Global Climate Change Science News

[mistermack]

You remind me of someone in another forum. He described himself as a Christian of some sort and tried to convince everybody that Jesus was an atheist. Much mirth ensued.

You remind me of the people who used to laugh when Alf Garnet said "bloody coons", too thick to realise that THEY were the ones being ridiculed.

[cronus]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34031785

Met Office loses BBC weather forecasting contract

The Met Office has lost its BBC weather forecasting contract, it has confirmed.

The UK's weather service has provided the data used for BBC forecasts since the corporation's first radio weather bulletin on 14 November 1922.
The BBC said it was legally required to secure the best value for money for licence fee payers and would tender the contract to outside competition.
The Met Office said it was disappointed by the decision. A replacement is expected to take over next year.

(continued, wasn't very reliable to start with, now with tea-leaves in teacups replacing supercomputers...? think of the savings? apparently the Australians are bidding...might improve the weather?)

[mistermack]

I quite agree.

Why should my TV license subsidise the Met office? My taxes should be doing that.

And how many fucking weather people does one channel need? It seems to be currently somewhere between fifty and a hundred, going by the faces.

It's about time someone put the spending brakes on at the BBC.

[Seth]

Deceptive temperature record claims

Warmest month announcements have no scientific basis
Climate Change Scam Illustration by Greg Groesch/The Washington Times
Climate Change Scam Illustration by Greg Groesch/The Washington Times more >
By Tom Harris - - Sunday, August 23, 2015

The U.S. government is at it again, hyping meaningless records in a parameter that does not exist in order to frighten us about something that doesn’t matter.

NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) announced this week that according to their calculations, July 2015 was the hottest month since instrumental records began in 1880. NOAA says that the record was set by eight one-hundredths of a degree Celsius over that set in July 1998. NASA calculates that July 2015 beat what they assert was the previous warmest month (July 2011) by two one-hundredths of a degree.

But government spokespeople rarely mention the inconvenient fact that these records are being set by less than the uncertainty in the statistics. NOAA claims an uncertainty of 14 one-hundredths of a degree in its temperature averages, or near twice the amount by which they say the record was set. NASA says that their data is typically accurate to one tenth of a degree, five times the amount by which their new record was set.

So, the new temperature records are meaningless. Neither agency knows whether a record was set.

Such misrepresentations are now commonplace in NOAA and NASA announcements. They are regularly proclaiming monthly and yearly records set by less than the uncertainties in the measurements. Scientists within the agencies know that this is dishonest.

They also know that calculating so-called global average temperatures to hundredths of a degree is irrational. After all, there is very little data for the 70 percent of Earth’s surface that is ocean. There is also little data for mountainous and desert regions, not to mention the Antarctic. Much of the coverage is so sparse that NASA is forced to make the ridiculous claim that regions are adequately covered if there is a temperature-sensing station within nearly 750 miles. This is the distance between Ottawa, Canada, and Myrtle Beach, S.C. cities with very different climates. Yet, according to NASA, only one temperature sensing station is necessary for the two cities and the vast area between them to be adequately represented in their network.

In the final analysis, it is no more meaningful to calculate an average temperature for a whole planet than it is to calculate the average telephone number in the Washington D.C. phone book. Temperature, like viscosity and density, and of course phone numbers, is not something that can be meaningfully averaged. “Global temperature” does not exist.

In their award winning book, “Taken By Storm” (2007), Canadian researchers Christopher Essex and Ross McKitrick explain: “Temperature is not an amount of something [like height or weight]. It is a number that represents the condition of a physical system. In thermodynamics it is known as an intensive quantity, in contrast to quantities like energy, which have an additive property, which we call extensive in thermodynamics.”

Even if enough accurate surface temperature measurements existed to ensure reasonable planetary coverage (it doesn’t) and to calculate some sort of global temperature statistic, interpreting its significance would be challenging. What averaging rule would you use to handle the data from thousands of temperature-sensing stations? Mean, mode, median, root mean square? Science does not tell us. For some groups of close temperature measures (and NASA and NOAA are dealing with thousands of very close temperatures), one method of calculating an average can lead to a determination of warming while another can lead to a conclusion of cooling.

Even if you could calculate some sort of meaningful global temperature statistic, the figure would be unimportant. No one and nothing would experience it directly since we all live in regions, not the globe. There is no super-sized being straddling the planet, feeling global averages in temperature. Global warming does not matter.

Future generations are bound to ask why America closed its coal-fueled generating stations, its cheapest, most plentiful source of electric power, and wasted billions of dollars trying to stop insignificant changes in imaginary phenomena.

The sad answer will be that it had nothing to do with the realities of science, technology or economics. The tragic blunder is based on satisfying political expedience for a privileged few, egged on by vested financial interests, and supported by largely uninformed activists granted the media platforms needed to sway public opinion. As Jay Lehr, science director of the Chicago-based Heartland Institute said, “It is a scam that dwarfs all others that have come before.”

• Tom Harris is executive director of the Ottawa, Canada-based International Climate Science Coalition.

[Tero]

So it must be colder! They must be hiding a .00001C decline!

[Seth]

So it must be colder! They must be hiding a .00001C decline!

I've been saying since the "hockey stick" graph emerged that climate data has been falsified on a routine basis and "climate scientists" (AKA IPCC bought-and-paid-for stooges like NOAA) have been deliberately and knowingly lying to the general public. This article again proves this charge just as the deceit in completely eliding all public reference to the margins of error for the "hockey stick" and every other climate model graph since the beginning proved it long ago. When the margin of error in a prediction outstrips the predicted change the prediction is utterly useless and is, particularly in this case, nothing but a deliberate fraud on the public.

People who produce these "results" and those who manipulate the original data to back up such false claims should be charged with fraud and put in jail. And that includes every single member of the IPCC.

[Ian]

Scumbag.

[Tero]

So it must be colder! They must be hiding a .00001C decline!

I've been saying since the "hockey stick" graph emerged that climate data has been falsified on a routine basis and "climate scientists" (AKA IPCC bought-and-paid-for stooges like NOAA) have been deliberately and knowingly lying to the general public. This article again proves this charge just as the deceit in completely eliding all public reference to the margins of error for the "hockey stick" and every other climate model graph since the beginning proved it long ago. When the margin of error in a prediction outstrips the predicted change the prediction is utterly useless and is, particularly in this case, nothing but a deliberate fraud on the public.

People who produce these "results" and those who manipulate the original data to back up such false claims should be charged with fraud and put in jail. And that includes every single member of the IPCC.

The hockey stick was not inaccurate. However, Mr Google will tell you what you want to hear. Google Hockey stick was wrong and that is what you will read. Google and Internet is not peer reviewed science.

[Animavore]

I can only imagine as to what wanton level of flagrant misrepresentation and deceit led to the most recent exchanges.

Meanwhile in the real world.

The combined average temperature over global land and ocean surfaces for July 2015 was the highest for July in the 136-year period of record, at 0.81°C (1.46°F) above the 20th century average of 15.8°C (60.4°F), surpassing the previous record set in 1998 by 0.08°C (0.14°F). As July is climatologically the warmest month of the year globally, this monthly global temperature of 16.61°C (61.86°F) was also the highest among all 1627 months in the record that began in January 1880.

The first seven months of 2015 comprised the warmest such period on record across the world's land and ocean surfaces, at 0.85°C (1.53°F) above the 20th century average, surpassing the previous record set in 2010 by 0.09°C (0.16°F).

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201507

[Animavore]

Speaking of graphs; here's a bunch even a child can understand. Suspiciously - denialists don't.

http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015- ... the-world/

[Animavore]

I think I may of vaguely, indirectly seen mention of suing people for fraud.

Exxon knew of climate change in 1981, email says – but it funded deniers for 27 more years

A newly unearthed missive from Lenny Bernstein, a climate expert with the oil firm for 30 years, shows concerns over high presence of carbon dioxide in enormous gas field in south-east Asia factored into decision not to tap it
[cont.]

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/ ... er-funding

Just like they sued the shit out of the tobacco industry before that.

[Seth]

Scumbag.

Yes, the IPCC is exactly a scumbag, and so are the rest of the liars involved in the Great AGW Conspiracy.

[Seth]

The hockey stick was not inaccurate.

Right, it was a completely false fabrication.

However, Mr Google will tell you what you want to hear. Google Hockey stick was wrong and that is what you will read. Google and Internet is not peer reviewed science.

Funny, because it was the information provided with that graph stating the margins of error that I base my comments on...you know, the ones showing that the margins of error subsumed all possible predicted changes within less than one year and which went +- more than 12 degrees C within five years, making the "prediction" entirely false.

[Ian]

Scumbag.

[Seth]

Speaking of graphs; here's a bunch even a child can understand. Suspiciously - denialists don't.

http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015- ... the-world/

GIGO. "Observed" is meaningless now because of blatant and deliberate manipulation of the historic temperature records to make the past appear cooler that it actually was in order to falsely show a greater rise in current temperatures.

There is no reason at all to believe Bloomberg, the IPCC, NOAA or any of the other Warmist liars because they've been caught time and again falsifying the data to make their hysterical predictions look more plausible.