Real Climate Science

One of our readers says that 1979 was an anomaly.

Similar story in Greenland. Temperatures bottomed right when satellites went up, making satellite data extremely misleading.

The research by a man often called the “godfather of global warming” says that the likelihood of such temperatures occurring from the 1950s through the 1980s was rarer than 1 in 300. Now, the odds are closer to 1 in 10, according to the study by NASA scientist James Hansen. He says that statistically what’s happening is not random or normal, but pure and simple climate change.

The Associated Press: New study links current events to climate change

No, it is pure and simple cherry-picking. Had he compared against the 1930s he would have seen that recent temperatures have been relatively quite cool.

Data is for all USHCN stations which were operational during both the 1930s and the most recent decade.

Something is seriously wrong with the GHCN US data. Two-thirds of the stations are at airports and they show regular divergences from the non-airport stations which can only be described as ….  bizarre.

The non-airport stations show almost no trend over the last 80 years, with 1921 and 1990 tied for the hottest year, and a steep cooling trend over the last 20 years.

NASA forgot to mention the fact that their fake meltdown was 99.999% bullshit.

summit:status:webcam

Illinois GHCN airports show warming, while the non-airport stations show cooling.

When I see stuff like this, it sends up a huge red warning flag, which reads “complete garbage.” Both sets of temperatures were taken covering the same state over the same time period. The divergence in polarity tells us that something is fatally contaminating  the data. The graph below indicates that the S/N ratio is probably an unbelievably poor < 0.25.

USHCN daily temperature data averaged over all stations in Texas show that temperatures have been in decline since 1895.

Muller’s Best Worst temperature data shows the exact opposite.

It looks like Best is using the same crap data as GHCN

How can anyone take this temperature data seriously?  It is literally all over the map.

As the world continues to warm from climate change, most of California — including San Francisco Bay and Monterey Bay — will see a greater rise in sea level than other parts of the planet, according to a prominent national study released Friday.

The report, from the National Academy of Sciences, found that the impacts of melting ice and warming, expanding oceans will hit California harder because most of the state’s coast line is slowly sinking due to geological forces. Ocean levels south of Humboldt County will rise up to 1 foot in the next 20 years, 2 feet by 2050, and up to 5 feet by 2100, the study showed.

San Francisco Bay already has risen roughly 7 inches in the past 100 years, as measured by the tidal gauge at Fort Point, under the Golden Gate Bridge.

Sea level to rise higher in California due to global warming, geology – MontereyHerald.com :

The graph below is the tide gauge data for Fort Point for the last twenty years, and what would have to happen for sea level to rise a foot in the next twenty years.

http://www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/stations/10.php

Are this people criminal, or just criminally stupid?

Barack Obama has only four years to save the world. That is the stark assessment of Nasa scientist and leading climate expert Jim Hansen who last week warned only urgent action by the new president could halt the devastating climate change that now threatens Earth. Crucially, that action will have to be taken within Obama’s first administration, he added

President Obama ‘has four years to save Earth’ | Environment | The Observer

The US generates about 40,000,000,000,000,000 BTUs of heat energy from burning gasoline every year, most of it in urban areas. Climate experts tell us that this has little or no impact on local temperatures.

However, an increase of 0.0001 mole fraction CO2 will blow temperatures through the roof.