns all in one go.

      • Yep says:

        Fewer stations and ignoring satellite temperature readings is good science? Changing the historical data based on assumption is good science? Believing the adjusters who have consistently been grossly inaccurate with every climate model they have produced for 30 years is good science? C’mon man.

      • Jay Houle says:

        Umm, how can you (ethically) “update” data taken years/decades ago?

      • Bobby Taylor says:

        There is no new data. temperature data is static. There is no new scientific techniques to garnish temperature data. In fact the data back then was more accurate than now because there were many more ground stations in the united states. There is virtually no good data from the southern hemisphere. Too much land where no measurements can even be taken. The Russians also say that alot of their data is not accurate in the colder regions. The only reason to alter temperature data is because it does not fit their models or agenda. And they do not know what to do with water vapor. Water vaper is over 95 percent of the atmosphere…. they just plug in what they want. And the satellite data disagrees with the “new” ground data. And they do not know what to do about clouds. Way too many gaps in the data and the data we do have has been changed. Simply amazing. You cannot arrive at anything approaching scientic information on this much dispersion. This information is weather not climate. Ground temp in any location is weather. Taken all together over time it becomes climate. Local weather information has been accurate in the stations report into the 1800’s. And it would not change. One degree farenheit or centigrade is no different now than it was then. Last but not least, all the models have been wrong about how much warming there should be by now. And it was all higher. Occams razor would suggest that if they were any good at all there would be roughly a 50 50 variance lower and higher. In the end there is more than enough data to suggest that it is not warming nearly as fast as they are trying to say. And that is based on the new inaccurate information. With the old data the variation statistically insignificant over the last 150 years. Maybe one half of a degree or just a little more.

        • Gail Combs says:

          Actually Australia did have decent data in places going back to 1880s. So did the USA.

          Late 19th Century photographic evidence of the Stevenson Screen in Australian meteorology

          There is even a text book written in 1918 talking about TWENTY YEARS of continuous measurements and the error in various thermometers and measuring methods.

          When a maximum thermometer is not read for several hours after the highest temperature has occurred and the air in the meantime has cooled down 15° or 20°, the highest temperature indicated by the top of the detached thread of mercury may be too low by half a degree from the contraction of the thread….
          ……………..

          …..The observations of temperature taken at a regular station are the real air temperature at 8am and 8pm, the highest and lowest temperatures of the preceding 12 hours, and a continuous thermograph record…. (Richard Freres thermograph) ….these instruments are located in a thermometer shelter…

          …The Ventilated thermometer which is the best instrument for determining the real air temperature, was invented by Assman at Berlin in 1887…will determine the real air temperature correctly to a tenth of a degree….

          The author says a thermometer in a Stevenson screen is correct to within a half degree. Two thermometers are used an Alcohol for Minimum and a Mercury for Maximum supplied with a manual in 1882 to the coop stations by the US Weather Bureau. He also states there are 180 to 200 ‘regular weather stations’ ordinarily in the larger cities that take reading twice daily and a continuous reading too. There were 3600 to 4000 coop stations and 300 to 500 special stations that recorded other aspects of the weather.

          On Thermometer resolution, and ERROR
          http://pugshoes.blogspot.se/2010/10/metrology.html

          http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/11420

          And this paper estimate error bands:
          http://www.eike-klima-energie.eu/uploads/media/E___E_algorithm_error_07-Limburg.pdf

          “By knowing this the minimum uncertainty for every annual global mean temperature should be expanded not only to the value described here i.e. with 95 % confidence interval to ± 1.084 °C, but should be at least 3 to 5 times wider. Thus, the average global temperature anomaly for the last 150 years is dissolved in a wide noisy uncertainty band, which is much wider than the whole assumed variation of the 20th century.”

        • Gail Combs says:

          To show just how careful those early scientists were look at this paper in The American Meteorological Journal, Volume 8 from 1891. It also mentions the Richard Freres thermograph for continuously recording temperature.

          An Account of the “Leste,” or hot wind of Madeira
          by H. Coupland Taylor, M. D. F. R. Met. Soc.

          Being an invalid, I must beg for the indulgence of the Society for the irregular times of obervation and the other defects the Fellows may discover in the following paper.

          I must first state that my insturments are placed in a regulation Stevenson screen…. The maximum and minimum thermometers are by Casella, and duly tested at Kew….I also have had in use for some months a self-registering hair hygrometer by MM. Richard Freres of Paris, and likewise a thermograph by the same makers but no very severe Leste has occurred since I had them.

          This “Leste” is a very dry and parching wind and sometimes very hot,….

          IF you read the old papers and text books and see how the data was taken there is ZERO reason for adjustments.

          Here are discussion/rebuttals on a couple of the ‘excuses’ I put up at Tony’s old site.

          TOBS (Time of Observation
          https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2015/01/06/fixing-the-past-at-the-ministry-of-truth/#comment-477742

          Switch from glass to thermistors
          https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2015/01/19/hansen-and-mann-hiding-the-other-decline/#comment-483233

          https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2015/03/27/implausibly-deniable-propaganda-at-nsidc/#comment-510211

    • Richard Yanco says:

      So weren’t the scientists at East Anglia.

    • JM says:

      Sorry–I’ve known to many scientists. Bias is a VERY real possibility and scientists, being human, are not beyond bias. Assuming you’re not being sarcastic I mean.

    • Gina Titnaw says:

      Morgan, please look at the 7 rules of bureaucracy, https://mises.org/library/seven-rules-bureaucracy this will give you all of the reasons.

  2. Thanks, it is very useful to have all this historical record in one place for quick reference. It could include much more in the future.

  3. Stefan Zeiss says:

    I am an engineer with decades of experience in measurements and metrology. How is it that NOAA’s recent claim that March of 2015 was hotter than March of 2014 by just 0.05 degrees C credible when the most common accurate fractional temperature sensor, the platinum resistance temperature device (P RTD) is only capable of an error of +/- 0.1 degrees C max, not counting root mean sum squared errors relating to electronics and installations?

    • Jason Calley says:

      Add in another plus or minus 2 degrees for site issues — at least here in the US.
      http://surfacestations.org/

      • Prof. S Greene says:

        Exactly. NASA handles it by increasing all new data (+0.2C)because they claim site issues made older data too cold and in the interest of harmonization, Karl, Hansen et. al made the changes in their xbox 360 algorithm as if we were too stupid to notice. Not to mention in-filling of 30% ish empty station data with Urban neighboring station’s data for an additional little temp. boost. Examine raw vs. “harmonized” data products and you will #$@% your pants as Steve/Tony has done.

    • Robert Weekes says:

      Maybe climate scientists know more about what they do than *you* know about what they do?

    • Zaphod Beeblebrox says:

      Please do learn freshman-level college statistics before you say stupid thing like this.

      • Yep says:

        I think freshman level statistics would refer to this as inconclusive?

      • JB says:

        Its not even frosh level stats where this is learned. Try basic chemistry at the HS level. It doesn’t take a genius to know one can’t claim a value of accuracy that IS SMALLER than the error of measurement. Time to go back to basket- weaving Bobby-boy.

      • Dr. John says:

        Statistics? I am afraid you need to re-start self-education in the scientific methodology. This is not a matter of statistics, its a matter of measurement tolerances and accuracy… Even at the most basic level of cognitive acumen, it should be clear that an instrument with a tolerance of +/- 0.1 degrees is incapable of measuring temperature changes in the range of 0.05 degrees with any degree of accuracy.

        • Robbin says:

          Given the fact that the temperature sensor is probably calibrated to the mean of the error and using the “law of large numbers” I think it might be possible to claim a higher accuracy when you compare two yearly averages with 365 measurements both. I’m no Dr. though…

        • Steve G says:

          My students always seem to have a hell of a time with this. For most devices it is plus or minus one half of the smallest capable measurement value. However when it comes to various Electronics manufacturers do tend to prefer their own claims.

        • Dave says:

          I’m just a quality guy in manufacturing. To measure .01, my gage would have to be capable of measuring .001. Data can be manipulated – in which case one would want to know the motives of the analyst.

  4. Kirk M Maxey says:

    Scientists (true natural science observers) have a remarkable tolerance for all types of new theories, suggestions, and other scientists. Just go to any academic conference, like the 14th International Conference on Lipids in Cancer, Inflammation and Disease (where I am right now) and you will see it. People of all races, sexes, and of different opinions are tolerated and their vantage point is given at least some poster space, if not some speaking time. This is harmless, and in fact is a great strength of real science, because none of those persons with unusual ideas or poor data use politics to strengthen their position. This is the horrible pitfall into which climate scientists (the warmist alarmist kind) have fallen. All of this data correcting and revisionism would have them immediately laughed off the floor of a respectable science discipline – but they have enlisted political support, rather than honestly strengthening their observations and data to recruit better collegial support. It is sad and destructive for all of the world’s tolerant, patient real scientists to be associated with these political hacksters, who continually evade criticism by cloaking themselves in shoddy ‘consensus’ science.

    • Robert Weekes says:

      The way science works is measurements are taken on an ongoing basis. New measurements will eventually supersede old ones. This is how science progresses over time – new data replaces old data. This happens in every area of science. Climate deniers love to misconstrue new data with the notion that the numbers are being fudged. Non sequitur fallacy – it does not follow. Political bias gives skeptics a slanted rationale to assume a narrative that fits their preconceived notion of reality. In fact the numbers and tables are being made more accurate and complete by better technology, better methodology, taking more measurements and incorporating new data sets, etc. The conclusions become more clear over time.

      You also claim scientists enlist “political support” – this is unethical and in contrast to the scientific method. Scientists have a duty to be impartial and not invest their own bias in the experiment. They are keenly aware that if they expect a certain result they are more likely to bias their findings to support that result – so they make a strong effort to remain impartial. This is clear in the way they write up their reports. This is also why you don’t see a lot of respected scientists going on the news – they try to stay out of politics and remain objective. Unfortunately this leaves their work more open to be misconstrued and misquoted by non-experts, hack journalists, Internet bloggers and Rush Limbaugh.

      • Del Blundell says:

        Robert, you DO understand that any scientist who attempts to ‘go on the news’ will have his/her life and career destroyed by liberals in the media…… don’t you?

      • Yep says:

        No, adjusting the past is not science. Consistency and unmalested record keeping is science. You either want the truth revealed, or you want to reveal your own truth. A data point is established, and records kept. As technology advances, you utilize it from the point it came into use in order to establish a more accurate record moving forward. Science has nothing to do with arbitrarily adjusting the historical record with no accuracy test. We don’t create the science regarding weather. If I use an old thermometer to measure something for 50 years, though most likely outdated, it will still give me a consistent record of activity. For you to belive the adjustments, you are comfortable with adjusted numbers made by people you dare not question, while at the same time ignoring unmalested, scientifically measured historical data.
        You are not only a science denier, but an easily manipulated pawn as well. You have demonstrated a total lack of simple deductive reasoning.

      • LG says:

        Robert,
        I am not a Scientist by any stretch. However, for you to even suggest that Career Academic Scientists are not pushing an agenda, (the same agenda that puts money in their wallets in the form of research grants/studies etc), is at a minimum naive, and at worst intellectually dishonest. You can take swings at Rush Limbaugh all day long, but I don’t listen to him so I have no skin in that game. However, I can smell Bull$–t a mile away, and your argument looks weaker when your paper tiger is irrelevant and on the outer limits of the opposing viewpoint.

      • JB says:

        Updating models with new measurements is not the same as retroactively changing prior measurements, as has been the case by sky-is-falling alarmists.

      • tex says:

        changing historical data to fit one’s objectives is not science

      • Steve G says:

        Dude I was you, but the difference between me and some liberal nut job is that I’m smart. I fell in line for a little while. In fact I am in the process of completing my third patent as a result of this misguided foray into the unknown. Butt when I saw the fuel really questionable data sets as well as series, and I decided to read the journal articles and not media interpretations of Journal articles comma I learned a hell of a lot real fast. Data does not change over time. There may be data added at the end and that data may have finer resolution or a different signal to noise ratio but that does not change the previous data in any way shape or form.

      • Frank says:

        I do not really understand your kind of logic, Robert.

        You state: “New measurements will eventually supersede old ones”

        So a temperature measurement made in 1960 will be replaced with new measurements…..???

        Where did you buy your time machine?

        • sam says:

          exactly adjusting 30’s temps because they were too high and co2 levels were too low.. can anyone seriously say that this wasn’t done just to make the charts look good.. ridiculous.

      • sam says:

        Yea Robert but you also have to consider that 100’s of billions of $s are riding on this anthropogenic global warming/climate change industry. Between the $$ spent on supercomputers (if you were mfr/ selling super computers wouldn’t you be inclined to believe in AGW? cause if it goes down your company stock crashes and your laying off half your staff) grant money for research expeditions, government subsidized green tech subsidies, etc. once they launched this thing in 1988 and Jim Hanson convinced congress to start throwing money at this thing to put out a fire that wasn’t there; the corruption flowered. It’s no different than dick chaney being the head of haliburton and being biased in favor of invading iraq for a security threat that wasn’t there.

      • Ross King says:

        Robert says:
        “New measurements will eventually supersede old ones. This is how science progresses over time – new data replaces old data.”
        This is complete and total BOLLOCKS!
        And proves the point that people like you are corrupting Science.
        Data are data: immutable! New data *ADD* to the records …. they do *NOT* supersede old ones.
        Robert Weekes: you are a Charlatan, and a disgrace to any professional affiliation to which you may belong.

      • Robert, New measurements, instruments, and methods are, indeed improving and becoming more accurate. HOWEVER, this means NOTHING to data already collected in the past. Changing this data in any form for any reason is nothing less than wholesale FRAUD. Any real scientist might complain about insufficient data, holes in a data field or even past inability to record accurately. But no LEGITIMATE scientist would attempt to change past data for any reason. Any change in past data would only be possible with a time machine, and therefore, is completely unacceptable.( Since time machines don’t exist.) When NOAA arbitrarily changes the past temperature measurements, they cease to be using “science” and have moved into propaganda.

    • Ted says:

      Thank you Kirk M. Maxey for an excellent and concise contribution to the truth of this matter.
      Now, Robert.
      1. “new data replaces old data”. Absolutely not. New data supplement old data.
      2. “the numbers are being fudged”. Indeed they are. And some if not all of that fudging is corrupt.
      3. “Political bias gives skeptics a slanted rationale…. preconceived notion”. It is warming alarmists who are driven by political bias and preconceived goalposts.
      4. ‘scientists enlist “political support”’. Politicians hire and direct the scientists of AGW. e.g. CSIRO December 1986.
      5. “Scientists have a duty to be impartial”. Would you see that at Monsanto? Or Dow? Or any other workplace?
      6. The construct of your comment here indicates to us us that you are a professional, a hired troll.

  5. Quek says:

    I wonder if all the liberals that have no problem with the data manipulation would mind if the drug companies altered their data?

    • Zaphod Beeblebrox says:

      If the Pharma companies do new, more-accurate measurements, then I demand that they change their conclusions to accurately account for the new data…and you should too.

      • Ryan says:

        How is changing a discrete value making it more accurate? If I look at a thermometer and it says 86.05 degrees isn’t it always 86.05 degrees? How are they making it more accurate? I’m not trolling, just curious.

      • Yep says:

        And there is my point. Data moves forward, not backward. You take new findings and build a new record from that point on. You don’t go back and arbitrarily change what your records were. That’s data manipulation, not science.

      • Steve G says:

        Yeah that’s all new data. But you want them to change the old data to to reflect their new conclusions. That’s Criminal you can’t change old data it’s always there it was either wrong or it wasn’t and by the way you can’t go back in time and take new measurements that’s just stupid

  6. Luciano says:

    I think it’s not so much that the warmist/alarmists have garnered political support, but the other way around. So many scientists are taking it under the table to support the political agenda that ultimately ends in a global carbon tax, and of course Al Gore owns the software to manage it. That’s a lot of money for those who stand to profit, and a lot of political control for the globalists.

  7. Stefan Pedersen says:

    Well written lines abowe , hopfully vill many people read this easy to understand .comparing of real science and whishfull thinking of religious porposions .

    • Steve G says:

      I agree. This guy is really good. His talk on YouTube that goes over all of this data is outstanding. It was just given 3 weeks ago.

  8. Conodo Mose says:

    I have obtained and personally examined (Dec. 15, 2015) Dr Ewert’s papers which I stress provide the most in-depth treatment that I have seen to date of the degree and geographic extent of the manipulation of the temperature records on a world-wide basis by NASA-GISS. I can say that Dr Ewert’s work is top of the line from a professional person, is complete, is truthful, believable, and conducted with integrity and maintaining good conscience in reporting of the result.

    I feel communicating this data could turn opinion by some to counter the inaccurate testimony by Dr. Titley as urged on by Sen. Merkey (D, MA) in the Sen. Cruz hearing (Data or Dogma) in early December 2015 when he used the misleading graph showing temperature data was increasing. It was obvious to me that Merkey and Titley intended to purposely mislead their audience.

    The extent of the effort to modify, change, delete, add, misinterpret and manipulate the data by NASA-GISS is astounding. After reviewing Dr Ewert’s data of the actions by NASA-GISS, I find the act by NASA-GISS is certainly repulsive, though expletives and adjectives to describe this heinous act by a once-presumed professional organization escape me at this moment.
    On these revelations, confidence in work by this organization NASA-GISS should now be taken at zero.
    In addressing the most extreme departures from measured temperature records, (see Ewert’s attachment 2) Dr Ewert’s example data, in particular, for Palma de Majorca, Darwin, Launceston, Cape Town, Christchurch, Hohenpriessenberg, Punta Arenas, Vienna and other cities show the most extreme cases of intentional manipulation. In some cases of very long records, NASA-GISS actually and purposely deleted large blocks of the temperature data for Prague and Vienna which dated to 1700s to create (or simplify their task of) their manipulation of post 1880 period. The deletion of data would seem to amplify the degree of the unprofessional motive displayed by NASA-GISS. Records for some cities were actually reversed by NASA-GISS from negative or cooling, or downward temperature trends to positive or increasing, or warming temperature trends, e.g. Majorca (from -0.706 deg C to +2.03 deg C per century), Darwin (from -0.68 deg C to +1.04 deg C per century) and Prague (from -0.18 deg C to +2.03 deg C per century).
    As said of other misdeeds of this type, this is a policy-driven deception.
    When news first broke about two years ago that NASA-GISS was tampering with data, I obtained raw data from two rural communities in Washington State, in USA, just to check for myself and to compare with that recently published by NASA-GISS. What I found confirmed the manipulation that the stations I examined using the raw data were in fact on a downward trending in temperature with time, but I found that both NASA-GISS and Univ Cal-Berkeley’s BEST data both showed rising temperatures with time, the opposite of that shown by the raw data.
    Of course NASA proclaims some pretended reason for changing actual temperature to something that better fits their imagination. They call it homogenization.
    In my entire career as a professional, I always strive to make the most professional observations possible, to accurate analyze and report on my results and explain my methods of interpretations and then adhere to reviewer’s comments before publication. I assume all other professionals do the same. This is why I am shocked by such misdeeds that so-called scientists would commit such wrongs, and to me it is incomprehensible. My checking again confirms with my small sample that Dr Ewert’s claim of tampering of temperature data by NASA-GISS and U Cal Berkeley is correct. Actors committing this fraud by these two organizations, NASA and Cal Berkeley are those that should be held for fraud and jailed or both or worse.

    • Robert Weekes says:

      You say you are a “professional,” what exactly are your credentials? I have a feeling it’s not climate science. You also “vouch” for this Dr. Ewert fellow. I wondered what his credentials were as well. A quick Google search indicates he is a geologist. Someone who studies rocks, rock strata etc. That is to say, NOT a climate scientist. Why you believe he is so well qualified to analyze someone else’s data in a completely different field is beyond me. I believe the ACTUAL experts in the field have a much better understanding of their own data than some hack speculator claiming to be qualified to comment.

      The whole climate change “debate” is ridiculous. You don’t question your doctor when he does his job, you don’t question civil engineers when they build bridges and skyscrapers, you don’t question particle physicists when they discover the Higgs boson – so why are all these skeptics questioning climate scientists who are 97% in agreement that climate change is man-made? Easy answer: conservative political bias. Physics doesn’t care how you vote or what you trick yourself into believing. Physics just is. End of debate.

      • Yep says:

        You are too far gone. Your 97% number made me giggle. I actually can’t believe anyone would repeat that drivel. But then again, our president did, so nothing should shock me any longer.
        So, how many climate scientists are actually behind the recording and analysis of global temperatures on which so many “scientists” base their warming theories?

      • jl says:

        “End of debate.” Said no one who can prove their point.

      • tex says:

        advancing the liberal agenda to get the tax dollars

      • sam says:

        not all climate skeptics are ‘conservatives’ I’m always on this blog bitching about how TH puts up all this “islam isn’t really a religion of peace” business. I say either is judiasm or christianity with their crusades, ethnic cleansings, aphartheid, slavery. I’m pretty much against every war the USA has ever fought. Yet I’m outraged by absolute corruption of the global warming scam, it’s not environmentalism it’s the perversion and the exploitation of environmentalism. My views on land management (which is the real environmentalism) would have alot of skeptics calling me a communist.

        • Gail Combs says:

          I strongly suggest you do a bit more research on Political Islam. link and Statistics and the spread of Islam and Islamic Da’wah for Dummies

          Not to mention:
          FBI — 7,700 [Islamic] Terrorist Encounters in USA Last Year and more than 29,403 deadly Islamic Terrorist attacks since 9/11. In the last week there have been 51 Attacks with 290 Killed and 490 Injured.

          As Winston Churchill once said, “The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is.” If we continue to allow the MSM and PC to hide the facts about Islam we will find out about it the hard way at the end of a weapon.

          What do you need to convince you? A friend’s severed head on your doorstep?
          ………….

          Am I an islamophobe? Hardly since my favourite grandparent was a Muslim from Lebanon (immigration records say Syria.) I really like snakes too but I am well aware that the very pretty coral snake is deadly. Unfortunately Islam is also deadly to all who are not Muslims and when the fanatics run out of Kaffirs they then go after their own. (The reason Grandpa left.)

          Bridgette Gabriel nails it in answer to a muslim woman (Saba Ahmed, an immigrant from Pakistan, in DC as a lobbyist for Muslim causes.) The “peaceful majority” means nothing. They are the ultimate enablers (legally, accomplices before and after the fact) because they look the other away so their “moderate” views are completely irrelevant.

          (wwwDOT)youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Ry3NzkAOo3s

          Remember the American Revolution was carried out with only 3% of the population fighting and only 10% actively supported that three percent, while the Syrian ambassador to India says that over 20% of refugees to Europe may have links to the Islamic State.

          There are 1.2 billion Muslims in the world today. The radicals are estimated to be between 15 to 25 percent according to all intelligence services around the world. 15% of 1.2 billion is 180 million radicals.

      • Tom says:

        Oh my…you better get in your basement and take cover. The co2 monster is at your doorstep. Good grief.

  9. ItsNotCO2 says:

    This is all about physics – heat transfers – thermodynamics. Most climatologists are not qualified in physics and do not understand entropy maximization, thermodynamics or heat transfer mechanisms.

    There is no valid physics which can be used to show water vapor and carbon dioxide causing the Earth’s surface to be warmer. Correct, verifiable physics can be used to prove they cool. The AGW hypothesis and the “heat creep” hypothesis are mutually exclusive: only one can be right. The latter is supported by empirical evidence and experiments, as well as by the Second Law of Thermodynamics; the former is not supported by anything and easily refuted with correct physics, because the solar radiation reaching the surfaces of Earth and Venus is far too short of the mark and cannot possibly explain observed temperatures. Furthermore, there is no valid physics that claims (as the IPCC et al do) that radiation can be compounded and the sum of back radiation and solar radiation used in Stefan-Boltzmann calculations to explain the 288K estimated mean surface temperature of Earth, or the 735K mean surface temperature of Venus, which would need flux of about 20,000W/m^2. That is why I can confidently offer AU $10,000 for proving me wrong, subject to the conditions on my blog.

    • Jim Dean says:

      Doug has found a new blog to invade since Roy has discontinued reply’s on his site. Hello Doug Cotton.
      Robert Weekes, if your argument is weak, simply discount someones efforts and integrity and that makes you right…is that how your thought processes work?
      That’s disingenuous at best.

  10. Robert Weekes says:

    “There is no valid physics which can be used to show water vapor and carbon dioxide causing the Earth’s surface to be warmer.”

    WRONG – Google the greenhouse effect. It is VERY well established science going back over 150 years. It can be shown on a table top with a bell jar, thermometer, a lamp and a CO2 feed. Alexander Graham Bell even warned about global warming in 1917 – decades ahead of his time !

    A huge body of evidence also proves the greenhouse effect / established the correlation by ice cores and other measurements and observed heating trends since the ’70s. Nothing else (including solar activity) can account for the observed increase in global temperatures.

    If you’re still too lazy to read up on the greenhouse effect I’ll even explain briefly how it works. Greenhouse gases absorb long wave infrared radiation from the earth and they “reflect” or re-emit the radiation in all directions. Radiation reflecting down or sideways increases or “traps” heat near the earth’s surface like a blanket. You see a similar effect in your car on a hot day if you have the windows up – visible solar radiation comes in through the windows but the resultant heat is trapped inside. The atmosphere is more complicated than your windshield but the analogy is useful for illustrative purposes.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect
    http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/29200/what-experiments-prove-the-greenhouse-effect

    • Yep says:

      You are like an angry kindergarten teacher arguing with phds. You are out of your league, and have been spewing your limited knowledge to the same old choir for far too long. Go back where the flat earthers thrive and the unicorns run wild.

    • sam says:

      Sure robert there is a greenhouse effect, but there is also dampening by clouds. With he AGW theory comes its WEAK cloud theory, which is almost non-existent. Henrik Svensmark cloud theory is definitive and proves that cloud seeding is dominated by the Sun. Watch this video it’s only 12 minutes:
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0gDErDwXqhc the AGW theory has completely failed, don’t tell that to an industry that is receiving 100’s of billions of $$s.

      secondly the notion that CO2 was only 280ppm in the 1800’s and has risen to 400ppm during the industrialized period. They get the 280ppm # from cherry picked low quality ice core. The problem with that is there are dozens of high quality measurements taken in the 1800’s using chemical analysis and they show CO2 higher than that, the real number back then is more like 350, 280 is the lowest possible value they can find use low quality sources, they exaggerate that chart as well as the temp records. That’s not science that’s money politics.

    • Gail Combs says:

      LMAO!!!
      And Anthony Watts proved the ‘experiment’ was faked by Al Gore and Bill Nye.

      WUWT Al Gore and Bill Nye FAIL at doing a simple CO2 experiment

      Hockeyschtick Paper proves Bill Nye’s faked ‘greenhouse effect’ experiment is also based on the wrong ‘basic physics’

      There is a very good reason that the MSM refuses to publish articles or comments by skeptics and why Climastrologists refuse to debate skeptics. Knowledgable skeptics will wipe the floor with them.

  11. Del Blundell says:

    Robert Weekes, if I ‘google’ your name I come up with blind moron. Why don’t you ‘google’ what you don’t understand, rather than Google to get someone else’s opinion to line up with yours?

  12. underdog says:

    Should have checked Google search images against the photo above.
    I did.

    So, Mr Weekes, what exactly are YOUR credentials? I did not feel compelled to investigate any further than this:

    Mr. Weekes is (or was) involved in a MLM outfit named Genewize, and can be seen hawking their “ground-breaking health, beauty and wellness products” (according the company’s official launch video) in his own video published 11/09/08. The FTC lodged a complaint against the parent company (2014, see the link). According to one Genewize associate’s website, ” The GeneWize customized nutritional health supplement is formulated just for the individual customer based on a DNA assessment.”

    Yup that’s some real science.

    I know, I know. Ad-homonym attacks are poor form, a classic faulty argument.

    But if you want to play in the big leagues …

    Mr Weekes video:
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/1985599/mlm_lead_system_pro_what_can_it_do_for_you/

    FTC complaint:
    https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjWnuu1zsjKAhUB6WMKHTBwBqIQFggdMAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ftc.gov%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Fdocuments%2Fcases%2F140107genelinkcmpt.pdf&usg=AFQjCNHyJmyS-MaNuL8g4aAjthTrw8FtCQ

    • JB says:

      Genewize- even worse than science denial; it’s a total fraud and scam. Nutritional and skin care products “tailored to people’s genetic disadvantages”. Wow- must be the first healthcare company in history to offer effective personalized medicine without having conducted any regulated nonclinical and clinical studies, followed by marketing authorization by the FDA. Like the data-fudging climate alarmists, Bobby W peddles weak (actually no) science, disinformation, fear and false hope. Love the “useful analogy” claim he makes above, too- LMFAO. Funny how the saying “sunlight is the best disinfectant” is now more appropriate than ever.

  13. getitright says:

    As a ‘normal citizen’ of our planet, I find it difficult to find adequate words to express my total disappointment that our scientists from all relevant disciplines cannot or will not agree on the fundamental facts and science to give us a definitive view on what is happening with our planet’s climate. I read exchanges of views such as those on this blog and am then filled with a sense of despair about human kind’s inability to get the service it expects and deserves from our scientific community. Calling all scientists! Get your egos under control and work this thing out together! Please do your job properly!!!

  14. steve bickel says:

    The fascinating thing about all this is the conspiracy to change actual data measurements is that it is not difficult to debunk the modifications if they are false via real math. Step one: get the actual original data. Step two: examine the modifications and justifications for the modifications. Step three: report on the history of the modifications over time.

    Sitting back and examining graphs and complaining about the graphs as they change is like toddlers arguing about who gets to play with the toys. Examining the logic behind the modifications is the adult game. Is anyone trying out the adult game? Where are the actual scientists that can complain about satellite drift modifications recently applied to the RSS dataset? Come on people who is willing to do the math for real?

    My father was an atmospheric physicist and expert in the ionosphere. He constantly upgraded his data. Started with paper charts with scribbles on them in the 1950’s … etc, etc.

  15. Doug Cotton says:

    Josef Loschmidt (Maxwell’s teacher) was the first to realistically determine the size of air molecules – quite a feat in the 19th century. There is no correct peer-reviewed published refutation of his gravito-thermal effect, which is based on and derived directly from the Second Law of Thermodynamics, that law also never proven incorrect. There’s a US $7,500 reward offered at https://itsnotco2.wordpress.com if you or any reader can prove me wrong and produce a study confirming water vapor warms to the extent implied by the IPCC. Furthermore, the Loschmidt effect is now proven empirically in hundreds of 21st century experiments. The existence of this gravitationally induced temperature gradient means the IPCC doesn’t have a leg to stand on regarding CO2.

    Hence there is no need for James Hansen’s guesswork that radiation from a cold atmosphere must be heating an already-warmer surface, because it is the force of gravity acting on molecules between collisions that produces both a density gradient and a temperature gradient. The Second Law of Thermodynamics tells us that in Nature there is an autonomous propensity for a system to move towards the state of thermodynamic equilibrium, which state has maximum entropy. However, this state in a force field is NOT isothermal. That is, there exists a non-zero temperature gradient which we can understand and quantify using the Kinetic Theory of Gases.

    This fact, known about by physicists since the 19th century, completely demolishes the greenhouse. Hansen assumed isothermal conditions without GH gases, but that is NOT what the Second Law of Thermodynamics indicates will tend to occur. See http://climate-change-theory.com for more detail.

    In the state of thermodynamic equilibrium (that is, maximum entropy) in a column of the troposphere the pressure from above and below any horizontal plane is equal. Because pressure is proportional to the product of temperature and density, and because there can be no transfer of energy or matter across any internal boundary when there is thermodynamic equilibrium, we can deduce that, for any horizontal plane, there must be equal numbers of molecules crossing upwards as there are crossing downwards, and the mean kinetic energy of each group while crossing the plane must be equal.

    Now for the temperatures to be equal when crossing this means that (because molecules gain Kinetic Energy with downward motion) there must have been lower mean molecular Kinetic Energy (temperature) above the plane and warmer temperature below. Hence there is a stable equilibrium temperature gradient resulting from the entropy maximization process described in statements of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

  16. James Kitchen says:

    400ppm CO2 recorded at Mauna Loa observatory. 400/1000000X100%=0.04% CO2
    So these scientists run down to Antarctica and start drilling down through the layers of ice until they reach 200 Year old air pockets in 200 yr old ice. If we trust the samplers? They got an average of 284ppm CO2. (Allegations are they fraudulently disgarded too many high results), but okay 284ppm or 0.0284% CO2. Subtract 0.0284 from 0.04% and the difference is the % CO2 over the last 200 yrs that could be attributed to man. What’s that number ? 0.0116% in two hundred years! That’s one one hundredth and 16 ten thousands of one percent. Call me in 1000 yrs as I drive my Jetson car in heaven fueled on good vibes, when it still is less than 1% increase. What ever is happening it has nothing to do with a trace increase in a trace gas over 200 years CO2 is not a problem! Idiots!

  17. James Kitchen says:

    Surely current CO2 from Antartica instead of CO2 readings from volcanic Mauna Lau would deliver < 0.0116% and it would be comparing apples to apples but you can't find the current Antartica CO2 ppm number, I wonder why ?

    • gator69 says:

      And ancient glacial ice does not “trap” air bubbles any more than CO2 “traps” heat.

      http://www.greenworldtrust.org.uk/Science/Scientific/CO2-ice-HS.htm#ZJ

      • James Kitchen says:

        So how did they arrive at the much hyped 284ppm from Antartica ice cores? I’m not wrong .

        • James Kitchen says:

          Gator, look at your ice in the ice cube tray there are bubbles to sample

          • gator69 says:

            We are not discussing ice trays. So please, no strawman flavored popsicles.

          • Gail Combs says:

            Now take your ice and put it under thousands of pounds of pressure. No bubbles. Also there is liquid water within the ice latice and CO2 LOVES water.

            Originally the entire sample was crushed and the CO2 was extracted. This gave much higher numbers. However that did not fit the political agenda so they switched to sampling air bubbles and wiped the earlier work.

            Yo really should read Lucy’s article that gator pointed to. It draws multiple sources together and makes a readable whole.

  18. gator69 says:

    So how did they arrive at the much hyped 284ppm from Antartica ice cores?

    Very good question

  19. James Kitchen says:

    Seriously, I spouted this on the radio years ago now before the 400ppm Mauno Lau announcment. I was curious, and tried to find a 200 year ppm CO2 number to compare to current CO2. At that time I found 360ppm on the Internet and I found the 284ppm ice core data. That difference was 0.008 .% as I rounded 284 to 280ppm. Eight one thousands of one percent is so tiny a human increase using the lefts own data, why on earth hasn’t this argument been made to demolish the whole commie plot? I have never been able to find current Antartica CO2 ppm. Can anyone here help me ?

    What’s wrong with my argument?

  20. James Kitchen says:

    Gail,

    Thank you I probably couldn’t make sense of the material. My point is using the other sides bubble data is perfect the numbers are so small using there own arguments people would laugh. Stop using ppm and use something people understand. Percentage increase in 200, 500, 1000 years.

  21. James Kitchen says:

    Gheesh, I skimmed the. Gator post, I have a headache. You egg heads need to speak slowly and with small concepts to us mere mortals, if you want to force the academic frauds to capitulate.

  22. James Kitchen says:

    Was there a current Antartica CO2 ppm number in all that data????

  23. Pingback: The past is getting cooler | wryheat

  24. Kain says:

    what is amazing to me is the number of alarmists posting here much like skeptical science does who will argue every point, no matter how stupid it looks to defend the indefensible. what we have is scientists being caught and photographed with their collective pants down screwing another mans wife, and they are trying to bullshit their way out of it by telling us that we don’t know all the technical science behind semen sampling. They simply expect to phd their way out of it. and hopefully some of us will fall for it and ignore the obvious – the glaring difference between two graphs.

    • Kain says:

      second, lets assume for the sake of the argument the scientists can come up with reasons as to why they think a particular record should be changed. then wouldn’t the ethical thing to do be to put the version of the record as is along with what they think the corrected version should be accompanied by an explanation? But to just erase the original and write over it, removing traces of the original record definitely smells of covering something up. I mean come on how stupid do they think we are?

  25. Pingback: German Professor : NASA Has Fiddled Climate Data On ‘Unbelievable’ Scale | Climatism

  26. francesc says:

    As a physics student I can’t understand how people is able to find this article kind of reasonable. The deficit of professionality regarding this “amazing” moving graphs makes me crazy. I can’t read all this without posting something. Global warming is about our future and our descendence, do not confuse people, please.

  27. jsriolo says:

    I was interested enough by the article “All Temperature Adjustments Monotonically Increase” to try to review the data and convince myself of the findings but I cannot seem to find the “Average Raw” data set. I assume that the “Average Final” is what is available on NOAA now but I could be wrong. Can anyone help me find the data?

Leave a Reply

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