President Obama said today that he was shutting down America’s most abundant energy source, because he cares about the children of 2030 (the ones he is saddling with $20 trillion debt needed to finance his reelection.)
What will the climate be like in 2030? If current trends continue, the climate will be just like it is now.
FIFA is 97% certain that that they can determine the World Cup champion, by interpolating results from nearby matches within a 1200 km radius. They also correct for the time of kickoff bias, and make an urban heat adjustment – penalizing teams from cooler climates.
Zeke and Mosher say that my analysis of their method is wrong, because I don’t use their method to analyze the output of their method.
After Sandy hit, Trenberth announced that global warming had caused the water to warm off the coast of New Jersey, forming a small warm spot in the midst of very cold water.
President Obama pulls off one of his biggest lies of the week. The US almost eliminated carbon pollution (soot) from power plants about 40 years ago, when we they were forced to use electrostatic precipitators. His CO2 regs will accomplish none of the things he claims it will, but they will damage the economy and costs jobs.
The temperature record is calculated with a precision several orders of larger than its accuracy. Then they pat themselves on the back, and think they are being really smart.
Last summer’s record Arctic cold (red below) was tough on Reggie, and it looks like we are doing a repeat in 2014 (blue below) Arctic temperatures dropped below normal about a month ago, and have stayed there ever since.
COI | Centre for Ocean and Ice | Danmarks Meteorologiske Institut
About 40% of the reported USHCN station data is now fabricated from no raw data at that station.
Zeke says that USHCN temperature fabrications of 40% of the data are golden, and my method of averaging the actual measured data is incorrect. Let’s put that to the test.
My approach (red below) closely matches satellite data (blue) and the USHCN method (green) doesn’t. Raw data and satellite data show almost no net warming since 1990, while NCDC adjusted data shows about 0.2C warming.
As stations disappear exponentially, the adjustments increase exponentially (graph below.) It is simply not credible that a set of random errors in a data set could produce such a pattern. Random errors produce bell shaped curves, not exponential curves. The only error in the data set which should produce a deterministic trend is UHI, and that would produce the exact opposite slope of adjustments.
Some people are heavily vested in a methodology which fails the most fundamental tests of credibility.
Since 1998, Illinois fabricated and non-fabricated adjusted temperatures have been diverging at a rate of 23 degrees per century.
Zeke Hausfather says that all of this disappears when you use anomalies and gridding, and that I am really stupid.
The Blackboard » How not to calculate temperature
Gridding over an area the size of Illinois would have minimal effect, because the state isn’t much larger than a grid cell. The only way this could happen is :
My methodology assumes a Monte Carlo distribution of error, i.e. that the missing data is randomly distributed geographically and by month of year. This is the normal way which scientists work with large data sets. Climate scientists mess with the data and introduce nonsensical biases into their results.
