cobran20

Debunking The Man-Made Global Warming Myth Consensus

406 posts in this topic

On 04/10/2018 at 8:15 AM, cobran20 said:

If throughout the year I keep noticing more records being set to the upside in both hemispheres, then yes. If the opposite then I'd find it difficult to believe that there is a warming trend when new records are being set to the downside. There is too many vested interests involved in global warming to blindly accept what is being published. You can Google articles from skeptics claiming the data is questionable. But I'm no scientist to be able to independently assess who is correct. But where there is big money, there often tends to be corruption.

If Socrates' predictions materialise, then I'd struggle how both can be correct. Socrates' predictions are very easy to independently verify.

So we’re going to rely on the records that you personally notice? The people with thermometers that produce the data have been got to and cannot be trusted? In that case we can never know whether it is warming or cooling. Or whether we should carry a brolley for that matter? No prediction can be verified. Any article published about weather can be questioned. The met bureau should be shut down and this thread along with it?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, staringclown said:

So we’re going to rely on the records that you personally notice? The people with thermometers that produce the data have been got to and cannot be trusted? In that case we can never know whether it is warming or cooling. Or whether we should carry a brolley for that matter? No prediction can be verified. Any article published about weather can be questioned. The met bureau should be shut down and this thread along with it?

If Socrates' predictions materialise, then I'd struggle to see how both can be correct. Socrates' predictions are very easy to independently verify.

Edited by cobran20

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your thoughts on the whole global weather network being corrupted Anders?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, staringclown said:

Your thoughts on the whole global weather network being corrupted Anders?

They keep changing the way temperatures are "measured". There are adjustments for changes in the microclimate around measuring stations that have been around for a long time while urbanisation has encroached around them. There are also adjustments for stations that have been moved, or when new measuring points are added. This makes it very, very difficult to work out what the "accurate" historical trends are. This may not necessarily be due to any bad intentions by those that produce the "harmonised" temperature data sets, but coming up with a consistent temperature index is a difficult problem.

Here is a very recent article about these challenges:

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/2018JD028355

Abstract

Several groups routinely produce gridded land surface air temperature (LSAT) data sets using station measurements to assess the status and impact of climate change. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fifth Assessment Report suggests that estimated global and hemispheric mean LSAT trends of different data sets are consistent. However, less attention has been paid to the intercomparison at local/regional scales, which is important for local/regional studies. In this study we comprehensively compare four data sets at different spatial and temporal scales, including Berkley Earth Surface Temperature land surface air temperature data set (BEST‐LAND), Climate Research Unit Temperature Data Set version 4 (CRU‐TEM4v), National Aeronautics and Space Administration Goddard Institute for Space Studies data (NASA‐GISS), and data provided by National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Center for Environmental Information (NOAA‐NCEI). The mean LSAT anomalies are remarkably different because of the data coverage differences, with the magnitude nearly 0.4°C for the global and Northern Hemisphere and 0.6°C for the Southern Hemisphere. This study additionally finds that on the regional scale, northern high latitudes, southern middle‐to‐high latitudes, and the equator show the largest differences nearly 0.8°C. These differences cause notable differences for the trend calculation at regional scales. At the local scale, four data sets show significant variations over South America, Africa, Maritime Continent, central Australia, and Antarctica, which leads to remarkable differences in the local trend analysis. For some areas, different data sets produce conflicting results of whether warming exists. Our analysis shows that the differences across scales are associated with the availability of stations and the use of infilling techniques. Our results suggest that conventional LSAT data sets using only station observations have large uncertainties across scales, especially over station‐sparse areas. In developing future LSAT data sets, the data uncertainty caused by limited and unevenly distributed station observations must be reduced.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is an article about Australian temperature records:

http://www.sciencedomain.org/abstract/8854

Physical Science International Journal 6(4): 245-252, 2015, Article no.PSIJ.2015.051 ISSN: 2348-0130

Quote

The Acorn Adjustments of Australian Temperatures are in the Wrong Direction

A. Parker1*

1School of Engineering and Physical Science, James Cook University, Townsville 4811 QLD, Australia.

ABSTRACT

We previously discussed as the warming of Australia evidenced by the Australian Climate Observations Reference Network (ACORN) data set is artificially created by the arbitrary correction of the truly measured temperatures making cooler the temperatures of the past [1-4]. Gillham [5] has freshly brought to the attention of the scientific community two old data sets that further support our claim, proving once more how the ACORN corrections are wrongly set up to magnify the warming trend where actually they should rather cancel the urban heat island effect reducing the trend.

INTRODUCTION

...

Conversely, the effects of global warming are evaluated by the Australian Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) with a continuously evolving procedure based on a constantly evolving data set, where arbitrary changes of the temperatures collected in the past is the norm rather than the exception. This practice of arbitrarily cooling down the past to magnify the warming has been the subject of our past works [1-4].

In [1] we analysed the temperature records for the Northern Territory of Australia to show that both Alice Spring and Darwin had no warming since the end of the 1800s, and much smaller warmings since 1910, than the adjusted trend proposed by the BOM for the purpose of assessing the effects of global warming.

The work [1] was the subject of a comment by BOM that was not processed following the usual peer review practice, as reported in [2]. The author of an original paper is usually informed of a submitted comment. This author is also customarily asked to submit a reply. Both the comment and the reply then normally undergo the peer review to get published together. In this case, the comment was published first, and then the right of reply was waived to the authors’ group by asking a BOM relative to review the reply. The reply was obviously rejected there but published elsewhere inclusive of the imperfect peer review details [2].

In [3] we analysed the temperature records for the state of Victoria, Australia to show that apart from the Urban Heat Island formation about the Melbourne thermometer, there was not too much of warming also in regional Victoria, with temperatures similarly flat since the end of the 1800s and warming much less since 1910 than the adjusted trend proposed by the BOM for the purpose of assessing the effects of global warming.

In [4] we finally proved by comparing the BOM raw and adjusted data that the most part of the warming for Australia is the result of the arbitrary correction of the temperature collected in the past that are cooled down for no plausible reason.

...

Edited by AndersB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, AndersB said:

Here is an article about Australian temperature records:

http://www.sciencedomain.org/abstract/8854

Physical Science International Journal 6(4): 245-252, 2015, Article no.PSIJ.2015.051 ISSN: 2348-0130

Hot off the press...

Claims of 70 problems found with key temperature dataset used by climate models

Quote

An audit of the key temperature dataset used by climate models claims to have identified more than 70 problems which the Australian author said made it “unfit for global studies”.

Problems include zero degree temperatures in the Caribbean, 82 degree C temperatures in Colombia and ship based recordings taken 100km inland.

“The primary conclusion of the audit is the dataset shows exaggerated warming and that global averages are far less certain than have been claimed,” the audit paper says.

READ NEXT
“One implication of the audit is that climate models have been tuned to match incorrect data, which would render incorrect their predictions of future temperatures and estimates of the human influence of temperatures.

“Another implication is that the proposal that the Paris Climate Agreement adopt 1850-1899 averages as ‘indicative’ of pre-industrial temperatures is fatally flawed.”

The new paper argues even the most simple quality checks had not been done on the HadCRUT4 data which is managed by the UK Met Office Hadley Centre and the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia.

The Met Office says the data is based on an archive of monthly mean temperatures provided by more than 5500 weather stations distributed around the world.

It said estimates were made of the uncertainties arising from thermometer accuracy, homogenisation, sampling grid boxes with a finite number of measurements available, large-scale biases such as urbanisation and estimation of regional averages with non-complete global measurement coverage.

The audit is an extension of the PhD thesis by Dr John McLean awarded by James Cook University.

Dr McLean has previously identified anomalies in the data set which were acknowledged by the Met Office and corrected.

Dr McLean said he had not sent a copy of the audit to the Met Office.

The new paper will be controversial because it has been released on the eve of the IPCC report on the aspirations target of limiting future warming to 1.5C below the start of the industrial revolution.

The audit has been effectively self published with blogger Jo Nova at newly formed publishing house, Robert Boyle Publishing.

The publisher says “We do not regard it as our job to be “gatekeepers” of thought. We leave it to the wider community to make any decision about the merit of the materials we publish.”

Anomalies identified in the McLean paper include at St Kitts in the Caribbean, the average temperature for December 1981 was zero degrees, normally it’s 26C.

For three months in 1978 one place in Colombia reported an 82 degrees Celsius average – hotter than the hottest day on Earth.

In Romania one September the average temperature was reported as minus 46°C.

Sometimes ships would report ocean temperatures from places up to 100km inland.

Mclean says one of the most serious flaws identified was the shortage of data.

For the first two years, from 1850 onwards, the only land-based reporting station in the Southern Hemisphere was in Indonesia.

Dr McLean said there were some ship observations at the time but Australian records had not started until 1855 in Melbourne, behind Auckland which started in 1853.

According to the HadCRUT4 calculation of coverage it was almost 1950 before there was data from even half of the Southern Hemisphere.

Dr McLean points out how influential this data is: “The draft agenda for this year’s UN COP24 proposes that the HadCRUT4 average from 1850 to 1899 be used as an ‘indicative’ temperature.

“This is just nonsense; the average global coverage of the dataset from 1850 to 1899 was just 30 per cent. In May 1861, the global coverage was just 12 per cent”, he said.

He said the timing of the release of the audit at he same time as the IPCC report into 1.5C warming had been “partly coincidence”.

 

Edited by cobran20

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also hot off the press...

GLOBAL WARMING FOR THE TWO CULTURES

Quote

Richard S. Lindzen was Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute
of Technology until his retirement in 2013. He is the author of over 200 papers on
meteorology and climatology and is a member of the US National Academy of Sciences and
of the Academic Advisory Council of GWPF.  ... and blasphemes! :P

....Moreover, the small change in global mean temperature (actually the change in temperature
increase) is much smaller than what the computer models used by the IPCC have
predicted. Even if all this change were due to man, it would be most consistent with low sen9
sitivity to added carbon dioxide, and the IPCC only claims that most (not all) of the warming
over the past 60 years is due to man’s activities. Thus, the issue of man-made climate change
does not appear to be a serious problem. However, this hardly stops ignorant politicians
from declaring that the IPCC’s claim of attribution is tantamount to unambiguous proof of
coming disaster...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/7/2018 at 10:56 PM, AndersB said:

They keep changing the way temperatures are "measured". There are adjustments for changes in the microclimate around measuring stations that have been around for a long time while urbanisation has encroached around them. There are also adjustments for stations that have been moved, or when new measuring points are added. This makes it very, very difficult to work out what the "accurate" historical trends are. This may not necessarily be due to any bad intentions by those that produce the "harmonised" temperature data sets, but coming up with a consistent temperature index is a difficult problem.

Here is a very recent article about these challenges:

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/2018JD028355

 

 

Only the abstract is available so no way of judging any conclusions or methods Anders. Even so the authors check out as credible. I'm not sure where you get the urban heat island effect from for this paper. The authors make no mention of it. Only that sparse geographical temperature stations in certain areas produce uncertainty which they advocate can be (and should be) corrected. No reading of the abstract disputes global warming. 

Edited by staringclown
Because i'm a cunt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/7/2018 at 11:07 PM, AndersB said:

Here is an article about Australian temperature records:

http://www.sciencedomain.org/abstract/8854

Physical Science International Journal 6(4): 245-252, 2015, Article no.PSIJ.2015.051 ISSN: 2348-0130

This article on the other hand is bollocks. The author targets low rent 'journals' that I personally could publish my opinions dressed up as research. Anonymous reviewers do not inspire confidence.

The author has variously been known as Alberto Boretti but now publishes as A Barker. He is not a climate scientist, rather a mechanical engineer for Fiat. I can only assume he has found a more lucrative use for his doctoral thesis than manufacturing engines. His papers (and he is prolific) have been described as unintelligible. 

http://theconversation.com/no-the-bureau-of-meteorology-is-not-fiddling-its-weather-data-31009

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/8/2018 at 8:19 PM, cobran20 said:

Seeing we're getting into predictions lately let's take a look at John McLeans past work. 

2011 he predicted that the La Nina would drop the temperature by 0.8 degrees globally...

I could slip quietly away to if my own 'predictions' don't materialise. And if I do then you would be correct in discounting any credibility that I might have clung to. McLean has removed his previous blog and is therefore discredited. It is no coincidence that he comes out with his latest bullsh*t on the same day as the IPCC report. It is by design. It makes him no more credible than his previous efforts however at least it provides the denialists with a talking point.

BTW farmers in this country at least have come out against the fossil fuel industry this week. But what would they know? The Wentworth by-election should it prove to be a referendum on climate change may prove interesting. A 17% margin reduced to marginal. Maybe it is Mals personal magnetism. Maybe disgust with the liberals in general. But the majority in Wentworth want something done about climate change and Morrison is regressive at best.

 

 

McLean2011Failure.png

 

Edited by staringclown
rantiness

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, staringclown said:

Seeing we're getting into predictions lately let's take a look at John McLeans past work. 

2011 he predicted that the La Nina would drop the temperature by 0.8 degrees globally...

I could slip quietly away to if my own 'predictions' don't materialise. And if I do then you would be correct in discounting any credibility that I might have clung to. McLean has removed his previous blog and is therefore discredited. It is no coincidence that he comes out with his latest bullsh*t on the same day as the IPCC report. It is by design. It makes him no more credible than his previous efforts however at least it provides the denialists with a talking point.

BTW farmers in this country at least have come out against the fossil fuel industry this week. But what would they know? The Wentworth by-election should it prove to be a referendum on climate change may prove interesting. A 17% margin reduced to marginal. Maybe it is Mals personal magnetism. Maybe disgust with the liberals in general. But the majority in Wentworth want something done about climate change and Morrison is regressive at best.

 

 

McLean2011Failure.png

 

Of course the farmers are turning pro climate change, especially the young ones. They have been brain washed over the years, most probably without bothering to check the results of the predictions made by the climate change gurus over the last 30 years. How many of them would be aware of the effects solar cycles compared to what is fed to them via the media?

But like markets, the majority must be wrong until it hits them in the face. Sheeple psychology at its finest!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, staringclown said:

or they're right

a possibility, but I'm betting against it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, tor said:

Does the current typhoon / hurricane season count as a rebuttal to your examples?

How? They occur every year. Nothing unusual for a tropical area. Same as the Top End in Oz.

But I'm struggling to understand how the record cold events that keep propping up in both hemispheres is consistent with a planet that keeps warming.

But still early days. I'm waiting to see what records will be set during the coming summer/winter around the planet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/12/2018 at 11:26 AM, cobran20 said:

How? They occur every year. Nothing unusual for a tropical area. Same as the Top End in Oz.

But I'm struggling to understand how the record cold events that keep propping up in both hemispheres is consistent with a planet that keeps warming.

But still early days. I'm waiting to see what records will be set during the coming summer/winter around the planet.

I was thinking biggest hurricane to hit florida ever and biggest typhoon to hit japan followed by the next biggest (although memory is vague on them maybe they were just the two biggest to hit in a single year or something). Hurricanes/Typhoons are made biggerer by hot water. Just wondered if you had an explanation why they don't count yet.

Hot water is scarier to me than cold air due to the energy differentials required. But I am an engineer not a climate scientist so that is irrelevant really..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, tor said:

I was thinking biggest hurricane to hit florida ever and biggest typhoon to hit japan followed by the next biggest (although memory is vague on them maybe they were just the two biggest to hit in a single year or something). Hurricanes/Typhoons are made biggerer by hot water. Just wondered if you had an explanation why they don't count yet.

Hot water is scarier to me than cold air due to the energy differentials required. But I am an engineer not a climate scientist so that is irrelevant really..

Presumably that is just 'weather' rather than 'climate'. After all, why in a climate that is just increasingly warming, are we getting 'weather' than is recording low temperature going back decades in many cases ... and in both hemispheres. But then I'm not a scientist either! But I do know which group has an abysmal forecasting record going back 30 years and which tend to be on the money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now