Where's my Global Warming!

[jon_berzerk]

Fun reading tonight how Massachusetts, that bastion of liberalism, is just about out of snow removal money with weeks and weeks of winter coming.

Is it all due to Global Warming? Is the travail due to Global Warming NOT?

Nay.

It's because their crazed bureaucracy has imposed 33.5% higher licensing fees for the trucks that bear the plows and mandated $10,000 per vehicle automated sanding adjustment systems. Then they were surprised that a high percentage of the former contractors dropped out and the few remaining jacked up their bids almost in unison.

Thank God liberals ain't centipedes because the pain from their shooting themselves in each foot would be heart-wrenching to watch.

--LOL

they get what the deserve

 

[JimBowie1958]

You don't need to scream in bold. They can't learn. It's a "determined ignorance".

What happened to temperature extremes just being 'weather' not climate?
Oh, wait, cold temps are merely weather while hot temps are climate; got it!
you stupid ****.

It takes a real imbecile like you, JammedButtie, to quote and comment on a post you either didn't read or can't comprehend. I said right up there at the top before the quoted article:
This article isn't intended as any kind of "proof" of AGW. It is just offered to provide some balance to the fact that parts of the continental US are unusually cold right now, by pointing out that many places in the world are very, very hot right now as well.

Passing temperature extremes are indeed just weather. However, when there is a consistent pattern over decades of more hotter weather than there used to be, with even hotter temperatures than there used to be, coupled with less colder weather than there used to be, with more unusually warm days in wintertime, and several times more record hot days than cold days for several decades, you've got some good strong evidence that the climate is changing and the planet is warming.

So, local weather is just weather, no matter if it is hot or cold weather, but long term patterns over decades of rising average global temperatures, changing weather patterns, changing rainfall patterns, changing seasonal timing and massive amounts of melting ice are evidence of global warming and climate change. Got it? LOL. Just kidding, Buttie. I know you're far too lost in mindless denial to ever 'get it'.

First let me say, fuck you, ass wipe.

Secondly, there is climate change today, but there ALWAYS has been. Why do you fucking libtards think the climate has to remain the way it was when the modern age began in perpetuity?

The case has NOT been proven that human actions are causing the climate change and there is mounting evidence that the climate change has paused or maybe reversing toward a colder change. Event he New York Times and London MET admit that the warming trend has paused/stopped/plateaued, so who the hell are you bastards to impose Draconian laws that cripple industry (on top of the economic impact of Obamacare and Obamas rule by decree creating a permanent ambiguity about what the future may hold for businesses in tax policy, regulations and more health care obligations)?

Thirdly, eat shit.

 

[jon_berzerk]

What happened to temperature extremes just being 'weather' not climate?
Oh, wait, cold temps are merely weather while hot temps are climate; got it!
you stupid ****.

It takes a real imbecile like you, JammedButtie, to quote and comment on a post you either didn't read or can't comprehend. I said right up there at the top before the quoted article:
This article isn't intended as any kind of "proof" of AGW. It is just offered to provide some balance to the fact that parts of the continental US are unusually cold right now, by pointing out that many places in the world are very, very hot right now as well.

Passing temperature extremes are indeed just weather. However, when there is a consistent pattern over decades of more hotter weather than there used to be, with even hotter temperatures than there used to be, coupled with less colder weather than there used to be, with more unusually warm days in wintertime, and several times more record hot days than cold days for several decades, you've got some good strong evidence that the climate is changing and the planet is warming.

So, local weather is just weather, no matter if it is hot or cold weather, but long term patterns over decades of rising average global temperatures, changing weather patterns, changing rainfall patterns, changing seasonal timing and massive amounts of melting ice are evidence of global warming and climate change. Got it? LOL. Just kidding, Buttie. I know you're far too lost in mindless denial to ever 'get it'.

First let me say, fuck you, ass wipe.

Secondly, there is climate change today, but there ALWAYS has been. Why do you fucking libtards think the climate has to remain the way it was when the modern age began in perpetuity?

The case has NOT been proven that human actions are causing the climate change and there is mounting evidence that the climate change has paused or maybe reversing toward a colder change. Event he New York Times and London MET admit that the warming trend has paused/stopped/plateaued, so who the hell are you bastards to impose Draconian laws that cripple industry (on top of the economic impact of Obamacare and Obamas rule by decree creating a permanent ambiguity about what the future may hold for businesses in tax policy, regulations and more health care obligations)?

Thirdly, eat shit.

the climate constantly changes it always has

hopefully it always will

 

[Kosh]

You don't need to scream in bold. They can't learn. It's a "determined ignorance".

The irony of that post from a far left Obama drone.

Do you trust anything that comes from the nws or nasa?

I don't trust anything that is laced with AGW propaganda, why would you?

 

[Abraham3]

He can trust information from the NWS and NASA because they are full to the gills with actual experts.

 

[Kosh]

He can trust information from the NWS and NASA because they are full to the gills with actual experts.

Oh my that was one of the best laughs I have had this morning!

You mean like that hack James Hansen?

 

[Abraham3]

James Hansen (ret) has more smarts and knowledge in the last millimeter of his decrepit little toe than you have experienced in your entire life.

Fucking luddite dweeb.

 

[Kosh]

James Hansen (ret) has more smarts and knowledge in the last millimeter of his decrepit little toe than you have experienced in your entire life.

Fucking luddite dweeb.

No he doesn't he is a hack.

He has always been a hack.

I have even said so to his face.

He allowed is Nazi style environmentalism to drive his research and conclusions (which have been proven to be false). James Hansen is an AGW hack like you.

He now lives in his nice little mansion driving around in his Bentley paid for by idiots like you.

Just like Al Gore, how much have money have you doled out to Al Gore?

 

[JimBowie1958]

James Hansen (ret) has more smarts and knowledge in the last millimeter of his decrepit little toe than you have experienced in your entire life.

Fucking luddite dweeb.

Even if that were true it wouldn't prove he was right about AGW nor about 'adjusting' his data records!

 

[Abraham3]

Neither does anything you've said prove he's guilty of those things. And his work is heavily reviewed by most of the world's climate scientists. They don't seem to share your feelings about the man and they are able to judge the quality of his work FAR better than are you or I.

 

[Jroc]

Religion? Pseudoscience?..

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYSpvYJUT5E]The Forced Global Warming Religion = Pseudoscience - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Abraham3]

Even if that were true it wouldn't prove he was right about AGW nor about 'adjusting' his data records!

Neither does anything any of you have posted prove he's guilty of such things. They are simply unsubstantiated assertions. His work throughout his career at GISS has been thoroughly vetted by thousands of climate scientists worldwide. They do not share the denier's opinion of the man and they are far better qualified to make that judgement.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Neither does anything you've said prove he's guilty of those things. And his work is heavily reviewed by most of the world's climate scientists. They don't seem to share your feelings about the man and they are able to judge the quality of his work FAR better than are you or I.

Samples and comments on Hansens 'adjustments' to the temperature data;

NASA GISS ? Adjusting the Adjustments « Climate Audit

As a simple exercise, I quickly revisited the everchanging Hansen adjustments, a topic commented on acidly by E.M. Smith (Chiefio) in many posts – also see his interesting comments in the thread at a guest post at Anthony‘s, a post which revisited the race between 1934 and 1998 – an issue first raised at Climate Audit in 2007 in connection with Hansen’s Y2K error.

As CA readers recall, Hansen’s Y2K error resulted in a reduction of US temperatures after 2000 relative to earlier values. The change from previous values is shown in red in the graphic below; the figure also shows (black) remarkable re-writing of past history since August 2007 – a rewriting of history that has increased the 2000-6 relative to the 1930s by about 0.3 deg C.

Hansen?s NASA GISS ? cooling the past, warming the present | Watts Up With That?

I ran a post yesterday, showing how the latest version of GISSTEMP had changed from using Hadley/Reynolds to ERSST for ocean temperatures, with the result that about 0.03C had been added to recent warming.

However, this is not the only change they have made to the historical temperature record in recent years. Climate4You, fortunately, archived the GISS data in May 2008. Comparing this dataset with today’s version, we can see that about 0.10C of warming, or more, has been added to temperatures in the last decade, compared to data up to about 1950.

NOTE: This is an actual snippet of code from the CRU contained in the source file: briffa_Sep98_d.pro

1;
2; Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!
3;
4 yrloc=[1400,findgen(19)*5.+1904]
5 valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,-0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75 ; fudge factor
6 if n_elements(yrloc) ne n_elements(valadj) then message,'Oooops!'
7
8 yearlyadj=interpol(valadj,yrloc,timey)[/quote]

So the fudge factor is adjusting each year by their calendar year starting with 1904, in five year increments. Note that starting in 1930 the function arbitrarily subtracts 0.1 degrees, then in 1936 it removes 0.25, etc. Then in 1955 it begins to ADD temperature adjustments beginning with 0.3, etc.

Is it any wonder we have 'global warming' according to these liars?

Just the name 'fudge factor' at line 5 should be a dead give away.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Even if that were true it wouldn't prove he was right about AGW nor about 'adjusting' his data records!

Neither does anything any of you have posted prove he's guilty of such things. They are simply unsubstantiated assertions. His work throughout his career at GISS has been thoroughly vetted by thousands of climate scientists worldwide. They do not share the denier's opinion of the man and they are far better qualified to make that judgement.

it is a scam based on faked data to get funding by various scientists and empower the government and themselves to be little tyrants.

That about sums it up exactly.

Why Hansen Had To Corrupt The Temperature Record | Real Science

NASA GISS ? Adjusting the Adjustments « Climate Audit

As a simple exercise, I quickly revisited the everchanging Hansen adjustments, a topic commented on acidly by E.M. Smith (Chiefio) in many posts – also see his interesting comments in the thread at a guest post at Anthony‘s, a post which revisited the race between 1934 and 1998 – an issue first raised at Climate Audit in 2007 in connection with Hansen’s Y2K error.

As CA readers recall, Hansen’s Y2K error resulted in a reduction of US temperatures after 2000 relative to earlier values. The change from previous values is shown in red in the graphic below; the figure also shows (black) remarkable re-writing of past history since August 2007 – a rewriting of history that has increased the 2000-6 relative to the 1930s by about 0.3 deg C.

Climategate: The Smoking Code | Watts Up With That?

Now, here is some actual proof that the CRU was deliberately tampering with their data. Unfortunately, for readability’s sake, this code was written in Interactive Data Language (IDL) and is a pain to go through.

NOTE: This is an actual snippet of code from the CRU contained in the source file: briffa_Sep98_d.pro

1;
2; Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!
3;
4 yrloc=[1400,findgen(19)*5.+1904]
5 valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,-0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75 ; fudge factor
6 if n_elements(yrloc) ne n_elements(valadj) then message,'Oooops!'
7
8 yearlyadj=interpol(valadj,yrloc,timey)

So the fudge factor is adjusting each year by their calendar year starting with 1904, in five year increments. Note that starting in 1930 the function arbitrarily subtracts 0.1 degrees, then in 1936 it removes 0.25, etc. Then in 1955 it begins to ADD temperature adjustments beginning with 0.3, etc.

Is it any wonder we have 'global warming' according to these liars?

Just the name 'fudge factor' at line 5 should be a dead give away.

Hansen?s NASA GISS ? cooling the past, warming the present | Watts Up With That?

I ran a post yesterday, showing how the latest version of GISSTEMP had changed from using Hadley/Reynolds to ERSST for ocean temperatures, with the result that about 0.03C had been added to recent warming.

However, this is not the only change they have made to the historical temperature record in recent years. Climate4You, fortunately, archived the GISS data in May 2008. Comparing this dataset with today’s version, we can see that about 0.10C of warming, or more, has been added to temperatures in the last decade, compared to data up to about 1950.

Very revealing programmer comments found in the hacked emails in the Climategate scandal, and they explain how we have 'Global Warming' no matter what the temperatures may actually be.

And note how they call the temperatures they want to see the 'real' temperatures, when ordinary people might think the MEASURED proxy temperatures would be the 'real' temperatures or else the proxy temps are worthless anyway!

Climategate: hide the decline ? codified | Watts Up With That?

WUWT blogging ally Ecotretas writes in to say that he has made a compendium of programming code segments that show comments by the programmer that suggest places where data may be corrected, modified, adjusted, or busted. Some the HARRY_READ_ME comments are quite revealing. For those that don’t understand computer programming, don’t fret, the comments by the programmer tell the story quite well even if the code itself makes no sense to you....

?FOIA\documents\osborn-tree6\mann\oldprog\maps12.proFOIA\documents\osborn-tree6\mann\oldprog\maps15.proFOIA\documents\osborn-tree6\mann\oldprog\maps24.pro; Plots 24 yearly maps of calibrated (PCR-infilled or not) MXD reconstructions
; of growing season temperatures. Uses "corrected" MXD - but shouldn't usually
; plot past 1960 because these will be artificially adjusted to look closer to
; the real temperatures.

....

; anomalies against full NH temperatures and other series.
; CALIBRATES IT AGAINST THE LAND-ONLY TEMPERATURES NORTH OF 20 N
;
; Specify period over which to compute the regressions (stop in 1960 to avoid
; the decline
......

; Specify period over which to compute the regressions (stop in 1960 to avoid
; the decline that affects tree-ring density records)

...


;getting seriously fed up with the state of the Australian data. so many new stations have been
; introduced, so many false references.. so many changes that aren't documented.

....


;I am very sorry to report that the rest of the databases seem to be in nearly as poor a state as
; Australia was. There are hundreds if not thousands of pairs of dummy stations

...


Here, the expected 1990-2003 period is MISSING - so the correlations aren't so hot! Yet
the WMO codes and station names /locations are identical (or close). What the hell is
supposed to happen here? Oh yeah - there is no 'supposed', I can make it up. So I have

...

It's Sunday evening, I've worked all weekend, and just when I thought it was done I'm
hitting yet another problem that's based on the hopeless state of our databases. There is no uniform
data integrity, it's just a catalogue of issues that continues to grow as they're found.

...

printf,1,’(April-September) temperature anomalies (from the 1961-1990 mean).’
printf,1,’Reconstruction is based on tree-ring density records.’
printf,1
printf,1,’NOTE: recent decline in tree-ring density has been ARTIFICIALLY’
printf,1,’REMOVED to facilitate calibration. THEREFORE, post-1960 values’
printf,1,’will be much closer to observed temperatures then they should be,’
printf,1,’which will incorrectly imply the reconstruction is more skilful’
printf,1,’than it actually is.

...

printf,1,'temperature in many high-latitude locations. In this data set'
printf,1,'this "decline" has been artificially removed in an ad-hoc way, and'
printf,1,'this means that data after 1960 no longer represent tree-ring
printf,1,'density variations, but have been modified to look more like the
printf,1,'observed temperatures.'


.....


; Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!
;
yrloc=[1400,findgen(19)*5.+1904]
valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,-0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,$
2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75 ; fudge factor
(...)
;
; APPLY ARTIFICIAL CORRECTION
;
yearlyadj=interpol(valadj,yrloc,x)
densall=densall+yearlyadj

...

;*** MUST ALTER FUNCT_DECLINE.PRO TO MATCH THE COORDINATES OF THE
; START OF THE DECLINE *** ALTER THIS EVERY TIME YOU CHANGE ANYTHING ***

...

applied the calibration to unfiltered MXD data (which
; gives a zero mean over 1881-1960) after extending the calibration to boxes
; without temperature data (pl_calibmxd1.pro). We have identified and
; artificially removed (i.e. corrected) the decline in this calibrated
; data set. We now recalibrate this corrected calibrated dataset against
; the unfiltered 1911-1990 temperature data, and apply the same calibration
; to the corrected and uncorrected calibrated MXD data.

 

[JimBowie1958]

NASA GISS caught changing past data again ? violates Data Quality Act | Watts Up With That?

We’ve been hearing that 2012 has been the “hottest on record.” I had written earlier that those claims were based on the contiguous United States only, or 1.5% of the earth’s surface. The “global temperature” in 2012 through June was only the 10th hottest on record. In fact, every single month of 1998 was warmer than the corresponding month of 2012.

I thought I’d update that analysis to include July’s and August’s temperatures. To my surprise, NASA’s entire temperature record, going back to January 1880, changed between NASA’s June update and its August update. I could not just add two more numbers to my spreadsheet. The entire spreadsheet needed to be updated.



I knew NASA would occasionally update its estimates, even its historical estimates. I found that unsettling when I first heard about it. But I thought such re-estimates were rare, and transparent. There is absolutely no transparency here. If I had not kept a copy of the data taken off NASA’s web site two months ago, I would not have known it had changed. NASA does not make available previous versions of its temperature record (to my knowledge).

NASA does summarize its “updates to analysis,” but the last update it describes was in February. The data I looked at changed sometime after early July.

In short, the data that NASA makes available to the public, temperatures over the last 130 years, can change at any time, without warning and without explanation. Yes, the global temperature of January 1880 changed some time between July and September 2012.
Read more: Blog: NASA's Rubber Ruler

=========================================================

Once again it appears NASA has violated the Data Quality Act. Steve McIntyre wrote in 2007: NASA Evasion of Quality Control Procedures

The U.S. federal government has a detailed set of regulations requiring scientific information to be peer reviewed before it is disseminated by the federal government. NASA, which says that it has “employs the world’s largest concentration of climate scientists”, has carried out an interesting manouevre that has the effect of evading the federal Data Quality Act, OMB Guidelines and NASA’s own stated policies. Once again, the system involves an employee purporting to be acting in a “personal capacity”. Here’s how it works.

Hansen is a fraud and probably an unindicted criminal as well.

 

[JimBowie1958]

NASA GISS: adjustments galore, rewriting U.S. climate history | Watts Up With That?

Many of us have seen gif animations and blink comparators of the older version of Contiguous U.S. GISTEMP data versus the newer version, and here’s yet another one. The presentation is clearer than most.

Ah, the good old scientific tradition of FUDGING DATA TO MEET EXPECTATIONS! lol

 

[JimBowie1958]

Spectacularly Poor Climate Science At NASA | Real Science

Dr. James Hansen of NASA, has been the world’s leading promoter of the idea that the world is headed towards “climate disaster.” There is little evidence to back this up.

In 2008, Hansen wrote about “stabilizing” the climate :


Stabilizing atmospheric CO2 and climate requires that net CO2 emissions approach zero, because of the long lifetime of CO2

arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0804/0804.1126.pdf

Yet in 1999, he made it quite clear that past climate was not stable, and that there was little evidence to support that idea that the climate was becoming unstable.


Empirical evidence does not lend much support to the notion that climate is headed precipitately toward more extreme heat and drought. The drought of 1999 covered a smaller area than the 1988 drought, when the Mississippi almost dried up. And 1988 was a temporary inconvenience as compared with repeated droughts during the 1930s “Dust Bowl” that caused an exodus from the prairies, as chronicled in Steinbeck’s Grapes of Wrath.

NASA GISS: Science Briefs: Whither U.S. Climate?
In that same 1999 report, he showed that US temperatures peaked in 1934, and declined through the rest of the century.

In 1989, NOAA and the UK’s leading expert agreed with Hansen that US had not warmed.

February 04, 1989

Last week, scientists from the United States Commerce Department’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said that a study of temperature readings for the contiguous 48 states over the last century showed there had been no significant change in average temperature over that period.

Dr. (Phil) Jones said in a telephone interview today that his own results for the 48 states agreed with those findings.

Global Warmth In ’88 Is Found To Set a Record – New York Times

But in the year 2000, NASA and NOAA altered the historical US temperature record, which now shows that there was about one degree centigrade US warming during the century before 1989.

The differences transposed over one another:

 

[JimBowie1958]

US Heat Island Error

This graph represents the unmodified temperatures summarized by NASA by rural verses urban categories. (The gray lines represent the statistical error for the temperatures, while the red and black lines represent a 5-year running average. Notice that the rural data set (red, top graph) does not show much warming for the past 120 years, while the urban data set (black, lower graph) shows a steep, continuous increase in temperature. Over the period it increased by 2.5 degrees. The rural data set, on the other hand, shows very little warming in the last half of the twentieth century and has even declined slightly.

When the two data sets are combined (black, upper graph), the entire US data set still shows a significant increase in temperature for the period. This increase in temperature has nothing to do with global warming and everything to do with changes in land use.

NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), led by Dr. James Hansen, has attempted to remove the heat island effect through a series of equations. The GISS produced a graph that looked similar to the rural (red) line above, but still showed the late 1990s and 2000s to be the warmest in recorded history.

roflmao, these bastards cannot get away with this lying shit any more.

 

[Abraham3]

Exactly what effort did Anthony Watts & company make to determine the reasons GISS adjusted those data? Did they even ask?

 

[mamooth]

Poor JimBowie doesn't understand that normal people bust a gut laughing when WUWT is mentioned.

However, Jim has shown he's a skilled cut-and-paste parrot. Hence he makes an ideal denialist cultist. He gets spoonfed bullshit, laps it up eagerly, proclaims to the world how tasty is, then screams rage at anyone who informs him he's eating shit.