Posts Tagged ‘Climate Change’

Anthony Watts, what have you done?

6 december, 2011

Sadly, and reluctantly I decided to publish this post. But Anthony Watts has crossed a line that should not be crossed with this post.

Who gets the most access to network data (like emails at CRU)?

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/12/06/who-gets-the-most-access-to-network-data-like-emails-at-uea/

First about Anthony Watts: He has my unreserved admiration for his long and unique work on surface stations in USA, revelling their poor locations, quality etc. This is exceptionally good work from a private citizen when the government and “scientific” organisations failed to do their work.

All this work can be found here http://www.surfacestations.org/

And then his dedicated work on his blog (http://wattsupwiththat.com/) to expose the flawed “science” behind the Global Warming Hysteria. All this work has made his blog, rightfully so, one of the must influential ones. This is extraordinary work from a private citizen.  I stand in salute for that.

But, as I said, he has crossed a line that should not be crossed with the above post.

As a former journalist and working in the government, I am deeply troubled. I posted a comment to his post (see at the end of this post), but I like to explain in more detail why I am so troubled by his post.

What shines through is the absolute naiveté, especially the political naiveté. It’s incredulous. And dangerous.

So let’s first recapitulate which persons/groups are behind the greatest scientific/political scandal in modern time – The Global Warming Hysteria:

So called “scientists” (Big science), the political elites, governments, EU, UN, NGO: s (all goes under Big Government and Global Big Government), the mainstream media (Old Big Media), Big Companies (including ironically Big Oil). Many of them have been at it for nearly 30-40 years.

In sum the establishment.

They don’t care about the truth and give no quarters to anybody. Especially if people are perceived as a threat. These people and groups will never give up their power or privileges voluntarily, or because they are “nice”. And they will fight tooth and nail to keep it.

So it is this “charming lot” we are up against.

There are two parts to this.

First:

The first part is the extensive speculations, going through categories of persons that could have done it, and tips on who is behind the leak etc.

As I said in my comment to his post:

Why on earth should you in any shape or form abet them in trying to catch the person/persons behind the leak?”

This is not your job, Anthony. The governments, with ALL their disposable resources; from police via tax authorities to different intelligence agencies and special ops; HAVE ALL the resources in the world to find this person/persons. If they so chose.

As a journalist, the first rule is to protect your sources. And especially you don’t try and go and expose them  through lengthy examinations and discussion about who they can be.

To give you an analogue with one of the most famous of them all “Deep throat”. This exposed the Nixon administration, including the Watergate scandal.

Imagine if Washington Post reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein had written lengthy articles about who the source could be, which persons actually had access to that kind of information, which department etc he or she could come from.

How many new sources do you think they would get?  – None. Nada. Zilch. Zero. They would be the pariah of investigative journalism. And for a very good reason too.

Her you have a very reliable source with data that can be controlled and verified. And you want to find out who it is. Thereby risking that person/persons untold “unpleasantness”. Just by speculating.

And Anthony, why do you think FOIA after two years of silence published the WHOLE email file this time, even if you could only access 5000 of them? The rest covered by high encryption and a very long pass phrase?

Because this is his or her insurance against the resources the state can put against them.

Remember that FOIA was very naïve to in the beginning. He/she gave it first to the mainstream media (including laughingly enough BBC). Which of course refused to do anything.

It was only after that it was “leaked”. But however FOIA is, he/she have quickly learned the hard political lessons.

Very telling is the absent from the leaked emails of ANY regarding contacts between the so called “scientists” and politicians or person high up in various administrations/agencies etc.

Why, because I am quite sure that they are there among the rest of the 250 000 emails behind that encryption. So if the state or politicians gets “to close” FOIA will release the pass phrase which will reveal everything in the hidden emails.

That alone should give you pass for thought. And stop this helping to find the person/persons behind the leak.

Second:

So let’s again recapitulate which “charming lot” are behind the greatest scientific/political scandal in modern time:

So called “scientists” (Big science), the political elites, governments, EU, UN, NGO: s (all goes under Big Government and Global Big Government), the mainstream media (Old Big media), Big companies (including ironically Big Oil). Many of the have been at it for nearly 30-40 years.

In sum the establishment.

They don’t care about the truth and give no quarters to anybody. Especially if people are perceived as a threat. These people and groups will never give up their power or privileges voluntarily, or because they are “nice”. And they will fight tooth and nail to keep it.

So it is this “prime example of truthful and nice people” we are up against.

And what does Anthony do?

He writes an email to one of the chief architects behind the Global Warming Hysteria Phil Jones (CRU) and Journal of Geophysical Research; and kindly informs them that he has discovered some security holes.

And admonishes that they “should immediately change all passwords access for these CRU members and I would advise against allowing transmission of live links such as the one above in the future. JGR might also consider a more secure method of manuscript sharing for review.”

Let me se if I get this right:

Anthony  writes to Phil Jones, a guy who literally hates him and has done everything possible to smear and stop him, and tells him about security problems on their systems. And how to stop them so there can be no leaks in the future?

HUUHHH??????

Leaks like Climate gate 1 and 2, which showed in black and white these “scientist”, politicians and “journalists” to be lying, breaking the law, “adjusting” and manipulating data to fit their agenda, stopping ANY dissent and  suppressing any person or paper that dared to question them.

Out of respect for Anthony I will not make some very tempting analogies here.

You have accomplished what the Global Warming Hysterics in their wettest dream didn’t dare to dream.

How sad. And what a shame.

I can only conclude by saying that Anthony, you have crossed a line, and even if you do not understand it yourself, you have become Colonel Nicholson (se below).

Here is my comment to his post published 4.24 am today:

______________________________________

Anthony, have you lost it?

Why on earth should you in any shape or form abet them in trying to catch the person/persons behind the leak? As some have pointed out in their comments.

And Charles.U.Farleys comments are spot on

“In fact if the roles were reversed i think theyd have used any foothold, any loophole to ensure they brought you down rather than simply seek the truth. Personally i dont think its wise to assist them in any way shape or form as its simply helping them to continue unabated.

After all, this is a global war theyre involved in, a war based on lies and disinformation, of treachery and vilification of anyone not supporting “the cause”, and comfort shouldnt be given to enemies of freedom, especuially ones who stoop so low as these.”

Sadly, you very much remind me of commander, Colonel Nicholson played by Alec Guinness in the movie The Bridge on the River Kwai (1957).

The prisoners (British soldiers) are working as little as possible and sabotaging whatever they can at the construction of a bridge.

When Nicholson and his officers are released, he conducts an inspection of the bridge and is shocked by what he finds. Against the protests of some of his officers, he orders Captain Reeves and Major Hughes to design and build a proper bridge, despite its military value to the Japanese, for the sake of his men’s morale. The Japanese engineers had chosen a poor site, so the original construction is abandoned and a new bridge is begun 400 yards downstream.

Nicholson drives his men, even volunteering to have them work harder to complete the bridge on time

The commandos who where parachute in, plant explosives to destroy the bridge and a train carrying Japanese soldiers and important dignitaries is scheduled to be the first to use the bridge the following morning

Making a final inspection, Nicholson spots the wire and brings it to Japanese commander attention. As the train is heard approaching, the two hurry down to the riverbank to investigate.  Joyce, hiding with the detonator, breaks cover and stabs Saito to death; Nicholson yells for help, while attempting to stop Joyce from reaching the detonator. Joyce is killed by Japanese fire. Shears swims across the river, but is shot just before he reaches Nicholson.

Recognising the dying Shears, Nicholson exclaims, ”What have I done?”

I think it sums it up quiet well.

Sophia

__________________________________________________________

UPDATE

Well my post made some stir. As it should because it concerns some important principles.

First, let me say that I find it depressing that so few people really understands the need to protect the sources. And doesn’t understand that mindless speculations are very dangerous in this regard

Second, what shines through, still, in the debate is the absolute naiveté, especially the political naiveté. It’s incredulous. And very dangerous.

This is NOT some tea party where you discus things friendly over biscuits and cake. And have a wee argument.

This is about Power and Real Politics. And the persons behind the Global Warming Hysteria have been playing it for a long time. And very successfully so.

Until people understand this, that it always has been a political agenda, the Global Warming Hysterics will have the upper hand. It has nothing to do with science, facts or saving the environment or the Earth.

Here are some who publicly have commented and linked to my post about Anthony Watts:

 

GREENIE WATCH

Controversial action by Anthony Watts

http://antigreen.blogspot.com/2011/12/controversial-action-by-anthony-watts.html

Watts has been assisting prominent Warmists to avoid any further releases of their emails. He is trying to disable any Climategate III.

Why on earth would be do that when the Climategate releases have been so helpful to skeptics? It appears to be out of some misguided sense of honour but I suspect that the real motive is that he is tired of being reviled by the climate establishment and is hungry for some praise from them: Deeply regrettable on many levels.

A Swedish blogger who herself finds great holes in the reporting of climate statistics is particilarly upset because she knows how unprincipled and dishonest the climate establishment is. She sees what Watts has done as akin to aiding and abetting criminals in their crime.

Read her comments HERE

Tom Nelson

http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2011/12/anthony-watts-what-have-you-done-udrk.html

Anthony Watts, what have you done? « UD/RK Samhälls Debatt

”Anthony wrights to Phil Jones, a guy who literarily hates him and has done everything possible to smear and stop him, and tells him about security problems on their systems. And how to stop them so there can be no leeks in the future?
HUUHHH??????”

Johnosullivan (Legal analyst and specialist writer on anti-corruption, acts as legal consultant to Dr. Tim Ball)

Why Did Anthony Watts Help Climategate’s Phil Jones?

http://johnosullivan.livejournal.com/42573.html

 “A schism in the ranks of global warming skeptics may ensue due to another gaffe by the world’s most popular science website, WattsUpWithThat. WUWT blogger, Anthony Watts has unashamedly boasted to have tipped off Climategate fraudster, Professor Phil Jones, about a potentially critical further security leak on university Internet servers.”

”You got that? It was his “duty,”says Watts, to help FOIA-denying fraudster Jones (the data-destroyer who unlawfully obstructed other researchers from trying to independently verify CRU climate calculations) to hide even more evidence. With such principled ‘friends’ like Watts does Steve McIntyre need any enemies?

Respected Aussie skeptic, Dr John Ray was so stunned by the Watts email that he penned ‘Controversial action by Anthony Watts’ (December 07, 2011) in response. Dr. Ray bemoans, “Watts has been assisting prominent Warmists to avoid any further releases of their emails. He is trying to disable any Climategate III.” Then Watts appeared to give the finger to Ray and fellow skeptics by declaring, “I opted on the side of doing what I felt was the right course of action. If that upsets a few people, so be it.”

Watts: Not the First Fool to Aid Professor Jones

 When roundly condemned by more savvy commenters on his blog Watts responded on December 6, 2011 at 10:38 am:

“I was told in the reply from Phil Jones and from AGU that others had also been made aware of it, so I wasn’t the first.”

This Watts statement gives the game away: by declaring he was not aware that others had already tipped off Jones and in offering no further justification for his tactically inept action, he is merely conceding, “it wasn’t me who did it!”

As such the image of a snivelling schoolboy caught misbehaving springs to mind. Above all else, this ill-advised gaffe by Watts proves, if proof were needed, that Watts acted in haste and probably without consulting others. As such it shows once again that “Our Side” are a rag-tag bunch of renegades and not the “well-funded and well-organized” team that the narrative of Gore, Hansen, Mann, et al. would have the public believe.

I relate entirely to Dr. Ray and others who are now questioning why Watts would act to help the dastardly Phil Jones to block a potentially excellent source of information for skeptics. Ray speculates that Watts’s apoplexy appears to be triggered by some ”misguided sense of honor.” I can’t see any other logical reason so that may be true.

Ray suspects that an underlying motive is that Watts has become “tired of being reviled by the climate establishment and is hungry for some praise from them: Deeply regrettable on many levels.”

Wider International Frustrations Due to Watts

Ray’s frustrations are echoed by a Swedish blogger (read her comments HERE) similarly perplexed that Watts, a champion of exposing flaws in the ground level global thermometer readings, should want to sink to “aiding and abetting criminals in their crime.” 

Watts just doesn’t seem to have the broader expertize to join the dots on this. In legal parlance, both the mens rea and actus reas were there for any jury to convict Jones of such crimes. Watts doesn’t comprehend that the original criminal charge against Jones under the FOIA was not pursued merely because of a tecnicality –  the short six-month time limit had already expired. “

However, only the self-serving elite in the Crown Prosecution Service, police and UK Government refuse to see that Jones may still be prosecuted for his offenses as per the Fraud Act 2006 ( see Ch. 35. Fraud. ‘1 Fraud. 2 Fraud by false representation. 3 Fraud by failing to disclose information’) where no such time limit gets Jones off the hook.Watts, by being so amenable to Jones, is bolstering the edifice of climate criminality.

Watts just doesn’t get it – these authorities to which Jones is but a mere stooge – are not going to suddenly acquire the principles they manifestly lack and actually start playing by the rules. My own view is thatWattsacted hastily and foolishly to tip off fraudster Jones – such a gaffe gains us nothing and may cost us valuable new information. Scum like Jones do not deserve a helping hand because he and his governmental handlers can’t win a fair fight.”

“But why should Watts want to help scum like Jones? Professor Jones is a man patently caught out engaging in criminal misconduct expressing his intent in emails to colleagues and urging them to join him in unlawfully defying Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests. “

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6” rel=”tag”>miljö</a>, <a href=” http://bloggar.se/om/yttrandefrihet” rel=”tag”>yttrandefrihet</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/fri-+och+r%E4ttigheter” rel=”tag”>fri- och rättigheter, Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=” http://bloggar.se/om/USA” rel=”tag”>USA</a>

Part 4: Recent 9 Months U.S. Regional Temperature trend/decade – It is getting cooler and cooler

9 november, 2011

And the cooling continues. Even on a regional level. Sorry – I mean that Global Warming is an imminent treat to humankind everywhere. Move on, NOTHING to see here.

Here is the last part of my regional analysis of the recent 9 months (year to date, January-September) US temperature from a regional perspective.

I wanted to see how the national trend is, or is not, mimicked in the 9 US climate regions. And how these regional decade trends have evolved during the last 111 years.

Especially to see how the decade trends have evolved during the last 41 years. The period that according to the Global Warming Hysterics and computer models they worship should show a steady and accelerated increase in temperature.

I don’t know about you, but I consider a 9 month consecutive month trend 111 years long to be a “quit good” indicator.

And since the October temperature data are just out today I will do a quick comparison between the 10 months (year to date, January-October) data and compare it with the 9 months data.

Part 1 here:

Part 1: Recent 9 Months U.S. Regional Temperature trend/decade – It is getting cooler and cooler

Part 2 here:

Part 2: Recent 9 Months U.S. Regional Temperature trend/decade – It is getting cooler and cooler

Part 3 here:

Part 3: Recent 9 Months U.S. Regional Temperature trend/decade – It is getting cooler and cooler

And as I always point out:

Remember, these are the official figures. With the poor placement of stations (91 % of the stations are CRN 3 to 5 = bad to very poor); where they have purposely taken away the urban heat island effect, use huge smoothing radius, the historical “adjustment and tweaking” to cool the past etc.

Not to mention the great slaughter of GHCN stations 1990-1993 – roughly 63 % of all stations were “dropped”. Oddly enough many of them in cold places – Hmmm? Now the number of GHCN stations is back at the same numbers as in 1890.

Also remember that the US stations are now nearly a third of the all GHCN world stations.

So to summarize this evidence of this US regional “accelerated warming” trend:

                               North West (WA, OR and ID)

The recent 9 months (Jan-Sep) trend for 1900 to 2011 is 0.11 F / Decade

The trend for 2000 to 2011 is 1.39 F / Decade

                                        West (CA and NV)

The recent 9 months (Jan-Sep) trend for 1900 to 2011 is 0.16 F / Decade

The trend for 2000 to 2011 is – 1.38 F / Decade

                    West North Central (MT, NE, ND, SD and WY)

The recent 9 months (Jan-Sep) trend for 1900 to 2011 is 0.19 F / Decade

The trend for 2000 to 2011 is – 2.08 F / Decade

                           Southwest (AZ, CO, NM and UT)

The recent 9 months (Jan-Sep) trend for 1900 to 2011 is 0.18 F / Decade

The trend for 2000 to 2011 is 1.84 F / Decade

South (AR, LA, KS, MS, OK and TX)

The recent 9 months (Jan-Sep) trend for 1900 to 2011 is 0.01 F / Decade

The trend for 2000 to 2011 is – 0.19 F / Decade

East North Central (IA, MI, MN and WI)

The recent 9 months (Jan-Sep) trend for 1900 to 2011 is 0.11 F / Decade

The trend for 2000 to 2011 is – 1.05 F / Decade

                     Central (IL, IN, KY, MO, OH, TN and WV)

The recent 9 months (Jan-Sep) trend for 1900 to 2011 is 0.02 F / Decade

The trend for 2000 to 2011 is – 0.33 F / Decade

Southeast (AL, FL, GA, NC, SC and VA)

The recent 9 months (Jan-Sep) trend for 1900 to 2011 is – 0.03 F / Decade

The trend for 2000 to 2011 is 0.26 F / Decade

Northeast (CR, DE, ME, MD, MA, NH, NJ, NY, PA, RI and VT)

The recent 9 months (Jan-Sep) trend for 1900 to 2011 is 0.09 F / Decade

The trend for 2000 to 2011 is 0.83 F / Decade

And as I said in the beginningalways remember that these figures are based on the official data that has been tweaked, “adjusted” and manipulated to fit their agenda (cool the past, ignore UHI and land use change factors, huge smoothing radius – 1200km etc.)..

Do you notice the “accelerated warming” trend from 1970-2011 to 2000-2011??

And this is also the decade that the Global Warming Hysterics have been screaming at the top of their lungs, trying to scare us to death, about the catastrophic treat that the “extreme increase” in temperature is to mankind and earth.

As I said in the beginning the temperature data for October is just out today so I thought it would be really interesting to compare the new 10 month consecutive month trend for 111 years to the 9 month data in my posts.

So here is a quick comparison for the Trend/Decade for 1900-2011 (and this time I spare you all the graphs OK):

                             North West (WA, OR and ID)

The recent 10 months (Jan-Oct) trend for 1900 to 2011 is 0.11 F / Decade

The difference to the 9 months data is – 0.02 F COOLER

                                      West (CA and NV)

The recent 10 months (Jan-Oct) trend for 1900 to 2011 is 0.16 F / Decade

The difference to the 9 months data is none, it is the same.

               West North Central (MT, NE, ND, SD and WY)

The recent 10 months (Jan-Oct) trend for 1900 to 2011 is 0.17 F / Decade

The difference to the 9 months data is – 0.02 F COOLER

                         Southwest (AZ, CO, NM and UT)

The recent 10 months (Jan-Oct) trend for 1900 to 2011 is 0.17 F / Decade

The difference to the 9 months data is – 0.01 F COOLER

                         South (AR, LA, KS, MS, OK and TX)

The recent 10 months (Jan-Oct) trend for 1900 to 2011 is 0.01 F / Decade

The difference to the 9 months data is none, it is the same.

                    East North Central (IA, MI, MN and WI)

The recent 10 months (Jan-Oct) trend for 1900 to 2011 is 0.09 F / Decade

The difference to the 9 months data is – 0.02 F COOLER

                    Central (IL, IN, KY, MO, OH, TN and WV)

The recent 10 months (Jan-Oct) trend for 1900 to 2011 is 0.00 F / Decade

The difference to the 9 months data is – 0.02 F COOLER

                        Southeast (AL, FL, GA, NC, SC and VA)

The recent 10 months (Jan-Oct) trend for 1900 to 2011 is – 0.04 F / Decade

The difference to the 9 months data is 0.01 F COOLER

   Northeast (CR, DE, ME, MD, MA, NH, NJ, NY, PA, RI and VT)

The recent 10 months (Jan-Oct) trend for 1900 to 2011 is 0.07 F / Decade

The difference to the 9 months data is – 0.02 F COOLER

And remember that this is the whole 10 month consecutive temperature Trend/ Decade for 111 years.

I don’t know about you, but I consider this 10 month consecutive month trend 111 years long to be a “quit good” indicator.

And what was the difference between the 9 and 10 month Trend/Decade?

In 7 regions the COOLING increased and in 2 they stayed the same.

According to the computer models that the Global Warming Hysterics love so much, worship and blindly follows (especially our intelligent politicians), it should be EXACTLY the opposite.

And we are supposed to be very worried about a predicted rise of 3-4 F in 100 years?

But not this ACTUAL trend?

And for this predicted trend the politicians want to take our societies back to the Stone Age. But, as usual, they DO NOTHING about the actual trend.

And remember that there where two regions that had some warming during 2000-2011 (SE and NE). And that in reality it was a few states that were behind this warming in each region?

So I could not help myself but to include the new data for 2000-2011 (and I could not resist the graphs either):

                    Southeast (AL, FL, GA, NC, SC and VA)

The recent 10 months (Jan-Oct) trend for 2000 to 2011 is 0.15 F / Decade

The difference to the 9 months data is – 0.11 F COOLER

   Northeast (CR, DE, ME, MD, MA, NH, NJ, NY, PA, RI and VT)

The recent 10 months (Jan-Oct) trend for 2000 to 2011 is 0.80 F / Decade

The difference to the 9 months data is – 0.03 F COOLER

So the only two regions that had some warming during 2000-2011 are COOLING too.

So the “warming” trend is really accelerating wouldn’t you say.

Some more “rapid warming” like this and the freezer looks really comfortable and warm.

Another brilliant and glorious example of RAPID WARMING and an eminent treat to humankind! Especially during the last 41 years.

That is truly “Global Warming” on a regional US style.

An interesting ”science” wouldn’t you say.

This is the “stuff” that “Global Warming” is made of.

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6” rel=”tag”>miljö</a>, <a href=” http://bloggar.se/om/yttrandefrihet” rel=”tag”>yttrandefrihet</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/fri-+och+r%E4ttigheter” rel=”tag”>fri- och rättigheter, Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=” http://bloggar.se/om/USA” rel=”tag”>USA</a>

Part 3: Recent 9 Months U.S. Regional Temperature trend/decade – It is getting cooler and cooler

8 november, 2011

And the cooling continues. Even on a regional level. Sorry – I mean that Global Warming is an imminent treat to humankind everywhere. Move on, NOTHING to see here.

Here is the third  part of my regional analysis of the recent 9 months (year to date, January-September) US temperature from a regional perspective.

To see how the national trend is, or is not, mimicked in the 9 US climate regions. And how these regional decade trends have evolved during the last 111 years.

Especially to see how the decade trends have evolved during the last 41 years. The period that according to the Global Warming Hysterics and computer models they worship should show a steady and accelerated increase in temperature.

Part 1 here:

Part 1: Recent 9 Months U.S. Regional Temperature trend/decade – It is getting cooler and cooler

Part 2 here:

Part 2: Recent 9 Months U.S. Regional Temperature trend/decade – It is getting cooler and cooler

And as I always point out:

Remember, these are the official figures. With the poor placement of stations (91 % of the stations are CRN 3 to 5 = bad to very poor); where they have purposely taken away the urban heat island effect, use huge smoothing radius, the historical “adjustment and tweaking” to cool the past etc.

Not to mention the great slaughter of GHCN stations 1990-1993 – roughly 63 % of all stations were “dropped”. Oddly enough many of them in cold places – Hmmm? Now the number of GHCN stations is back at the same numbers as in 1890.

Also remember that theUSstations are now nearly a third of the all GHCN world stations.

So here are the trends for the third and last three regions:

                     Central (IL, IN, KY, MO, OH, TN and WV)

Central temperature recent 9 months (Jan-Sep) 1900-2011

The trend for 1900 to 2011 is 0.02 F / Decade

Central temperature recent 9 months (Jan- Sep) 1970-2011

The trend for 1970 to 2011 is 0.40 F / Decade

Central temperature recent 9 months (Jan- Sep) 1980-2011

The trend for 1980 to 2011 is 0.36 F / Decade

Central temperature recent 9 months (Jan- Sep) 1990-2011

The trend for 1990 to 2011 is 0.16 F / Decade

Central temperature recent 9 months (Jan- Sep) 2000-2011

The trend for 2000 to 2011 is – 0.33 F / Decade

                  Southeast (AL, FL, GA, NC, SC and VA)

Southeast temperature recent 9 months (Jan-Sep) 1900-2011

The trend for 1900 to 2011 is – 0.03 F / Decade

Southeast temperature recent 9 months (Jan- Sep) 1970-2011

The trend for 1970 to 2011 is 0.32 F / Decade

Southeast temperature recent 9 months (Jan- Sep) 1980-2011

The trend for 1980 to 2011 is 0.35 F / Decade

Southeast temperature recent 9 months (Jan- Sep) 1990-2011

The trend for 1990 to 2011 is – 0.03 F / Decade

Southeast temperature recent 9 months (Jan- Sep) 2000-2011

The trend for 2000 to 2011 is 0.26 F / Decade

    Northeast (CR, DE, ME, MD, MA, NH, NJ, NY, PA, RI and VT)

Northeast temperature recent 9 months (Jan-Sep) 1900-2011

The trend for 1900 to 2011 is 0.09 F / Decade

Northeast temperature recent 9 months (Jan- Sep) 1970-2011

The trend for 1970 to 2011 is 0.41 F / Decade

Northeast temperature recent 9 months (Jan- Sep) 1980-2011

The trend for 1980 to 2011 is 0.43 F / Decade

Northeast temperature recent 9 months (Jan- Sep) 1990-2011

The trend for 1990 to 2011 is 0.39 F / Decade

Northeast temperature recent 9 months (Jan- Sep) 2000-2011

The trend for 2000 to 2011 is 0.83 F / Decade

And as I said in the beginningalways remember that these figures are based on the official data that has been tweaked, “adjusted” and manipulated to fit their agenda (cool the past, ignore UHI and land use change factors, huge smoothing radius – 1200km etc.).

As you can see this is a more mixed result, some cooling and some warming.

If we look at the 6 states in the Southeast region, it is only Virginia and to some part South Carolina that drives this value for the whole region. Florida for example has – 0.19 F trend/decade for the same period (2000-2011). And interestingly the trend for the last 111 years (1900 to 2011) is 0.03 F / Decade for the whole region.

Also notice the swings between decades: 1980 to 2011 is 0.35 F, 1990 to 2011 is – 0.03 F and 2000 to 2011 is 0.26 F.

And if we look at the 9 states in the Northeast region it is in reality only four states that drive that temperature for the whole region – ME, DE, NJ and VT. For example New Hampshire, between Maine and Vermont does not have even half the value of the neighboring states.

Remember that NOAA /NCDC determined these 9 climate regions because they are:

“nine climatically consistent regions within the contiguous United States”.

There is not supposed to be wild swings and huge differencies in temperature trend/decade just because you pass to the neighbouring state a few a miles away. We are not talking about diffrence in temperatur over the day or week here, but temperature trend/decade within miles of each other.

Another reason to be “confident” in the “sience” behind the Global Warmin Hysteria wouldn’t you say?

But it is an interesting observation none the less.

And these states are geographically very small so I suspect that these huge differences within the same region (and between neighboring states) has more to do with the placement of stations, the urban heat island effect etc.

So the “warming trend” 2000-2011 is exactly – 0.33 F, 0.26 F and 0.83 F degrees COOLER and warmer a decade for these 3 regions.  That is a – 3.3 F, 2.6 F and 8.3 F COOLER and warmer in 100 years.

And this is also the decade that the Global Warming Hysterics have been screaming at the top of their lungs, trying to scare us to death, about the catastrophic treat that the “extreme increase” in temperature is to mankind and earth.

According to the computer models that the Global Warming Hysterics love so much, worship and blindly follows (especially our intelligent politicians), it should be EXACTLY the opposite.

So to summarize this evidence of this “accelerated warming” trend:

The Central recent 9 months trend 2000 -2011 is exactly – 0.33 F degrees a decade.

The Southeast recent 9 months trend 2000 -2011 is exactly 0.26 F degrees a decade.

The Northeast recent 9 months trend 2000-2011 is exactly 0.83 F degrees a decade.

So the “warming” trend is really accelerating wouldn’t you say.

Some more “rapid warming” like this and the freezer looks really comfortable and warm.

Another brilliant and glorious example of RAPID WARMING and an eminent treat to humankind! Especially during the last 41 years.

That is truly “Global Warming” on a regional US style.

An interesting ”science” wouldn’t you say.

This is the “stuff” that “Global Warming” is made of.

Tomorrow the last part.

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6” rel=”tag”>miljö</a>, <a href=” http://bloggar.se/om/yttrandefrihet” rel=”tag”>yttrandefrihet</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/fri-+och+r%E4ttigheter” rel=”tag”>fri- och rättigheter, Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=” http://bloggar.se/om/USA” rel=”tag”>USA</a>

Part 2: Recent 9 Months U.S. Regional Temperature trend/decade – It is getting cooler and cooler

7 november, 2011

And the cooling continues. Even on a regional level. Sorry – I mean that Global Warming is an imminent treat to humankind everywhere. Move on, NOTHING to see here.

Here is the second part of my regional analysis of the recent 9 months (year to date, January-September) US temperature from a regional perspective.

To see how the national trend is, or is not, mimicked in the 9 US climate regions. And how these regional decade trends have evolved during the last 111 years.

Especially to see how the decade trends have evolved during the last 41 years. The period that according to the Global Warming Hysterics and computer models they worship should show a steady and accelerated increase in temperature.

Part 1 here:

Part 1: Recent 9 Months U.S. Regional Temperature trend/decade – It is getting cooler and cooler

And as I always point out:

Remember, these are the official figures. With the poor placement of stations (91 % of the stations are CRN 3 to 5 = bad to very poor); where they have purposely taken away the urban heat island effect, use huge smoothing radius, the historical “adjustment and tweaking” to cool the past etc.

Not to mention the great slaughter of GHCN stations 1990-1993 – roughly 63 % of all stations were “dropped”. Oddly enough many of them in cold places – Hmmm? Now the number of GHCN stations is back at the same numbers as in 1890.

Also remember that the US stations are now nearly a third of the all GHCN world stations.

So here are the trends for the second three regions:

                             Southwest (AZ, CO, NM and UT)

Southwest temperature recent 9 months (Jan-Sep) 1900-2011

The trend for 1900 to 2011 is 0.18 F / Decade

Southwest temperature recent 9 months (Jan- Sep) 1970-2011

The trend for 1970 to 2011 is 0.64 F / Decade

Southwest temperature recent 9 months (Jan- Sep) 1980-2011

The trend for 1980 to 2011 is 0.47 F / Decade

Southwest temperature recent 9 months (Jan- Sep) 1990-2011

The trend for 1990 to 2011 is 0.27 F / Decade

Southwest temperature recent 9 months (Jan- Sep) 2000-2011

The trend for 2000 to 2011 is – 1.84 F / Decade

                     South (AR, LA, KS, MS, OK and TX)

South temperature recent 9 months (Jan-Sep) 1900-2011

The trend for 1900 to 2011 is 0.01 F / Decade

South temperature recent 9 months (Jan- Sep) 1970-2011

The trend for 1970 to 2011 is 0.42 F / Decade

South temperature recent 9 months (Jan- Sep) 1980-2011

The trend for 1980 to 2011 is 0.39 F / Decade

South temperature recent 9 months (Jan- Sep) 1990-2011

The trend for 1990 to 2011 is 0.35 F / Decade

South temperature recent 9 months (Jan- Sep) 2000-2011

The trend for 2000 to 2011 is – 0.19 F / Decade

                    East North Central (IA, MI, MN and WI)

East North Central temperature recent 9 months (Jan-Sep) 1900-2011

The trend for 1900 to 2011 is 0.11 F / Decade

East North Central temperature recent 9 months (Jan- Sep) 1970-2011

The trend for 1970 to 2011 is 0.41 F / Decade

East North Central temperature recent 9 months (Jan- Sep) 1980-2011

The trend for 1980 to 2011 is 0.06 F / Decade

East North Central temperature recent 9 months (Jan- Sep) 1990-2011

The trend for 1990 to 2011 is 0.14 F / Decade

East North Central temperature recent 9 months (Jan- Sep) 2000-2011

The trend for 2000 to 2011 is – 1.05 F / Decade

And as I said in the beginningalways remember that these figures are based on the official data that has been tweaked, “adjusted” and manipulated to fit their agenda (cool the past, ignore UHI and land use change factors, huge smoothing radius – 1200km etc.)..

Do you notice the “accelerated warming” trend from 1970-2011 to 2000-2011??

So the “warming trend” 2000-2011 is exactly – 1.84 F, – 0.19 F and – 1.05 F degrees COOLER a decade for these 3 regions.  That is a whopping – 18.4 F, – 1.9 F and– 10.5 F COOLER in 100 years. The freezer next!

And this is also the decade that the Global Warming Hysterics have been screaming at the top of their lungs, trying to scare us to death, about the catastrophic treat that the “extreme increase” in temperature is to mankind and earth.

According to the computer models that the Global Warming Hysterics love so much, worship and blindly follows (especially our intelligent politicians), it should be EXACTLY the opposite.

And we are supposed to be very worried about a predicted rise of 3-4 F in 100 years?

But not this ACTUAL trend?

And for this predicted trend the politicians want to take our societies back to the Stone Age. But, as usual, they DO NOTHING about the actual trend.

So to summarize this evidence of this “accelerated warming” trend:

The Southwest recent 9 months trend 2000 -2011 is exactly – 1.84 F degrees a decade.

The South recent 9 months trend 2000 -2011 is exactly – 0.19 F degrees a decade.

The East North Central recent 9 months trend 2000-2011 is exactly – 1.05 F degrees a decade.

So the “warming” trend is really accelerating wouldn’t you say.

Some more “rapid warming” like this and the freezer looks really comfortable and warm.

Another brilliant and glorious example of RAPID WARMING and an eminent treat to humankind! Especially during the last 41 years.

That is truly “Global Warming” on a regionalUSstyle.

An interesting ”science” wouldn’t you say.

This is the “stuff” that “Global Warming” is made of.

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6” rel=”tag”>miljö</a>, <a href=” http://bloggar.se/om/yttrandefrihet” rel=”tag”>yttrandefrihet</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/fri-+och+r%E4ttigheter” rel=”tag”>fri- och rättigheter, Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=” http://bloggar.se/om/USA” rel=”tag”>USA</a>

Part 1: Recent 9 Months U.S. Regional Temperature trend/decade – It is getting cooler and cooler

6 november, 2011

And the cooling continues. Even on a regional level. Sorry – I mean that Global Warming is an imminent treat to humankind everywhere.

As a complement to my previous post Recent 9 Months U.S. Temperature trend/decade – 7.8 F COOLER in 100 years, and while waiting for the October figures, I thought it also would be interesting to look at the recent 9 months (year to date, January-September) US temperature from a regional perspective. To see how the national trend is, or is not, mimicked in the 9 US climate regions. And how these regional decade trends have evolved during the last 111 years.

Especially to see how the decade trends have evolved during the last 41 years. The period that according to the Global Warming Hysterics and computer models they worship should show a steady and accelerated increase in temperature.

I don’t know about you, but I consider a 9 month consecutive month trend 111 years long to be a “quit good” indicator.

And as I always point out:

Remember, these are the official figures. With the poor placement of stations (91 % of the stations are CRN 3 to 5 = bad to very poor); where they have purposely taken away the urban heat island effect, use huge smoothing radius, the historical “adjustment and tweaking” to cool the past etc.

Not to mention the great slaughter of GHCN stations 1990-1993 – roughly 63 % of all stations were “dropped”. Oddly enough many of them in cold places – Hmmm? Now the number of GHCN stations is back at the same numbers as in 1890.

Also remember that theUSstations are now nearly a third of the all GHCN world stations.

NOAA and  NCDC define the 9 US regions like this:

“Through climate analysis, National Climatic Data Center scientists have identified nine climatically consistent regions within the contiguous United States which are useful for putting current climate anomalies into a historical perspective (Karl and Koss, 1984).”

So here are the trends for the first three regions:

                               North West (WA, OR and ID)

 North West temperature recent 9 months (Jan-Sep) 1900-2011

The trend for 1900 to 2011 is 0.13 F / Decade

North West temperature recent 9 months (Jan- Sep) 1970-2011

The trend for 1970 to 2011 is 0.41 F / Decade

North West temperature recent 9 months (Jan- Sep) 1980-2011

The trend for 1980 to 2011 is 0.24 F / Decade

North West temperature recent 9 months (Jan- Sep) 1990-2011

The trend for 1990 to 2011 is – 0.41 F / Decade

North West temperature recent 9 months (Jan- Sep) 2000-2011

The trend for 2000 to 2011 is 1.39 F / Decade

West (CA and NV)

West temperature recent 9 months (Jan-Sep) 1900-2011

The trend for 1900 to 2011 is 0.16 F / Decade

West temperature recent 9 months (Jan- Sep) 1970-2011

The trend for 1970 to 2011 is 0.39 F / Decade

West temperature recent 9 months (Jan- Sep) 1980-2011

The trend for 1980 to 2011 is 0.16 F / Decade

West temperature recent 9 months (Jan- Sep) 1990-2011

The trend for 1990 to 2011 is – 0.07 F / Decade

West temperature recent 9 months (Jan- Sep) 2000-2011

The trend for 2000 to 2011 is – 1.38 F / Decade

West North Central (MT, NE, ND, SD and WY)

West North Central temperature recent 9 months (Jan-Sep) 1900-2011

The trend for 1900 to 2011 is 0.19 F / Decade

West North Central temperature recent 9 months (Jan- Sep) 1970-2011

The trend for 1970 to 2011 is 0.30 F / Decade

West North Central temperature recent 9 months (Jan- Sep) 1980-2011

The trend for 1980 to 2011 is – 0.11 F / Decade

West North Central temperature recent 9 months (Jan- Sep) 1990-2011

The trend for 1990 to 2011 is – 0.21 F / Decade

West North Central temperature recent 9 months (Jan- Sep) 2000-2011

The trend for 2000 to 2011 is – 2.08 F / Decade

And as I said in the beginningalways remember that these figures are based on the official data that has been tweaked, “adjusted” and manipulated to fit their agenda (cool the past, ignore UHI and land use change factors, huge smoothing radius – 1200km etc.)..

Do you notice the “accelerated warming” trend from 1970-2011 to 2000-2011??

So the “warming trend” 2000-2011 is exactly – 2.08 F, – 1.38 F and – 1.39 F degrees COOLER a decade for these 3 regions.  That is a whopping – 20.8 F, – 13.8 F and – 13.9 F COOLER in 100 years. The DEEP freezer next!

And this is also the decade that the Global Warming Hysterics have been screaming at the top of their lungs, trying to scare us to death, about the catastrophic treat that the “extreme increase” in temperature is to mankind and earth.

This is a perfect example of what I have been saying all along, it has always been a political agenda – anti human, anti freedom, anti development and anti capitalism. And this Global Warming Hysteria is part of that agenda. It has nothing to do with science, facts or saving the environment or the Earth.

All of this, as always, paid by us, the common people, in the form of taxes, high energy costs and reducing our living standard back to the Stone Age.

And all of this to “save” the Earth from a “catastrophic warming” when it is actually cooling.

And the most absurd thing is that all the things that the “intelligent” politicians and the so called “scientists”, with the willing help of mainstream media, have forced through at EXTREME cost to us, are actually helping to accelerate the cooling.

Talking about an eminent treat to humankind!

According to the computer models that the Global Warming Hysterics love so much, worship and blindly follows (especially our intelligent politicians), it should be EXACTLY the opposite.

And we are supposed to be very worried about a predicted rise of 3-4 F in 100 years?

But not this ACTUAL trend?

And for this predicted trend the politicians want to take our societies back to the Stone Age. But, as usual, they DO NOTHING about the actual trend.

So to summarize this evidence of this “accelerated warming” trend:

The North West recent 9 months trend 2000 -2011 is exactly – 1.39 F degrees a decade.

The West recent 9 months trend 2000 -2011 is exactly – 1.38 F degrees a decade.

The West North Central recent 9 months trend 2000-2011 is exactly – 2.08 F degrees a decade.

So the “warming” trend is really accelerating wouldn’t you say.

Some more “rapid warming” like this and the freezer looks really, really warm.

Another brilliant and glorious example of RAPID WARMING and an eminent treat to humankind! Especially during the last 41 years.

That is truly “Global Warming” on a regional US style.

An interesting ”science” wouldn’t you say.

This is the “stuff” that “Global Warming” is made of.

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6” rel=”tag”>miljö</a>, <a href=” http://bloggar.se/om/yttrandefrihet” rel=”tag”>yttrandefrihet</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/fri-+och+r%E4ttigheter” rel=”tag”>fri- och rättigheter, Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=” http://bloggar.se/om/USA” rel=”tag”>USA</a>

How the world temperature “record” was manipulated through HUGE smoothing radius

15 februari, 2011

As a continuation of my previous post How the world temperature “record” was manipulated through dropping of stations I will continue my expose of official ways to manipulate data. This time about the smoothing radius.

It sounds like a very boring technical detail, and it is, but it plays an important part in the official manipulation of the temperature record. Others have shown this before and done a very good job presenting it. But it is worth repeating because most people have no idea on what shaky grounds the temperature records are based.

I have written extensively on this blog about the tweaking, “adjustment” and manipulation of the historic and present temperature “record” which are presented in the official figures.

With the poor placement of stations (91 % of the stations are CRN 3 to 5 = bad to very poor); where they have purposely taken away the urban heat island effect, use huge smoothing radius, the historical “adjustment and tweaking” to cool the past etc.

Not to mention the great slaughter of GHCN stations around 1990 – roughly 63 % of all climate measuring stations were “dropped”. Oddly enough many of them in cold places – Hmmm? Now the number of GHCN stations are back at the same numbers as in 1890.

Also remember that the US stations are now nearly a third of the all GHCN world stations.

So what is a “smoothing radius”? And why is it so important?

A smoothing radius is: EVERYTHING within 1200 km in ALL directions from the weather station IS GIVEN THE SAME TEMPERATURE AS AT THE STATION!

Regardless of facts, geography and data.

Here is the official description: “Smoothing radius: Distance over which a station influences regional temperature.”

This is of course a VERY HANDY tool. First you drop most of the measuring stations. And the one you chose and keep are very strategically placed. Then you let the stations you ”kept” decide,  or as they so nicely put it “influence” the temperature within a radius of 1200 km.

Now you can influence and “control” the official world temperature “record”.

And remember –This dropping of stations was done on purpose. And what “happened” to the temperature after that – the temperature went up sharply.

Hmnnn??

Can there be a connection???

To recapitulate:

In 3 years, from 1989 to 1992, 5218 stations were purposely “dropped”.

From 1993 to 2000 1384 more stations were “dropped”. A total of 6602 stations.

And if we compare with 1970 with1992 8445 stations have been “dropped”.

If we compare 1970 with year 2000 9829 stations have been “dropped”.

And remember – Nearly ALL OF THESE STATIONS ARE STILL THERE AND GENERATING DATA.

This is the ”logic and science” behind the Global warming Hysteria.

So let’s look at the difference so you can understand why this “technicality” plays such a big role:

                           1200 km (745.7 miles) smoothing

                           250 km (155.3 miles) smoothing

Noticing any difference?

The difference is HUGE and VERY revealing.

See ALL these grey areas that “suddenly appears” in the 250 km one? These huge areas of the globe which are grey are the ones where they don’t have ANY DATA. (I.e. the data is there but they don’t use it since dropping of ALL these stations).

That is also why they always “officially” use the 1200 km smoothing in their graphics.

So that you wouldn’t know that Antarctica, Arctic, HUGE PARTS of Africa and Asia is NOT covered in “their measurements”.

Also notice, and this is VERY TYPICAL of them, that ALL these parts that ARE NOT COVERED ARE ALL VERY RED (i.e. very hot).

Do you think this is by coincidence?

And what does that says about the “science” behind this?

And also remember that a 250 km smoothing in it self is VERY large.

If you could use a 100 km smoothing you would see EVEN more parts of the world in grey – i.e. there is no data.

This is the ”logic and science” behind the Global warming Hysteria.

To show you how ABSURD a 1200 km (745.7 miles) smoothing is if used in ANY “scientific” way or shape or form, I am going to give you 3 examples.

Stockholm.

If the weather station is placed in Stockholm (Sweden) the temperature there would be given to Moscow, Amsterdam, Berlin, Warszawa, Kiev, Oslo, Helsinki and Prague etc.

You see how TOTALLY ABSURD THIS IS.

Paris.

If the weather station is placed in Paris (France) the temperature there would be given to London, Amsterdam, Berlin, Madrid, Rome, Dublin, Budapest and Prague etc.

You see how TOTALLY ABSURD THIS IS.

Denver.

If the weather station is placed in Denver(Colorado) the temperature there would be given to Las Vegas (NV), Phoenix (AR), over the border to Canada and Mexico, St Louis (IL), Minneapolis (MN) and Dallas (TX) etc.

You see how TOTALLY ABSURD THIS IS.

That’s why “officially” the high Bolivian Andes can have a “record warm” when the temperature is actually measured 1200 km away at the beaches in Peru. Or in the jungles of Brazil.

There has not been any thermometer data in GHCN since 1990 from Bolivia.

None. Nada. Zilch. Nothing. Empty Set.

So just how can it be so Hot Hot Hot! in Bolivia if there is NO data?

Easy. GIStemp “makes it up” from “nearby” thermometers up to 1200 km away.

The official excuse given is that the data acceptance window closes on one day of the month and Bolivia does not report until after that date. Oh, and they never ever would want to go back and add date into the past after a close date. Yet they are happy to fiddle with, adjust, modify, and wholesale change and delete old data as they change their adjustment methods…”

The same goes on in the Arctic.

And the Antarctic.

And over huge parts of Africa.

And over huge parts of Asia.

And over huge parts of Latin America.

And over the oceans which make up 70% of the surface of earth.

So to sum up the “science” behind the “Global Temperature Record”:

It doesn’t cover 70% of the surface, Antarctic, Arctic, huge parts of Africa, huge parts of Asia and huge parts of Latin America.

Besides that everything is just fine.

Another brilliant example of the trustworthiness of the Global Warming Hysteria.

And “their science”.

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6” rel=”tag”>miljö</a>, <a href=” http://bloggar.se/om/yttrandefrihet” rel=”tag”>yttrandefrihet</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/fri-+och+r%E4ttigheter” rel=”tag”>fri- och rättigheter, Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=” http://bloggar.se/om/USA” rel=”tag”>USA</a>

How the world temperature “record” was manipulated through dropping of stations

23 januari, 2011

I have written extensively on this blog about the tweaking, “adjustment” and manipulation of the historic and present temperature “record” which are presented in the official figures.

With the poor placement of stations (91 % of the stations are CRN 3 to 5 = bad to very poor); where they have purposely taken away the urban heat island effect, use huge smoothing radius, the historical “adjustment and tweaking” to cool the past etc.

Not to mention the great slaughter of GHCN stations around 1990 – roughly 63 % of all climate measuring stations were “dropped”. Oddly enough many of them in cold places – Hmmm? Now the number of GHCN stations are back at the same numbers as in 1890.

(See for example my posts:

Rewriting Temperature History – Time and Time Again!,

More on the Blunder with NASA: s GISS Temperature data and the mess they have,

The Big dropout of weather stations since 1989 – A 66% reduction in 11 years,

The Big Difference Between GISS and UAH Temperature Data.

Minus 60 C or not?

The world has never seen such freezing heat OR the Blunder with NASA: s GISS Temperature data)

Just one example of this historical “adjustment and tweaking” they are doing:

On average 20% of the historical record was modified 16 times 2006 to beginning of 2008. The largest single jump was 0.27 C. This occurred between the Oct 13, 2006 and Jan 15, 2007 records when Aug 2006 changed from an anomaly of +0.43C to +0.70C, a change of nearly 68%.

And what a “coincidence” that the data is always “modified” in only on direction – guess which one.

Also remember that the US stations are now nearly a third of the all GHCN world stations.

And as I said in the beginningalways remember that these figures are based on the official data that has been tweaked, “adjusted” and manipulated to fit there agenda (cool the past, ignore UHI and land use change factors, huge smoothing radius – 1200km etc.)..

Just a couple of weeks ago a new report was published by Patrick Frank that shows that there has NEVER been a measurement of Sensor measurement uncertainty in ALL the weather stations used for the “Global” temperature “record”.  And that “the systematic error from uncontrolled variables has been invariably neglected”.

UNCERTAINTY IN THE GLOBAL AVERAGE SURFACE AIR TEMPERATURE INDEX: A REPRESENTATIVE LOWER LIMIT

Patrick Frank, Palo Alto, CA 94301-2436, USA, Energy and Environment, Volume 21, Number 8 / December 2010 DOI: 10.1260/0958-305X.21.8.969

Abstract here:

http://multi-science.metapress.com/content/q557742n3221/?p=e174cd02151f44d7bd601ebb287be383&pi=0

Abstract :

“Sensor measurement uncertainty has never been fully considered in prior appraisals of global average surface air temperature. The estimated average ±0.2 C station error has been incorrectly assessed as random, and the systematic error from uncontrolled variables has been invariably neglected. The systematic errors in measurements from three ideally sited and maintained temperature sensors are calculated herein. Combined with the ±0.2 C average station error, a representative lower-limit uncertainty of ±0.46 C was found for any global annual surface air temperature anomaly. This ±0.46 C reveals that the global surface air temperature anomaly trend from 1880 through 2000 is statistically indistinguishable from 0 C, and represents a lower limit of calibration uncertainty for climate models and for any prospective physically justifiable proxy reconstruction of paleo-temperature. The rate and magnitude of 20th century warming are thus unknowable, and suggestions of an unprecedented trend in 20th century global air temperature are unsustainable.”

Summary and Conclusion:

“The assumption of global air temperature sensor noise stationarity is empirically untested and unverified. Estimated noise uncertainty propagates as

   rather than .

Future noise uncertainty in monthly means would greatly diminish if the siting of surface stations is improved and the sensor noise variances become known, monitored, and empirically verified as stationary.

The ±0.46 C lower limit of uncertainty shows that between 1880 and 2000, the trend in averaged global surface air temperature anomalies is statistically indistinguishable from 0 C at the 1σ level. One cannot, therefore, avoid the conclusion that it is presently impossible to quantify the warming trend in global climate since 1880.”

See also the letter to the Editors (APS Physics) by Patrick Frank:

http://www.aps.org/units/nes/newsletters/fall09.cfm

See also

http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2011/01/20/what-evidence-for-unprecedented-warming/

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/20/surface-temperature-uncertainty-quantified/

So I thought I show you the drastic dropping of weather stations in 1989-1992. Others have shown this before and done a very good job presenting it. But it is worth repeating because most people has no idea on what shaky grounds the temperature records are based.

And remember –This dropping of stations was done on purpose. And you can see on the graph what “happened” to the temperature after that. For some very “odd” reason it went up sharply.

Hmnnn??

Can there be a connection???

And remember – Nearly ALL OF THESE STATIONS ARE STILL THERE AND GENERATING DATA.

In 3 years, from 1989 to 1992, 5218 stations were purposely “dropped”.

From 1993 to 2000 1384 more stations were “dropped”. A total of 6602 stations.

And if we compare with 1970 with1992 8445 stations have been “dropped”.

If we compare 1970 with year 2000 9829 stations have been “dropped”.

This is the ”logic and science” behind the Global warming Hysteria.

                        1970 (15 094 Stations)

                      1990 (9 475 Stations)

                        2000 (5 265 Stations)

Where did all the stations in China, India, Asia, Africa, Latin America, Middle East, Russia, Antarctica, and Australia go?????

AND WHY??????

Whole continents “just disappeared” and most of the landmass of Earth is now NOT COVERED.

And how do you compare the “average” Global temperature when they dropped 9829 stations between 1970 and 2000??????

9829 stations that where part of the “average” global temperature????

This is the “science” behind the Global warming Hysteria.

And it gets worse (which in itself s an “achievement”). Look at the map for 2010 – EVEN MORE landmass are “gone” on purpose. Including large parts of USA. See the huge contrast between 2000 an 2010 regarding USA.

                             2010

See also some of my previous post on this subject:

Climate Gate – All the manipulations and lies revealed 241

NASA ”systematically eliminated 75% of the world’s stations with a clear bias toward removing higher-latitude, high-altitude and rural locations.

Climate Gate – All the manipulations and lies revealed 211

How “they” (NASA) make Bolivia a VERY HOT PLACE EVEN WHEN THERE IS NO TEMPERATURE STATIONS OR DATA FROM THERE.

Another brilliant example of the trustworthiness of the Global Warming Hysteria.

And “their science”.

“One Small Problem. There has not been any thermometer data in GHCN since 1990.

None. Nada. Zilch. Nothing. Empty Set.

So just how can it be so Hot Hot Hot! in Bolivia if there is NO data?

Easy. GIStemp “makes it up” from “nearby” thermometers up to 1200 km away.

So what is within 1200 km of Bolivia? The beaches of Peru and the Amazon Jungle. Not exactly the same as snow capped peaks, but hey, you gotta make do with what you have, you know? (The official excuse given is that the data acceptance window closes on one day of the month and Bolivia does not report until after that date. Oh, and they never ever would want to go back and add date into the past after a close date. Yet they are happy to fiddle with, adjust, modify, and wholesale change and delete old data as they change their adjustment methods…)”

Here are some more glaring examples of this “tweaking and adjustment” of the temperature “record”:

NEW ENGLAND’S TEMPERATURE HISTORY AND TRENDS (1911 – 2009)

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/ne_temp_history_trends.pdf

WHY NOAA AND NASA PROCLAMATIONS SHOULD BE IGNORED

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/noaa_2010_report.pdf

“NASA/NOAA homogenization process has been shown to significantly alter the trends in many stations where the siting and rural nature suggest the data is reliable. In fact, adjustments account for virtually all the trend in the data. Unadjusted data for the best sites/rural shows cyclical multi-decadal variations but no net long term trend as former NASA scientist Dr. Ed Long showed here. He showed however that after adjustment, the rural data trend was made consistent with the urban data set with an artificial warming introduced.“

See also

http://climateaudit.org/2010/12/26/nasa-giss-adjusting-the-adjustments/

Just look at this “tweaking” done by NASA/NOAA in August 2007 to the temperature “record”. They just “happened” to LOWER the temperature 1880-1900 by OVER 0.3 C and then they just “happened” to RISE the temperature 1990-2007 by OVER 0.2 C. So “suddenly” you have a nice “warming trend” where there were NONE before. In fact it was a lowering trend from year 2000 which “suddenly” change to a warming trend with OVER 0.4 C difference.

This is the “science” behind the Global warming Hysteria.

US Agencies Still Fiddling Temperature Record, Reports SPPI

http://www.transworldnews.com/NewsStory.aspx?storyid=671981&ret=close

NASA and NOAA, which each receive close to half a billion dollars a year in taxpayer funding, have been systematically fiddling the worldwide temperature record for years, making “global warming” look worse than it is, according to a new paper by the Science and Public Policy Institute.  The findings are reported by Joe D’Aleo, a leading meteorologist.

Robert Ferguson, President of SPPI, said: “Despite billions spent on official claims about the supposed threat of catastrophic man-made ‘global warming’, opinion polls show the public are no longer fooled. A  main reason why the voters buy don’t climate alarmism any more is that the tiny but well-connected, lavishly-funded Climategate clique keeps on being caught out bending the scientific evidence.

The problem of data integrity has recently been commented on by MIT’s Dr. Richard Lindzen, “Inevitably in climate science, when data conflicts with models, a small coterie of scientists can be counted upon to modify the data…That the data should always need correcting to agree with models is totally implausible and indicative of a certain corruption within the climate science community.”

Mr. D’Aleo’s paper is a damning exposé of the inner workings of two agencies of the US Government –

The global temperature data from surface stations is “seriously compromised: the data suffer significant contamination by urbanization and other local factors such as changes in land cover and land use”. Numerous peer review papers suggest contamination of 30%, 50% or more.

The state of the temperature database, in the words of one of its operators, is “hopeless”, with “hundreds if not thousands of pairs of dummy  and duplicate stations”.

•The NASA warming is achieved in part by inventing data in arctic areas where no stations exist.

In the US, the warmest decade of the 20th century was the 1930s, and the warmest year was 1934, NASA’s chief climate scientist announced after the last super El Nino.

NOAA tampered with temperature data in 2000, 2007 and 2009 to create an artificial increase of 0.3 F° in the warming trend since the 1930s.

•NASA admits even today on their website, there is no generally-accepted standard for surface air temperatures.

Temperatures for the 1930s to 1950s have been readjusted downward to make the warming since then seem greater than it is.

Temperatures for recent decades have been readjusted upward to make the warming of the 20th century seem greater than it is.

Over time in the NASA database, the warming trend has been steadily increasing – not because the weather is getting warmer but because NASA keeps tampering with the data.

The data tampering became more serious and more frequent in 2007, when a strong la Niña caused widespread and profound global cooling.

Adjustments by NOAA and NASA, rather than real-world temperature changes, account for virtually all the apparent warming trend in the global data.

NASA and NOAA have repeatedly resisted Freedom of Information Act requests for release of the unadjusted data and documentation of adjustments made, probably because they fear independent analysis will demonstrate the adjustments are unwarranted and warming insignificant

Global temperature databases are “seriously flawed” and “can no longer be trusted to assess climate trends or rankings or validate model forecasts”.

In a lengthy paper updated in August 2010, Surface Temperature Records: Policy Driven Deception? , Watts and D’Aleo catalogued numerous case studies of temperature data tampering around the world.  This issue is of critical importance  because these very data sets are used as justification of advocacy for formulating and implementing unprecedented policy decisions seeking  radical transformations of our society and institutions.

Said Ferguson, “So blatantly obvious has the tampering become that Congress must mandate a thorough investigation of the temperature records, independent of the government scientists controlling them.  A ‘B’ team of non-government and non-UN experts must be established with access to all the raw data, records, adjustments, fudges, bodges  and computer codes currently being black-boxed by government scientists.”

SURFACE TEMPERATURE RECORDS: POLICY-DRIVEN DECEPTION?

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/surface_temp.pdf

SUMMARY FOR POLICY MAKERS

(by SPPI)

1. Instrumental temperature data for the pre-satellite era (1850-1980) have been so widely, systematically, and uni-directionally tampered with that it cannot be credibly asserted there has been any significant “global warming” in the 20th century.

2. All terrestrial surface-temperature databases exhibit signs of urban heat pollution and post measurement adjustments that render them unreliable for determining accurate long-term temperature trends.

3. All of the problems have skewed the data so as greatly to overstate observed warming both regionally and globally.

4. Global terrestrial temperature data are compromised because more than three-quarters of the 6,000 stations that once reported are no longer being used in data trend analyses.

5. There has been a significant increase in the number of missing months with 40% of the GHCN stations reporting at least one missing month. This requires infilling which adds to the uncertainty and possible error.

 

6. Contamination by urbanization, changes in land use, improper siting, and inadequately-calibrated instrument upgrades further increases uncertainty.

7. Numerous peer-reviewed papers in recent years have shown the overstatement of observed longer term warming is 30-50% from heat-island and land use change contamination.

8. An increase in the percentage of compromised stations with interpolation to vacant data grids may make the warming bias greater than 50% of 20th-century warming.

9. In the oceans, data are missing and uncertainties are substantial. Changes in data sets introduced a step warming in 2009.

10. Satellite temperature monitoring has provided an alternative to terrestrial stations in compiling the global lower-troposphere temperature record. Their findings are increasingly diverging from the station-based constructions in a manner consistent with evidence of a warm bias in the surface temperature record.

11. Additional adjustments are made to the data which result in an increasing apparent trend. In many cases, adjustments do this by cooling off the early record.

12. Changes have been made to alter the historical record to mask cyclical changes that could be readily explained by natural factors like multi-decadal ocean and solar changes.

13. Due to recently increasing frequency of eschewing rural stations and favoring urban airports as the primary temperature data sources, global terrestrial temperature data bases are thus seriously flawed and can no longer be representative of both urban and rural environments. The resulting data is therefore problematic when used to assess climate trends or VALIDATE model forecasts.

14. An inclusive external assessment is essential of the surface temperature record of CRU, GISS and NCDC “chaired and paneled by mutually agreed to climate scientists who do not have a vested interest in the outcome of the evaluations.”

15. Reliance on the global data by both the UNIPCC and the US GCRP/CCSP should trigger a review of these documents assessing the base uncertainty of forecasts and policy language.

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6” rel=”tag”>miljö</a>, <a href=” http://bloggar.se/om/yttrandefrihet” rel=”tag”>yttrandefrihet</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/fri-+och+r%E4ttigheter” rel=”tag”>fri- och rättigheter, Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=” http://bloggar.se/om/USA” rel=”tag”>USA</a>

Catastrophic Climate Change – All human activity ceased in Florida and Georgia!

15 januari, 2011

Temperature dropped nearly 10F below average during December.

Did you see any headlines like this from the “Mainstream media” who otherwise are so eager to spread the Global Warming Hysteria?

NO – And this exactly the point. Because, despite this drastic lowering of temperature, life goes on as normal in Florida and Georgia.

And since this was a drastic lowering of the temperature, and does not fit their agenda, no big headlines except in some of the local media.

Isn’t it interesting that a PREDICTED (by their beloved computer models) rise of temperature of 1.5-2F in the next 100 years is considered a catastrophe for humankind and an eminent treat for our survival?.

By the way, these computer models are the same models THAT CAN NOT PREDICT THE WEATHER A WEEK FROM NOW, OR THE WEATHER A WEEK AGO. But they claim that they can predict the temperature a 100 years from now with 0.1F certainty!

As I have been saying all along, it has always been a political agenda – anti human, anti freedom, anti development and anti capitalism. And this Global Warming Hysteria is part of that agenda. It has nothing to do with science, facts or saving the environment or the Earth.

All of this, as always, paid by us, the common people, in the form of taxes, high energy costs and reducing our living standard back to the Stone Age.

And these guys spends billions and TRILLIONS of $ of our tax money to “fight” this predicted “Global Warming” and to “reduce” our “carbon footprint”.  Ramming through their political agenda at all costs.

So lets look what happened in Florida and Georgia in December.

And remember, these are the official figures. With the poor placement of stations (91 % of the stations are CRN 3 to 5 = bad to very poor); where they have purposely taken away the urban heat island effect, use huge smoothing radius, the historical “adjustment and tweaking” to cool the past etc.

Florida:

This year, the December temperature is – 8.6 F cooler than1931, the warmest December And if we compare this year’s December with 1971 it is – 6.7 F cooler. If we compare with1998 this year’s December is – 14.7 F cooler. And if we compare with 2007 it is -14 F cooler

This December is – 9.3F degrees cooler than the average for 1900-2010. And is the coolest December in 116 years.

That’s what I call RAPID WARMING and an eminent treat to humankind!

And somehow a DROP of -9.3F degrees in one month compared to the average is not considered a “big deal”. In fact it is ignored. But a “predicted rise of 1.5-2F over a 100 years is considered by the same Global Warming Hysterics to be a total catastrophe for humankind.

So to recapitulate: a DROP of average temperature of – 0.3F PER DAY is nothing, ignore it. But a “predicted” rise of average temperature of 0.02F PER YEARis a total catastrophe for humankind.

By the way, if you wondered, 0.02F per year is 0.00005F per day.

This is the ”logic and science” behind the Global warming Hysteria.

2010 temperature

This year Florida’s temperature is – 3.3 F cooler than1990, the warmest year. And if we compare this year with 1948 it is – 3 F cooler. If we compare with1911 this year is – 2.7 F cooler. And if we compare with 2007 it is – 2.3 F cooler

This year is – 1.33F degrees cooler than the average for 1900-2010. And is the 5th coolest year in 116 years.

That’s what I call RAPID WARMING and an eminent treat to humankind!

Georgia:

This year, the December temperature is – 17.3 F cooler than1931, the warmest December And if we compare this year’s December with 1971 it is -16.5 F cooler. If we compare with1984 this year’s December is – 15.8 F cooler. And if we compare with 2007 it is -13.2 F cooler

This December is 8.34F degrees cooler than the average for 1900-2010. And is the coolest December in 116 years.

That’s what I call RAPID WARMING and an eminent treat to humankind!

And somehow a DROP of -8.34F degrees in one month compared to the average is not considered a “big deal”. In fact it is ignored. But a “predicted rise of 1.5-2F over a 100 years is considered a total catastrophe for humankind.

So to recapitulate: a DROP of average temperature of – 0.27F PER DAY is nothing, ignore it. But a “predicted” rise of average temperature of 0.02F PER YEAR is a total catastrophe for humankind.

This is the ”logic and science” behind the Global warming Hysteria.

2010 temperature

This year Georgia’s temperature is – 3.4 F cooler than1921, the warmest year. And if we compare this year with 1998 it is 2.8 F cooler. If we compare with1946 this year is – 2.7 F cooler. And if we compare with 2007 it is – 1.7 F cooler

This year is – 0.91F degrees cooler than the average for 1900-2010. And is the 22nd coolest year in 116 years.

That’s what I call RAPID WARMING and an eminent treat to humankind!

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6” rel=”tag”>miljö</a>, <a href=” http://bloggar.se/om/yttrandefrihet” rel=”tag”>yttrandefrihet</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/fri-+och+r%E4ttigheter” rel=”tag”>fri- och rättigheter, Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=” http://bloggar.se/om/USA” rel=”tag”>USA</a>


%d bloggare gillar detta: