A simple explanation for you! A lot of young Climate scientists who don't dear to speak out against global warming, because they afraid they will not get anymore governments funding that mean no more research funding or don't get any promotion to further their career . Global wArming industry is close to a trillion industry worldwide!
October Smashes Temperature Records Practically Guaranteeing 2015 Will Be HottestYear
- Thread starter twizz
- Start date
Nonsense. Your problem is that are you a nutjob and that you are functionally illiterate. You're confusing two different things.
I stand by what I said. There wasn't a single month in NASA's records in 2015 that was a record breaking month, prior to the adjustment.
January 2015 - 75
January 2007 - 93
February 2015 - 82
February 1998 - 87
March 2015 - 84
March 2002 - 89 (and March 2010 - 87)
April 2015 - 71
April 2010 - 82
May 2015 - 71
May 2014 - 79
That doesn't mean the overall trend for the year won't be somewhat higher in this strong El Nino year. It will be. But these claims that each individual month is a "record breaking" month only came after the adjustment.
Last edited:
An even simpler explanation -- based on the news story, it appears only 32 per cent of respondents expressed a clear belief in anthropogenic climate change (the claim that man-made emissions have been the dominant cause of warming since the mid-20th century).
Judging from the story, it looks like the majority believe it is either a mix of human and natural causes (54 per cent) or that natural causes were the dominant factor (nine per cent).
The issue isn't whether or not people believe the climate is changing. The issue is whether or not people believe that man-made emissions are the dominant cause.
Frankfooter's poll suggests a clear majority may not believe that (more specific details would be needed on how the 54 per cent who believe in a mix actually broke it down).
Reading the two quotes above, is there anyone who doesn't think Frankfooter is insane.
For at least the last 15 years, the United Nations' International Panel on Climate Change has clearly defined anthropogenic global warming (or anthropogenic climate change, if you like) as the belief that man-made greenhouse gases have been the dominant cause of warming since 1950.
If a certain share of the 54 per cent don't believe that man-made emissions have been the dominant cause of warming, then they are not believers in anthropogenic climate change.
Alternately, if your count includes people who think natural factors might be the dominant cause, then you run into the problem that Ross McKitrick once described in an article in the National Post -- that your definition of anthropogenic climate change has become "vague to the point of meaninglessness."
http://business.financialpost.com/f...sts-support-climate-alarm-cannot-be-supported
Of course, we should also note that most of the research that confirmed that the IPCC's predictions have been consistently and spectacularly wrong came out after that poll was done.
A simple explanation, but a stupid explanation.
There are thousands of climatologists from over 100 countries whose work is represented by the IPCC, each funded by their own country.
How the hell could such a conspiracy manage to get 100 countries on board to fund only faked studies?
Its a wacko, nutso conspiracy theory that makes the 9/11 thruthers look sane.
Maybe N. America might have higher average temperatures but remember the "arctic or polar vortex " of the past two winters which put a serious chill on Eastern N. America with Toronto seeing -26C without the windows chill and Lake Ontario freezing well past the Toronto Islands in spite of El Nino.
You really should start looking at other sites then wattsupwiththat, it just leads you to post really embarrassing claims.
March 2015 was reported as the warmest March on record at the time, pre-'adjustment' in this continuing thread in which you embarrass yourself daily.
https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...ing-Point%92&p=5248547&viewfull=1#post5248547
Do a bit of research, the polar vortex isn't really suspected for the cause of the local cold winter we experienced while the rest of the globe witnessed record warmth.
Its more likely to be a slowdown of the AMOC.
Its not insane to ask you to prove any of your claims, since 97% of what you write is bullshit.
I asked, but then you refused to supply anything legit, so I went and did your research for you.
And after I did your research for you I found that once again your claims are ridiculous.
Typical.
And for bonus, here's a chart of projections vs reality, which you still claim are 'spectacularly wrong'.
http://www.petitionproject.org/
Since 1998, more than 31,000 American scientists from diverse climate-related disciplines, including more than 9,000 with Ph.D.s, have signed a public petition announcing their belief that “…there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.” Included are atmospheric physicists, botanists, geologists, oceanographers, and meteorologists
Browse: Home / 2015 / November / 20 / “Massively Altered” …German Professor Examines NASA GISS Temperature Datasets
“Massively Altered” …German Professor Examines NASA GISS Temperature Datasets
By P Gosselin on 20. November 2015
UPDATE 2: Tremendous interest in Ewert’s findings: shared or liked 2400 times up to now. I’ve decided to take the day off from blogging and let this one run another day.
UPDATE 1: Also read here.
Veteran journalist Günter Ederer* writes a piece reporting that massive alterations have been found in the NASA GISS temperature data series, citing a comprehensive analysis conducted by a leading German scientist. These results are now available to the public.
Ewert
Professor Dr. Friedrich Karl Ewert. Source: University of Paderborn
Ederer reports not long ago retired geologist and data computation expert Professor Dr. Friedrich Karl Ewert began looking at the data behind the global warming claims, and especially the datasets of NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS).
Ewert painstakingly examined and tabulated the reams of archived data from 1153 stations that go back to 1881 – which NASA has publicly available – data that the UN IPCC uses to base its conclusion that man is heating the Earth’s atmosphere through the burning of fossil fuels. According to Ederer, what Professor Ewert found is “unbelievable”:
From the publicly available data, Ewert made an unbelievable discovery: Between the years 2010 and 2012 the data measured since 1881 were altered so that they showed a significant warming, especially after 1950. […] A comparison of the data from 2010 with the data of 2012 shows that NASA-GISS had altered its own datasets so that especially after WWII a clear warming appears – although it never existed.”
Ederer writes that Ewert particularly found alterations at stations in the Arctic. Professor Ewert randomly selected 120 stations from all over the world and compared the 2010 archived data to the 2012 data and found that they had been tampered to produce warming.
The old data showed regular cycles of warming and cooling over the period, even as atmospheric CO2 concentration rose from 0.03% to 0.04%. According to the original NASA datasets, Ederer writes, the mean global temperature cooled from 13.8°C in 1881 to 12.9°C in 1895. Then it rose to 14.3°C by 1905 and fell back under 12.9°C by 1920, rose to 13.9°C by 1930, fell to 13° by 1975 before rising to 14°C by 2000. By 2010 the temperature fell back to 13.2°C.
But then came the “massive” altering of data, which also altered the entire overall trend for the period. According to journalist Ederer, Ewert uncovered 10 different methods NASA used to alter the data. The 6 most often used methods were:
• Reducing the annual mean in the early phase.
• Reducing the high values in the first warming phase.
• Increasing individual values during the second warming phase.
• Suppression of the second cooling phase starting in 1995.
• Shortening the early decades of the datasets.
• With the long-term datasets, even the first century was shortened.
The methods were employed for stations such as Darwin, Australia and Palma de Mallorca, for example, where cooling trends were suddenly transformed into warming.
Ewert then discovered that NASA having altered the datasets once in March 2012 was not enough. Alterations were made again in August 2012, and yet again in December 2012. For Palma de Majorca: “Now because of the new datasets it has gotten even warmer. Now they show a warming of +0.01202°C per year.”
Using earlier NASA data, globe is in fact cooling
The veteran German journalist Ederer writes that the media reports of ongoing global warming are in fact not based on reality at all, but rather on “the constantly altered temperatures of the earlier decades.” Ederer adds:
Thus the issue of man-made global warming has taken on a whole new meaning: Yes, it is always man-made if the data are adjusted to fit the theory. The meticulous work by Ewert has predecessors, and fits a series of scandals and contradictions that are simply being ignored by the political supporters of man-made climate change.”
Ederer also brings up the analysis by American meteorologists Joseph D’Aleo and Anthony Watts who examined 6000 NASA measurement stations and found an abundance of measurement irregularities stemming in large part from serious siting issues. According to Ederer the findings by Professor Ewert are in close agreement with those of Watts and D’Aleo.
Ederer writes of the overall findings by Professor Ewert:
Using the NASA data from 2010 the surface temperature globally from 1940 until today has fallen by 1.110°C, and since 2000 it has fallen 0.4223°C […]. The cooling has hit every continent except for Australia, which warmed by 0.6339°C since 2000. The figures for Europe: From 1940 to 2010, using the data from 2010, there was a cooling of 0.5465°C and a cooling of 0.3739°C since 2000.”
Ederer summarizes that in view of the magnitude of the scandal, one would think that there would be in investigation. Yet he does not believe this will be the case because the global warming has turned into a trillion-dollar industry and that that too much is tied to it.
All datasets are available to the public at any time. The studies by Prof. Ewert may be requested by e-mail: ewert.fk@t-online.de.
*Günter Ederer is a former journalist for ARD and ZDF German Television and has won numerous awards.
- See more at: http://notrickszone.com/2015/11/20/...ively-altered/comment-page-1/#comment-1057097
Right, so your defence that you're not a conspiracy wingnut is to link to a comment on some denier blog post.
That about sums up your lack of self awareness.
thanks.
You are a total F'N nutjob.
You claimed that only "conspiracy types" think that NASA changed its data after the NOAA adjusted its sea-surface data. Then, you subsequently produced a link that confirmed that NASA did change its data.
So it wasn't a "conspiracy" claim after all. The actual reality is that you're insane.
LMFAO!
He provides a link, and when you open it, you discover the only source for his claim is ... himself. The same guy that believes the "pre-industrial age" refers to 25 years ago. There's no actual data from NASA -- or from any source -- in the link he provided.
In its pre-adjusted data, NASA put the anomaly for March 2015 at 84, and reported in April that the anomaly for March 2002 was 88 (subsequently adjusted to 89) and for March 2010 was 87.
http://www.reportingclimatescience..../nasa-march-2015-was-third-warmest-march.html
Even David Appell and Greg Laden -- two of the biggest AGW enthusiasts on the planet -- reported that NASA said March 2015 was the third warmest March on record:
http://davidappell.blogspot.ca/2015/04/nasa-giss-march-was-5th-warmest-month.html
http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2015/04/14/march-2015-was-a-very-warm-month/
Frankfooter, are you seriously telling us that you think 84 is a bigger number than 88 and 87?
You claim they did it to fudge the numbers, that's the conspiracy part of the claim.
Or are you backing down on this claim that there were no record temperatures in 2015 until they 'adjusted' the numbers?
This is all your wingnut business, I'm just trying to clarify how kooky todays claims are.
Do you think that NASA adjusted their numbers honestly, as an upgrade in their methodology, or for some devious, conspiracy theory plan to hoodwink us all?
The links are all through that thread in my posts.
What is accurate is that I stated that March was reported as a record warm month at the time, through NOAA, while you claim that there were no record months until after NASA adjusted their weighting.
You're just upset that NASA's numbers are now agreeing with NOAA's and the MET's numbers more, with better reporting, and that means you're going to lose the bet.
From David Appell's blog:
http://davidappell.blogspot.ca/2015/04/noaa-goaa-upaa.html
So what's your beef with the change of numbers, that they now agree with NOAA and the MET?
Is that your conspiracy claim?
Not at all. NASA's numbers -- the source that I cited -- show there wasn't a single month in 2015 that was a record breaker, prior to the adjustment.
(This includes a correction to the final calendar reference in my previous post):
January 2015 - 75
January 2007 - 93
February 2015 - 82
February 1998 - 87
March 2015 - 84
March 2002 - 89 (and March 2010 - 87)
April 2015 - 71
April 2010 - 82
May 2015 - 71
May 2014 - 79
http://www.reportingclimatescience....nasa-may-2015-ties-as-second-warmest-may.html
So what is your problem with the numbers, are you claiming that there is something dishonest in the changes?
Gotcha!
I have been very clear -- since my first post on this matter on Nov. 19 -- that we were talking about NASA's numbers.
https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...e-Hottest-Ye&p=5403032&viewfull=1#post5403032
Frankfooter's own sources confirm what I said: Prior to the adjustments, NASA hadn't reported a single month in 2015 that was a record breaker for the month.
That is a confirmed fact.
