Real Climate Science

The US is facing a spectacular, sustained blast of cold air over the next few weeks.

Without fossil fuels, there would be grossly inadequate amounts of heat and light, and food wouldn’t be transported to the stores. Every tree in the forest would be cut down for firewood, and wildlife would go extinct from hungry people seeking food. After the wildlife was gone, people would start eating other people. The air would be thick with smoke. The waterways would filled with human waste.

Progressives believe that fossil fuels should be banned. President Obama wants to make electricity rates skyrocket.

[youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HlTxGHn4sH4]

Moving on to the next adjacent town in New York, Ithaca has exactly the same pattern as Addison and Elmira. The past cooled by as much as five degrees, turning a strong cooling trend into a warming trend. Zeke and Mosher tell us this is all good.

Continue reading →

Yesterday I showed how Addison, New York January temperatures had been massively tampered with to cool the past by three degrees, and eliminate the cooling trend.

Perhaps they had good reason for this, and it needed to be homogenized with a nearby station to bring it in line?

Let’s look at the next station over at Elmira, N.Y. Guess what, exactly the same data tampering – they knocked three degrees off the past temperatures and made the cooling trend disappear. The early part of the 20th century was cooled five degrees. What possible error could require five degrees of data tampering?

Perhaps they believe there was a massive conspiracy of global warming deniers in 1895 tampering with the temperature record? Or more likely the temperature adjustments being made today are fraudulent, and intended to turn cooling into warming.

Climate scientists have no training in signal processing, and have absolutely no business being in control of the temperature record.

Analyzing the temperature record has nothing to do with any skills related to atmospheric physics, and climate science peer-review is meaningless as a result.

Confirmation bias is not science. Being coach, referee, cheerleader,  scorekeeper, publicist and both teams – is not acceptable in any environment.

If the Eastern Arctic was melting catastrophically in the 1940’s, don’t adjust the temperatures down to make them cold. That would be very easy to spot as fraudulent.

 

06 May 1940 – Greenland’s Climate Becoming Milder

If the adjusted temperatures double the warming trend, the net adjustment can not be described as cooling.

I put together an easy to follow explanation of temperature data abuse, which is simple enough that even an academic might be able to comprehend.

The normal UHI situation. Average temperature = 4.0

Rural station disappears. Average temperature = 5.0

Mosher and Zeke infill and homogenize. Average temperature = 4.7. Announce that they have adjusted down from 5.0.

This is what a legitimate adjustment would look like. Average temperature = 2.0.

Every time we are on the verge of a breakthrough getting the message out to the press, one or more of a small group of skeptics steps up to the plate and wrecks the message.

A few days later they eat crow and apologize, but the damage is done, the Internet never forgets, and the press becomes gun shy.  Why are they doing this?

Dear Steve, the satellite record measures a different quantity than the weather-station-based global mean temperature, so there is no good reason to think that their graphs and trends should agree. In other words, the disagreement between these two different types of datasets doesn’t imply that there is a mistake in either of them.

Aside from this flawed argument, you haven’t offered *any* other argument that would imply that the adjusted graphs are wrong and the graphs preferred by you are right. It’s just your emotions and prejudices and the rational content is zero.

I hope it is OK if I think that you are just one of millions of people – on both sides – with equally irrational and biased attitudes to all these questions, so these three paragraphs represent all the time I will dedicate to your blog post.

So Lubos is fine with GISS repeatedly adjusting the data outside of their own error bars, massively increasing warming in a way which conveniently matches their theory, and making it unrecognizable compared to previous versions of the temperature record – and says I am irrational for questioning it.

The adjustments above are outside of the error bars. The data and methodology is crap.

Forty years ago, NCAR showed no net global warming from 1900 to 1970. In the GISS temperature record, essentially all of the post-1940 cooling has disappeared.

In 1961, the global cooling consensus was unanimous – but Gavin knows better than the scientists who worked at the time.

SCIENTISTS AGREE WORLD IS COLDER – But Climate Experts Meeting Here Fail to Agree on Reasons for Change – View Article – NYTimes.com

Lubos is correct about one thing. Surface temperatures measure UHI. Satellites measure the temperature of the atmosphere. If you are examining the greenhouse effect, you want to measure the temperature of the atmosphere – not the asphalt.