Home/BlogI’m not making this up.
The president of our university forwarded some flashy brochures he received from Virendra Rawat, Indian founder and director of the global “Green Schools” concept. They are auditioning for young females to compete to become “Miss Climate – 2018”.
As the letter states, “winners of this beauty pageant will serve as Global Ambassador of Climate Change”:
Hmm. There is so much to say, and the letter raises so many questions, one hardly knows where to begin…
First, the overt sexism: A “beauty pageant”? Has Mr. Rawat not heard that even the future Miss America will not be judged on physical appearance?
The letter is addressed to “Dear Sir” (I suspect many universities are run by females);
The qualifications are young females 18-25 years old, with a minimum height of 5′ 5″, unmarried.
QUESTIONS:
1) Can contestants self-identify as female, 18-25, and of minimum height 5’5″ tall?
2) Is the former IPCC director Rajendra Pachauri involved in this in any way? It sounds like something he’d have some interest in.
3) Will the contestants’ knowledge of global environmental concerns be up to the standards of, say, the world peace concerns of the Miss America contestants?
4) Given the global warming theme, will there be a — ahem — heat level requirement of some type for contestants?
5) Will Anthony Watts enter his dog Kenji in the competition? (At least Kenji is a card-carrying member of the Union of Concerned Scientists).
I’m sure others can think of additional questions which naturally arise from this announced beauty pageant. For now, my jaw is still rising up from the floor.
They would done this a long time ago if they were serious about climate climate [or global warming].
But the religious don’t like to do this kind of stuff.
Doing protest or sandwich boards is their way to get the message
out.
Global Warming Contour Maps have beauty AND brains.
They would win the contest easily.
The Robot-Train explains how to understand Global Warming Contour Maps.
https://agree-to-disagree.com/robot-train-contour-maps
sheldon…from your link…”Contour maps are colourful, triangular shaped, graphs.”
Even the articles author is confused. He/she does mention the UAH contour maps but thus far I have required no explanation of the meaning.
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/
It’s obvious from a quick glance at the June 2018 map that most of the planet did not warm in June and that a good portion cooled.
“the most beautiful women of the Climate Change” What does that look like?
probably a lunatic witch who breathes co2 and expels oxygen from her butt
A woman who expels oxygen from her butt! Great! Now I dont need to buy an inhaler from Walmart!
From time to time the Nazis show up on this blog, if Drudge links to it. So I guess I shouldn’t be surprised that the misogynists will too.
David,
I see you are pulling out the standard “Nazi” and “Misogynist” cards, which leftists use when they can’t combat an argument.
I suggest you attack the argument, rather than make personal attacks. What did Alessandro say that was misogynistic???
Honestly, I think people like you would worship someone that consumed carbon dioxide and produced oxygen, so what alessandro said was completely reasonable. I thought you were all about reducing the carbon footprint?!?!
I’ll call out misogyny when I see it, but thanks.
Do you call out those you make ad hominem attacks or does that strike too close to home?
Hey Lewis, by all means, please feel free to call out whatever insults you’d like.
Me, I’ll call out the misogyny and hatred of women that I see published here.
Hatred of women? Come on David. Even by your standards, that’s lame.
So I’m misogynist because i made a joke and the people who exploits female figures for their body features to promote “science” are bearing esemplary behaviors, isn’t it? As we say in my country you don’t really know which fishes to get…to promote your trolling business ofcourse
DA…”From time to time the Nazis show up on this blog…”
You are confused as usual, this is Roy Spencer’s blog, not skepticlscience, where you get most of your propaganda.
Sorry buddy, I never read Skeptical Science except once in awhile in a Google search, and I never have.
Roy,
Are you sure this is for real and not a hoax?
Looks legit to me: https://www.climateclean.store/eligibility.html
‘the most beautiful women of the Climate Change What does that look like?”
Well, they should be radiant, especially from the back.
They should be very sensitive.
And very hot, of course.
I prefer very hot – although I find myself too old to precipitate.
Well we have Naomi Oreskes, and Christiana Figueres, could be hot contenders, and the Melting Ice Maiden, of course. Though she has not been much around since the failed COP meeting in Copenhagen 2009.
Who here was asking about evidence of misogyny?
Projecting?
Referring to leading women scholars solely in terms of their sexuality is clearly misogyny.
It’s disgusting and this blog should be ashamed for publishing such comments.
Solely in terms of their sexiuality? Nothing in Henning’s comment, was that implied.
Maybe you misconstrued the ‘hot’, but again, that is you projecting your own guilt or unhealthy impulses onto someone else.
Perhaps, deep down, you feel Oreskes & Figueres are unworthy of being role models, dedicated to hold the advocacy to preserve and restore the environment & impact of climate change?
I know what I read. And I know what you’re trying to excuse.
Your impulses are unconscious. So of course that’s what you think you read.
That, or you are simply trolling, in which case, time to get another hobby mate.
So your impulses aren’t unconscious.
Interesting.
Focus David. This is about you projecting your (un)conscious impulses.
Now about that hobby…..
I hope they allow transgender males to compete.
.
It may all just be a joke… I hope so.
Roy Spencer
I think it is a matter of Point of View on the last couple of your posts.
Climate Change is waning in interest in the Public Mind (at least the US, not sure about Europe).
If you were to believe the globe might heat up 12 F in then next few decades and melt all the ice caps and create horrible droughts and floods and super heat waves, then you would be very motivated to try and restore some form of interest.
Most people posting on your blog do not believe in a severe case of warming. I agree with you that the interest in this issue is waning because of the hysteria never really panned out. Most can’t tell a difference in their local regional weather. The slight warming you show on your monthly graphs will not really be noticed by an average person on a daily basis.
I think there are hard-core alarmists that think the human race faces extinction in 100 years if they do not completely curb carbon based fuel use. I think the numbers are decreasing over the years as the dire predictions are not showing up.
These types will jump in every heat wave somewhere on the planet but remain silent when weather patterns are normal.
Every wild fire, flood, hurricane, drought, heat wave they will try and link to Climate Change to spur interest. This tactic does not seem to be working so new ideas are tried to see what might stick. I think the only thing that will stick is if we actually had sustained terrible weather patterns that many experience.
At this time Omaha is reading 74 F, much below normal at this time of year.
–Norman says:
July 27, 2018 at 11:04 AM
Roy Spencer
I think it is a matter of Point of View on the last couple of your posts.
Climate Change is waning in interest in the Public Mind (at least the US, not sure about Europe).
If you were to believe the globe might heat up 12 F in then next few decades and melt all the ice caps and create horrible droughts and floods and super heat waves, then you would be very motivated to try and restore some form of interest.–
Do you mean that within a very short time period of 20 to 50 years, average global temperature would increase from 15 C to 22.5 C?
Or since Roy works with US government, the US average temperature would go from about 12 to about 20 C. Or the state of Alaska would go from about -3.5 C to 4 C?
It seems that the large glaciers in Alaska might melt before the polar ice caps will since they are at least 10 K warmer. And I think Roy would write a paper about the glacial in Alaska melting within a very short time period, and if he had anything close to evidence of that this might happen, he would no problem getting the paper accepted.
But he might buy a lot land in Alaska, first.
I presume that hot curlers and hair dryers are a no-no, unless sun-powered.
How about eating no cooked foods.
Wrapped in green insulation?
“Wrapped in green insulation?”
Wrapping them in a bag full of CO2 will cook them,
.. and prevent oxidisation.
pH might end up a bit acidic though.
Actually, I have no problem with a “beauty pageant” and I don’t think it need be necessary that the contestants be anything but beautiful. If the Pageant is to be based on beautiful women, it first of all is up to the ladies if they wish to compete when offered the chance. If they don’t, then they won’t, and if they do, why not let them.
I have never understood why feminists were allowed to hijack beauty pageants, and it is sad to see this commentary on them continue. Whether it is a climate advocacy group or a human rights group or an animal rights group sponsoring the “beauty pageant,” to me, it doesn’t matter. And for those beautiful young women that would enjoy posing in bathing suits in such a pageant, I see nothing wrong. Get over the feminist BS. Those people that don’t want to participate have the right not to. Those who don’t want to see such a thing have the right not to go see it, and there is no damn reason why those who wouldn’t mind participating is such a thing, or enjoying the presentation of it, should not have THAT right as well. There is nothing wrong with celebrating the human form, whether it is male or female. There is nothing “sexist” in seeing beauty in God’s creation.
Agree. IMHO it’s just horrid to see one of the most typical XXIth frivolous and sterile debates interfering with one of the most critical problems of Humankind ever. Political correctness is a damn joke.
“Political correctness” is trying to be inclusive and sensitive to the feelings of minorities.
But if such empathy is beyond you, well, it’s probably too late to do anything about it now.
What a politically correct crock!
Not even a decent attempt at emotional coercion – you confuse empathy with stupidity.
Oh, the inclusivity! Oh, the sensitivity! Oh, the stupidity!
Cheers.
It seems David doesn’t believe woman like to be appreciated for their looks. I say he is very mistaken. VERY!
They don’t like being ONLY appreciated for their looks. As the misogynists here are doing.
#MeToo
If this were Universally endorsed would not Title 9 dictate that there be a Mr Climate Change?
“Cis-gender Climate Change”
Actually, how many genders are there now?
some 50 or so, isn’t it
could be a looooong title.
The is no limit to the number of genders.
But there are thought to be five sexes.
“The Five Sexes: Why Male and Female are Not Enough,” Anne Fausto-Sterling, The Sciences, March/April 1993.
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Anne_Fausto-Sterling/publication/239657377_The_Five_Sexes_Why_Male_and_Female_are_not_Enough/links/00b7d525802a725b6b000000/The-Five-Sexes-Why-Male-and-Female-are-not-Enough.pdf
There are only 2 sexes. All imagined else are superfluous.
1 male 1 female – procreate.
What else is there? Ahhhh. The imagination of the – what do I call them politely?
Wrong, hillbilly. About 1% of the population has ambiguous genitalia. Any decent porn site shows them in full glory. Do you need a recommendation?
David,
What does it take to procreate? Females? Males? or both. The fact that it is ambiguous, does not change what it takes to procreate. So from that point of view, they are one or the other, but not both, nor neither.
And you can look at that stuff. I find Victoria’s Secret website excellent.
D. Appell, “Wrong, hillbilly.”
Straight from the Peter Strzok textbook.
Won’t be long and DA will say he can smell us ‘deniers’ in a Walmart.
Lewis guignard says:
What does it take to procreate?
Irrelevant.
Your desire to jam everyone into just two slots doesn’t work in the real world.
Something else you’d rather deny.
BruceC says:
Wont be long and DA will say he can smell us deniers in a Walmart.
I shop there regularly. And I don’t shower every day.
Here in Norway, climate change is often referred to as “wetter and wilder”.
But surely, that can’t apply to Miss Climate 2018?
No wonder Trump wants more Norwegians to immigrate!
No, Kenji the dog can’t come. He would salivate so much, it would be a disastrous flood.
I think I’ll enter as Miss Take!
Dee Nier had shot, but finally she was denied.
A good part of the world is suffering from record breaking heat waves.
But Roy, a professional scientist posting more frequently than usual, would rather complain about some Ms Climate contest, or some graph posted by somebody no one ever heard of on some blog or somewhere.
Anything to draw attention away from reality.
Some people, like this bloke, get confused between weather and climate. One swallow does not a summer make.
https://thenewdaily.com.au/news/world/2018/07/27/climate-change-europe-heatwave/
” . . . away from reality.”
So David, you do have proof that this contest is fake?
Otherwise, I’ll go with reality.
Further, you are proof that “climate” activists are humorless.
Puritanism: The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy.
H.L. Mencken
Environmentalism: The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be ignoring you.
John F. Hultquist says:
So David, you do have proof that this contest is fake?
I suspect “whoosh” is a sound you hear often.
Oh, goody. Now, I have license to jump on every cold record set in the coming winter as evidence CO2 driven CC is a dud. When you object, I will reference this post.
Go for it. And I’ll again give the fact that hot records are outnumbering cold records
http://www.climatesignals.org/data/record-high-temps-vs-record-low-temps
and I’ll give you all the trends again, and reiterate that the last four years have been the warmest four years on record.
Ah yes, the 30 year record. Records will being set for decades, even centuries. So.
Why are about twice as many record highs being set than record lows?
“A good part of the world is suffering from record breaking heat waves …”.
With July almost over the NASA AMSU 7.5 km global temperature anomaly is tracking very similar to July 2005 and July 2014 viz. about +0.2C above the ’81 – ’10 average, little different from June, May, April, March and February of this year as far as I can tell.
Comparing the hot times now to hot times in the recent proves what — that there are now a lot of hot months?
You’re right, there are. People are dying, in Japan and in Quebec, and the US West again seems like half of it is on fire.
The U Maine Climate Reanalyzer puts the global 2-meter temperature anomaly currently at +0.5 C above the 1979-2000 baseline:
https://climatereanalyzer.org/wx/DailySummary/#t2anom
The highest temperature recorded in Quebec City this July so far is 91F, the highest on record was 97F in July 1953 (Wiki).
Incidentally the eq lowest on record was -34F in January 2015, due to Climate Change of course.
“Over the past 100 years Tokyo’s average temperature has increased by about three degrees Celsius, and that of Osaka has increased by two degrees Celsius (C). Since it is said that global warming has raised the Japan’s average temperature by about one degree C, the temperature increase due to the UHI effect is probably about two degrees in Tokyo and about one degree in Osaka …”.
https://www.japanfs.org/en/news/archives/news_id027856.html
About one third of the temperature rise in Tokyo over the past century is due to UHI effect.
http://cdn.citylab.com/media/img/citylab/legacy/2011/10/24/tokyo-warming.jpg
Oops, there I go again, about two thirds of the rise in Tokyo is due to the UHI effect.
Chris, the height of a peak wave isn’t everything. The duration counts too, as do nighttime lows. If nighttime lows are persistently too high, vulnerable people never get a chance to cool off — and I suspect many in Quebec City don’t have A/C.
I hope you will tell the families of those who died there and were hospitalized that their suffering was just imaginary.
Appeal to pity (argumentum ad misericordiam) “… a fallacy in which someone tries to win support for an argument or idea by exploiting his or her opponent’s feelings of pity or guilt …” (Wiki).
I don’t see this thread going anywhere userful. Good luck.
A wise decision.
DA,
Re families of people who have died –
So sad. Too bad. Please indicate the true level of your sorrow by writing to them all on my behalf. You will enjoy paying for the stationery and postage, no doubt.
What a witless fool.
Cheers.
Chris Hanley says:
A wise decision.
Yes. Thanks.
DA: Dr Spencer’s comments about the Ms Climate contest don’t strike me as a complaint – amused incredulity, perhaps.
‘Anything to draw attention away from reality’ – do you ever bother looking at his satellite temperature measurements?
Every month. But those data are just the beginning of the story….
Actually, if they indicated anything your religion believes in you’d be all over it. As it is, warming doesn’t exist.
In other news, people die. How surprising. What are you doing to help them or their families – other than your usual diatribes.
Lewis: What does Roy give for his data’s trend??
David,
Why are you asking Lewis? Can’t you work it out yourself?
Ask Gavin Schmidt – I believe he can produce brightly coloured charts showing anything you want.
You don’t need to thank me. My pleasure.
Cheers.
Lewis guignard says:
Actually, if they indicated anything your religion….
Science, not religion.
But I can see how the difference would confuse you.
Yes. Does seem sort of petty.
For another cheap laugh, guess who said this:
“In the East, it could be the COLDEST New Years Eve on record. Perhaps we could use a little bit of that good old Global Warming that our Country, but not other countries, was going to pay TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS to protect against. Bundle up!”
Miss Grand Solar Minima …
Men used to prefer really fat (errr … full figured to stay in the doublespeak mode of the day) women … much warmer at night than even two skinny girls. Too, someone who is fat is more likely to survive periods of famine.
Thanks Roy. You brightened up my afternoon. Rolling around on the floor laughing.
Peter S says:
Rolling around on the floor laughing.
You might want to adjust your humor gene’s sensitivity setting.
And why would that be David?
Can’t stand laughter?
Ooooh, what a pity!
Cheers.
The Q&A segment of the competition could be enlightening. After the 18 year olds tell us how to save the world from climate change, maybe three or four of them can pool their money and get their own apartment.
At any rate, I hope the winner of the Miss Climate beauty pageant is down for the struggle and demands to be crowned with a bio-degradable tiara shaped like a windmill.
I’m on it:
https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/61Uc6EcZ21L._UX569_.jpg
Oregon has qualified a Sanctuary ban on the November ballot.
An India-themed Miss Climate pageant fits right in.
Scientocracy, scientism, and Mr. Spock as the epitomy a Professional Scientist never cleared the casual-glance test.
It’s true:
https://www.oregonlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2018/07/sanctuary_state_repeal_initiat.html
I urge Oregonians to vote no. Let Trump do his own dirty work.
I urge Oregonians to vote yes.
Let the people decide.
Cheers.
Sir Roger Scruton on What It Means to Be a Conservative
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/07/roger-scruton-meaning-of-conservatism/
So, he is British conservative. Not to be confused with American conservative. And seems to define conservative fairly well, which confirms to me that I not a conservative- neither Brit or American.
Interesting what he says about Trump:
–MK: You mention neither Donald Trump nor populism in your book. Why?
SRS: Trump is an interesting phenomenon, but not an interesting thinker, supposing he is a thinker at all. Populism is a word used by leftists to describe the emotions of ordinary people, when they do not tend to the left. —
But I would say a conservative, obviously, does not have to be a thinker.
And I would agree Trump is not lefty, I would say Trump is an ordinary person [assuming that ordinary people are [and almost have to be] strange/unusual people].
And for example, Trump would hire a thinker [or have a herd of them]- because he is business man.
gbaikie says:
But I would say a conservative, obviously, does not have to be a thinker.
Believe me, we know. As Americans, we suffer this each and every day.
Yes, Americans do suffer a fair amount, but obviously less than the people in other countries.
No longer obvious at all.
Which people of what country or countries?
Exactly.
PS: This is way off topic. So let it die.
DA…”Believe me, we know. As Americans, we suffer this each and every day”.
Are you referring to all of us Americans, including Canada, Mexico, central America and South America? We are all Americans by definition.
The US is American as well, but your name makes it clear, the United States OF America, that that US is part of America and not America itself.
America is a continent.
Good grief. What next? Miss Stormy Weather and wet T-shirts? The President of your school needs schooling.
Global Warming Contour Maps have beauty AND brains.
They would win the contest easily.
The Robot-Train explains how to understand Global Warming Contour Maps.
https://agree-to-disagree.com/robot-train-contour-maps
We should have an Anti-Climate change celebration
Uganda along the Nile would be the perfect location and the most beautiful steady weather .. errr .. climate. About 82F mid-day, 68F at night .. every day of the year, It’s right on the Equator, however, most of the country is 4000ft+ altitude so it’s rare to see 90F except for the urban heat effect in the few larger cities
The most beautiful, tall women on earth live along Nile there. Traditional African dance celebrations .. topless
Friendliest and most welcoming people on the planet where white North Americans and most Europeans are just automatically liked by everyone, very safe place for us pale skins among the darkest skinned people anywhere. It’s amazing to be a 1:3000 skin color minority and to be made so comfortable and feeling the love. Snowflake types would not like as there is a lot of poverty, no clean water, most of that hauled in plastic jerry cans, it all sets one’s mind right about what is poverty or not. Have a feeling Africa might seem scary too, in the cuties lots of police and military all with AK47s or old Browning Semi-Auto rifles. Oh .. and .. Malaria is quite common.
Lake Victoria and Nile River levels have been at near record levels .. plan this shortly after one of the two tropical monsoon seasons . and you have never seen so much CO2 fertilized green in your life. Every fresh fruit and vegetable you can imagine growing in abundance. The vegans will love that. All organic because the farmers there cannot afford petrol based fertilizers. The Goat is the best meat you’ve ever tasted. Nile Perch, yummy
Ugandans use almost all biomass for fuel in cooking, wood and charcoal in 3 stone kitchens, living with nature at it’s finest. The original Garden of Eden. About 700 bird species, Crocs, Hippos, Water Buffalo, Elephant, Giraffe, Lion, Cheetah, Rhino, Black Mamba for a bit of danger and if you have the $$$$, you can go play with Mountain Gorilla
Modern Man originated in this area and one can make a case for continuous complex societies existing in East Africa for 100,000s of years. 99% of Ugandans identify as religious with about 87% Catholic or Anglican and 12% Islam .. living in complete peace with each other.
Great 4G LTE network. We can be cool and live stream
What you all think ? Uganda’s a fun place
Erik
Sounds amazing, thanks for sharing.
(Isn’t there a way to collect/store the rainfall in reservoirs? What about wells? Seems odd that water needs to be carried in to a place so lush and green.)
David,
You only confirm what has been obvious for a long time: neither greens nor progressives have a sense of humor. Green progressives are downright dour.
Steve, and how does this attitude for humor affect CO2’s ability to absorb infrared radiation?
DA,
Bananas absorb infrared radiation.
Come to think of it, so does everything else in the known universe. The only thing which does not absorb radiation is nothing at all – a vacuum.
You persist in trying to proselytise something you cannot even describe, the GHE.
Looks like religious fervour to me. Good luck. Keep praying. Have you tried rending your garments, and wearing sackcloth and ashes?
Off you go now, David – flap your graph in someone’s face. Chant the sacred Manntras.
Cheers.
You guys don’t ‘get’ green humor.
When the skeptical science guy was photoshopped into a Nazi, you guys missed the joke, took it serious.
David,
It doesn’t of course.
No sense of humor does however make people quite insufferable, and makes their task of winning any policy argument, no matter the substance of the issue, much less likely. If you can’t appreciate the humor in an absurd “Miss Climate” beauty pageant, then you take life much too seriously. And that is a sad burden to always carry about. Let me try to cheer you up: Why did the crow win the Nobel Prize? Because the committee found that he was always out-standing in his field.
No, I don’t see the humor in a Ms Climate contest, and I certainly don’t see it in Roy’s attempts to distract from the serious climate news taking place in the last 1-2 weeks.
Roy is a professional scientist. The least he can do is blog like one.
Boycott Roy’s blog then, that’ll teach him.
Nah. I prefer to call him out on it.
Ooooh.
That’ll teach him even more! No doubt he is quaking in his boots.
Cheers.
David,
I do feel sory for you. I too am a scientist, but still I think the “Miss Climate” pageant is hilarious, with or without Roy’s comments. I’m please he posted about it because it gave me a chuckle. That d
That chuckle doesn’t change the quality of the computer code I will write this week (a one dimensional Richardson-Lucy deconvolution with a variable point spread function).
Don’t be so sure. Roy & John Christy, well known climate skeptics, have produce LT data that is out of line with the two other groups producing satellite LT numbers, and noticeably out of line with the 5 groups who produce surface data.
Lowest out of eight. Just a coincidence?
The UAH series is the one with least post hoc adjustments, consequently the most trustworthy IMO.
Really, Chris?
You have data to back up your claim?
Then let’s see it.
DA,
He gave his opinion.
Prove that yours is better. All you can do is demand, demand, demand!
You cannot even define, in any sensible form, this GHE which you are so besotted with! Are you claiming that preventing infrared radiation from reaching a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter? Complete and utter nonsense!
Go on, David, try to deny, divert, and confuse. Flap some brightly coloured, but quite irrelevant, graphs around.
Pretend that Gavin Schmidt is a scientist! Prove that Michael Mann is not suffering from delusional psychosis!
All part of the rich tapestry of life, eh?
Cheers.
Because I think you’re wrong.
Very wrong.
I’ll show you my evidence once you first show me yours.
And I think you are stupid and ignorant.
Provide evidence that you are not, if you want to be taken seriously.
Cheers.
DA: Regarding your comment that Roy & John Christy are well known climate skeptics – who is Roy Christy?
What exactly do you mean by the term ‘climate skeptic’?
Do you mean that they aren’t doom-mongers who believe in dangerous man-made global warming caused by a slight increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide?
Carbon500 says:
Do you mean that they arent doom-mongers who believe in dangerous man-made global warming caused by a slight increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide?
No, I mean they tend to produce data that is always on the low side, if not the lowest, of all the other groups.
Are they right? Maybe, I don’t know. But I wouldn’t bet on them. Nonetheless, I certainly respect all the hard work they do.
Chris
“The UAH series is the one with least post hoc adjustments…..”
Where is your evidence?
********
“The global-average lower tropospheric temperature anomaly soared to +0.72 deg. C in January, 2010. This is the warmest January in the 32-year satellite-based data record.”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/02/january-2010-uah-global-temperature-update-0-72-deg-c/
*******
Now go to the LT data available today. Quite an adjustment!
https://davidappell.blogspot.com/2015/04/remarkable-changes-to-uah-data.html
https://davidappell.blogspot.com/2015/04/some-big-adjustments-to-uahs-dataset.html
That’s some appeal to authority, David.
I’m sure you will agree with yourself, so that will make at least two of you.
Does it alter reality at all?
Cheers.
LOL.
Mike: your comments always bring a much needed touch of humour.
My ribs are aching from laughter this time – “I’m sure you will agree with yourself, so that will make at least two of you.”
Priceless!
“The UAH series is the one with least post hoc adjustments … Where is your evidence?”
Go to climate4you -> Temporal stability of global air temperature estimates.
The evidence is there as plain as day.
In fact, UAH makes some of biggest changes of any group out there:
https://davidappell.blogspot.com/2015/04/remarkable-changes-to-uah-data.html
Let’s not even mention that famous minus sign….
This appears to be a commercial website in India, where their version of “politically correct” isn’t up to US Democrats’ standards. It’s a crass commerical ploy by one company, nothing more. https://www.climateclean.store/index.html The “English” page appears an afterthought. “English” in quotes, because the grammar reads like someone “calling from Microsoft Windows” about a virus on my computer. On page https://www.climateclean.store/eligibility.html check out criterion 3. It hurts my brain trying to read it.
3. Apart from the face for runaway, (SIC) you have to have an outstanding personality, a social being and outgoing, will be a bonus to enable you a chance to win.
OMG, there’s a strange site on the Intertubes!
I hope you notified the appropriate authorities.
Still hurricane can not form on the Atlantic.
https://images.tinypic.pl/i/00968/yyjzy84ugpft.png
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/eatlssta.png
It’s very early still. But so far, North Atlantic ACE is about twice the baseline (1981-2010) average:
http://tropical.atmos.colostate.edu/Realtime/
But it’s very early. 70% of North Atlantic ACE happens between August 20th and October 10th.
PS: ACE is a lousy metric, but meteorologists won’t stop citing it because it’s very easy.
The “E” in ACE stands for “energy,” but ACE isn’t an energy.
A baseball thrown at 100 mph and a hurricane with max winds of 100 mph have the same ACE.
For more, read the article I wrote last year for Slate:
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2017/09/a_better_metric_for_measuring_hurricanes.html
What a fantastic idea! This “beauty pageant” could start a new trend! Manmade CC could be devastating . according to its proponents, potentially killing millions. The natural extension of this would be a Ms Cancer pageant or Ms Malaria? I would say a Ms Encephalitis but none of the contestants could spell or pronouce it.
I think the true questions this post raises are: are alarmists on the brink of desperation and does David Appell have a life out of this blog? I guess both the answers will be soon avalaible.
Desperating? The last four years have been the four warmest years on record. The trends are very clear by now.
What evidence of AGW do you think is lacking?
So four years is climate, you every time choose the best story which suits yours. What the fuck, do they pay you well to make this scamming job, you’re a liar. A fat liar. And don’t tell me I’m bad because I insulted you, You called me a NAZI asshole.
The temperature around southern Greenland is still falling.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/natlssta.png
ren…”The temperature around southern Greenland is still falling”.
The Vikings won’t be farming there for a while.
DA…”From time to time the Nazis show up on this blog, if Drudge links to it. So I guess I shouldnt be surprised that the misogynists will too”.
**********
This coming from someone who was banned at wattsupwiththat for making derogatory comments about Watts’ ailing mother.
https://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2011/07/24/david-appell-denies-he-has-any-class/
Your earlier reference to Skeptic Science + nazis is literally true, they admit it themselves:
https://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/debunk/skepticalscience/1_herrcook-sml.gif
The story behind the discovery of skepticalscience’s tactless puerile ‘humour’ can be found here:
https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/doomed-planet/2016/03/climateers-come-another-cropper/
Gordon Robertson says:
This coming from someone who was banned at wattsupwiththat for making derogatory comments about Watts ailing mother.
That’s the biggest lie ever.
I made a joke about the extremity of Watts’ denialism — he even “denies his mother exists.”
I knew/know squat about his mother.
But Anthony Watts often operates by creating umbrage where none exists. He’s done it to me more than once. It’s a slimy tactic, so it’s no surprise that you would repeat it without knowing the facts.
https://davidappell.blogspot.com/2018/07/how-anthony-watts-operates.html
David Appell…”Dont be so sure. Roy & John Christy, well known climate skeptics, have produce LT data that is out of line with the two other groups producing satellite LT numbers, and noticeably out of line with the 5 groups who produce surface data”.
Not surprising since UAH is the only temperature reporting group with any integrity. The rest draw from faulty data from GHCN which has it’s reporting stations slashed 90% since 1990. They have even infiltrated RSS.
NOAA itself admitted to slashing over 75% of the reporting stations.
The trick today is to keep less than 25% of the real data and apply it to a climate model where it is interpolated and homogenized to SYNTHESIZE the slashed data. Very convenient. That way the alarmists can throw out the colder temperatures and replace them with temperatures derived statistically from warmer stations.
Gordon Robertson says:
NOAA itself admitted to slashing over 75% of the reporting stations.
Where does it say that?
What was the quality of those stations?
What reasons did NOAA give?
Again you’re ignoring Barry’s many comments that called you out and showed you were wrong. And you couldn’t care less.
NOAA itself admitted to slashing over 75% of the reporting stations.
I ask him to quote the very sentence where they say that and he drops that retired link from NOAA.
I ask him to pinpoint the sentence on that web page where they “admit” to deleting anything and he huffs and puffs.
On this, Gordon is a liar. Sadly, I think he lies to himself and believes what he says.
Here’s the retired link he keeps posting as evidence for what he says:
https://web.archive.org/web/20130216112541/http://www.noaa.gov/features/02_monitoring/weather_stations.html
See if you can find the quote where NOAA “admitted to slashing over 75% of the reporting stations.”
The issue has been explained to Gordon. Stations were ADDED retrospectively, not deleted.
https://tinyurl.com/gp6z3qp
It still happens intermittently – historical records get added to the database.
That’s why there are always more stations in the past than the present.
But the duffer refuses to get it. He’d rather maintain a falsehood so he can impugn NOAA. It’s pathetic behaviour.
From Roy’s article:
“The president of our university forwarded some flashy brochures he received from Virendra Rawat, Indian founder and director of the global Green Schools concept. They are auditioning for young females to compete to become Miss Climate 2018”.
…………
It figures this chauvinist idea would originate in a seriously chauvinist country like India. They still have arranged marriages and poor women have essentially no rights.
In neighbouring Pakistan, a woman’s husband was killed in war and her family disowned her. She would have struggled in dire poverty had Mother Theresa’s organization in India not rescued her.
Mother Theresa was in India to administer to the ‘poorest of the poor’. India is rampant with poor people and poverty yet this naive jerk is promoting a beauty pageant for climate?
He’s not only a chauvinist, he’s an idiot too, just like the idiot from India, Pachauri, who recently lead the IPCC. He was forced to step down due to sexual harassment charges.
So, top IPCC officials have been caught in the Climategate email scandal, cheating and trying to block peer review for skeptics, and now they have been forced to step down for sexually harassing women.
Gordon Robertson says:
So, top IPCC officials have been caught in the Climategate email scandal, cheating and trying to block peer review for skeptics
Who, specifically, tried to do that?
What paper(s) were they trying to block?
Which journals were these papers submitted to?
Let’s see your evidence.
DA,
Let’s see your evidence that anybody should waste their time answering your pointless and irrelevant gotchas.
Cheers.
Mike Flynn says:
DA,
Lets see your evidence that anybody should waste their time answering your pointless and irrelevant gotchas.
“Mike Flynn”
bart…”Now, I have license to jump on every cold record set in the coming winter as evidence CO2 driven CC is a dud”.
First you have to prove the theory has any merit. Even the IPCC cannot lay claim to that.
Besides, the theory is so silly that no proof is required that AGW is a dud. It’s obvious.
Gordon Robertson says:
Besides, the theory is so silly that no proof is required that AGW is a dud. Its obvious.
That’s exactly your problem in a nutshell — you don’t like science, you don’t trust science, and consequently you don’t know science. Your reaction to the world is all emotion.
da…”Thats exactly your problem in a nutshell you dont like science, you dont trust science, and consequently you dont know science”.
Allow me to correct your typos:
“Thats exactly your problem in a nutshell you dont like pseudo-science, you dont trust pseudo-science, and consequently you dont know pseudo-science”.
Obviously you and your fellow alarmists embrace pseudo-science but in your delusions you mistake it for science.
AGW is pseudo-science and it is not covered in real physics, chemistry, or thermodynamics.
Gordon: I know some science. I know more than enough to judge your simplistic and dishonest replies. Many people here also know some science and see right through you. You evidence is always paper thin, at best.
From what I can see you don’t like science at all. You like Gordon.
John Staddon once told me that he was a founder member of the Apathy Club but never did anything about it.
150 W/m2?
Stupid and ignorant?
Cheers.
cam…”John Staddon once told me that he was a founder member of the Apathy Club but never did anything about it”.
********
That’s along the line of Groucho Marx claiming he’d never belong to a club that would have him as a member. Alternately, he claimed he’s never go out with a woman who’d go out with a guy like him.
While Groucho was explaining to his brother Chico how to get somewhere by crossing a viaduct, Chico inquired, “Vie a duct, vie not a chicken, or a goose”?
While Chico was being interrogated on the witness stand as Chicolini, the dialog went as follows:
Prosecutor: Something must be done. War would meant a prohibitive increase in our taxes.
Chicolini: Hey, I’ve got an uncle that lives in Taxes.
Prosecutor: No, I’m talking about taxes. Money. Dollars.
Chicolini: Dollas! There’s-a where my uncle lives! Dollas, Taxes!
I have not heard anything from Michael Mann or the Hockey Team lately.
Let’s hope that have become apathetic.
From Michael Mann just now –
“Those denying the impact of climate change on the unprecedented extreme weather events we are witnessing this summer will continue to deny the resulting sea level rise even as the words escape their mouths in bubbles beneath the rising tide.”
Poor fellow. Deluded enough to believe that the average of weather influences the weather. Completely delusional – off with the fairies!
How long did it take him to realise he was not really a Nobel Laureate – in spite of making that claim in legal documents? Maybe he is a little slow on the uptake, as well as believing in things he cannot even describe, like the mythical GHE!
Ah, the rich tapestry of the Mannian fantasy!
Cheers.
Mike…from Mann…”Those denying the impact of climate change on the unprecedented extreme weather events we are witnessing this summer….”
Mann is a geologist. Roy wondered in an earlier article what he would know about climate.
Mann could not explain, if his life depended on it, how a trivial rise in atmospheric CO2 could cause extreme weather events.
I regard him as being stupid.
See Gordon lie. Again. About the same thing. Again.
Mann’s PhD is in geophysics.
The same discipline as that Japanese guy Gordon is only too happy to cite over and over.
Hypocritical.
Meanwhile,
“Six of the 20 most destructive fires in California history have happened in the past 10 months.”
M,
That would mean that 14 of the 20 most destructive fires in California have not happened in the past 10 months!
Is this unprecedented, or are you just pretending that irrelevancy has some special climatological import?
Oh the horror! I have to say that CO2 seems to be the result of burning stuff, rather than the other way round! CO2 is used in fire extinguishers, not as fire accelerants. You might have a job convincing people that CO2 causes fires.
Keep trying.
Cheerd.
Mike fails in stats. The significance of his posts are at the level of background noise.
Anything to distract.
myki…”Meanwhile,
Six of the 20 most destructive fires in California history have happened in the past 10 months.”
And that relates to anthropogenic causes….how?????
1. Hotter
2. Drier
3. More people.
DA,
According to you, heat and drought are caused by more people!
The Libyan desert is really, really, hot, and sparsely populated.
The Antarctic continent is really, really, dry, and sparsely populated.
You are really, really, illogical, aren’t you? Is that due to to stupidity and ignorance, or is there another reason? Maybe you should have done 15 hours of a logic course, rather than 15 hours of a journalism course,
Oh well, carry on. Maybe you could write a book called “The Manual of Unintended Humour – The GHE as a Source of Laughter!”
Cheers.
5. Arson
Doctors! Bah! Humbug! What would they know?
“As extreme heat puts the NHS under stress GPs have called time on the climate-wrecking fossil fuel industry. The Royal College of General Practitioners (RCGP) is ending its investments in all fossil fuel companies. In doing so it sends a powerful statement to society it is no longer acceptable to be associated with the industry that has brought us to the brink of a public health emergency. The GPs announcement comes hot on the heels of a decision by the American Medical Association (AMA) to also cut ties with gas, oil and coal companies.”
https://www.medact.org/2018/blogs/royal-college-of-general-practitioners-divests-from-fossil-fuels/
myki…”Doctors! Bah! Humbug! What would they know?”
I read a book by a surgeon years ago and still recall his advice’ He advised that whatever you do, stay as far away from doctors as possible. Only see them if you are in a serious situation with your heath.
His point was that many patients are misdiagnosed and often die as a result.
Yes, people lived much longer lives before the establishment of the modern medical profession.
DA,
Did people really live much longer before the establishment of the modern medical profession?
Can you name one?
Can you prove you are not stupid and ignorant?
Cheers.
>> Doctors! Bah! Humbug! What would they know? <<
Less than 16% of US physicians are members of the AMA.
Interestingly, the AMA Board hired a prestigious law firm, Sidley Austin, and a financial consulting firm, Mercer Investments, to evaluate the proposal to divest from fossil fuel firms. Those experts advised the Board AGAINST divestment. The Board, in turn, advised its members to vote AGAINST divestment.
The members ignored the experts and their Board. There are about 1000 retirement plans in the US. Only about 11 of them plan to divest from fossil fuels.
https://www.medpagetoday.com/meetingcoverage/ama/73409
Obviously, the members who voted for divestment are utter frauds and hypocrites who benefit enormously from fossil fuels in immeasurable ways every day.
I don't know much about the AMA. I know it supported Obamacare and now it supports divestment from fossil fuels. I'm getting the impression that it may be like the Union of Concerned Scientists for scientists and the Lawyer's Guild for attorneys – a bunch of left wing activists with professional credentials.
Scott says:
Obviously, the members who voted for divestment are utter frauds and hypocrites who benefit enormously from fossil fuels in immeasurable ways every day.
While you don’t know how all (or any) of those members live, in the developed world there’s almost never any choice but to depend on fossil fuels.
We all need energy, for housing, for transportation, for food, medicine, nearly everything.
None of us had a choice about that — fossil fuels are baked into the society we grew up in and that we still need to lead healthy, productive lives.
But things are changing. Perhaps that’s what’s behind the vehemence of your comment. Some people are buying clean energy when they can, driving electric cars if they can afford to. Some are installing solar. Utilities are installing wind and solar. Divestment is just another sign of how things are changing. The change is too slow, and there’s a huge amount to change. But while the last century was the century of fossil fuels, it’s difficult to imagine that this century will be. They’re on their way out. I suspect the fossil fuel companies know this very well.
Maybe they can start with regional wet tee shirt contests at a more local level, sort of the “minor league” where winners advance to higher levels of exposure.
David Appell…”Gordon Robertson says:
NOAA itself admitted to slashing over 75% of the reporting stations.
Where does it say that?
What was the quality of those stations?
What reasons did NOAA give?
Again you’re ignoring Barry’s many comments that called you out and showed you were wrong. And you couldn’t care less.”
************
For the umpteenth time:
https://web.archive.org/web/20130216112541/http://www.noaa.gov/features/02_monitoring/weather_stations.html
“Why is NOAA using fewer weather stations to measure surface temperature around the globe — from 6,000 to less than 1,500?
The physical number of weather stations has shrunk as modern technology improved and some of the older outposts were no longer accessible in real time”.
**********
Barry throws up smoke screens to avoid what NOAA state clearly in their own words. When I pointed him to a link where the IPCC admitted there had been no warming from 1998 -2012, calling it a warming hiatus, he replied with blather that had nothing to do with the IPCC comment.
Neither you nor him will acknowledge the IPCC statement. You rant about new data, which is nonsense. NOAA went back and recalculated the SST using data from ship intake manifolds rather than the traditional bucket over the side and a thermometer inserted in the water.
Naturally, when water is forced under pressure through a manifold it warms. There was no warming 1998 – 2012 or even 2012 – 2015.
The reference to modern technology is a climate model. When they remove real stations (over 75%) they replace the data from them with data synthesized through interpolating and homogenizing stations in the real data pool which are up to 1200 km apart.
NOAA and GISS have divided the planet into 5 degree squares which number in the tens of thousands. How can they possibly cover them in real time using less than 1500 stations?
They can’t.
Near where I live in Vancouver, Canada, climate and temperatures can change drastically within such a small area. NOAA are eliminating regions showing cooling and replacing them with averaged temperatures from two adjacent cells. In California, they have eliminated all but 3 stations, all along the warm Pacific Ocean region. The cooler Sierra Nevadas inland are not reported.
The entire Canadian Arctic is covered by one station at Eureka, in Nunavit.
BTW…here in the province of British Columbia, climate is caused by the ocean and mountains in the southern regions. Even in the Olympia Range near you, the climate is dry on one side of the range and wet on the other.
It has barely rained here in well over a month and that is due to circumstances in the Pacific Ocean.
It’s far more likely that changes in climate come from changing wind patters, ocean currents, and precipitation, and have nothing to do with anthropogenic CO2.
Gordon Robertson says:
When I pointed him to a link where the IPCC admitted there had been no warming from 1998 -2012, calling it a warming hiatus, he replied with blather that had nothing to do with the IPCC comment.
As you well know, new and improved data has been published since then.
Why do you lie by leaving this fact out?
Seriously, Gordon, why do you lie like this? You’re not fooling anyone. So why do it? What do you think it gets you? You do this kind of thing over and over.
Too bad you are effectively anonymous. I doubt you’re lie so much if you weren’t.
Barry throws up smoke screens to avoid what NOAA state clearly in their own words.
Not at all. Let me quote exactly the same thing you quoted, word for word:
“Why is NOAA using fewer weather stations to measure surface temperature around the globe – from 6,000 to less than 1,500?
The physical number of weather stations has shrunk as modern technology improved and some of the older outposts were no longer accessible in real time.”
Where in this quote does NOAA “admit to slashing over 75% of reporting stations.”
Where does it say that NOAA deleted, cut or slashed anything?
It doesn’t.
What immediately follows the quote you have cited tells the rest of the story.
“However, over time, the data record for surface temperatures has actually grown, thanks to the digitization of historical books and logs, as well as international data contributions. The 1,500 real-time stations that we rely on today are in locations where NOAA scientists can access information on the 8th of each month.”
No smoke-screen, just NOAA’s words, quoted precisely, and not as you twist it.
And here, for the 25th time, is the report that explains how historical records were added retrospectively – and why there are more station data in the past than the present.
https://tinyurl.com/gp6z3qp
Not from deleting. From adding recovered data retrospectively.
The opposite of your malicious little lie.
Thanks again, Barry.
Unfortunately, I suspect Gordon has reached a point where he couldn’t care less if he is lying. And lying again.
Gordon Robertson says:
NOAA and GISS have divided the planet into 5 degree squares which number in the tens of thousands.
(360/5)*(180/5) = 2,592
“It’s far more likely that changes in climate come from changing wind patters, ocean currents, and precipitation,..”
No. Don’t laugh. He actually wrote that.
Myki: Regarding your comment ‘Don’t laugh. He actually wrote that’:
If you took the trouble to read a general meteorology book such as ‘The Atmosphere’ by Lutgens and Tarbuck (and you comments suggest that you haven’t), you’d see several major climate controls listed.
These include latitude, land/water influences, geographic position and prevailing winds, mountains and highlands, ocean currents, and pressure and wind systems.
The textbook I refer to above also tells the reader that climate is more than the average state of the atmosphere. A complete description should also include variations and extremes to portray the total character of an area, the most important elements being temperature and precipitation.
Gordon’s descriptions of the Canadian climate generally, and closer to his home in Vancouver, are exactly in line with textbook meteorology.
Bah! Humbug! What would the BOM know?
And what would a climatologist know about climate? I bet they have’nt studied engineering!
“With parts of south-east Queensland recording the hottest July temperatures on record, one of Australia’s leading climatologists has issued a dire warning about what lies ahead on the weather radar.
The Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) will today release weather figures showing July maximum temperatures were the warmest on record for areas including Brisbane, Oakey, Gatton and parts of the Gold Coast.
The hotter temperatures, combined with below-average rainfall leaving two-thirds of Queensland in drought or drought-affected raise the question: is the state is heading into a hot and deadly summer like the northern hemisphere?”
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-08-01/qld-weather-temperatures-break-records-july-maximums/10056288
M,
The BOM know enough to vanish all official temperature records before 1910, so that the inconvenient heat waves before then won’t get in the way of breathless “hottest EVAH” pronouncements.
Climate is the average of weather. Self professed climatologists look at this average, and claim magical abilities to predict the future by examining the past! Pseudoscientific cultism – they can’t even define the wondrous but entirely mythical GHE which they depend on!
You appear to the perfect follower of these deluded fools – you seem unaware of the difference between weather and climate. Do you really believe that an average can actually change the numbers from which it is derived?
Only the truly ignorant and stupid could believe such nonsense!
Carry on believing. Don’t let the fact you can’t even clearly state the basis for your belief stop you. Chant some sacred Manntras, or play Gavin Schmidt’s completely useless computer game. It may help you to achieve a measure of inner peace.
Cheers,
Mike Flynn
I found information concerning your point that adding CO2 to the atmosphere between the Sun and a thermometer would not increase the temperature of the thermometer.
Finally I have proof you are wrong. Now you can correct the errors in your thinking. Adding more CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer will warm it up as long as other factors (like cold front or rain don’t interfere).
Here:
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0477%281997%29078%3C0197%3AEAGMEB%3E2.0.CO%3B2
Look at page 204 Table 4 of this article. CO2 absorbs about 1 watt/m^2 energy from the Sun. Page 202 (you might have to read a little) they find that CO2 contributes 32 W/m^2 to the DWIR.
So you lose 1 watt/m^2 Solar flux from CO2 but having it in the atmosphere the surface gains 32 W/m^2 from it. I would say this disproves your basic premise, wouldn’t you agree?
N,
Not at all. You say the CO2 emits 32 times as much energy as it absorbs. Nonsensical, of course.
On the other hand, ice can emit more than 300 W/m2. How hot do you think you can make a surface with 300 W/m2?
Go for it, Norman. Try and convince someone rational that reducing the amount of energy reaching a thermometer will increase the temperature of the thermometer! Only in your fantasy, laddie.
Still no GHE. So sad, too bad.
Cheers.
Mike Flynn
You are what they call a science denier. I gave you valid data and you reject if for no real reason, except it does not fit into your preconceived ideas, you call the data nonsensical for no apparent reason.
Yes you deny science. You will only accept data that supports your reality but will not examine any information outside that super limited reality you live in. Scientists had to change their views and beliefs about reality when evidence did not support their ideas.
You are an antiscience person. You reject information that does not support your wack-nut belief. Opposite of a scientific person.
I was not sure if I was wasting my time looking for it but I had no idea you were as antiscience as you are. I thought data and information may awaken you. I was wrong.
YOU: “Try and convince someone rational that reducing the amount of energy reaching a thermometer will increase the temperature of the thermometer!”
Why would I do that? I did the opposite. You are not rational so it really does not matter. You will forever be antiscience.
Nice evasive maneuver Mike, white is black with an ice topping 🙂
Dave, any global temperature estimate requires a complex model. Yes the global pause buster paper (Karl et al) is there, but I will never trust any uncalibrated model in any field. So every change to a model requires new data to calibrate and in the case of global temperature it takes time to validate. The Pause buster warming could be fabricated by a flawed model. Its not a really strong argument. My view is the Karl paper is especially suspicious given the whistle blower.
Aaron S says:
…but I will never trust any uncalibrated model in any field.
How is the Karl et al (and the underlying paper on ERSSTs) uncalibrated??
DA,
How is the model not uncalibrated? Don’t you know? Have you evidence that it is?
No? Why not?
The world wonders!
Cheers.
Who’s model is uncalibrated?
The Karl et al results were accepted very quickly by other groups like NASA.GISS and Had.CRUT. Perhaps they know something you don’t.
DA,
Or maybe it was a case of “Fools rush in, where angels fear to tread.”
How would you know?
Cheers.
DA…”The Karl et al results were accepted very quickly by other groups like NASA.GISS and Had.CRUT. Perhaps they know something you dont”.
Birds of a feather. They all draw their data from GHCN and arrive at slightly different results. They are in bed together, something that boggles the mind.
Phil Jones, former head of Had-crut, admitted in the Climategate emails to cheating by using Michael Mann’s ‘hide the decline’ trick on Had-crut data. When Steve McIntyre asked Jones for the Had-cruit data for an independent audit, Jones refused. In the Climategate emails he is seen advising his cronies not to cooperate with an FOI submitted by Mac to the UK government.
Gavin Schmidt of GISS is a friend of Mann, they both run the uber-alarmist site realclimate. When it surfaced in the Climategate emails about Mann’s trick, Schmidt rushed to his defense suggesting it was equivalent to a schoolboy prank.
The three you mention are blatant cheats and have a vested political interest in promoting AGW.
Anyone want to guess this months temperature? I guess it will be up slightly at 0.28C, but I admit this is a mostly random guess. La Nina cooling is most likely gone from the data and the hiatus is over, but this step in U Trop after a major ENSO event is less than last (97, 98) step. Interesting.
Agreed. They know much more about that data than I do, but that is why the whistleblower as a senior expert with no reason to lie is significant. The climate establishment could be wrong like so many scientific establishments before. Piltdown man vs Taung child. Or anyone that believed in string theory as more than a pretty picture. An appeal to authority is a common logical fallacy and does not hold much validity in a discussion.
The whistleblower clarified that he wasn’t saying the data was tampered with in a nefarious way, only that it hadn’t been documented in accordance with the institute’s protocols.
The Karl et al estimate is just another way of trying to address shortcomings with data. It isn’t the only attempt, and it is not the official temperature record (of NOAA or GISS).
barry…”The whistleblower clarified that he wasn’t saying the data was tampered with in a nefarious way, only that it hadn’t been documented in accordance with the institute’s protocols”.
Karl et al at NOAA were in a rush to get the data to the Paris Accord hence they bypassed NOAA protocol for documentation. What did the Paris Accord have to do with NOAA? They are supposed to be a scientific institute which is independent from politics. You can ask the same question with GISS, where James Hansen was blatantly political.
We know NOAA is political. NOAA has been promoting years of data as all-time records by reducing the confidence levels to raise relatively normal records several tenths of a degree to promote them as the hottest ever year. 2014 was nowhere near as hot as 1998 or 2016 but it was promoted to hottest year all-time based on a 48% confidence level. Not to be outdone, GISS used 38%.
As I have pointed out several times, NOAA is fudging the historical record retroactively to get it in line with anthropogenic global warming theory. They eliminated the record warming of 1934 in the US which was even hotter than 1998.
They have also changed the method of data analysis from a tried and true scientific analysis of real data with error margins to a statistically derived method in which they discard over 75% of the data and synthesize the discarded data in a climate model using less than 25% of the data.
Dave. Sorry not sure why my post detached from your comment
In the solar minimum period there will be a slowdown in circulation at high latitudes. There will be so-called “blockades”.
Absolutely new somethings
Cool oceans in the southern hemisphere.
https://www.ospo.noaa.gov/data/sst/anomaly/2018/anomnight.7.30.2018.gif
Aaron S…”The Pause buster warming could be fabricated by a flawed model”.
The question is, why is NOAA using a model at all? They were using real data from 6000 surface surface stations then they decided to slash over 75% of that data and use less than 25% in a model to SYNTHESIZE the missing data.
They do that by using stations from the 25% they kept. In the model, they using statistical interpolation and homogenization of the partial real data to fabricate the over 75% of data they threw out.
I can add some questions to your list based on your articles:
(1) Why do you question that Prof Hawking does not have a Nobel prize? Did you ever question the prize given to Obama and the IPCC?
(2) In the Alabama Two step article you start by saying “the Earth does indeed have a greenhouse effect which makes the Earths surface warmer than it would otherwise be.” Thermal systems cannot have two possible solutions. The temperature of any system is what the physics say it is. There is no special effect that magically appears when environmental campaigners want to influence government policy. There is no greenhouse effect, and certainly not one based on the useless work of Tyndall who stupidly thought that because heat did not travel from one end of a tube to the other it was trapped in the gases. The idea that heat would go in all directions seems to have eluded him.