|
Post by Ratty on Jun 4, 2019 1:17:14 GMT
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Jun 4, 2019 18:00:45 GMT
Chiefio continues with his audit of the change between GHCN version 3 and 4. Magically, the anomaly changes between the two versions support the claim that there is significant warming - often by altering the past. This is moving away from poor governance toward fraud. "GHCN v3.3 vs v4 Anomaly Graphs – Europe
Europe ranges from the frozen to the deserts of the Middle East. Most of the countries are geographically small, but terrain can vary dramatically in short distances. Just look at the change from Switzerland to the Mediterranean coast of northern Italy. I’ll try to take things in a reasonable order that allows for better comparing one set of graphs to a nearby country. For much of Europe, water dominates, as there are coastlines on the Atlantic, North Sea, Norwegian Sea / Arctic, Black Sea, Baltic Sea, Mediterranean, etc. etc. For other bits, mountains and inland conditions dominate. But being compact, the larger external drivers tend to be the same over many neighboring countries and their graphs ought to be comparable. Ireland and the UK, or the Baltic States for example.......
........One other theme is the frequent 1C to 2.5 C range of “change to history”. IF our v3.3 data were really that crappy in 2015, what evidence proves it is any less crappy now? How do you find 1/2 C of “Global Warming” from CO2 inside 2 C of “random error” and maybe another 1 C of “thermometer changed; moved near buildings for the wire”?
It just looks to me like the data are crap and being “massaged”, with each release, to fit a narrative. That’s my opinion; I hope you will look at the graphs and form your own.
With that, here’s Europe:"chiefio.wordpress.com/2019/06/03/ghcn-v3-3-vs-v4-anomaly-graphs-europe/This is really worth a read I would think that Mo'boy, Acid and Duwayne may be the most interested in the minutiae. But as Icefisher would say in the commercial world a 3rd party auditor would be VERY suspicious.
|
|
|
Post by nonentropic on Jun 5, 2019 4:07:02 GMT
we should classify these predictions into time to demise.
I select 2000 years. (the next ice age.)
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Jun 5, 2019 8:45:38 GMT
Express has picked up study claiming forces associated with planetary allignments highly correlated with solar cycle max-min.
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Jun 5, 2019 13:59:08 GMT
Chiefio continues with his audit of the change between GHCN version 3 and 4. Magically, the anomaly changes between the two versions support the claim that there is significant warming - often by altering the past. This is moving away from poor governance toward fraud. "GHCN v3.3 vs v4 Anomaly Graphs – Europe
Europe ranges from the frozen to the deserts of the Middle East. Most of the countries are geographically small, but terrain can vary dramatically in short distances. Just look at the change from Switzerland to the Mediterranean coast of northern Italy. I’ll try to take things in a reasonable order that allows for better comparing one set of graphs to a nearby country. For much of Europe, water dominates, as there are coastlines on the Atlantic, North Sea, Norwegian Sea / Arctic, Black Sea, Baltic Sea, Mediterranean, etc. etc. For other bits, mountains and inland conditions dominate. But being compact, the larger external drivers tend to be the same over many neighboring countries and their graphs ought to be comparable. Ireland and the UK, or the Baltic States for example.......
........One other theme is the frequent 1C to 2.5 C range of “change to history”. IF our v3.3 data were really that crappy in 2015, what evidence proves it is any less crappy now? How do you find 1/2 C of “Global Warming” from CO2 inside 2 C of “random error” and maybe another 1 C of “thermometer changed; moved near buildings for the wire”?
It just looks to me like the data are crap and being “massaged”, with each release, to fit a narrative. That’s my opinion; I hope you will look at the graphs and form your own.
With that, here’s Europe:"chiefio.wordpress.com/2019/06/03/ghcn-v3-3-vs-v4-anomaly-graphs-europe/This is really worth a read I would think that Mo'boy, Acid and Duwayne may be the most interested in the minutiae. But as Icefisher would say in the commercial world a 3rd party auditor would be VERY suspicious. WOW! " This whole series has been grueling to do." Understatement of the year, to date?
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Jun 5, 2019 20:16:07 GMT
The old phrase ... Figures don't lie, but liars figure. Auditors might agree that they are there to be catch the liars. I wish they would do their job.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Jun 7, 2019 10:26:30 GMT
There has been an ongoing spat between Roy Spencer and Joe Postma on the way 'simplified' weather modeling assumes that the earth is flat. This 'slab atmosphere' approach is taken by mathematicians and programmers to make the chaotic fluid dynamics of the atmosphere with embedded lapse rates, and the continually varying insolation of that chaotic fluid - a more tractable and programmable computing problem. This of course walks right into the chaotic effect identified by Lorentz where high levels of recursive iteration can rapidly increase divergence from reality caused by minor differences between reality and the model. "Response to Roy Spencer Regarding His Support of Flat Earth
Readers can comment in this disagreement/misunderstanding/debate here at The Talkshop and/or at Joe Postma’s own website (link below).
Roy Spencer’s post that kicked it off is link here .
[UPDATE: follow-up video to the one shown below – link here .]"tallbloke.wordpress.com/2019/06/06/response-to-roy-spencer-regarding-his-support-of-flat-earth/
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Jun 7, 2019 11:39:05 GMT
|
|
|
Post by walnut on Jun 7, 2019 14:46:18 GMT
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Jun 8, 2019 9:57:19 GMT
"Ross McKitrick: This scientist proved climate change isn’t causing extreme weather — so politicians attacked And so, many scientists who have the facts and know the truth remain silent
This week in Vancouver, Prime Minister Trudeau said the federal carbon tax, a key pillar in his government’s climate policy, will help protect Canadians from extreme weather. “Extreme weather events are extraordinarily expensive for Canadians, our communities and our economy,” he said, citing the recent tornadoes in Ottawa and wildfires in Western Canada. “That’s why we need to act.”
While members of the media may nod along to such claims, the evidence paints a different story. Roger Pielke Jr. is a scientist at University of Colorado in Boulder who, up until a few years ago, did world-leading research on climate change and extreme weather. He found convincing evidence that climate change was not leading to higher rates of weather-related damages worldwide, once you correct for increasing population and wealth. He also helped convene major academic panels to survey the evidence and communicate the near-unanimous scientific consensus on this topic to policymakers. For his efforts, Pielke was subjected to a vicious, well-funded smear campaign backed by, among others, the Obama White House and leading Democratic congressmen, culminating in his decision in 2015 to quit the field."More at> business.financialpost.com/opinion/ross-mckitrick-this-scientist-proved-climate-change-isnt-causing-extreme-weather-so-politicians-attacked
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jun 9, 2019 3:25:23 GMT
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Jun 9, 2019 10:16:20 GMT
There are two things about this: 1. Temperature is an intensive variable and averaging air temperature globally does not make sense. It would be a lot better if we could use heat content in kilojoules/kilogram and include the oceans in that if possible. 2. However, using the average global temperature metric, the argument that it will only change slowly is obviously false. There only needs to be a concurrent drop to cold in several factors at the same time - an SSW/polar vortex, extreme meridional jet with blockng, drop in high energy radiation from a quiet sun, planetary low insolation, cold AMO, cold PDO, very cold mid Pacific strong La Nina etc etc. Things could get cold very fast and due to the cold and long period of some of these factors it may be that recovering from the cold may not be possible. At least recovery may take a lot longer than the drop into cold,
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Jun 9, 2019 12:15:01 GMT
So ... Winter IS coming (Game of Bones). It needed a sequel. 🤔
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Jun 9, 2019 18:26:11 GMT
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Jun 10, 2019 1:05:33 GMT
More checks on GHCN 3.3 vs 4 from Chiefio E. M. Smith, complete with code for those who would like to follow his reasoning. Looks like there is lack of governance (charitable view) or an unethical approach to maintenance and upkeep of the GHCN records. Always a problem when the people maintaining the figures are the ones that benefit from particular changes. "With that, I’m comfortable saying the prior comments on countries is fairly reliable and when there is “cooling of the past” it is NOT due to the length of data over which the monthly average temperatures are computed for making the anomalies.
Let the whooping and hollering begin! ;-)"chiefio.wordpress.com/2019/06/09/ghcn-v3-3-vs-v4-baseline-end-2015/
|
|