Global Climate Change Science News

[mistermack]

A new study from NASA's Goddard Space Flight Centre has revealed that the Antarctic ice sheet is thickening enough to currently outweigh the losses of ice occurring due to global warming.

http://www.sciencealert.com/antarctica- ... tudy-finds

Sea ice in the Antarctic has been breaking records for a few years now. And now according to this, the land ice is also increasing in volume. Which doesn't really match the dire predictions of global melt-down.

It's true that the Arctic ice has thinned considerably and shrunk a bit. But still, nothing like what they were predicting at the height of the global warming scare.
Overall, the effect on the ice is about what you might expect, given a tiny bit of warming, which has been measured.

I'm a little dubious of the claim that the albedo of ice is keeping the Earth cool.
In the daytime, the reflectiveness certainly sends some heat back into space. But at night, the same ice holds heat IN. If the ice in the Arctic melts, there will be more heat absorbed during the day, but also, more heat lost, at night.
In any case, clouds will mitigate the effects, and complicate the whole matter still further.

[Seth]

I love how the Warmist zealots have simply shut the fuck up as the criminal manipulation of data records is repeatedly revealed to show that there is no global warming and that in fact the globe has been cooling since 1940.

The Warmist pricks are getting their heads handed to them so they are ducking for cover, and they are cowards so they cannot simply admit that they were wrong and have been duped by the very people they trusted.

German Professor: NASA Has Fiddled Climate Data On ‘Unbelievable’ Scale
climate data
CARL DE SOUZA/AFP/Getty Images

by James Delingpole24 Nov 20150
A German professor has confirmed what skeptics from Britain to the US have long suspected: that NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies has largely invented “global warming” by tampering with the raw temperature data records.

Professor Dr. Friedrich Karl Ewert is a retired geologist and data computation expert. He has painstakingly examined and tabulated all NASA GISS’s temperature data series, taken from 1153 stations and going back to 1881. His conclusion: that if you look at the raw data, as opposed to NASA’s revisions, you’ll find that since 1940 the planet has been cooling, not warming.

According to Günter Ederer, the German journalist who has reported on Ewert’s findings:

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.

Apart from Australia, the planet has in fact been on a cooling trend:

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.

But the activist scientists at NASA GISS – initially led by James Hansen (pictured above), later by Gavin Schmidt – wanted the records they are in charge of maintaining to show warming not cooling, so they began systematically adjusting the data for various spurious reasons using ten different methods.

The most commonly used ones 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.

Ewert’s findings echo that of US meteorologists Joseph D’Aleo and Anthony Watts who examined 6,000 NASA weather stations and found a host of irregularities both with the way they were sited and how the raw data had been adjusted to reflect such influences as the Urban Heat Island effect.

Britain’s Paul Homewood is also on NASA GISS’s case. Here he shows the shocking extent of the adjustments they have made to a temperature record in Brazil which has been altered so that a cooling trend becomes a warming trend.

station_thumb8



Unadjusted temperature record: shows cooling trend.

station_thumb9

[cronus]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-34920941

COP21: Why do two degrees matter?

Global average temperatures in 2015 are likely to be the warmest on record, according to the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO).
A combination of a strong El Nino and human-induced global warming made the five-year period from 2011 to 2015 the warmest on record, researchers say.
The new findings are likely to feature prominently at the UN Climate Change Convention in Paris, when global political leaders and negotiators will aim to secure a new global deal that would limit emissions of carbon dioxide.
Climate negotiators agreed in Cancun in 2010 to commit their governments to "hold the increase in global average temperatures below 2C above pre-industrial levels".

(continued)

[Tero]

Retired geologist/ weatherman/ Tim Ball reveals climate change conspiracy!

Sounds like I heard that before. Every year several times.

[cronus]

[Tero]

Seth, your source is Breitbart. It's like Fox news. Did you know those were not actual news? They are just propaganda produced to people who want to believe fox propaganda and who buy the stuff Fox advertisers sell.
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/02 ... can-trust/

They actually do give some real SCIENCE and try to trash it, failing. Kewin Cowtan has it right.

[Tero]

The Breitbart dude and his cronies trash the video and the math. What they don't even mention is that if you throw out ALL the paraguay data, all neighboring areas show warming as expected. But NOAA chose to adjust data. This was done to calibrate. New equipment showed different data than old. But you did not need to use any data. Paraguay could be estimated from outside stations that were not adjusted as there was no need.

It's science Seth. Stick to guns and founding fathers as your expertise.

[Seth]

Seth, your source is Breitbart. It's like Fox news. Did you know those were not actual news? They are just propaganda produced to people who want to believe fox propaganda and who buy the stuff Fox advertisers sell.

As usual you mistake the publisher for the author when you engage in your customary spewing of circumstantial ad hominem fallacies.

Since you have not presented a peer-reviewed critique of the actual author's work, I conclude that once again you are full of shit.

[Seth]

The Breitbart dude and his cronies trash the video and the math. What they don't even mention is that if you throw out ALL the paraguay data, all neighboring areas show warming as expected. But NOAA chose to adjust data. This was done to calibrate. New equipment showed different data than old. But you did not need to use any data. Paraguay could be estimated from outside stations that were not adjusted as there was no need.

It's science Seth. Stick to guns and founding fathers as your expertise.

So you say. Others say that the data is being systematically manipulated to make it appear as if tiny amounts of global warming are occurring. In examining both arguments I have to do the first thing any reporter does when examining such divergent claims: Follow the money.

Who stands to gain from manipulating the temperature data to keep the global warming panic in play? The dissenters? No, they have no dog in the hunt and do not stand to make a dime if their claims are correct. In fact they risk their academic careers, their paychecks, and their reputations...and possibly their lives and liberty if some people get their way and make global warming denial a crime, as they want desperately to do so their gravy train won't be derailed.

On the other hand, NOAA and the IPCC and everybody associated with them, and the whole global warming fraud community stand to make untold trillions of dollars by keeping the charade going.

This whole global warming crapola is, and has always been about power, control and, most of all, money. Al Gore has made hundreds of millions of dollars as a flack for global warming. George Soros has made billions. The list of people who benefit financially and politically from falsifying this data to keep the fraud in play is endless and includes every single academic who gets government grants or works at a university or research center funded by any government, because they know on which side of the bread their butter is, and they have seen the careers and characters of dissenters dragged through the mud and destroyed by the Alinskyites and they don't want to risk not getting grants and not getting published, so they mouth the global warming platitudes like good little Marxists lest they be liquidated.

So, who's telling the truth? It certainly ain't the people who are making money off the fraud, that much is a certainty. And that's you Warmist dupes.

[Tero]

By default, you have to conclude it's a conspiracy, Seth. Especially when you don't understand science and how we measure stuff. here are some easy numbers.



Science!

[Seth]

By default, you have to conclude it's a conspiracy, Seth.

It's not at all by default, it's the result of being lied to by climate alarmists for, oh, somewhat more than forty years now. I've heard it all and every single bit of it has turned out to be bald-faced lies concocted by people who have a power and financial motive to lie.

Especially when you don't understand science and how we measure stuff. here are some easy numbers.

I understand that when you measure stuff, you do it carefully the first time and you repeat the measurements several times to reduce instrument errors (as in repeating angles when surveying with the instrument plunged to reduce plate errors) at the time you make the measurement. You don't go back and change the recorded measurements fifty years later because you think they might not support your ideological notions about global warming.

Going back now to "correct" temperature measurements taken decades ago is highly suspicious to begin with, and it's even more suspicious when the "corrections" inevitably lead to the (bogus) conclusion that global warming is occurring, particularly when the records as collected show the opposite.

It's an obvious bit of "scientific" smoke-and-mirrors deception and outright scientific fraud that clearly has the intent of supporting the political global warming agenda.

And I'm quite certain of this because back in the 70s I was sternly told that by today we'd all be dead and pools of molten lead would be bubbling on the surface, just as they do on Venus...by the same sort of self-serving alarmist propagandists who are touting a hundredth of a degree as a global emergency that justifies destroying trillions of dollars worth of capital and enslaving the entire population of the planet to the Warmist cult leaders.

[Seth]

The fiddling with temperature data is the biggest science scandal ever
New data shows that the “vanishing” of polar ice is not the result of runaway global warming
The “vanishing” of polar ice (and the polar bears) has become a poster-child for warmists. Photo: ALAMY
Christopher Booker

By Christopher Booker

10:15PM GMT 07 Feb 2015

CommentsComments

When future generations look back on the global-warming scare of the past 30 years, nothing will shock them more than the extent to which the official temperature records – on which the entire panic ultimately rested – were systematically “adjusted” to show the Earth as having warmed much more than the actual data justified.

Two weeks ago, under the headline “How we are being tricked by flawed data on global warming”, I wrote about Paul Homewood, who, on his Notalotofpeopleknowthat blog, had checked the published temperature graphs for three weather stations in Paraguay against the temperatures that had originally been recorded. In each instance, the actual trend of 60 years of data had been dramatically reversed, so that a cooling trend was changed to one that showed a marked warming.

This was only the latest of many examples of a practice long recognised by expert observers around the world – one that raises an ever larger question mark over the entire official surface-temperature record.

Watch: Climate change explained in 60 second animation

Following my last article, Homewood checked a swathe of other South American weather stations around the original three. In each case he found the same suspicious one-way “adjustments”. First these were made by the US government’s Global Historical Climate Network (GHCN). They were then amplified by two of the main official surface records, the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (Giss) and the National Climate Data Center (NCDC), which use the warming trends to estimate temperatures across the vast regions of the Earth where no measurements are taken. Yet these are the very records on which scientists and politicians rely for their belief in “global warming”.
Related Articles

President Barack Obama will use the report as evidence for action as he tries to move ahead with policies on climate change before leaving office in 2017

Barack Obama's personal battle against climate change 23 Jan 2015

Rise in sea levels is 'faster than we thought' 14 Jan 2015

Homewood has now turned his attention to the weather stations across much of the Arctic, between Canada (51 degrees W) and the heart of Siberia (87 degrees E). Again, in nearly every case, the same one-way adjustments have been made, to show warming up to 1 degree C or more higher than was indicated by the data that was actually recorded. This has surprised no one more than Traust Jonsson, who was long in charge of climate research for the Iceland met office (and with whom Homewood has been in touch). Jonsson was amazed to see how the new version completely “disappears” Iceland’s “sea ice years” around 1970, when a period of extreme cooling almost devastated his country’s economy.

One of the first examples of these “adjustments” was exposed in 2007 by the statistician Steve McIntyre, when he discovered a paper published in 1987 by James Hansen, the scientist (later turned fanatical climate activist) who for many years ran Giss. Hansen’s original graph showed temperatures in the Arctic as having been much higher around 1940 than at any time since. But as Homewood reveals in his blog post, “Temperature adjustments transform Arctic history”, Giss has turned this upside down. Arctic temperatures from that time have been lowered so much that that they are now dwarfed by those of the past 20 years.

Homewood’s interest in the Arctic is partly because the “vanishing” of its polar ice (and the polar bears) has become such a poster-child for those trying to persuade us that we are threatened by runaway warming. But he chose that particular stretch of the Arctic because it is where ice is affected by warmer water brought in by cyclical shifts in a major Atlantic current – this last peaked at just the time 75 years ago when Arctic ice retreated even further than it has done recently. The ice-melt is not caused by rising global temperatures at all.

Of much more serious significance, however, is the way this wholesale manipulation of the official temperature record – for reasons GHCN and Giss have never plausibly explained – has become the real elephant in the room of the greatest and most costly scare the world has known. This really does begin to look like one of the greatest scientific scandals of all time.

[Tero]

That's Booker. Booker is a discredited journalist. They are always out to make "news" out of something. The steady change we see isn't steady! NASA measured something! This refutes everything else NASA or anyone else ever measured!

[Seth]

That's Booker. Booker is a discredited journalist. They are always out to make "news" out of something. The steady change we see isn't steady! NASA measured something! This refutes everything else NASA or anyone else ever measured!

Circumstantial ad hominem fallacy. Simply stating that Booker is a "discredited journalist" doesn't demonstrate that he is what you claim him to be. I can say you are a "discredited pseudo-scientist" with just exactly as much truth.

Booker quotes Homewood. For your argument to have merit, you have to show that either Booker misquoted Homewood or Homewood's claims are false.

[Tero]

Booker spins news out of anything.
Booker result: news, 100%
Facts: none.

All the recent Antarctica stuff is explained here.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/whats-h ... ctica.html

Type in Arctic at that site to read on that.

OR, here is an analysis on Bookers previous lies on the Arctic.
http://climatefeedback.org/evaluation/t ... -warmists/