Where's my Global Warming!

[JimBowie1958]

The Great Lakes are on the cusp of a record for ice cover.

“In the last one to two weeks, we’ve seen rapid accumulations on Lakes Superior, Huron and Michigan,” said Jeff Andresen , an associate professor in Michigan State University’s geography department who also is the state climatologist.
The ice cover on the lakes increased from 79.7% to 88.4% just in the last week, putting the region close to the record of almost 95% set in February 1979, according to data compiled by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory in Ann Arbor.
The extensive ice cover has had some interesting and positive effects, like shut- ting off lake-effect snow, making it sunnier in parts of northern and western Michigan and limiting evaporation, which could help boost lake levels.
And the ice cover, Andre-sen said, could help delay the spring warm-up — good new for farmers as it helps keep certain crops, like fruit trees, dormant longer and less susceptible to freezing early in the growing season.
Andresen said that the winter of 2013-14 also is shaping up to be one of the five coldest in Michigan in recorded history, although it’s still early to say for certain.

Deep freeze pushes Great Lakes ice cover to 88%, close to 1979 record | Detroit Free Press | freep.com

That's from global warming, dumbass.

Do you know what a tautology is?

When record freezes are also predicted by 'global warming' you essentially have an untestable hypothesis, which means it is NOT SCIENCE, dumbass.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Climate has ALWAYS changed!
Temperature record with CO2 levels for the last 600 million years

Last 10,000 years

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.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Deep freeze pushes Great Lakes ice cover to 88%, close to 1979 record | Detroit Free Press | freep.com

That's from global warming, dumbass.

Do you know what a tautology is?

When record freezes are also predicted by 'global warming' you essentially have an untestable hypothesis, which means it is NOT SCIENCE, dumbass.

Warming, that explains why I had ice grow from my guttering to the ground for the first time ever.

No science involved in that huh

 

[Wyld Kard]

Science is not "settled" Sorry you people are acting on faith, and Al Gore and the rest of his kind make millions of dollars off you people. Kind of like a corrupt preacher

If the science isn't settled, why do 97% of the world's active climate scientists say it is? Where ELSE would you go to find that out? WUWT? We have mainstream science on our side. YOU do not. You are the ones acting on faith, dude.

Al Gore did a very good thing with his film, but he hasn't been a significant figure in the issue for many years. How do you believe he is making millions of "us people"? Did you think he was asking us for donations?

Al Gore did a very good thing with his film

Yeah he proved that he could continually lie about global warming and gullible idiots like yourself would believe him no matter what.

 

[Abraham3]

What lie or lies do you believe he has told?

 

[Abraham3]

Climate has ALWAYS changed!
Temperature record with CO2 levels for the last 600 million years

What's the temperature record for the duration of human civilization look like?

Last 10,000 years

Except this isn't a record of global temperatures. This is a SINGLE Greenland ice core.

Why Hansen Had To Corrupt The Temperature Record | Real Science

NASA GISS ? Adjusting the Adjustments « Climate Audit

These are lovely pictures. But you've presented neither the provided justifications for these changes or any evidence that such justification is lacking or any evidence that these changes were made to make GW look worse. You've provided nothing except evidence that the data were adjusted. Hardly a significant revelation as the point was never hidden by anyone.

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.

Look at that red line folks and tell us that you believe THAT to be an accurate measure of global temperatures over that time period.

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.

Does the author make ANY attempt to even gloss over the justification given for these changes? No. This isn't a search for the truth, it's unwarranted slander.

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.

Two points.
1) The author does state that this is a compendium of code snippets but then formats it in a manner to give the impression that all of this came from a single file. It did not. These were collected across dozens, perhaps hundreds of files and were very likely selected for their susceptibility to mischaracterization
2) The adjustments made here, as can be seen from the comments, were those needed to "hide the decline". As one can ALSO see from the comments, the "decline" is the idiopathic change in the ring width-to-temperature proportionality factor that took place in the 20th century. Proxy data always requires calibration against instrumented records and that can be seen being done here as well - though the author attempts to give that some devious implication.

This entire post is a reeking pile of hot steaming bullshit.

 

[Jroc]

Is it ever gonna warm up? Damn global warming. Record cold in Detroit tomorrow again -6 to -15

 

[Abraham3]

Mind your fingers and toes.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Mind your fingers and toes.

Wow, did you ever unleash a cascading torrent of memories.

I haven't seen or heard that since about 1964.

Thanks for reminding me of my senility, lol.

 

[Abraham3]

Sorry to hear about that. At least you're aware of your condition. That's pretty rare.

 

[Old Rocks]

2014 is going to be a very interesting year, weatherwise.

 

[JimBowie1958]

2014 is going to be a very interesting year, weatherwise.

Agreed, as for most of us it always is.

 

[Old Rocks]

Well, there is a very good chance that those areas most affected by this cold winter, may have a summer as extreme in the other direction.

Just noticed your location. What an amazing lot of history in just one small town. Visited there for a day on a trip covering Gettysburg, Williamsburg, Jamestown, and Yorktown. Best fudge, and variety of fudge, I ever had in the little candy shop there.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Well, there is a very good chance that those areas most affected by this cold winter, may have a summer as extreme in the other direction.

May, but the effect a very cold Great Lakes system may have on regional weather is kind of hard to calculate, isn't it? It must have some impact, but to what degree?

And we seem to be heading into a la nina cycle

So my amateurish WAG is we will have a very cool summer, relatively speaking.

Just noticed your location. What an amazing lot of history in just one small town. Visited there for a day on a trip covering Gettysburg, Williamsburg, Jamestown, and Yorktown.

Yes, more American blood has been shed in Spotsylvania County than any other spot in the world. Especially since Fredericksburg is technically part of the county despite their feud.

Best fudge, and variety of fudge, I ever had in the little candy shop there.

I've heard; I cant eat fudge any more.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Up to another foot of snow forcasted for this weekend. Ughhhhhh

Sick of it

 

[mamooth]

And we seem to be heading into a la nina cycle

Everyone else is predicting the opposite. However, El Nino tends to make for cooler summers for the eastern USA.

 

[Wyld Kard]

What lie or lies do you believe he has told?

Everything dumbass. Every goddamn thing that Al Gore has said about global warming is a lie and you are one of those just gullible enough to believe and accept Al Gore's bullshit rant.

 

[Abraham3]

Those would be unsubstantiated assertions. You don't show someone to be lying with unsubstantiated assertions.

 

[JimBowie1958]

And we seem to be heading into a la nina cycle

Everyone else is predicting the opposite. However, El Nino tends to make for cooler summers for the eastern USA.

Well, I hope you are right.

I was just looking at the chart and noticing what looked like a beginning of a la nina and took a WAG.

I would prefer a warm summer myself.

 

[Wyld Kard]

Those would be unsubstantiated assertions. You don't show someone to be lying with unsubstantiated assertions.

Those would be unsubstantiated assertions.

Wrong again, dumbass.

Those aren't "unsubstantiated assertions". It is a well known fact that Al Gore is a habitual liar, but I know in your small & feeble liberal mind, you refuse to believe and accept anything that says that he lied about Global Warming, and so you go on like the good little kool-aid drinking gullible idiot promoting the lies over and over.