Politics Climate Change Paradox (cont in part 2)

[Crankitup]

A simple one to start with. You don’t publish the figures in a separate document. Makes it very difficult to follow the argument.

Why only adjust for heat sinks? Time of observation seems like it would be very important and would be trivial to add to the analysis. That is a big hole, suspiciously absent.

They compared data from their “class 1 and class 2” stations to the entire homogenised network. That is just straight out fudging.

That's it?? LOL. A rough paraphrase of what Peter Ellis & Sam Yates had to say in the comments section? Pretty lazy. Yates comments were answered shortly afterwards BTW.

It's obvious you prefer NOAA's adjustment methodology. Confirmation bias on top of confirmation bias.

Let's leave Anthony aside for the moment because it's clear you don't have any respect for what he's done in this area at all. Let's get down to brass tacks. Set your sights on me instead.

I posted the following in another thread(Climate Change Arguing) you probably missed it. Maybe you can dissect this and turn me back into a eco fascist like I was originally.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10 years ago when I last discussed this issue at length, initially from a totally agnostic perspective, I noted that the US Association of State Climatologists had had a couple of Presidents of their Association squeezed out for daring to speak out against the AGW orthodoxy. Despite this in 2002 however, the association voted almost unanimously for a statement shifting the focus of emphasis from CO2, to land use.

You only have to start looking at some of the temperature stations to see they were right;

Let's compare two sites from the same state that have been recording temps for at least 100 years. The first one is a good site (Orland, CA). It still remains unaffected by external man-made influences. The second, (Marysville, CA) is a poor site that has been allowed to become more & more affected by such influences. The temperature trends of each are markedly different. It would be hard to argue that the local man-made factors have played absolutely no part in this.






Someone who took a good look at the site said - "The Marysville station is located behind the fire department building on a patio. In addition to the sensor being surrounded by asphalt and concrete, its also within 10 feet of buildings, and within 8 feet of a large metal cell tower that could be felt radiating heat. Additionally, air conditioning units on the cell tower electronics buildings vent copious amounts of warm air within 10 feet of the sensor. It is the site reviewers opinion that this USHCN site can no longer provide accurate data and should be removed from the USHCN list"

Same stuff happens here in Australia. Here in Perth our local BOM is so AGW propagandist it's not funny. Some years ago when they weren't seeing the temperature increases they were hoping for, they moved Perth's official temperature station to a much warmer site, further away from the river. If that wasn't enough, in 2011 they changed the thermometer at the new station to a different type, known for reading on the higher side and bingo, in that year Perth experienced record heat.

Further reading here.

 

[Snake_Baker]

Or we could just leave things alone

Not realistic.

Human beings are now terraformers.

 

[Chief]

That's it?? LOL. A rough paraphrase of what Peter Ellis & Sam Yates had to say in the comments section? Pretty lazy. Yates comments were answered shortly afterwards BTW.

It's obvious you prefer NOAA's adjustment methodology. Confirmation bias on top of confirmation bias.

Let's leave Anthony aside for the moment because it's clear you don't have any respect for what he's done in this area at all. Let's get down to brass tacks. Set your sights on me instead.

I posted the following in another thread(Climate Change Arguing) you probably missed it. Maybe you can dissect this and turn me back into a eco fascist like I was originally.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10 years ago when I last discussed this issue at length, initially from a totally agnostic perspective, I noted that the US Association of State Climatologists had had a couple of Presidents of their Association squeezed out for daring to speak out against the AGW orthodoxy. Despite this in 2002 however, the association voted almost unanimously for a statement shifting the focus of emphasis from CO2, to land use.

You only have to start looking at some of the temperature stations to see they were right;

Let's compare two sites from the same state that have been recording temps for at least 100 years. The first one is a good site (Orland, CA). It still remains unaffected by external man-made influences. The second, (Marysville, CA) is a poor site that has been allowed to become more & more affected by such influences. The temperature trends of each are markedly different. It would be hard to argue that the local man-made factors have played absolutely no part in this.

View attachment 767405


View attachment 767406 View attachment 767407

Someone who took a good look at the site said - "The Marysville station is located behind the fire department building on a patio. In addition to the sensor being surrounded by asphalt and concrete, its also within 10 feet of buildings, and within 8 feet of a large metal cell tower that could be felt radiating heat. Additionally, air conditioning units on the cell tower electronics buildings vent copious amounts of warm air within 10 feet of the sensor. It is the site reviewers opinion that this USHCN site can no longer provide accurate data and should be removed from the USHCN list"

Same stuff happens here in Australia. Here in Perth our local BOM is so AGW propagandist it's not funny. Some years ago when they weren't seeing the temperature increases they were hoping for, they moved Perth's official temperature station to a much warmer site, further away from the river. If that wasn't enough, in 2011 they changed the thermometer at the new station to a different type, known for reading on the higher side and bingo, in that year Perth experienced record heat.

Further reading here.

Lovely to see a new generation of posters bringing up the same utter rubbish that was being talked about in SRP over a decade ago. Warms the cockles, it does.

 

[Snake_Baker]

Lovely to see a new generation of posters bringing up the same utter rubbish that was being talked about in SRP over a decade ago. Warms the cockles, it does.

Not that I support it, but you have to debate the quality of the data before you can dismiss it.

If you can't then you are better off taking a moderate position.

There's woo woo on both sides of the debate.

 

[Crankitup]

Lovely to see a new generation of posters bringing up the same utter rubbish that was being talked about in SRP over a decade ago. Warms the cockles, it does.

New generation? You posted a link to one of my old threads. The existence of such threads I alerted you to a while ago here #860. As far as it being "utter rubbish" as you claim ... careful, your bias is showing.

 

[Chief]

Not that I support it, but you have to debate the quality of the data before you can dismiss it.

If you can't then you are better off taking a moderate position.

There's woo woo on both sides of the debate.

It’s over ten years old, for a start.

 

[Better Loosen Up]

It’s over ten years old, for a start.

That's nothing compared to the apocalyptic/ catastrophic predictions we've heard for the last 50 years! None of which have eventuated of course but keep praying... you might back a winner one day, probably not.

 

[Chief]

That's nothing compared to the apocalyptic/ catastrophic predictions we've heard for the last 50 years! None of which have eventuated of course but keep praying... you might back a winner one day, probably not.

So the science more and more converges with the early warnings, but you are clinging to random bloggers from over a decade ago.

This is nuts.

 

[Better Loosen Up]

So the science more and more converges with the early warnings, but you are clinging to random bloggers from over a decade ago.

This is nuts.

Does it? Really? And by the way, i take no interest in blogs. You must have me confused with someone else...

What is nuts, is the continual apocalyptic predictions we hear from climate models that attempt to predict 50-80 years into the future. When there are around 100 factors that drive climate change on this planet, the majority being natural and completely unpredictable, this is absurd!

The only reason it seems that the science might be converging on the early warnings is because it is mostly IPCC driven. They have too much politically and $$$ wise at stake that they can't afford to be wrong.

They often distort the truth or leave important things out. An example would be 2015. They will come out in the media telling everyone that it is the hottest year on record for x amount of years. What they won't tell you is that it was driven by El Nino.

 

[JackOutback]

Does it? Really? And by the way, i take no interest in blogs. You must have me confused with someone else...

What is nuts, is the continual apocalyptic predictions we hear from climate models that attempt to predict 50-80 years into the future. When there are around 100 factors that drive climate change on this planet, the majority being natural and completely unpredictable, this is absurd!

The only reason it seems that the science might be converging on the early warnings is because it is mostly IPCC driven. They have too much politically and $$$ wise at stake that they can't afford to be wrong.

They often distort the truth or leave important things out. An example would be 2015. They will come out in the media telling everyone that it is the hottest year on record for x amount of years. What they won't tell you is that it was driven by El Nino.

Reports absolutely did mention El Nino. Of course 2018 was the fourth hottest year on record (behind 15, 16 and 17). And 17 of the 18 hottest years on record since 1850 were between 2000 and 2017. All El Nino?

 

[Emptyorangeseat]

So the science more and more converges with the early warnings, but you are clinging to random bloggers from over a decade ago.

This is nuts.

The only thing that is happening is the people the al gores etc get wealthy at the expense of all us, whist your loons keep buying the crap



Here is the latest line of hypocrisy proving Greta is nothing but a paid puppet from the snake oil climate salesman of the UN and co

self admitting, her self, parents and publicist that she is a scam

Greta Thunberg is decoy, Fossil Free groups funded by Big Oil billionaires - Herland Report

Herland Report: Greta Thunberg is decoy. The public child abuse in using Greta Thunberg to pu

www.hannenabintuherland.com

Grettas family have been believed to have been paid 700k and her special yacht that is made from a number of rear earth materials that is highly minded by children in Africa and highly toxic when melted down is owned by a Moroccan oil tycoon.

the more you go in to it the bigger a scam it becomes.
It’s nothing but a tax & a scam for the global elites to become rich and rich get richer whilst stealing from the working class

 

[Crankitup]

Reports absolutely did mention El Nino. Of course 2018 was the fourth hottest year on record (behind 15, 16 and 17). And 17 of the 18 hottest years on record since 1850 were between 2000 and 2017. All El Nino?

I believe that as much as I believe Mann's hockey stick and the curious algorithm he used to erase the medieval warm period.

Without even getting into other issues like downward adjustments of the past temperature record and the collapse of the Soviet Union, this is driven by a bias towards warm weather stations and a continuing increase in UHI in CBDs and urban sprawl. Lots of other little tricks help also, like averaging already rounded monthly figures (a statistical no no) to calculate the average for the year rather than using the actual daily maximums.




NASA/NOAA data tampering. Cooling the past and warming the present.

Further reading.

https://stream.org/climate-change-spin-hot-hottest-year-ever-inside-global-warming-pause/

 

[Crankitup]

He took $25000 a year from the Cato Institute. It’s a conflict of interest no matter how you spin it.

Reflecting on this comment again it's laughable really. Do you have any idea the amount of money that characters such as Al Gore and James Hansen have made through all this climate catastrophism? Any piddling amount Lindzen got from CATO (a public policy research organization) is infinitesimally minuscule in comparison.

Funny how I never see you mentioning their gigantic conflicts of interest.

 

[Arkangel]

View attachment 767405

This piqued my interest, so I went and took a look at the (freely available from the NCDC) data for the Orland CA station and those surrounding it. They don't match up with this image at all.

 

[Crankitup]

This piqued my interest, so I went and took a look at the (freely available from the NCDC) data for the Orland CA station and those surrounding it. They don't match up with this image at all.

Because it's been adjusted. The raw data doesn't suit the polemic.

How Homogenizing Urbanized Warming Has Obliterated Natural Oscillations

It soon became obvious that the homogenization process was unwittingly blending rising minimum temperatures caused by population growth with temperatures from more natural landscapes. Climate scientists cloistered in their offices have no way of knowing to what degree urbanization or other landscape factors have distorted each weather station’s data. So they developed an armchair statistical method that blended trends amongst several neighboring stations,17 using what I term the “blind majority rules” method. The most commonly shared trend among neighboring stations became the computer’s reference, and temperatures from “deviant stations” were adjusted to create a chimeric climate smoothie. Wherever there was a growth in population, this unintentionally allows urbanization warming effects to alter the adjusted trend.
Climate computers had been programmed to seek unusual “change-points” as a sign of “undocumented” station modifications. Any natural change-points caused by cycles like the Pacific Decadal Oscillation looked like deviations relative to steadily rising trends of an increasingly populated region like Columbia, Maryland or Tahoe City. And the widespread adjustments to minimum temperatures reveal this erroneous process.
I first stumbled onto Anthony Watts’ surface station efforts when investigating climate factors that controlled the upslope migration of birds in the Sierra Nevada. To understand the population declines in high-elevation meadows on the Tahoe National Forest, I surveyed birds at several low-elevation breeding sites and examined the climate data from foothill weather stations.
Marysville, CA was one of those stations, but its warming trend sparked my curiosity because it was one of the few stations where the minimum was not adjusted markedly. I later found a picture of the Marysville’s weather station at SurfaceStations.org website. The Marysville weather station was Watts’ poster child for a bad site; he compared it to the less-disturbed surface conditions at a neighboring weather station in Orland, CA. The Marysville station was located on an asphalt parking lot just a few feet from air conditioning exhaust fans. The proximity to buildings also altered the winds, and added heat radiating from the walls. These urbanization effects at Marysville created a rising trend that CO2 advocate scientists expect. In contrast, the minimum temperatures at nearby Orland showed the cyclic behavior we would expect the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) to cause. Orland’s data was not overwhelmed by urbanization and thus more sensitive to cyclical temperature changes brought by the PDO. Yet it was Orland’s data that was markedly adjusted- not Marysville!

http://landscapesandcycles.net/why-unwarranted-temperature-adjustments-.html

 

[woota]

Because it's been adjusted. The raw data doesn't suit the polemic.



http://landscapesandcycles.net/why-unwarranted-temperature-adjustments-.html

Can you give me the TLDR version plz.

 

[Crankitup]

Can you give me the TLDR version plz.

Just look at the gif on this page. It will then be obvious.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/11/giss-raw-station-data-before-and-after/

This sort of stuff was first noticed more than 10 years ago.

https://climateaudit.org/2009/06/29/orland-ca-and-the-new-adjustments/

https://diggingintheclay.wordpress.com/2010/08/13/hide-the-decline-data-at-orland-is-chopped/

 

[Chief]

I believe that as much as I believe Mann's hockey stick and the curious algorithm he used to erase the medieval warm period.

Without even getting into other issues like downward adjustments of the past temperature record and the collapse of the Soviet Union, this is driven by a bias towards warm weather stations and a continuing increase in UHI in CBDs and urban sprawl. Lots of other little tricks help also, like averaging already rounded monthly figures (a statistical no no) to calculate the average for the year rather than using the actual daily maximums.

View attachment 768383

View attachment 768384
NASA/NOAA data tampering. Cooling the past and warming the present.

Further reading.

https://stream.org/climate-change-spin-hot-hottest-year-ever-inside-global-warming-pause/

Do you think maybe data availability, collection and analysis might have changed over the last 20 years?

Why would the 2000 graph necessarily be more accurate than today’s?

 

[bfff]

Reflecting on this comment again it's laughable really. Do you have any idea the amount of money that characters such as Al Gore and James Hansen have made through all this climate catastrophism? Any piddling amount Lindzen got from CATO (a public policy research organization) is infinitesimally minuscule in comparison.

Funny how I never see you mentioning their gigantic conflicts of interest.

I haven’t posted any links to Gore or Hansen so why would I mention them? How has their scientific work been compromised? Well Gore doesn’t do any and Hansen has won prizes post-publication.

Just to be clear this is the CATO institute funded by the Koch brothers, oil billionaires.

 

[Crankitup]

I haven’t posted any links to Gore or Hansen so why would I mention them? How has their scientific work been compromised? Well Gore doesn’t do any and Hansen has won prizes post-publication.

You haven't quoted or used anything from NASA which relied on Hansen's research or commentary? I beg to differ.

Just to be clear this is the CATO institute funded by the Koch brothers, oil billionaires.

Wrong.

Founded in 1974 by Ed Crane a political activist, Murray Rothbard an economist and ONE of the Koch brothers.

 

[Tyler Durden007]

Lol. Ch irf is in on it. His cash is in George Soro's funds.

 

[bfff]

You haven't quoted or used anything from NASA which relied on Hansen's research or commentary? I beg to differ.



Wrong.

Founded in 1974 by Ed Crane a political activist, Murray Rothbard an economist and ONE of the Koch brothers.

Did I? Okay i’ll bite. How is Hansen compromised?

Funded I said funded.

 

[HairyO]

So the science more and more converges with the early warnings, but you are clinging to random bloggers from over a decade ago.

This is nuts.

None of the projections of CO2 levels and temperature changes come close.

We are tracking at the long term average of worst case CO2 level increases and seeing the low to moderate increases in temperature.

Just because things move in generally the same direction doesnt mean they are right. When you compare prediction to actual the overwhelming majority are very wrong. And have been wrong since day 1.

 

[Crankitup]

Did I? Okay i’ll bite. How is Hansen compromised?

In the beginning you talked of conflict of interest and how $25,000 from CATO was a conflict of interest for Lindzen. So now that we're looking at money flowing to warmists, let's use the same language rather than changing the goalposts. Fair?

Funded I said funded.

My mistake. I thought you said founded. My eyesight is not what it used to be.

 

[JackOutback]

Just to be clear this is the CATO institute funded by the Koch brothers, oil billionaires.

Didn't you know, billionaires funding groups is only an issue when it's George Soros. The Koch brothers are paragons of scientific virtue.