Yeah, it's every bit as stupid as it sounds. There's another conference coming up on how to "deal with" climate change, ignoring the fact that change is what climate does and that man-made impacts have very little to do with long-term climate trends. At this point, I refuse to provide links to the basics. I think you should look it up yourselves. But the basic theory is moronic, ignores the laws of thermodynamics, is unsupported by the data and even the climate models that are scaring everyone so badly don't even come close to agreeing with one another. Further, none of those models can predict the past, much less the future. All of the models use fudge factors to get past the climate elements the modelers don't understand -- and there are a lot of them -- and those same models are essentially linear, attempting to predict events in a non-linear chaotic environment. While you climate alarmists go ahead and google every sentence I just wrote, I will proceed to demonstrate how scientifically bereft the alarmists have become.
Surface temperatures have little to nothing to do with the theory of anthropogenic global warming. Look it up. The key lies in water vapor and mid-tropospheric temperatures in the tropics. Look it up. I'm getting tired of telling you this. But the alarmists, in attempting to alarm you, rely almost entirely on surface temperatures, although they love to talk about Arctic sea ice (although less so lately, since Arctic sea ice has been increasing since the low point in 2007, and reliable records only go back to 1979, when weather satellites became common -- hardly enough time to establish trends on a geologic, climatic scale, not that alarmists would mention that). Once again, look it up or shut up. Seriously, you know fuck all, and I'm tired of it.
And what you think you know is wrong. Bad news, kids -- they're lying to you. Back in August, the U.S. federal government announced that July was the hottest month since people started measuring temperatures. They do so even though the bureaucrats know their numbers are meaningless:
But government spokespeople rarely mention the inconvenient fact that these records are being set by less than the uncertainty in the statistics. NOAA claims an uncertainty of 14 one-hundredths of a degree in its temperature averages, or near twice the amount by which they say the record was set. NASA says that their data is typically accurate to one tenth of a degree, five times the amount by which their new record was set.Even if the new "hottest month ever" claims were actually statistically significant -- and they aren't -- the claims are based on numbers that have little to do with reality:
So, the new temperature records are meaningless. Neither agency knows whether a record was set.
Such misrepresentations are now commonplace in NOAA and NASAannouncements. They are regularly proclaiming monthly and yearly records set by less than the uncertainties in the measurements. Scientists within the agencies know that this is dishonest.
They also know that calculating so-called global average temperatures to hundredths of a degree is irrational. After all, there is very little data for the 70 percent of Earth’s surface that is ocean. There is also little data for mountainous and desert regions, not to mention the Antarctic. Much of the coverage is so sparse that NASA is forced to make the ridiculous claim that regions are adequately covered if there is a temperature-sensing station within nearly 750 miles. This is the distance between Ottawa, Canada, and Myrtle Beach, S.C. cities with very different climates. Yet, according to NASA, only one temperature sensing station is necessary for the two cities and the vast area between them to be adequately represented in their network.
New climate data by NOAA scientists doubles the warming trend since the late 1990s by adjusting pre-hiatus temperatures downward and inflating temperatures in more recent years."Newly adjusted climate data." Do you understand what they are doing? The numbers don't support their theory, so they change the numbers. They aren't even shy about admitting what they are doing:
“Newly corrected and updated global surface temperature data from NOAA’s [National Centers for Environmental Information] do not support the notion of a global warming ‘hiatus,'” wrote NOAA scientists in their study presenting newly adjusted climate data.
NOAA says for the years 1998 to 2012, the “new analysis exhibits more than twice as much warming as the old analysis at the global scale,” at 0.086 degrees Celsius per decade compared to 0.039 degrees per decade.Keep in mind, they take actual temperatures. Then they change them. Oddly enough, the changes always fit in nicely with the currently popular theory about global warming. Also keep in mind, the data actually relevant to the theory, mid-tropospheric temperatures, do not support the theory. So quit ignoring pesky facts and please pay attention to the horseshit sandwich we would like to feed you, mmmm'kay? And in case you still think surface data is accurate and matters, try this:
“This is clearly attributable to the new [Sea Surface Temperature] analysis, which itself has much higher trends,” scientists noted in their study. “In contrast, trends in the new [land surface temperature] analysis are only slightly higher.”
The US accounts for 6.62% of the land area on Earth, but accounts for 39% of the data in the GHCN network. Overall, from 1880 to the present, approximately 99% of the temperature data in the USHCN homogenized output has been estimated (differs from the original raw data). Approximately 92% of the temperature data in the USHCN TOB output has been estimated. The GHCN adjustment models estimate approximately 92% of the US temperatures, but those estimates do not match either the USHCN TOB or homogenized estimates.Face it. If they don't like the data, they change it. This is not a conspiracy theory. The data routinely gets changed. NOAA changes the data from the past, as well. Why? If your department isn't doing something vital to the survival of mankind, might you lose funding to a department that is? Bureaucracy in action.
The homogenization estimate introduces a positive temperature trend of approximately 0.34 C per century relative to the USHCN raw data. The TOBs estimate introduces a positive temperature trend of approximately 0.16 C per century. These are not additive. The homogenization trend already accounts for the TOBs trend.