The Sound Of Homogenized Science

But if those "scientists" use actual data, how can they make hysterical, scary, we're all gonna die claims, stoke the fires of fear and thus keep their gravy train of funding going?

They have to cook the data, lie, cheat and obfuscate to keep the fraud alive.

We have names & addresses, we can add up the wasted research dollars, so when the time comes, we will come to get them and make them pay.

Well Fred they took lessons from the Evolutionary Biologists who regularly create entire species from tiny bits of fossilized bone. Oh and did you notice that evolutionary science is also taught in school as fact? Why I'll bet you that a goodly number of 'believers' post on this site.

Joe, you are certainly reaching on that one. This in not looking for the missing link but rather two different data streams that go back a few hundred years (351). No translating from Sanskrit, Petroglyphs, chicken bones or interpenetration required.

Follow the money and the ideology.

Al Gore's Weather (AGW).

Silly boy Troy asks where Suzy is?

It's here:

"CBC.ca - The Greatest Canadian - Top Ten Greatest Canadians **
David Suzuki. As the long-running host of CBC's The Nature of Things and the author of more than 30 books, Suzuki has been called a 'gladiatorial ...
www.cbc.ca/greatest/top_ten/nominee/suzuki-david.html"

"Meantime, we can all play “Where on Earth is David Suzuki?”"
...-

"Where on Earth is David Suzuki?"

"David Suzuki, Canada’s Patron Saint of Climate Change, has also said very little – he is missing in action just when scientists who claimed to know all about the climate need his help."

http://www.troymedia.com/?p=8331

"As climategate revelations continue, Gore, Suzuki et al have gone into hiding"
http://www.newswatchcanada.ca/

Tex:

I believe Joe would like to make the point that political scientists have been corrupting the traditional scientific nature of research and its pursuit of provable facts and have been using it as a means of control for more than a century now.

But then, I could be wrong.

From article:
Thus, the two oldest and most reliable raw thermometer records in the world are telling us there is not a shred of real world evidence to show any significant global warming.

It's not just that there isn't any link between mankind's emissions of CO2 and global warming.

There is No Global Warming.

There is also no energy shortage.

So far I haven't seen one set of actual weather data where the 30's weren't the warmest period in the last 200 years.

Pretty fun that the NASA says that the global climate data doesn't support this. Even though they omit all of the data before 1953.

u

How do people just dump data? This is insane.

Mark:

Political science.

One of the first AGW Climate Hysteria Martyrs . . .

“I worry a lot these
days. I worry about the arrogance
of scientists who blithely claim that
they are here to solve the climate
problem, as long as they receive
massive increases in funding. I
worry about the way they covet
new supercomputers. Others talk
about ”stabilizing the climate“. I’m
terrified of the arrogance, vanity
and recklessness of those words."

http://www.probeinternational.org/files/UKVersieHenkTennekes.pdf

New Zealand Herald - Tuesday, April 9, 1957

"Man is making the earth too warm, Threat of melting polar caps", it quoted a prominent physicist as saying that the levels of the oceans could rise 12m and flood vast areas of the Earth in the next half century unless atmospheric temperatures were controlled.

The physicist, Dr Joseph Kaplan, professor of physics at the University of California, said such flooding could occur as a result of accelerated melting of the polar ice caps.

Should the oceans rise by 12m, their waters would roll through parts of New York, London, San Francisco and many other coastal cities.

Dr Kaplan said the melting of the ice caps was being speeded by man's tremendous use of oil and gas which was "changing the Earth's atmosphere".

The burning of fossil fuels was of such great magnitude that discharged gases were creating a "greenhouse" effect over the Earth.

The gases were warming the atmosphere as far up as 26km, and would have a great effect on the Arctic and Antarctic ice masses.

Dr Kaplan said heat control was an answer to the threat. "We are now working on a method of controlling man's environment and the temperature of the world.
We have already fired rockets into the upper atmosphere and discharged chemicals that affect the temperature of the atmosphere.

"Control by man of the Earth's weather and temperature is within the realm of practicability now. The end result of our studies of temperature control will be more important to the survival of man than atomic energy."

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10626802

Hey Fred, ain't it amazing that with all the SuperComputer Technology these days that Jones and Mann decided to use Fortran as their calculating engine ?

We need to start looking at all Legislation that is passed on scientific peer-review research.

It's over man...

Al Gore's Weather (AGW): Breaking wind.

What is "greener fuel"? AGW propaganda.
...-

"Drax power plant suspends plan to replace coal with greener fuel

Britain’s biggest power station has suspended its plan to replace coal with greener fuel, leaving the Government little chance of meeting its target for renewable energy.

Drax, in North Yorkshire, which produces enough electricity for six million homes, is withdrawing a pledge to cut CO2 emissions by 3.5 million tonnes a year, or 17.5 per cent.

The power station, which is the country’s largest single source of CO2, has invested £80 million in a processing unit for wood, straw and other plant-based fuels, known as biomass. The unit is designed to produce more renewable electricity than 600 wind turbines, but will operate at only a fraction of its capacity because Drax says it is cheaper to continue to burn coal.

Drax is also one of dozens of companies delaying investments in new biomass power stations because of uncertainty over the Government’s policy on long-term subsidies. Hundreds of farmers growing biomass crops may now struggle to sell their produce."
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7032738.ece

Great work! So when will he write up a paper with his findings and submit it to a journal?

Ich Bin Lottsa "new experts".

Hopes of UN New World Ordure: Kaput.
...-

"'De Boer's Resignation Is Catastrophic'

Yvo de Boer, the UN's climate chief, has announced his resignation. In the wake of an unsuccessful summit in Copenhagen he plans to leave diplomacy altogether and join a big-business consultancy as a climate expert. German papers aren't sure what's worse -- his departure from the UN, or the disappointments of Copenhagen."

"But the research should be set on a sober, factual footing, without hysteria. And with new experts.""

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,679005,00.html

I keep asking: are the charges of fraud pending?
Are the international arrest warrants issued?

Oh, I've forgotten, we only jail people for theft under $50.

Ratt:

What's wrong with Fortran? It was the first language I learned that was specifically for calculating data. That's what the name means "Formula Translation". (Output format statements were primitive, though!)

You can write crappy programs in Fortran, full of GOTO's (I believe they are considered "harmful"), and not documented. Or you can write good, structured programs with lots of comments, decent loops, and the appropriate use of subroutines.

However, from the few fragments of Mann's code that I saw at climateaudit, he apparently chose the former technique. All of which reinforces my core belief that AGW is sloppy science, hyped by a group of scientists who saw a huge gravy train, and jumped all over it. This latest revelation is just another nail in their coffin.

The COLD WAR is not over yet.

Again I say, jail time for those who ignore climate science!

Ratt:

What's wrong with Fortran? KevinB.

Correct me if I am wrong Kevin, but aren't the only Fortran Programmers old, retired, or dead ?
,

Kate wrote
// E. M. Smith) and his blog contributors confirm that the Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN) has cynically dumped the world’s second oldest and reliable climate record at Prague in the Czech Republic for no scientific reason //
&
// Note the radio silence during the 1940's // [???!]

Lest there be some confusion, the long-term record that was cynically dumped is not PRAHA/RUZYNE but praha/klemintinum.
Flighty physicist Luboš Motl leaps in with some data --
The location of the klemintinum series. [recall the airport location that was objected to for supposed "heat-island" effects]

The plot --

Lubos
// I haven't subtracted any corrections for the intensification of Prague's urban heat island which may be as much as 0.6 °C per century and which would probably revert the 200-year trend to a significant cooling!) //

Now that sounds scientific, eh^?

This looks like one of the legacy plots that were used to construct historical temperatures. Those used now have been chosen to give reliable information over a larger area, by being correlated with stations at various distances.

A cute example of some of the problems of historical data -- someone notes
// A possible counterargument is that only the ~1750 update to Fahrenheit's scale (to use boiling water instead of horse or human body temperature) rendered thermometers reliable enough to give good absolute values. //

Sorry. Again.

The location of the klemintinum series

At this point, I'm just about numb to this stuff. AGW is the scientific horror equivalent to Hostel.

The 1930s were a fairly warm decade but also showed a signal of higher variability than in the recent warm spell (which I date as 1987-2006).

For example, 1934 holds a slight lead over modern years in the race for "warmest year on record" but it also had the coldest month of the 20th century (Feb 1934) in eastern North America, a month that produced -50 F readings in eastern Ontario and upstate NY, and saw Lake Ontario freeze over entirely (the only time it did this in recent times).

The year 1936 is celebrated for exceptional July heat waves in many regions of North America, but this followed quite a cold winter in the central US and prairies.

So from a climatological perspective, the more recent warm spells (which I consider to have ended with the downturn in late 2007) are more of a case of year-long warmth if not as spectacular as the warmer parts of the 1930s.

In fact, looking at the Toronto records which go back to 1840, you can see a tendency for the more extreme warmth to occur in the period 1911 to 1970, most of the extreme highest monthly temperatures occurred in those decades and not since, although winter seems to be an exception with December (1982) and January (2005) having their extremes in the global warming era (so-called).

Otherwise, here's a list of the years which hold the highest temperatures on record at Toronto:

2005, 1954, 1946, 1842 (whoops), 1962/69, 1964, 1936, 1918, 1953, 1963, 1950, 1982 (listed in order of months).

And what does that say? Natural warmth peaked in the mid-20th century. Any slight warming later is probably from greenhouse effects, but these are rather slight in the mid-latitudes. I estimate they are worth about 0.3 to 0.5 C degrees. Not enough to consider risking the global economy, or even taking any action at all, especially as the slight warming effects seem to be more at night than in the daytime in any case.

"but aren't the only Fortran Programmers old, retired, or dead ?"

Hey! I resemble that remark!

"Those used now have been chosen to give reliable information over a larger area, by being correlated with stations at various distances."

Boy, it would be pretty cool to see the peer reviewed science that proved that that technique works! Have it handy?

"supposed heat island"

Do you live north of Pennsylvania? Because if you do you know that the Urban Heat Island is as real as a Florida sunburn. Several degrees on cold nights. Leaves come out sooner in town, the snow melts quicker, frost comes later and leaves earlier. Yeesh. But somehow this all gets averaged away? Like I said, I would like to see the mathematical explanation and proof.

You wouldn't think they would have to throw out all of those rural Chinese and Russian stations if it didn't make any difference? It would make the spacing on their maps better, that is for sure.

The COLD WAR is not over yet.
~sasquatch

Amen, sasquatch.
The West just declared victory, when there wasn't one, and stopped fighting their side of it.

The cost of declaring a false victory keeps climbing every day.

Are we safer yet?
No.

but aren't the only Fortran Programmers old, retired, or dead?

As I said in another thread, I'm not dead yet! Actually, I'm feeling much better.

But I'll concede the point that most kids today learn some variant of C, Java, Perl, etc. because so much programming is web-centric, and based on Unix/Linux machines. Fortran was just never designed for the web. Also, Fortran was an IBM product, and IBM just dominated the computing field until the first minis appeared in the 70's, and then the micros. C was developed by AT&T originally, and then just given to Berkeley when AT&T got out of the computing business.

But Fortran lives on, with its most recent variant added in 2003, and a new one tentatively in the works. For what it's meant to do - calculate results from an immense number of data points, of which weather prediction is a common application - Fortran is very fast, if not exactly readable. Then again, C++ and C# aren't exactly user friendly in terms of readability either. (I put it down to engineers' desire to use tons of abbreviations because they can't type very well.)

I'd note that many of the tests to calculate the speed of a supercomputer are actually written in Fortran.

Al Gore's Weather (AGW): Li$$en up.
...-

"EPA, Countering Critics of Greenhouse Gas Findings, Says 'Science Is Settled'".

http://www.freerepublic.com/tag/news-forum/index

"Control by man of the Earth's weather and temperature is within the realm of practicability now." Dr Kaplan

I see Dr Kaplan has added thermal Control to his Product line....He is a NUT

http://www.drjoelkaplan.com/

Funny how those adjustments work eh?

// tim in vermont // in response to "dizzy"

"Those used now have been chosen to give reliable information over a larger area, by being correlated with stations at various distances."
// Boy, it would be pretty cool to see the peer reviewed science that proved that that technique works! Have it handy? //

The theory for this method is 20-odd years old, with much adjustment since then.
This article explains how the ranges of validity were developed.
Hansen, J.E., and S. Lebedeff, 1987: Global trends of measured surface air temperature. J. Geophys. Res., 92, 13345-13372.

Peterson, T.C., and R.S. Vose 1997. An overview of the Global Historical Climatology Network temperature database. Bull. Amer. Meteorol. Soc. 78, 2837-2849.

There is also an article which explains the mathematical treatment of station data & the procedures to go from that to temperature anomalies, but I can't find it just now.
++
"supposed heat island"
// the Urban Heat Island is as real as a Florida sunburn. Several degrees on cold nights. Leaves come out sooner in town, the snow melts quicker, frost comes later and leaves earlier. Yeesh. But somehow this all gets averaged away? Like I said, I would like to see the mathematical explanation and proof.. //

Not denying that urban heat islands exist. Merely noting that bemoaning the dropping of a station in downtown Prague "juxtataposes" oddly with the implied assumption of the invalidity of a station at the edge of a minor Rome airfield.
As for the "averaging out" ït's done by measuring anomalies, not temperatures alone. If it can be shown that monthly averages of two town & country sites correlate well, then it is possible to read monthly changes in these averages as valid for both. The 1987 article describes this.

" If it can be shown that monthly averages of two town & country sites correlate well, then it is possible to read monthly changes in these averages as valid for both. The 1987 article describes this."

That's the whole argument isn't it? That correlation has been shown? Well, it is odd that the main paper used to show this, Wang et al, was based on non existent data, an accusation long made, but now shown to be true by Climategate.