5 Filters

For those willing to read and understand Zharkova nails AGW Co2 based global warming into a coffin here:

Science
#61

Err…, sorry to be slow, but which of my arguments lead to the use of nuclear weapons and endless warmongering? Saying that there is no such thing as absolute certainty in real life? (This in response to the absolute certainty that Rhis keeps asking for wrt climate change.)

I agree with needing some sort of certainty (interpreted loosely) before acting when those actions have huge consequences for lots of people. The covid saga showed what happens if you don’t. But, in the case of global warming, it’s pretty clearly happening, with all the predicted consequences of that. As I mentioned before, one needs to be extremely wary of the “solutions” the PTB come up with, but that’s a separate issue

1 Like
#62

Here’s an illustration of how the starting point on climate stats can be manipulated. Make of it what you will, but it certainly pushed me more in the skeptical direction…

2 Likes
#63

Crikey, Gerard - and Willem! Will you guys be offering copies of this grotesque caricature of me that you’ve bodged up here, for people to keep as a rag-doll Aunt Sally? You know: to throw things at, like a coconut shy.That would be a giggle; and I wouldn’t demand any copyright payment, or anything like that. :slight_smile:

But where to bleedin’ start, to straighten out this - highly giggle-worthy - distorted cartoon!

  1. I observe - note the passive, neutral word - that humans are in a population overshoot; that we have not done, and clearly will not do, anything effectual about it; and that the usual Gaian re-balancing processes will take care of it - pretty much whatever we do or don’t do. And I’ll give you good odds that our species will survive OK, as species usually do when they come out of an overshoot episode. I offer ZERO gloating approval of this awkward mess we’ve got ourselves into. In fact I regret it, and have long wished we would volunteer to do something both effectual and humane to resolve the issue. We have the technical means; but we lack the psychological aptitude. Shame; real shame, that! (This is my actual attitude to the overshoot, behind your weird distortions.)

So that makes me an SS sympathiser, a eugenicist, and a Malthusian. Absolutely hilarious, brilliant logic, G!! :rofl: (and total bs).

  1. I demand ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY before we should do anything about climate shift. Er - no. I just say it’s inappropriate for anyone to - arrogantly - insist on certainty, when they have no right to it. I also insist that there are arguments against the idea of a climate emergency desperately imminent; and we should hear those dissidents calmly, and see what weight they might have; on the clear understanding that none of us, on any side of the argument, has any right to dogmatic certainty about it; that’s just wilful self-delusion. I also think that even if a very bad climate shift emergency is indeed on us - as it very well may be by my (entirely provisional) guesstimate, because - all dogmatic waffling set aside - we really can’t be certain… but even if authentic disaster is on us, it seems pretty clear that we - the whole global human collective - will not be doing anything fully coordinated and soberly effective about it anyway. The same shiftlessness that characterises our response to the overshoot operates here too. Instead, the usual shysters are monetising the narrative of climate emergency; for profit, and for the further concentration of their power. Those are the only purposes that they’re serving, by jazzing up the ‘emergency’ panic. Nothing whatever to do with actually revering the Earth and helping the common citizens to avoid the worst outcomes.

  2. And these cod-arguments falsely attributed to me are supposed to be my excuse for “doing nothing”. Well now, let me see -

First, what I have been doing, for decades, are the things that I actually can do, rather than frothing ineffectually about what everybody ought to do:

A small forest’s-worth of trees established in Britain - and Eire - over the past fifty years or so; and still hard at that guerrilla tree-planting now today. (You’ll be able to see a shot of a grove of my noble cousins, now all big trees, which were little finger-and-thumb whips when I planted them on my moorings nearly thirty years ago, when I post an account - with pics. - of my ‘taters-grown-in-turf’, shortly).

Gave up personal motor vehicles about twenty years ago; nothing but bike, bus-pass, and the odd occasional lift from family/friends now. (No leccy-assist on the bike either; all muscle-driven. Battery production, and especially battery re-charging, are highly iffy activities for environmentalists…)

And my total leccy bill has been hovering at £20 per quarter for some years; just edged up to £25 recently, for the first time (in Summer that is, when I cook on a hotplate; less in Winter, when I’m using guerrilla-gathered firewood from the neglected woodlands hereabouts to heat and cook; where I also plant trees repeatedly…).

I also embraced voluntary poverty long ago, Greer-style, and I find great serenity in it, and a strong sense of having absolutely everything that I need, aplenty; and even everything that I want. No particularly advanced virtue in me for that; I just like the life better than consumer-slavery.

These are just some of the - actually doable - things that I do, to help in alleviating these Interesting Times.

  1. And nuclear: Let’s get it straight: I don’t like nuclear. Mainly because it’s both a financially and an energetically unaffordable technology; and it’s produced a toxic-legacy for the future, a bundle of intractable radioactive waste, already. But if - as (nuclear professional) Dmitry Orlov insists - Russia is developing next generation nuclear plants which produce ZERO radioactive waste, and which can actually neutralise what we already have in hand, whilst generating electricity in the process, then rational minds will give it at least a bit of cautious house-room, for consideration. Especially since electricity is going to go on being a perennial, popular demand, for as long as the hitech industrial model of human society manages to continue stumbling on a bit further; not much on the long historical timescale, I don’t think. And of course, highly problematic, non-self-renewing ‘renewables’ are proving that they can’t provide that electricity effectively, so as fossil-hydrocarbons get inexorably tighter and tighter, people will demand the nukes; especially if we can now do it cleanly.

Better for the end of industrialism to come with defunct - but non-radioactive - nuclear hulks scattered about the re-foresting landscapes than hulks that still glow faintly at night, like Fukushima…

I don’t know whether I’ve dealt with all of your slather of distortions about my views, guys but that will do for now. I’ll PS you if I notice any more. :slight_smile:

#64

PS: :slight_smile:

I’m “not aware” of the dangers of startrekkytechietechie nonsenses like 5G? Really? I’m not aware of them! Gerard! You can not be serious! :smile:

Greta: a shyster-abused Aspergic child who was bundled through her quarter-hour of artificial slebbery by cynical, up-sleeve-giggling PRwhores, and who is now being quietly dumped by them, as being past her self-by. She will cringe with embarrassment at the memory of the whole disgusting charade that was foisted on her, when she’s older and wiser.

Viruses: FFS! Don’t you guys do nuance at all? Here’s the actual deal: I don’t know whether viruses exist; they may, they may not. The scamdemic re-vivified a long-running and rather dusty debate about Pasteur, and terrain-versus-germs. This renewed discussion has thrown up some very interesting arguments by sceptics, which deserve serious consideration. They MAY be correct. (Do I need to underline the provisionality of my thinking any more than this?) The claim that there is no such thing as the HIV virus, nor any such illness as AIDS MAY also be true. I don’t know either way!

I hope that completes the PSes! :laughing:

#65

So you’re saying you’re definitely not sure?

2 Likes
#66

Absolutely, definitely, unquestionably, established beyond any reasonable doubt - that I’m not sure. :wink: :smile:

At least, I think that’s what I’m saying…

#67

Hi Rhis,

I didn’t think I said anything that controversial — perhaps your message was meant more for Gerard. The trouble with texts on websites is that you only have texts to go on; no other visual cues, stress on words, a smile etc. like in real life discussions. In other words, it’s easy to misinterpret what someone means. I don’t profess to know for certain what’s going to happen, nor, in my opinion, did PP say this. It just looks to me, from all the various findings, that we’re in a very bad spot. How to collectively get out of it is a highly non trivial problem.

And I certainly didn’t imply you were “doing nothing”. In fact, I wholeheartedly support all those things you mention. We need more people like you!

2 Likes
#68

Hi @Willem ,
My thought was that all warmongering states use threats of a “ probable or likely” event to justify pre-emptive violence on others e.g Blair in 2003 “ I am in no doubt that the threat is serious and current, that he has made progress on WMD, and that he has to be stopped. Saddam has used chemical weapons, not only against an enemy state, but against his own people. ” The US administrations use the term “clear and present danger” to justify the murder of people. Similarly, Hiroshima was obliterated as they declared it seemed the only way to save American lives as opposed to a full invasion of Japan.
They all announced imminent threats current or present - despite the fact that innocents would die in thousands - a threat of something happening is clearly just a possibility or maybe a probability but not a certainty and committing genocide for a less than certain justification is madness imo.
Taking action on the basis of a likelihood is fine when there are no downsides to your action but you need a lot more certainty when planning wars where collateral deaths could be tens or hundreds of thousands.

Where the level of uncertainty in relation to a long term problem is disputed and the proposed action to solve that perceived long term problem creates a more certain risk of short term deaths of thousands then we need to solve the short term issue before continuing with any long term plan, imo.

cheers

1 Like
#69

Yes Will, I was mostly growsing at my old buddy G - who got a bit extravagant with the pics! :smile: I have to say I quite agree with what you write here in response to my growse. [Crikey, I must be showing my age: the spell-checker doesn’t recognise the - apparently archaic - northern dialect word ‘growse’, which for those who don’t know means to grumble acerbically! :grinning: ]

#70

Loved the Greta pic! And I was delighted to learn that climate change was all your fault Rhis - makes things a lot easier :laughing:

1 Like
#71

Hi CJ

I’m a bit surprised that you won’t answer even basic questions without demanding links from me. I’ll pose them again, so that everyone can mull them over, and wonder what links you might need to answer them:

  • According to Zharkova, is the world going to warm or cool over the next 50 years?

  • What is the significance of the supposed pause in warming that lasted from 1998 to about 2012?

I have tried to get the answers but I haven’t been able to. I am actually interested in the answers. As far as I can see neither Zharkova nor Corbett had answered them, but I might well be wrong. Can you answer them?

I’m happy to provide links. If you let me know what links you are interested in, I’ll provide them. But who gets to decide what is unbiased or not? You? How are you qualified to do that?

On the subject of Zharkova’s credibility. In your first post above you quoted her as saying this:

This is what I’ve been saying is wrong. Does Zharkova still say this? Or has she realised that this is just wrong?

Here is what Phys.org has to say about it

Prior research has shown that the sun does wobble from its course over large time spans due to gravity pull from the planets, but virtually all other work done to study its impact has shown that Earth wobbles right along with it, nearly in lockstep

And, because this information is apparently very hard to find, here is the link

Here is the output from an N-Body simulation that someone showed to Zharkova to prove she was wrong.

802×563 12 KB

Note that the movement of the Earth mirrors the movement of the Sun. And again, as this info is apparently very hard to find, here is the link:

So the quote from Zharkova that you referenced in your very first link, is just plain wrong. This is basically all that I’ve said. I’m just repeating myself (now, with extra links!)

Im not surprised, as you’re not basing your opinions on actual facts or data.

Anyway. I’m looking forward to reading your answers to the two questions above. If they are answered by Zharkova and Corbett, and I missed it, I apologise, but I would still like to know the answers.

Cheers
PP

#72

Hi PP/CJ1

Thanks PP for these links.

Retractions of papers other than by the authors are not a sign of healthy science debate. They are really third party withdrawals. Once passing peer review and publication, the work stands - unless the work is retracted. But only the authors can legitimately retract their work. Three of the four authors disagree with the retraction.

FWIW…

Comments so far (and it’s been 2 years) have been condemnatory of the retraction.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-61020-3#article-comments

One is to the effect that the retraction itself wasn’t peer reviewed, so doesn’t have the same academic standing.

I can’t evaluate this from a technical standpoint, but Zharkova herelf does so in the comments. This is perhaps the most pertinent to the discussion here:

"Three authors (VZ, SS, EP) wish to protest the paper retraction as a cover up of the discovered new solar forcing mechanism affecting the Earth and other planets. SZ asked the Editor to remove his name from the paper authors that the Editor did not acknowledge.

The retraction note from the Editor R. Marszalek is misleading because we do not calculate in the paper the distance between the Sun and Earth. The main topic of the paper was the oscillation of magnetic field baseline.

In the paper we discovered 2100 year oscillations of this baseline field, which correlated with variations of solar irradiance and terrestrial temperature. All of these were observational results not dependent on the mechanism which causes these oscillations. Only in the last section we looked at possible mechanisms. We found that the solar inertial motion can lead to the change of this magnetic field baseline, irradiance because of the change of Sun-Earth distance based on some other research done by many researchers since 1965. We did not calculate this distance, but used only for illustration that solar irradiance change if the distance change

This is the very fact of the changing S-E distance, which the Editor and AGW people objected very strongly and wanted to hide from general public."
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-61020-3#article-comments

Zharkova also says her university website with the relevant documents was taken down and she had to move it.

Cheers

#73

That’s interesting because the impression I formed from her Northumbria profile was of someone coasting at the end of her career e.g. no PhD students since 2018. This suggests her funding bids, if any, are not hitting the right targets.

That’s often a sign of someone who is out of favour, or out of step with the orthodoxy in their field of study.

In my very inexpert view she seems to be somebody who has studied the sun as a physical entity very closely and learned a great deal about its cyclical patterns and the underlying physics. Extrapolating from there to assert affects on Earth was always going to be risky territory.

I am near-certain that I attended an interview presentation where she was one of the shortlisted candidates. I’ll say no more, as this was about 7/8 years ago and all I remember with certainty is that the candidate, possibly her but possibly not, was incoherent, arrogant, rude. But I will add that the person who was the best, and successful, candidate turned out to be a cynical, arrogant, rude yes-man. So there’s that.

2 Likes
#74

Speaking of asserting affects on Earth according to a new report “ 96% OF U.S. CLIMATE DATA IS CORRUPTED”

New Surface Stations Report Released – It’s ‘worse than we thought’

3 days ago Anthony Watts 744 Comments

MEDIA ADVISORY: 96% OF U.S. CLIMATE DATA IS CORRUPTED

Official NOAA temperature stations produce corrupted data due to purposeful placement in man-made hot spots

Nationwide study follows up widespread corruption and heat biases found at NOAA stations in 2009, and the heat-bias distortion problem is even worse now

ARLINGTON HEIGHTS, IL (July 27, 2022) – A new study, Corrupted Climate Stations: The Official U.S. Surface Temperature Record Remains Fatally Flawed, finds approximately 96 percent of U.S. temperature stations used to measure climate change fail to meet what the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) considers to be “acceptable” and uncorrupted placement by its own published standards.

The report, published by The Heartland Institute, was compiled via satellite and in-person survey visits to NOAA weather stations that contribute to the “official” land temperature data in the United States. The research shows that 96% of these stations are corrupted by localized effects of urbanization – producing heat-bias because of their close proximity to asphalt, machinery, and other heat-producing, heat-trapping, or heat-accentuating objects. Placing temperature stations in such locations violates NOAA’s own published standards (see section 3.1 at this link), and strongly undermines the legitimacy and the magnitude of the official consensus on long-term climate warming trends in the United States.

“With a 96 percent warm-bias in U.S. temperature measurements, it is impossible to use any statistical methods to derive an accurate climate trend for the U.S.” said Heartland Institute Senior Fellow Anthony Watts, the director of the study. “Data from the stations that have not been corrupted by faulty placement show a rate of warming in the United States reduced by almost half compared to all stations.”

I think I read that around 80% of the World’s ground stations are in the US! We don’t know whether the other 20% are corrupted as well to the same 96%!

And we are told “the science is settled just look at the data,” anyone seen this reported in the mainstream one-sided media?

So if 96% of NOAA data doubles the rate of warming, and could have been doing this for decades we may have to revisit the even more fundamental question, has warming at more than a negligible level taken place at all in this peak period of man-made CO2?

cheers

1 Like
#75

Pity it’s the Heartland Institute pushing this schtick. Doesn’t inspire confidence. Still: messenger/message. We still have to ask: Is it true anyway, despite the known shill-shystery of the people saying it?

Just been sampling another - apparently plausible - sceptic (who, it has to be admitted, repeats periodically what sounds like a fossil-fuel-shill mantra) who compares current hottest-Summer-day temp. records with what is reported in newspapers from a century+ ago, amongst other things. Seems that our hottest Summer days lately are about as hot, or maybe even a bit less, compared to then. Well within margins of error. He also makes similar then and now comparisons for Arctic sea-ice cover; and for polar-bear numbers.

I see, of course, that this is only a flimsy straw on the evidence pile, hardly up to scratch for statistical rectitude. But it is a straw.

If temperature readings really are overstated lately, that would quite probably bring the changes we’ve seen in the past century well within the cyclic oscillations that these records always show, due to such perennial natural rhythms as the oscillations in the solar distance.

I find myself in a quandary of uncertainty - again! :slight_smile: - about the climate shift emergency idea. Can’t just ignore all the evidence on the ‘yes’ pile, obviously. But I have to say that currently a sea-change is coming over our general perception: that the degree of universal corruption that surrounds us, at least within the Anglozionist empire, is wider, and starker, than many of us wanted to believe - before the covid-and-injections scam was launched.

It’s clear enough that the globaliser-gics have got a globocap money-grubber bandwaggon rolling around the whole climate issue; so why wouldn’t it be larded with corruption too, just like everything else that the grubbers touch?

I’ve been forced to the - tentative, always tentative! - doubt: Is the whole climate panic just another hidden-agenda scam, as the Tedroid WHO-PHEICs - pronounced ‘fakes’, natch - appear to be?

I really don’t know with any confidence at all what the answers may be. But if the scamdemic episode has done anything it’s woken up a lot of us to the vivid realisation that all sorts of things which we’d grown accustomed to thinking of as cast-iron certainties are beginning to look like nothing of the sort. Climate emergency with runaway anthropogenic CO2-driven temperature rise: I’ve believed it as an - unexamined - article of faith for years; but is it actually real at all? I’ve now slipped noticeably into the ‘really don’t know’ camp. Maybe for no better reason than I’m now a quivering old fart who in his dotage just doesn’t want to face horrifying prospects for the world. Or maybe not. Could it all have been something that started out as one of our species-endemic Chicken Little mirage-panics, and then got co-opted by the gics as a WealthPowerStatus increaser…?

No wonder people feel adrift!

I think Chris is right: As a website that strives to encourage courteous, calm, Vulcan-like discussion of absolutely any subject, we need to cool passions about the climate debate, and just include all arguments that look as if they might have any substance at all, onto the balance-scales. Angry scientismic dogmatism, in any direction, doesn’t really fit here. Leave that to the gocos!

I’d like the pleasantly-surprising discovery to be manifested at 5F that people can still discuss matters amicably and detachedly, even whilst disagreeing radically in their conclusions; and especially in their gut-feelings…

That would be nice! :slight_smile:

2 Likes
#76

Hi ED

I looked at the linked preprint that Zharkova mentions in her criticism of the retraction.

She still talks about the wobble of the Sun around the barycentre and how this brings it closer to the earth. It’s the top figure (in red) of the N-body simulation I posted above. She doesn’t seem post the bottom figure (the earth, in blue) though, which shows that she’s wrong. It’s things like that which undermine her credibility in my opinion.

She says that the earth-Sun distances are discussed in an appendix (A1) but the link isn’t working. A2 is working, but not A1. I suspect (but am not sure) that it’s these earth-Sun distances that she got wrong by using the wrong length of the sidereal year in the simulation. But maybe I’m wrong. If you find a working link to A1 I’d be interested. I’ll have a look too.

In any case, it seems that (maybe? - its unclear) she’s backing off from suggesting a new orbital cycle being the cause of the variation, and saying that it’s a magnetic effect inside the sun?

Perhaps that’s right, and there is a new pulse in the internal dynamics of the sun’s magnetic field that affects the total radiation hitting the earth. At least that’s much closer to her area of expertise than orbital dynamics.

However, that still doesn’t explain many of the features associated with the current period of warming - that we see the spectral absorption fingerprint of CO2 in our satellite measurements of reflected sunlight, that the lower and upper atmosphere are warming at different rates etc etc. (Links can be provided on request :wink: )

Additionally, her argument of 1-2K year warming and cooling cycles seem unconvincing as we would really be able to see then in the temperature record we already have. Why didn’t she have that long term temperature graph in her paper, showing the effects of the Sun on the earth temp?

And finally, the total solar irradiance had been dropping over the last few decades, but the temperature has definitely been increasing, so I’m not sure how she accounts for that.

Add all together and we’re pretty far from nails and coffins etc.

(Plus there’s also the fact I really am confused as to whether she thinks there still be warming due to this new cycle she is talking about, or cooling because of the grand solar minimum that she has also predicted…)

On the subject of the retraction, I am agnostic to be honest. At the very least it shows that her paper had serious errors. What to do about a paper that has errors discovered post publication is a question for the editorial board of the journal. Certainly I had no problem with the bogus papers on hydroxychloroquine getting retracted from NEJM and Nature.

Correcting the record seems reasonable to me.

Cheers

#77

I’m pretty sure I did, but it was expressed as a hypothesis and my recollection is very rusty so forgive me for not searching for links. I think this was around the time that Heathrow airport weather station reported the highest ever UK temperature.

That’s not to denigrate the findings, but if standard adjustments are made of the raw data then this could offset artificially high readings. Which I believe @PontiusPrimate has commented on, credibly I thought.

As to The Heartland Institute their website is, um, interesting for the topics it cherry picks, and for it’s abundant enthusiasm for laissez faire.

https://heartland.org

EDIT: I see @RhisiartGwilym pointed to this already… I had never heard of them.

1 Like
#78

Hi PP Thank for this, it takes us forward!

I read the bulk of the discussion, well about half before I ran out of popcorn, then flicked through to see the end of the story, as you do, which was the retraction.

Brief breakdown of your post:

The simulation
Credibility
Technical bit in the middle
The retraction

The simulation, which you say proves her wrong.

I’m a bit doubtful on this point. The point of dispute (which may just be an unfounded claim on Zharkova’s part) seemed to be that the numerical simulation included the viewpoint that was at issue, so would necessarily be reflected in the output… That was also my first impression (right or wrong) when seeing this diagram. The assumptions on which the model and simulation are based would be critical, and for two outputs to match does at least suggest that nothing was put in to the model that might change them. In their responses the others might have done better to address the Z claim, that the model they were all using assumed the earth just went round the sun (rather than adjust according to the barycentre, the centre of mass of the sun+planets) more directly.

I take your point that Zharkova ought to back up her theory with empirical data. I think she may believe she has done this, endlessly referring to external sources, which she rather annoyingly keeps inviting her opponents to disprove, but not with her.

Credibility

" She doesn’t seem post the bottom figure (the earth, in blue) though, which shows that she’s wrong. It’s things like that which undermine her credibility in my opinion."

Hmm, not to me. What difference would that make, if her argument is that the simulation (or rather, the model that is being run) takes no account of it? Obviously you don’t need a model to how that two identical outputs would differ.

To me ‘credibility’ needs to be used sparingly, especially in the more hard sciences.

Technical bit in the middle

I’m not purporting to address all the technical points (that would be a laugh), rather just trying to keep score according to the unwritten rules.

I agree her paper does not nail AGW/CO2 into a coffin, but might represent a nail or two depending on the final verdict.

It’s a pity the discussion got rancourous, that was mainly due to Zharkova herself. Other than not tackling the issue of the Z claim head-on, I didn’t see any indication of the opposition misbehaving. Just a hint here and there of some threads on woolly jumpers being pulled on…

“Additionally, her argument of 1-2K year warming and cooling cycles seem unconvincing as we would really be able to see then in the temperature record we already have. Why didn’t she have that long term temperature graph in her paper, showing the effects of the Sun on the earth temp?”

I’d agree she could have done more there. It’s not enough to point to a detail you say is wrong, and claim it undermines a whole accepted theory. You have to demonstrate that your idea changes things.

The retraction.

No it’s not a retraction, as I said it was a third party withdrawal. You cannot withdraw someone else’s ideas! It’s not correcting the record, it’s falsifying it. The retraction statement had much lower technical substance than the paper. There is not a comparison with the Lancet HCQ study which was retracted by the authors and widely accused of being fraudulent.

But at least we are further forward.

I don’t know if she’s saying there will be warming or cooling, one set of cosmic calculations at a time for me! (or none).

Cheers

#79

I got the impression that Anthony Watts, the Director of this particular project, appointed a senior fellow at Heartlands in 2019 and founder of the popular blog Wattsupwiththat, has a high reputation rated by people like Judith Curry.
This project was a follow up to his 2009 report and changes were implemented by NOAA because of the findings there- but clearly not enough.
As a 60 page report not funded by the US gov it reveals that what most people thought as surface air temperature readings from thermometers is actually a system still riddled with process issues and inadequate siting and reliant on data changes made by NOAA employees to adjust for errors, which is hidden from sight. The report makes positive recommendations including providing monthly published data from the US modern system ( USCRN) which has been hidden from public view todate.

Data is like computer coding - rubbish in, rubbish out. Without any accountability procedures any public or private record keeping can be abused to fix the facts around the policy, look at the COVID moves!

Until proven otherwise I rate Anthony Watts’ reports. There are just too many really shady characters behind the origins of IPCC, UNEP etc. to rely on their data, imo.

cheers

2 Likes
#80

I suppose I must be less trusting of official sites , here’s AW’s thoughts on this:
“ Claims by NOAA, NCDC, and NCEI that this data contamination can be statistically adjusted are disingenuous, especially considering the widescale homogenization of good and bad data. Good data exists in the unperturbed stations demonstrated by Watts et al. in 2015, but the amount of bad data from poorly sited stations overwhelms the accurate data from well-sited stations.
It is important to note Watts and his fellow authors found a slight warming trend when examining temperature data from unperturbed stations, which cleaved closely to the findings of the University of Alabama-Huntsville’s satellite-derived temperature record.49 This warming trend, however, is approximately half the claimed rate of increase promoted by many in the climate science community.
USCRN was created for the purpose of accurately measuring climatic temperature trends, yet is not being utilized as such. While the state-of-the-art and professionally operated network has only 17 years of data, it represents an uncontaminated climatic record, and should therefore be given preeminence in official reports. The currently utilized nClimDiv data, however, has been adjusted to USCRN data post-2005, but contains no adjustments prior to 2005. This may very well be why warming trends are present in the nClimDiv data. Despite NOAA’s assertions to the contrary, climatic temperature increases as measured by nClimDiv cannot be effectively isolated from potential confounds such as heat sinks, urbanization, WWTPs, population growth, and other factors.”

Most of the people I have used in my comments on this subject seem to accept there has been slight global warming, even accepting a small contribution from AGWCO2, but not the alarmist levels pushed by the IPCC.

cheers

2 Likes