Real Climate Science

Almost every year, NASA finds a new valid scientific reason excuse to further cool the past and warm the present, and they are still at it.

2000 version : www.giss.nasa.gov/data/update/gistemp/graphs/FigD.txt
2001 version : www.giss.nasa.gov/data/update/gistemp/graphs/FigD.txt
2012 version : data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.D.txt
2014 version : data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.D.txt

The next graph shows the hockey stick of changes they have made  just since 2012.

The next graph shows the slope of changes per year to the temperature record since 2000. With each passing year, 1999 gets warmer by an average of 0.02 degrees, and 1944 gets colder by an average of 0.008 degrees. (h/t to Steve Case for the new graph.)

Climate experts on both sides of the debate say that these constant changes which cool the past and warm the present are first rate science, and that I am stupid to worry about massive data tampering which turns a long term cooling trend into a warming trend.

Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts

– Richard Feynman

Early July every summer, alarmists start their annual “the Arctic is going to break the record minimum” voodoo chant.

What is actually going on is that the ice in the Baffin and Hudson Bays, and the Barents Sea is melting a little early. They have no impact on the summer minimum, because they always they have little or no ice at the end of the summer.

The interesting thing to note is that ice extent in the Arctic Basin is right at the 1981-2010 mean, which means that it will soon take a sharp turn towards the median, and break little alarmist hearts once again.

Many trillions of tons of snow fall on Antarctica and Greenland every winter. All of that has to return to the sea.

Alarmists stand at the terminus of glaciers, take pictures of glaciers calving – and then publish them in order to get their useful idiots in the press hysterical.

What do these geniuses think the snow is supposed to do? Pile up into the stratosphere?

I’m not sure who this is from, but looks like it is probably someone at NCDC

—————————————————————————–

Steve has never contacted NCDC about their “tampering”, but if he had he might have found at least a rudimentary understanding of the changes. Yes, there are many problems, but his use of the word “tampering” with its implication of conspiracy and fraud seems uncalled for. One can still criticize their methods and their conclusions without such language.

Herewith their rationale and their attempts to make the latest changes clear.

We switched to a new dataset in March 2014. It uses a much larger base of stations than the previous dataset, especially at the state level. It incorporates the topography of each state, rather than a simple average of the stations within the state (the whole record for high-terrain states will be cooler, because those high-terrain places are now represented).

We announced this change at the July 2011 American Meteorological Society’s Applied Climatology Conference:https://ams.confex.com/ams/19Applied/webprogram/Paper190591.html
We published its methodologies in the Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology:http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/JAMC-D-13-0248.1
We provided an explanation of the change on line months in advance at: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/maps/us-climate-divisions.php
We provided a tool, months in advance of adoption, to allow users to compare and understand differences at the state, regional and national level: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/temp-and-precip/divisional-comparison/
We provided a webinar in early 2014: http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cirs/climdiv/nCLIMDIV-briefing-cirs.pdf
We notified several prominent applied climatology groups, including the American Association of State Climatologists
We provided a notification of the change on its monthly climate reports in the months before and after the transition. See: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/national/2014/2
We wrote a comprehensive “Frequently Asked Questions” about the transition with the February 2014 monthly climate report: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/national/2014/2/supplemental/page-5/
We included a notification of the change in the press highlights document accompanying the February 2014 report
and we provided technical updates in the weeks leading to the transition:http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cirs/div-dataset-transition-readme.txt (read from bottom up for chronology)

Germany/Brazil/Belgium/Netherlands will all be bright and sunny next week.

With a system as complex as climate, there is no limit to the number of ad hoc theories which can be generated to support any point of view.

Mark Serreze demonstrates a classic example of making up technical sounding gibberish to confuse laymen.

With WJR Radio Detroit’s Frank Beckmann

WJR – Detroit, MI – Listen Online

_Jim uploaded a recording here :

WJR 2014 – 07 – 02 1025AM SteveGoddard ReadScience Proc02

One reason people believe the climate is heating is due to air conditioning, which makes them much more sensitive to the heat.

Heat index here in Maryland  the last couple of days is near 100 degrees – with the dew point well up in the 70’s. I don’t use air conditioning and absolutely love it. I wish it was like this all year round.

But when I left the air conditioned gym last night after a half hour of lifting, it felt really hot outside until I got moving on my bicycle.

The US dominated possession due to good play in the midfield, but Belgium completely dominated in front of the goals. Had the game gone on 10 more minutes, the US still probably would have tied it.