Articles

Print
Jan
19

Breaking: New Climate Data Rigging Scandal Rocks US Government

Written by John O'Sullivan on 19 Jan 2014

A newly-uncovered and monumental calculating error in official US government climate data shows beyond doubt that climate scientists unjustifiably added on a whopping one degree of phantom warming to the official "raw" temperature record.  Skeptics believe the discovery may trigger the biggest of all “climate con” scandals in Congress and sound the death knell on American climate policy.

Independent data analyst, Steven Goddard, today (January 19, 2014) released his telling study of the officially adjusted and “homogenized” US temperature records relied upon by NASA, NOAA, USHCN and scientists around the world to “prove” our climate has been warming dangerously.

Goddard reports, “I spent the evening comparing graphs…and hit the NOAA motherlode.” His diligent research exposed the real reason why there is a startling disparity between the “raw” thermometer readings, as reported by measuring stations, and the “adjusted” temperatures, those that appear in official charts and government reports. In effect, the adjustments to the “raw” thermometer measurements made by the climate scientists “turns a 90 year cooling trend into a warming trend,” says the astonished Goddard.

Goddard’s plain-as-day evidence not only proves the officially-claimed one-degree increase in temperatures is entirely fictitious, it also discredits the reliability of any assertion by such agencies to possess a reliable and robust temperature record.

Goddard continues: "I discovered a huge error in their adjustments between V1 and V2. This is their current US graph. Note that there is a discontinuity at 1998, which doesn’t look right. Globally, temperatures plummeted in 1999, but they didn’t in the US graph."

ScreenHunter_64 Jan. 19 00.08

Climate at a Glance | Time Series

It doesn’t look right, because they made a gigantic error (possibly intentional) going from USHCN V1 to V2. In V1 they adjusted recent temperatures upwards (thin line below) and made no adjustment to older temperatures.

ScreenHunter_48 Jan. 18 18.14

GHCN Global Gridded Data

"But when they switched to V2, they started adjusting older temperatures downwards, and left post-2000 temperatures more or less intact, " says Goddard. This created a huge jump (greater than one degree) downwards for all years prior to 2000. You can see what they did in the animation below.

Blue line is thermometer data.  Thin red line is V1 adjusted. Thick red line is V2 adjusted. They created more than 1 degree warming by reversing polarity of the adjustment in the pre-2000 years. This created a double downwards adjustment for the pre-1998 years, relative to the post 1998 years.

 

NOAA made a big deal about 2012 blowing away all temperature records, but the temperature they reported is the result of a huge error. This affects all NOAA and NASA US temperature graphs, and is part of the cause of this famous shift.

According to USHCN 1 docs, the total adjustment is supposed to be about 0.5F, and upwards.

ts.ushcn_anom25_diffs_urb-raw_pg

ts.ushcn_anom25_diffs_urb-raw_pg.gif (650×502)

But in USHCN2, the adjustments are much larger, and downwards. The USHCN2 adjustments are supposed to be approximately the same adjustments as USHCN1.

Here is an animation of the complete set of USHCN adjustments, which turn a 90 year cooling trend into a warming trend.

Visualizing How USHCN Hides The Decline In US Temperatures | Real Science

 

But does this evidence prove an intentional fraud? Goddard certainly thinks it possible and only a full examination of all the files will show that, one way or the other. Goddard wants backing from others to compel the Administration to come clean on this massive story, using Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) rules. The ramifications are that hundreds of bilions of tax dollars have been misallocated to "solve" a non-problem, all due to willful malfeasance and/or incompetence in data handling.

Judging by recent history, the bureaucrats should be worried. Just last month (December, 2013), John Beale, the senior EPA policy advisor, was convicted and jailed for defrauding taxpayers out of $1 million in salaries and expenses.  Does a culture of corruption extend throughout departments associated with climate policy? The public will certainly demand their right to know whether they have been deliberately and systemically lied to.

Pin it

Comments  

# John Marshall 2014-01-19 07:22
Criminal behavour in the extreme resulting in government policy that pushed fuel costs skywards pushing thousands into fuel poverty. This act caused hardship to those low payed who live on the edge of poverty first and caused many to loose their homes. These ''scientists should be called to account for this criminality.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
# Steve Case 2014-01-19 20:06
It only counts if people find out about it. If a tree falls, does it make any sound?
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
# richardcavessa 2014-01-19 23:40
all in all, an impressive display, i'm not too sure is qualifies as rocks tho....
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
# Earthling 2014-01-20 02:54
Accidental or deliberate, heads must roll.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
# Amfortas 2014-01-20 08:23
Oh dear. I guess that means another ten years of additional taxes to claw back all the money spent.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
# overit 2014-01-21 08:16
Hussein..why would anyone waste time or pixels on anything at SkS?
unless youre pointing out another case of err derr on their site?
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
# John 2014-01-21 09:29
Agreed = Quoting Earthling:
Accidental or deliberate, heads must roll.

Agreed heads must roll. With as much fudging that occurs with the "homogenized" data that seems to always favor alarmists, I suspect foul play in this "error". Even if it is incompetence, then fire those responsible. Too many dollars are relying on this data to be pristine and we can't afford mistakes...
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
# albertellul 2014-01-21 10:15
“He who controls the past controls the future. He who controls the present controls the past.”

― George Orwell in his famous book -Nineteen Eighty-four

A very true case of the warmists who have taken over the present scientific climate platform who are now manipulating past climate data so that their master-puppeteers a.k.a. politicians can control our future.

Steven Goddard must have each honest person's full support especially fromhonest politicians if these exist.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
# Michael Milec 2014-01-21 10:18
As soon as people, stop blindly listen/obey stupid government propaganda and take things in their own hands, thinking/acting on they owns, the "economy- energy" problem is solved.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
# Oliver K. Manuel 2014-01-21 13:05
For about 68 years, since the end of WWII, the US National Academy of Sciences, the UK's Royal Society, and similar organizations around the globe, including the UN's IPCC, have lied to the public about the source if energy (E) stored as mass (m) in cores of

1. Heavy atoms like uranium
2. Some planets like Jupiter
3. Ordinary stars like the Sun
4. Galaxies like the Milky Way

Their plan to save the world from nuclear annihilation by forbidding knowledge of neutron repulsion, in fact put mankind in more serious danger of annihilation if the Sun goes to sleep for a few decades - as it has done on past occasions.


References for these conclusions are in my autobiography (in progress):

"A Journey to the Core of the Sun - Chapter 1: Coincidence"

dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/10640850/Chapter_1.pdf

"A Journey to the Core of the Sun - Chapter 2: Acceptance of Reality"

dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/10640850/Chapter_2.pdf
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
# Tim Folkerts 2014-01-21 13:20
A google search for 'USHCN adjustments' shows the explanations.

www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/ushcn/ushcn.html#QUAL

Which specific adjustments do people disagree with?
1) Should data that is judged to be incorrect not be removed?
2) If the measurements are taken at different times, should that not be accounted for?
3) When different thermometers and stations are used, should they jsut assume the different equipment will give exactly the same results?
4) If a station is moevd to a new location, should we treat the two data sets as identical?
5) How would *you* deal with missing data?
6) Should no adjustment be made for "urban heat island" effects?

Or perhaps you object to the specific methodology for these adjustments. There are references to the technical details in the link above. What techniques would people prefer for correcting for the many changes in equipment, collection time, and siting over the last century?

I'm not saying all the adjsutments are indeed correct -- just that there is a rationale for the various adjustments. On the face of it, it looks curious that the adjustments tend to be upward. But rather than throwing around accusations of fraud or criminal intent because a graph "doesn’t look right", find *specific* problems with the techniques that are clearly addressed on the NOAA website.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
# Paddy 2014-01-21 13:23
Whenever a huge government scandal is discovered, the purging to correct it should start at the top. Impeachment of the climatologist-in-chief should be impeached.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
# Odin 2014-01-21 15:01
Guys, hate to bust your bubble but the temps still climbed!
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
# BrianCarteir 2014-01-21 15:52
Odin, The graphs climed, not the temperatures. UAH and RSS are the only reliable data sets left with credibility. After a modest warming in the 90's, aided by an unusually strong El Nino in 1998, temperatures world wide (not just the land based thermometers in question) remained statistically flat for 17 years. Land based measurements only account for ~24% of the earth and mostly in the northern hemisphere.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
# Miner49er 2014-01-21 16:09
ANY efforts to reduce CO2 emissions will harm economies. Neither fossil fuels use nor CO2have any effect on climate. Wise up, climate pharisees!

The earth absorbs carbon dioxide very quickly, and converts it to carbonate rock, likely in seawater. Warmists have touched on this subject, but kept it at arms length. They tend to default to the physical chemistry (non-biologic) version of how CO2 is converted to carbonate rock. Their talking points go something like this: "Yes, carbonic acid- and Ca+ and Mg+ ions do react in seawater to form CaCO3 and MgCO3 carbonates. But this is a very slow reaction and takes thousands (millions) of years. There are also biological reactions, which we need to understand better."

So estimating the mass balance of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, 96.8% of emissions are natural, and 3.2% are of human origin (probably includes respiration, which I would submit is also natural). But the 2012 increase in global ambient CO2 was only 8 parts per million, or 0.00000008%. Taking into account the total weight of the atmosphere, that increase represents .003% of all (natural & human) emissions. Therefore, the earth re-absorbed 99.997% of all emitted CO2 in 2012. That indicates the average residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere is a little less than 15 minutes.

Warmists admit that most CO2 dissolves in seawater, but then they digress into disinformation. They would have the public believe that this is a hazard that will imperil all those cute and tasty little oysters, clams and lobsters, not to forget that pretty coral. The story goes on to relate that their metabolisms will fail if ocean acidity rises too high. See the attached emails, especially No. 2639.

But all that CO2 is going somewhere. And has been for a long time. And all those molluscs and crustaceans seem to have done fine so far. Those shell-forming creatures (including microscopic plants and animals) fix CO2 into carbonate rock by combining dissolved CO2- with dissolved Ca+ and MG+, which are abundant in sea water. Conversion of solar energy by living organisms is likely key at some stage in the process. And our own lyin' eyes inform us they do if fast. An acre oyster bed can add tons of shell in a season. Barnacles form unpleasantly fast on the submerged hulls of vessels. I'm confident that empirical experiments will corroborate the rate of carbonate solids by living organisms and illustrate why warmist scientists are so coy about the subject.

In summary, the mass of carbon dioxide is in nearly perfect equilibrium in the entire CO2 ecosystem, from fossil fuels combustion, ambient CO2, CO2 dissolved in seawater, and carbonate rock. Carbonate rock is a much larger and more permanent reservoir of carbon dioxide than existing fossil fuels reserves or living flora and fauna. There is little that humans can do to alter this situation, even if they wanted to. Cyclical variations in global ambient CO2 (within its present status as a trace gas) are no doubt caused by warming and cooling cycles that are forced by other forces, likely solar.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
# Claudius Denk Solving Tornadoe 2014-01-21 18:32
Quoting Miner49er:
ANY efforts to reduce CO2 emissions will harm economies. Neither fossil fuels use nor CO2have any effect on climate. Wise up, climate pharisees!
Well stated.
We need more CO2 in the atmosphere to increase crop production. There is no evidence that CO2 causes an increase in atmospheric temperature. If there is any link it is most likely that this link is biological, along the lines that when plants grow more easily they capture more energy through photosynthesis and and put more water vapor into the atmosphere through evapotranspiration, which itself is beneficial to agriculture in that the atmosphere also acts as the mechanism that distributes water. Concerns that this will result in a runaway greenhouse effect are based on politics and not science. Fortunately for the survival of and long term stability of every animal on the planet, people are less and less paying attention to the hand-wringing alarmist nonsense from environmentalist who pretend to have our best interests in mind.

What I've seen indicates that CO2 forcing and "evidence" thereof is comparable to that of ghosts or some kind of supernatural force. As with supernatural forces, there are many people that believe them. In fact, the vast majority of people believe in some kind of supernatural force. But that doesn't make it science. For it to be science you would have to be able to point to some kind of reproducible experimental evidence of CO2 Forcing. And nobody has ever done that. As with ghosts the evidence of CO2 Forcing is all anecdotal. Pointing to a computer model and claiming it demonstrates the existence of CO2 Forcing is comparable to pointing to a dilapidated house and claiming it's haunted.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
# Mervyn 2014-01-21 23:04
Readers should now watch the following YouTube video from January 2010 titled 'MORE CLIMATEGATE!? US Govt. agencies involved in Data Manipulation FRAUD!'

www.youtube.com/watch?v=AsQfr7wRZsw
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
# KuhnKat 2014-01-21 23:12
Tim Folkerts #12,

Yes there are peer reviewed papers that would APPEAR to support the adjustments CLAIMED to have been mad.

Would YOU be so kind as to unravel their spaghetti code and make excuses for their applying those adjustments in a totally unacceptable manner without the necessary data on the sites to justify their application??

Then you can explain how their breakpoint adjustments are anything less than pure FRAUD?!?!?!
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
# jim k 2014-01-22 00:12
Quoting Hussien:

No thanks.
That site is full of wrong information. They even created a phony survey to claim 9x% of scientists agree...
To top it off, one of the contributors works for an oil company!
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
# jim k 2014-01-22 00:20
Any time adjustments are large enough to change the slope or to change the result, one needs to be very, very sure that such corrections are really needed, and that you are not deluding yourself.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
# Chipher 2014-01-22 06:38
Mil.Gov.Sci.Edu's $18,000,000,000,000 deficit can never be repaid! Much of it hasn't even been AUDITED. Defense alone admits they 'lost track of' THREE.THREE TRILLION DOLLARS, and yet now every year they get a budget INCREASE. TRILLIONS we could have enjoyed in more time with our families, or a decent car, or a humble vacation, ...all stolen away, forever.

Most of Mil.Govs civilian workforce are double-dippers, who sit idly at their desks getting Masters degrees on your taxes so they can steal jobs away in the private sector later, while underpaid and understaffed CONTRACTORS struggle to keep up with the actual work! Every Mil.Gov staffer has a Big Consultant behind them, often on NO BID contracts. Some legislation actually MANDATES NO BID CONTRACTS. Our National HealthCare foulup was a NO BID CONTRACT.

Now multiply that by the MILLIONS of Mil.Gov.Sci.Edu, all double-dipping, all with life-time pensions, all scrambling to get a fat slice of Greed-Green Pie, saying whatever they need to for a grant.

We're being gang-banged, and yet the best we can come up with is, 'Please, sir, can you check your numbers again?' like a bunch of easy prom dates.

Wake up!! USA is a GULAG! It's your future, whether you can retire, or you starve! It's your children's futures, whether they live, or are homeless SLAVES! They don't care about you! Resist Mil.Gov.Sci.Edu!
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
# reesescups 2014-01-22 12:38
hahaha

You ignorant deniers always crack me up...

:lol:

Keep up the work fellas!
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
# shecanttakemuchmoreCapt 2014-01-22 13:16
But more to the point, if one is measuring something that varies so little that the slope of the graph changes through one's adjustments of the base data, one should be very careful identifying any trend and basing it on that data. Having been careful about that, then one should be even more careful about saying why this trend is there, and that's before ascribing it to some mechanism that one barely understands, and that is itself part of a chaotic thermodynamic system as big as the planet upon which one stands. Then glance up at the sky and consider if one even understands the influence of that big orange fusion reactor.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
# Sunsettommy 2014-01-22 13:39
Quoting reesescups:
hahaha

You ignorant deniers always crack me up...

:lol:

Keep up the work fellas!


Really you who failed to make a counterpoint here about the content of the article?

Keep up the good work fella.


Snicker..............
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
# Miner49er 2014-01-22 14:14
Quoting reesescups:
hahaha

You ignorant deniers always crack me up...

:lol:

Keep up the work fellas!


I hope you can still laugh while freezing in the dark. The Price of natural gas at the NY hub was $122 last night.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
# Charles S. Opalek, PE 2014-01-22 14:40
As long as Dr. James "Thumbs On The Temperature Scale" Hansen is in charge of the temperature record, the fox is watching the hen house.

This global warming zealot and lifetime bureaucrat must be sent back to academia from whence he came.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
# DS 2014-01-22 16:24
#14 Odin
"Guys, hate to bust your bubble but the temps still climbed!"

If true, then...

blogs.woodtv.com/2012/06/09/u-s-state-monthly-temperature-extremes-by-decade/

Most temperature records were set during the simmering 30s that we are told today didn't actually take place in the way they were documented. Not odd?

It is difficult not to compare that seeming disappearing right before our eyes recent past to the declining Medieval Warming Period.

upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c1/2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

In that, Mann looked at some questionable Tree Ring samples and insisted that the Medieval Warming was only in Europe, not Global. Overall, he claimed, the Medieval Warming and the Little Ice Age had a temperature not that far from each other, really. Makes sense...

Of course, plenty of peer-reviewed papers say that is nonsense, and that pretty much the entire Globe registered temperatures between 2-3 degrees warmer then they currently are
www.co2science.org/subject/r/summaries/rwpnortham.php

But who cares right? I mean at best what are we going to say, Temps 1000 and 2000 years ago got much, much hotter over a quicker amount of time without CO2? (on a path similar to the Greenland Samples, seen here)
files.abovetopsecret.com/files/img/cc4f6cab16.png
...that still doesn't change the fact that CO2 is the only thing that could possibly raise temperatures now because the Sun and Oceans play really no role at all - only Man (or Mann) can change temperatures that much! Right? And it isn't like the last 100 years worth of temperatures could possibly be wrong! We have them clearly documented...

And since we are talking about fractions of a degree over a roughly 100 year span covering the entire globe, well hey, when we adjust all that data we can see like this definite trend! And sure, it dropped from 60-70, and has stalled from 1997 till today. And yeah, we know those time periods happen to coincide with Ocean and Solar trends. But they have nothing to do with nothing! And there is still like this totally clear rising period from roughly 1930-1940 and 1980-200 that Man absolutely must be responsible for! It's also catastrophic, you know. (and we are really, really serious this time. This is totally not like when we told everyone that the world was going to face Catastrophic Global Cooling back about 40 years ago.)

And all of this is based off some kind of "normal" temperature they apparently feel we should just be sitting at if not for evil CO2 creating unheard of chaos. That "normal" temperature can clearly be seen on this historical temperature timeline
www.geogonline.org.uk/images/g3a_ki2.4_3.jpg
...uhm, well, hopefully it is a little higher than where we are today cause I am not 100% sure Man can survive temperatures if they were down where we find all those blue lines all gathered up over long stretches like that. Oh, but all that Blue isn't "normal", btw. Where the Red turns Blue at the 0, that's like "normal" and all - really!

It's all so silly.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
# Jimmy 2014-01-22 18:39
I understand that many temperature measurement sites (2000?) were removed. Most all of them in rural locations where the temperatures generally are less than the pavement-dense, heat releasing-dense urban and airport sites. That being true means that even the accepted data are skewed even without adjustments.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
# Daniel 2014-01-22 19:15
Temperatures are cooler now than most of the past 10,000 years, the amount of CO2 in Earth's atmosphere is a mere ~0.035%, that's 0.00035 out of 1. Even if you were somehow able to QUADRUPLE the amount of CO2 (impossible), it would still amount to less than ONE FIFTEENTH of one percent of our total atmosphere. The entire 'theory' is completely preposterous.

Anybody with any critical thinking skills can see that quote-on-quote "global warming" is a baseless overblown hoax. It is laughable that any scientist with any integrity whatsoever would give any credence to such a farcical hypothesis.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
# hoho 2014-01-22 23:46
Quoting Daniel:
Temperatures are cooler now than most of the past 10,000 years, the amount of CO2 in Earth's atmosphere is a mere ~0.035%, that's 0.00035 out of 1. Even if you were somehow able to QUADRUPLE the amount of CO2 (impossible), it would still amount to less than ONE FIFTEENTH of one percent of our total atmosphere.



Replace 0.035% of your body with uranium and see how little effect that makes on you. Same goes for CO2 in atmosphere
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
# Case 2014-01-23 00:10
HO Ho might like to tell us what the effect would be of quadrupling the amount of uranium in your body.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
# KuhnKat 2014-01-23 01:35
Quoting hoho:
Quoting Daniel:
Temperatures are cooler now than most of the past 10,000 years, the amount of CO2 in Earth's atmosphere is a mere ~0.035%, that's 0.00035 out of 1. Even if you were somehow able to QUADRUPLE the amount of CO2 (impossible), it would still amount to less than ONE FIFTEENTH of one percent of our total atmosphere.



Replace 0.035% of your body with uranium and see how little effect that makes on you. Same goes for CO2 in atmosphere


Well Ho ho, you apparently are ignorant in at least TWO areas. Replacing .035% of my body with uranium would have no effect on me depending on what you replaced. The ionizing radiation in that small of an amount of natural uranium is easily compensated for by the immune system.

Here is an incident of radiation exposure of up to 20 years of a large group of people to prove my point:

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2477708/

If the paper is too technical for you here is an article summarizing the findings:

ecolo.org/documents/documents_in_english/taiwan-cobalt-60-apartmt-04.htm
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
# DS 2014-01-23 02:10
Quoting hoho:
Replace 0.035% of your body with uranium and see how little effect that makes on you. Same goes for CO2 in atmosphere


That is so moronic on so many levels.

Most idiotic is that it implies somehow CO2 = Uranium. That's just foolish. CO2 is kind of the reason for all life on the planet. Studies have shown that many Trees and Plants begin to struggle to grow as well even at the levels the IPCC are using as the "ideal baseline" (~280). (hence satellites indicating the Worlds plant life might be as much as 6% higher today then it was even 25 years ago - all that good CO2 for them to grow on, and all)

In fact, take a second and look into using CO2 to help the growth of marijuana - you will find even many druggies know the ideal is CO2 levels of 1,500ppm! Why? Because it is common knowledge that about 1,500ppm is the ideal growth level for nearly all Plants. Hence Greenhouse having labels like so
www.naturalnews.com/images/CO2-Generator-Section.jpg
Meanwhile the Planet currently sits at about 400ppm and we are panicking because?

*Fun little-known-fact #1 - the Earth has seen levels of CO2 at an estimated 18 times (roughly 7,000ppm) their current levels millions of years ago. In fact, studies have found our current levels of CO2 are actually *very low* for the history of the planet

*Fun little-known-fact #2 - there are actually quite a few Ice Cores that show CO2 levels were over 400ppm (higher then today)... during the Mini Ice Age of roughly 1250-1850.

As I said before, all of this nonsense is just silly
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
# Anne Ominous 2014-01-23 14:17
Quoting #12 Tim Folkerts:
A google search for 'USHCN adjustments' shows the explanations.

www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/ushcn/ushcn.html#QUAL

Which specific adjustments do people disagree with? ...


Tim, do you have these WHOOSH moments often? That strange sensation of moving air which signifies something sailing over your head at high velocity?

Goddard makes 2 points that none of your arguments address: (1) That the temperatures were adjusted in ways that are CONTRARY to that very documentation, and (2) that the documentation does not explain why the adjustments done this time are DIFFERENT than the adjustments performed before.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
# Homer 2014-01-24 22:11
They had been rigging the data for years so that they could make money. Check into the whole global warming scheme and decide for yourself. We will soon be heading into a mini-ice age
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
# Lee Bailey 2014-01-25 00:04
Quoting Anne Ominous:
Quoting #12 Tim Folkerts:
A google search for 'USHCN adjustments' shows the explanations.

www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/ushcn/ushcn.html#QUAL

Which specific adjustments do people disagree with? ...


Tim, do you have these WHOOSH moments often? That strange sensation of moving air which signifies something sailing over your head at high velocity?

Goddard makes 2 points that none of your arguments address: (1) That the temperatures were adjusted in ways that are CONTRARY to that very documentation, and (2) that the documentation does not explain why the adjustments done this time are DIFFERENT than the adjustments performed before.


Totally true. Co2 has no affect on global temps. This is an accepted scientific fact. There is absolutely no historic link that can be found between Co2 levels and temps rise or fall. If it is any indicator at all it's a following indicator.. and the only places that it can be found following a temp rise is a rise in the Co2 400 years AFTER the temp rise. Too far out to be linked.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
# Kev 2014-01-25 09:50
How is this story not being splashed across every news blog on the planet?

I'm only seeing this story on a few sites here and there. This is a MONUMENTAL discovery which would completely demolish the warming cultists.

Can we PLEASE spread this around more?
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
# Allan 2014-01-25 16:20
Quoting reesescups:
hahaha

You ignorant deniers always crack me up...

:lol:

Keep up the work fellas!
This is the best response I've seen. To the point!HaHa
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
# Ed 2014-01-25 19:10
Quoting Kev:
How is this story not being splashed across every news blog on the planet?

I'm only seeing this story on a few sites here and there. This is a MONUMENTAL discovery which would completely demolish the warming cultists.

Can we PLEASE spread this around more?


How about starting some kind of petition for a public review of the data with all the links on Obummers own web site?...We The People@ Whitehouse.gov
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
# tabula_posa 2014-01-26 06:19
Not many ignorant Global Coolist deniers to be found on this blog.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
# Defiant 2014-01-26 10:41
And yet we'll STILL have millions of Liberals INSISTING Global Warming is real...and we need to act fast before the ice caps melt away entirely. And we only have 5 to 10 years (we ALWAYS have only 5 to 10 years)...
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
# Occidental Confessional 2014-01-26 17:25
As I've said before, history repeats itself and climate science is an exercise in worshipping crocodiles. High priests in their lab coats cannot be doubted. Such heresy will be punished with rabid fear of exposing the truth. Egyptians were taught by their priest class that the climate depended on the sacrifice of the entire culture. Someone's baby must be thrown to the Nile crocodiles to appease the gods. It is always the same. The priests never have to make the sacrifice, which is why Al Gore and company are allowed to waste as much energy as their giant mansions can gobble up. They all know its a scam.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
# Rabbit 2014-01-26 23:56
Quoting Paddy:
Whenever a huge government scandal is discovered, the purging to correct it should start at the top. Impeachment of the climatologist-in-chief should be impeached.


I sasy set a real example. The highest responible parties should be hung or maybe strangled and perhaps the next generation of opportunistic con artists dressed as scientists and the mindless drones who follow them like rats after the Pied Piper might think twice before subjecting the rest of us to such a badly acted pantomine of puffed up prententious garbage science. Not even science, they just use the term like a talisman, to cover what is nothing else but fraud and always was. Of course the died hards will keep on keeping on as such stains do for a while longer but hopefully they come out with the wash before long. At least before they get snowed on or icebound.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
# Justin Case 2014-01-27 00:44
This is why we need to correct anyone who starts to talk about climate change. We also need to teach our children that this is a bunch of bunk and to do that you should show them stories like this often and over a long period of time. Always make fun of those who teach the religion of climatology and let your children chime in with their own ridicule. Laugh at their jokes and use phrases and terms that reenforce the silliness of climatology. One of my favorites is to state the obvious such as why is it so cold, the warmers keep saying the planet is going to burn up because of cow farts.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
# Rastafarian 2014-01-27 08:55
Quoting Case:
HO Ho might like to tell us what the effect would be of quadrupling the amount of uranium in your body.

Hoho is another DBag idiot.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
# Rastafarian 2014-01-27 08:58
Quoting KuhnKat:
Quoting hoho:
Quoting Daniel:
Temperatures are cooler now than most of the past 10,000 years, the amount of CO2 in Earth's atmosphere is a mere ~0.035%, that's 0.00035 out of 1. Even if you were somehow able to QUADRUPLE the amount of CO2 (impossible), it would still amount to less than ONE FIFTEENTH of one percent of our total atmosphere.



Replace 0.035% of your body with uranium and see how little effect that makes on you. Same goes for CO2 in atmosphere


Well Ho ho, you apparently are ignorant in at least TWO areas. Replacing .035% of my body with uranium would have no effect on me depending on what you replaced. The ionizing radiation in that small of an amount of natural uranium is easily compensated for by the immune system.

Here is an incident of radiation exposure of up to 20 years of a large group of people to prove my point:

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2477708/

If the paper is too technical for you here is an article summarizing the findings:

ecolo.org/documents/documents_in_english/taiwan-cobalt-60-apartmt-04.htm


Hoho is a babbling idiot trying to sound shmart. He probably voted for Obummer, twice!
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
# Jan-Ove Pedersen 2014-01-27 10:01
Quoting Justin Case:
This is why we need to correct anyone who starts to talk about climate change. We also need to teach our children that this is a bunch of bunk and to do that you should show them stories like this often and over a long period of time. Always make fun of those who teach the religion of climatology and let your children chime in with their own ridicule. Laugh at their jokes and use phrases and terms that reenforce the silliness of climatology. One of my favorites is to state the obvious such as why is it so cold, the warmers keep saying the planet is going to burn up because of cow farts.


Good point. I've already thought my children that their School textbooks is flawed and filled With climate propaganda. I have shown them the facts so they can see for them selves that there is no evidence for the CAGW or any Version of GHE to be found anywhere. They are now on their own initiative ridiculing Television programmes that make AGW claims. I've also told them about anouther lie many environmentalists talks about; how fragile the environment and life is.... STOP if that had been true there would not be any life on this planet, it would have went destinct eons ago. In fact life is very resillient and the proof is the abundance of life everywhere on the face of the planet.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
# Lex Loathar 2014-01-27 15:00
Quoting John Marshall:
Criminal behavour in the extreme resulting in government policy that pushed fuel costs skywards pushing thousands into fuel poverty. This act caused hardship to those low payed who live on the edge of poverty first and caused many to loose their homes. These ''scientists should be called to account for this criminality.

They should be tried and then promptly shot. That will put an end to "fudging figures",
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
# joe schmo 2014-01-27 15:36
It's funny listening to all of you suggest thousands of scientist are intentionally misleading people and how they should all be punished, all the while most of you go and tell you children that some imaginary character watches them at all times of the day and will burn them for eternity if they don't do as they are told.

The lack of intelligence is astounding from the right.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
# Sunsettommy 2014-01-27 19:26
Quoting joe schmo:
It's funny listening to all of you suggest thousands of scientist are intentionally misleading people and how they should all be punished, all the while most of you go and tell you children that some imaginary character watches them at all times of the day and will burn them for eternity if they don't do as they are told.

The lack of intelligence is astounding from the right.


Supporting your claims is astoundingly missing.Maybe you can't because you don't know how to form a rational counterpoint.

Why can't you just post a counterpoint to the article itself,and leave out the babble?
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
# J Kater 2014-01-28 06:48
Well? What are you all waiting for. Go and claim your Nobel. Crackpot city is alive and well here.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
# jay64 2014-01-28 07:39
Quoting hoho:
Quoting Daniel:
Temperatures are cooler now than most of the past 10,000 years, the amount of CO2 in Earth's atmosphere is a mere ~0.035%, that's 0.00035 out of 1. Even if you were somehow able to QUADRUPLE the amount of CO2 (impossible), it would still amount to less than ONE FIFTEENTH of one percent of our total atmosphere.



Replace 0.035% of your body with uranium and see how little effect that makes on you. Same goes for CO2 in atmosphere


Ah, you need this analogy to explain the enormous bogus feedbacks required to explain the actual minuscule effect of CO2. Indeed, you could've went further and said it was 0.6 g of matter that was converted to energy in the Hiroshima bomb.
So What? The natural forces are incomparable.
An additional lessening of the effect of atmospheric CO2 is that, the molecule does not absorb across the whole thermal bandwidth.
But of course, Jim, you have to come out of your Victorian Age Greenhouse and into the bright light of Quantum Physics to appreciate that one.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
# douglas nusbaum 2014-01-28 10:47
Another example of the dunn kruger affect. This one by someone dumber than plants. That is because all across the world plants are moving either towards the poles, or up the slopes of mountains at a rate of about 3 to 13 feet per year. Plants are more aware of the environment than Mr. Goddard. Of course, if you do not exist reallysciency.blogspot.com/p/who-is-steven-goddard.html then you can be excused of not being very smart :-)

Judging from this example, this entire post is a trol, probably funded by the oil and petroleum industries.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
# jay64 2014-01-28 12:09
Quoting douglas nusbaum:

Judging from this example, this entire post is a trol, probably funded by the oil and petroleum industries.

I invariably find it humorous when our Wharmer friends equate Big 'Green' with good and Big Oil with bad.
The truth is, Big Oil invests billions in Big 'Green'.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
# solvingtornadoes 2014-01-28 13:26
Quoting douglas nusbaum:
Another example of the dunn kruger affect.
In my experience when people refer to the Dunning-Kruger Effect without referring directly to evidence thereof they are, ironically, providing evidence thereof.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
# CarbonDisclosureProject 2014-01-28 14:35
The global warming scam is known as the Carbon Disclosure Project run out of London and its last estimated worth is 87 trillion dollars. It's all a carbon tax.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
# A.Hurley 2014-01-29 06:03
Lars KarlssonJanuary 23, 2014 at 12:31 AM

Briffa et al 2009 explores the origin of the figure in Appendix A.

"In summary, we show that the curve used by IPCC (1990) was
locally representative (nominally of Central England) and not
global, and was referred to at the time with the word ‘schematic’."
SouJanuary 23, 2014 at 12:54 AM

Thanks very much, Lars. Something more I've learnt today. I'll bookmark that for future reference.

Maybe the fake sceptics weren't as diligent back then as they are now or they would surely have shouted from the rooftops that the IPCC made an error :D

(Not that I'm aware of a fake sceptic ever picking up an error in an IPCC report. The only errors I'm aware of were picked up by scientists.)

The above comments from Sou , clearly demonstrate that that the warmmongers have little or no conscience when it comes to relevant information being shown as (labelled) incorrect and gloat at the fact it appears to have been overlooked.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
# Dandy Don 2014-01-29 19:43
Quoting Steve Case:
It only counts if people find out about it. If a tree falls, does it make any sound?

I shall make it my duty to let people know.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
# Jinx Fogle 2014-01-30 20:05
Working in industry designing trace gas analyzers I am well aware of the difficulties of measuring temperatures. In a closed controlled environment, measuring tenth of degrees is extremely difficult, in degrees F° nearly impossible. I can show that a temperature change of 0.1 to 0.4 °F can be achieved by rotating the measuring device. Lastly of course there is climate change 10,000 years ago North America was covered in miles thick ice. That will happen again as will world wide warming as happened in the middle ages.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
# Stryks 2014-02-02 22:00
So .. hang on.

Goddard points out that adjustments have been made to the temperature records, and then appears incredulous that the results are different to the unadjusted data?

Ok ... but hardly worth all the debate. The real question should be WHY the temperatures were adjusted. I notice that there is NO discussion of that here however.

The reality is that the adjustments made have been fully justified and are totally transparent (i.e. they are published and have been replicated by numerous sources).

The raw data is not suitable for global comparison, hence the need for adjustments to be applied.

An SKS site was linked and was summarily dismissed by most everyone here. I suggest you all go take a look at what you are dismissing.

There is a wealth of information available from reputable peer reviewed sources listed on those pages which demonstrate clearly why the above article is totally devoid of scientific credibility.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
# Guest 2014-02-02 22:00
This comment has been deleted by Administrator
# Bernard 2014-02-05 09:03
I've been waiting for another post here with baited breath to hear further debate. In the meantime, I visited the NOAA website listed among the first several posts regarding these "adjustments".

I'm no scientist. However, it sure seems like there is a lot of guess work going into said "adjustments". It reminds me of the "adjustments" that were made in order to get the federal gov't to adopt as a dietary standard the "Food Pyramid" scheme, under the Johnson administration I believe.

Perhaps if the US Gov't hasn't been involved in so many special interest scams (the Federal Reserve & phony money scam being the longest running), it would be easier for "the rest of us" to willingly accept such "adjustments" as being valid and accurate. However, this has simply not been the case.

Is Goddard talking about the very same "transparent adjustments"? Or is he addressing different "adjustments"?

Even if all "adjustments" are valid, various evidence reported seems to indicate these warming & cooling trends to go in cycles, according to the activity of the sun.

Therefore, what proves beyond a shadow of doubt that reducing the "carbon footprint" of humans will prevent inevitable doom?
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
# santa26 2014-02-05 17:10
Really, just one degree? With all the power, control, and money climate hysteria brings, who is going to change their retoric about one degree? If I was in the "inner circle" of cliimate change and global warming, I would suggest a tax increase to compensate for the one degree error.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
# oscar manuel 2014-02-05 23:15
I also want to add that pictures of people wearing masks to protect against smog in China and India are totally fake. They photoshop them on the people. The rising sea levels are totally fake...as is the pictures of the England coast posted on 05/02/2014 on BBC. I was just on that train today...its still there and the sea is totally calm. I was in L.A. Calif. a few days ago.... there's lots of rain, the streets are flooded...the whole "drought" story about Calif. is totally fake. The resevoirs and swimming pools are totally full. I am totally in agreement that all this is made up. They say the Oceans are getting more "acid", those guys must be on "acid". They are actually getting less acid. Those satellite pictures of the shrinking glaciers have been photoshopped to make it look that way. They are doing this to shrink the profits of our oil companies. The Tar Sands in Alberta are actually good for the rivers and the native people complaining just because they can't drink the water....its all a lie. I believe this article. The scientists are making all this up. I don't know why but they should know better. The stories about boats sailing through the N.W. passage are total lies. The ice is thicker than ever. I am so happy that Mr. John O'Sullivan has finally come up to show us how we have be totally duped by all the scientists and news reporters everywhere. They are all against the oil companies that are only trying to make a honest living. Some of the excutives have actually had to move into smaller houses, give up their vacation homes because of these lies.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
# Stryks 2014-02-06 09:14
Bernard - The adjustments under discussion are not only not guesswork, they have been scrutinized and replicated by pretty much every group involved in the climate change discussion; skeptics as much as scientists.

Many have disputed the way which adjustments were applied, but every alternate method I have seen pretty accurately reproduces the homogenized data.

This is why the standard fallback is to start talking about natural cycles, which usually leads to discussion of declining solar activity in the last 30 years while temperatures have continued to rise , which generally leads back to claims that the temperature record is wrong.

But the adjustments are all transparent, which is how people like Goddard can recreate the adjustments to see how and why there were made.

Regarding solar influence on climate change, Foster & Rahmstorf (2011) is a good place to start.

iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/6/4/044022

As for the evidence that reducing our carbon footprint will prevent inevitable doom .. well ... where to begin.

Climate change theory exists because it describes the climate mechanisms which can explain the observed climate changes. If a better explanation existed which explained all those changes, then the theory would change.

Given that it has not changed substantially in 30 years or so of continual research, it is reasonable to conclude that there is a high probability that the theory is at least reasonably accurate.

That theory identifies CO2 emissions as the cause of our climate imbalance.

Again, it's only part of the picture, but it's a substantial part, and it explains the observed phenomenon better than anything else even remotely does.

Given the high probability that C02 is a significant cause of climate change, and understanding that it can take up to 30 years for the effect of today's emissions to be felt, then it should be fairly clear why many (if not most) believe that CO2 emission reduction needs to start as soon as possible.

It's a reasonable conclusion in my opinion. There is little chance that we will prevent 2 degrees of warming with the emissions we have released to this point. Another 30 years of emissions at the ever increasing rates we are currently producing may well see another one or two.

If you want to see what could potentially be at stake, have a read of this.

www.climatecodered.org/2010/09/what-would-3-degrees-mean.html
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
# Mannie 2014-02-07 10:30
The so-called scientists have so badly buggered the raw data, that the data for the past 100 years is scientifically worthless. We can conclude nothing from it, because it is untrustworthy. The reagedy of this is that it will take another 100 years of measurement to attempt to come up with any kind of valid trend data.

The political agendizers have literally destroyed Climate Science. Anyone claiming to be a climate scientist ought to be held up to derision.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
# Stryks 2014-02-08 02:14
Mannie - Interested to see evidence that the raw data has 'been buggered'.

Logic suggests that raw data is data in it's raw form, which always is of value.

Raw data, once homogenized, can give a very clear and accurate indication of the subject at hand.

I think what you mean to say is that the adjusted data is 'buggered', but again, this requires some kind evidence beyond just saying that it is so.

Climate science is alive and well, and no amount of bashing from any quarter has managed to make a dent in what is now quite a robust scientific theory. The ability to turn some people away from action on climate change does not in any way invalidate the science.

I believe that climate scientists should be lauded for continuing their diligent testing and investigation of this issue in the face of the vitriolic opposition from 'political agendizers' who have a very poor grasp of science.

Of course, if there is any evidence, scientific or otherwise, that this in not true, I am always happy to be corrected.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
# Kevin Schmidt 2014-02-11 13:51
www.skepticalscience.com/surface-temperature-measurements-advanced.htm

Other lines of evidence for rising temperatures


The surface temperature trends are also confirmed from multiple, independent sources:

Surface temperature analysis by NASA GISS finds strong agreement with two independent analyses by CRU's Global Temperature Record and NCDC.

Weather balloon measurements have found from 1975 through 2005, the global mean, near-surface air temperature warmed by approximately 0.23°C/decade.

Satellite measurements of lower atmosphere temperatures show temperature rises between 0.16°C and 0.24°C/decade since 1982.

Ice core reconstructions found the 20th century to be the warmest of the past five centuries, confirming the results of earlier proxy reconstructions.

Sea surface temperatures, borehole reconstructions and ocean temperatures all show long-term warming trends.

Reanalysis data sets also show the same warming trend. A ‘reanalysis’ is a climate or weather model simulation of the past that incorporates data from historical observations. Reanalysis comparisons by Vose et al. (2012) and Compo et al. (2013) find nearly identical global surface warming trends as in the instrumental record

A paper by Anderson et al. (2012) also created a new global surface temperature record reconstruction using 173 records with some type of physical or biological link to global surface temperatures (corals, ice cores, speleothems, lake and ocean sediments, and historical documents). The study compared their reconstruction to the instrumental temperature record and found a strong correlation between the two

www.skepticalscience.com/surface-temperature-measurements-advanced.htm
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
# douglas nusbaum 2014-02-11 19:35
Quoting solvingtornadoes:
Quoting douglas nusbaum:
Another example of the dunn kruger affect.
In my experience when people refer to the Dunning-Kruger Effect without referring directly to evidence thereof they are, ironically, providing evidence thereof.


I guess you missed that phrase "dumber than plants" How much less knowledge can a person have if they have less knowledge than a plant. Oh wait. You just provided an example :-)
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
# Kim Moore 2014-02-13 10:49
I'm not surprised one bit!

On one hand we have skies filled with chemical aerosol dispersants.

On the other hand we have officials and weather reporters referring to anyone who discusses it as "Looney-tuns sporting tin foil beanies"

But than the American Meteorological Society hangs their itinerary out in public view, so what gives?

Google it, it just happened 2 weeks ago> Plenary Session 1
14th Presidential Forum: Extreme Weather, Climate, and the Built Environment: New Perspectives, Opportunities, and Tools
Location: Thomas Murphy Ballroom (The Georgia World Congress Center )
Hosts: (Joint between the Second Symposium on Prediction of the Madden-Julian Oscillation: Impacts on Weather and Climate Extremes; the 14th Presidential Forum; the Second Symposium on the Joint Center for Satellite Data Assimilation; the Superstorm Sandy and the Built Environment: New Perspectives, Opportunities, and Tools; the Stanley A. Changnon Symposium; the Edward S. Epstein Symposium; the 30th Conference on Environmental Information Processing Technologies; the 28th Conference on Hydrology; the 26th Conference on Climate Variability and Change; the 26th Conference on Weather Analysis and Forecasting / 22nd Conference on Numerical Weather Prediction; the 23rd Symposium on Education; the 22nd Conference on Probability and Statistics in the Atmospheric Sciences; the 18th Joint Conference on the Applications of Air Pollution Meteorology with the A&WMA; the 18th Conference on Integrated Observing and Assimilation Systems for the Atmosphere, Oceans, and Land Surface (IOAS-AOLS); the 16th Conference on Atmospheric Chemistry; the 12th Conference on Artificial and Computational Intelligence and its Applications to the Environmental Sciences; the 12th History Symposium; the 12th Symposium on the Coastal Environment; the 11th Conference on Space Weather; the 11th Symposium on the Urban Environment; the Tenth Annual Symposium on New Generation Operational Environmental Satellite Systems; the Ninth Symposium on Policy and Socio-Economic Research; the Sixth Symposium on Aerosol-Cloud-Climate Interactions; the
end quote source: ams.confex.com/ams/94Annual/webprogram/6AEROCLOUD.html

It's time we talk facts!
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
# bernard b carman 2014-02-13 11:24
and yeah, what about HARP? what does HARP by any chance have to do with all this "climate change"?

after all, it's no secret that HARP is experimenting with weather control and who knows what else... why are the climate experts not bringing it into the discussion?

also i understand that USA is not the only weather/climate control station.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
# Bonnie 2014-02-13 15:21
Great revelations, but is anything every going to be done about it? Obviously not, judging from the total lack of reaction or excitement in the mainstream media since then!
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
# tiger 2014-02-15 12:57
Since we are burning "fossil Carbon" producing all that nasty CO2 and since it is supposed that the "fossil Carbon" was produced by plants and animals, and since plants stored CO2 as the "fossil Carbon" which we are burning now, it would appear to me that at one time there must have been a HUGE amount of CO2 around which was converted to all that bad "fossil Carbon"
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
# Pat Obar 2014-02-16 01:32
Quoting tiger:
Since we are burning "fossil Carbon" producing all that nasty CO2 and since it is supposed that the "fossil Carbon" was produced by plants and animals, and since plants stored CO2 as the "fossil Carbon" which we are burning now, it would appear to me that at one time there must have been a HUGE amount of CO2 around which was converted to all that bad "fossil Carbon"


Nice post. Taking that further, Earthlings will be doing an exothermic oxidation of all carbon they can get. This is what must me done
so some earthlings can survive the current many year cold snap!
Unfortunately all survivors will be only the very stupid and rich, who refuse to understand what is. They already Know everything.
The dying serfs have much more understanding of what is. Bye byes serfs, The temporally survivors will be the extraordinary stupid and wealthy.
Bye Bye earthling evolution. The only surviving earthlings will be none! This happened more rapidly than anticipated. I hope that the roaches have better luck! :-)
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
# Calvinus 2014-02-16 21:33
Quoting DS:
#14 Odin
Most temperature records were set during the simmering 30s that we are told today didn't actually take place in the way they were documented. Not odd?

Entirely false. Most temperature records in the continental United States were set during the 1930s. That's 1% of the planet.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
# Tell It Like It Is 2014-02-17 07:46
Quoting Kim Moore:
I'm not surprised one bit!...

It's time we talk facts!


Well, while you and yours dispute the facts as you choose to accept them- my country is cooking and is only going to get worse when El Nino kicks back in - personally I can't wait for a little bit of widespread fear and anarchy - but then I am a fatalist at heart.

It's just odd that in the face of scientific reason that points to widespread doom and gloom, the deniers choose to believe that all is fine, except for of course the doom and gloom of a worldwide conspiracy to poison billions and then cover it all up.

Lets face it, more often than not conspiracy theorists believe in more than one conspiracy and most of said conspiracies are about shackling the middle and lower classes to a worse world forever... so why not just accept the climate science that the world is going to cook and we are all going to be worse off for it? I mean, most of you people are pessimists anyway (in my experience at least) - so why not just add climate change certainty to the litany of gloom and doom scenarios and conspiracies that you have less certainty about. If you are all going to be miserable ignoramouses anyway, what would it hurt?
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
# Stryks 2014-02-24 00:21
Quoting tiger:
Since we are burning "fossil Carbon" producing all that nasty CO2 and since it is supposed that the "fossil Carbon" was produced by plants and animals, and since plants stored CO2 as the "fossil Carbon" which we are burning now, it would appear to me that at one time there must have been a HUGE amount of CO2 around which was converted to all that bad "fossil Carbon"


I'm not entirely sure what your point is, yet you say it sarcastically enough to make it seem like you have a killer argument.

But we can extrapolate some idea of how much carbon would be in the atmosphere if we were able to somehow extract all of it into the atmosphere (impossible if not highly improbable, but just for the sake of argument).

Amount of stored carbon in the earth's crust: approx 10^21kg

Mass of the Earth's atmosphere: approx 10^18kg

So, in theory, if we were able to transfer that stored carbon into the atmosphere, then our atmosphere would be 99.90% CO2.

I know, many issues which complicate this. It's simply a demonstration of the amount of carbon currently stored in the earth's crust while atmospheric CO2 is still, relatively speaking, a trace gas.

Venus on the other hand, is known to have an atmosphere of around 97% CO2 and has the resultant runaway greenhouse effect that we would expect.

This is why Venus has a top surface temperature of around 900 degrees Fahrenheit while Mercury tops out around 840 degrees Fahrenheit, despite being almost twice as close to the sun as Venus.

But what you state largely matches up with what is understood. We went from mainly nitrogen, to a nitrogen and CO2 mix, finally developing a 'free' oxygen atmosphere around 2.4 billion years ago, apparently thanks to cyanobacteria which produces oxygen through photosynthesis.

These cyanobacteria are thought to be the cause of the 'great oxygenation event'.

During all this, plate tectonics were forming and reforming land masses, trapping vast amounts of CO2 in the process (plants, but also carbonate sediments from where large amounts of atmospheric CO2 were dissolved in water).

Strangely, this describes a natural carbon capture and release cycle which could be as much as 4 billion years old.

Somehow, I don't think this was the argument you were trying to put forward, given that we have implemented our own large scale carbon release system and are currently overriding the natural cycle.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
# Guest 2014-02-24 23:30
This comment has been deleted by Administrator
# John vdHeijden 2014-02-25 08:24
Part 1 I have a career of some 40 years past, working along those in the "hard " sciences of math physics chemistry and particulary control theory .As a result I have developed world leading, reliable products based on established science.
Climate science? - Nah its a psuedoscience. I have not read one paper that examines the greenhouse effect and is properly challenged,analysed and supported by the theory of Thermodynamics. Thermodynamics has never let us down. It tells us that there can be only one source of heat in the solar system that is capable of maintaining temperatures on planet earth that being the SUN.
The climate change psuedoscience tells us that the human race is responsible for changes in the heat stored in the atmosphere ( actually are very vague as to where the heat stored and according to what theory is in fashion) Take the much heralded greenhouse theory, Thermo dynamics tells us that the effect is not perfect ( there is no such thing as a perfect gas that reflects all re-radiated heat back to earth - it leaks heat - much like the insulation used in a thermosflask). This means that the the heat available on earth can only ever follow the SUNs output long term it simply can not keep rising unless the suns output does the same. Sure the insulation ( greenhouse effect) can increase causing the planet to heet up - but that can only be a temporary thing if the suns output does not do the same ( the insulation leaks).
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
# John vdHeijden 2014-02-25 08:25
Part 2Now the psuedoscience argues that he suns output has been low for a while - that can only mean one thing on earth no matter what level greenhouse gases are present - the heat energy reaching the earth is less. So if there was real science to back the AWG claim up we must see that it can show by thermodynamics that a sustainable a net rising heat storage is happening that is overcoming the losses of the greenhouse effect. The heat available on Earth has to follow that of the suns output - and possible other cyclic cosmic causes of cloud formation
Todate we have only the opinions of scientists - on which governments and corporations have hung their hats suspiciously very quickly with out a shred of "hard" science based on analysis by thermo dynamics. Rest assured it is no simple task to analyse the flow of heat into and out of the earths environment - when the leaky insulator is a non linea & highly complexed and chaotic system in itself. The heat flow radiated from the earth is a self compensating control loop .Yet here we are we have a consensus of scientist who claim they are 95% sure that the climate change is due to human activity. Well in my long experience of work with scientists and using established science myself - Consensus and opinions are NOT and never will be established science - and in that 5% of uncertantity is often where the reliable science lays. Science is open to question and challenge by anyone -For someone to say that "The science is settled" and to shutdown challenges or to label someone a sceptic for any element of established science shows total ignorance,disrespect and lack of understanding of the very fundamentals of time honoured scientific principle that has served us so well and bought us into the enlightened world.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
# Tresa 2014-03-12 00:27
Hi! I could have sworn I've visited this web site before but after
going through some of the posts I realized it's new
to me. Anyways, I'm definitely happy I discovered it and I'll be book-marking it and checking back frequently!


Also visit my website; Robert Wayne Footwear
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
# J vdHeijden 2014-03-12 06:15
@ Stryks"Venus on the other hand, is known to have an atmosphere of around 97% CO2 and has the resultant runaway greenhouse effect that we would expect.
".
Does thermodynamics a tualy support a runaway effect through a process of rising CO2? My understanding - correctme if I am wrong is that all greenhouse gasses absorb radiation from the sun from particular energies and re- radiate it in the infra red region . However these gases re-raidate in ALL directions so the greater amount of this energy has to be directed back out into space.Indeed so does the heat from the surface of the earth also. The point is that any greenhouse gas is not a perfect reflector - it can not contain more than say 50% of the heat that it absorbs - it is therefor very "lossy" . The fact that Venus has a high surface temperature may well be due to its 97 CO2 atmosphere - however the process of how it became so high does NOT imply it happened through a "runaway" greenhouse effect. The Earth controls the movement of heat around the planet by ocean curents and latent heat in water vapour. These are many orders of magnetude more important in the effect on the Earths surface temperature ( stand out on a clear winters night - no wind and feel the temperature plummet).
We have a fixation on CO2 because it is politically expedient to be so - and to convince the stupid people a simple childish experiment will demonstrate how CO2 can absorb and re- radiate heat. That how ever is a very scientifically niave and completly wrong approach to base an entire climate model on
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
# WhatWouldRamboDo 2014-03-30 19:16
Quoting Tell It Like It Is:
Quoting Kim Moore:
I'm not surprised one bit!...

It's time we talk facts!


Well, while you and yours dispute the facts as you choose to accept them- my country is cooking and is only going to get worse when El Nino kicks back in - personally I can't wait for a little bit of widespread fear and anarchy - but then I am a fatalist at heart.

It's just odd that in the face of scientific reason that points to widespread doom and gloom, the deniers choose to believe that all is fine, except for of course the doom and gloom of a worldwide conspiracy to poison billions and then cover it all up.

Lets face it, more often than not conspiracy theorists believe in more than one conspiracy and most of said conspiracies are about shackling the middle and lower classes to a worse world forever... so why not just accept the climate science that the world is going to cook and we are all going to be worse off for it? I mean, most of you people are pessimists anyway (in my experience at least) - so why not just add climate change certainty to the litany of gloom and doom scenarios and conspiracies that you have less certainty about. If you are all going to be miserable ignoramouses anyway, what would it hurt?


What country are you from? And assuming you wipe your own ass, when you look down at the brown stuff on the paper did you just find the 'face of scientific reason that points to widespread doom and gloom'?

Scientific reason has just concluded that many, many powerful people have been lying. Do you know what a lie is?

And it's 'ignoramuses' not 'ignoramouses'...
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
# Stryks 2014-04-03 00:34
----------
Part 1 / 3
----------
Quoting J vdHeijden:
We have a fixation on CO2 because it is politically expedient to be so - and to convince the stupid people a simple childish experiment will demonstrate how CO2 can absorb and re- radiate heat.


There are many greenhouse gasses which, as you rightly point out, are responsible for the regulation of our climate system.

Water vapour in particular is a very potent component of the greenhouse effect, as are clouds, aerosols and other minor greenhouse gasses. CO2 is also a significant factor. While all of these components provide different functions in the maintenance of the greenhouse effect, water vapour condenses back out of the atmosphere in just a few days, while CO2, methane, ozone, and the other trace gasses do not.

Looked at in terms of percentage of total greenhouse effect, CO2 and other non condensing gasses account for only 25%, however it is this component which actually controls the strength of terrestrial greenhouse effect since the water vapour and cloud feedback contributions are not self sustaining, and as such, only provide amplification.

To clarify, condensing greenhouse gasses do not accumulate over time, and are instead replenished to a level defined by other climactic parameters. Water vapour, for example, is governed by pressure and temperature. As the temperature of the climate increases, it's ability to store water vapour increases. This water vapour in itself is a much stronger climate forcing than CO2, but it will not accumulate past the atmospheres maximum carrying capacity and will readily condense out of the atmosphere as temperatures decline.

Non-condensing gasses do not work that way. For example, although much of today's CO2 emissions will be gone in a century, about 20% will still exist in the atmosphere 800 years from now. Given that carbon dioxide accounts for 80% of the non-condensing GHG forcing in the current climate system, I think there is little question why CO2 is getting so much attention. The above characteristics qualify carbon dioxide as the principal control mechanism of the temperature of earth.

In short, water vapour is strong but short term and governed by factors such as temperature. Long term stability and temperature level settings come from non-condensing greenhouse gasses.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
# Stryks 2014-04-03 00:53
----------
Part 2 / 3
----------
Quoting J vdHeijden:
My understanding - correctme if I am wrong is that all greenhouse gasses absorb radiation from the sun from particular energies and re- radiate it in the infra red region . However these gases re-raidate in ALL directions so the greater amount of this energy has to be directed back out into space.Indeed so does the heat from the surface of the earth also. The point is that any greenhouse gas is not a perfect reflector - it can not contain more than say 50% of the heat that it absorbs - it is therefor very "lossy" .


In regards to the mechanism of CO2 in the atmosphere, you are correct in stating that it is not a perfect reflector. If radiation of a certain wavelength hits a CO2 molecule, it causes a reaction which results in the energy being re-radiated. This radiation is effectively emitted in a random direction which may or may not cause the energy to be retained by our atmosphere.

However, a certain amount of energy DOES get retained. This is the point. It doesn't need to be a perfect reflector.

The earth is being bombarded with radiation from the sun, and CO2 blocks a portion of that incoming radiation, re-radiating the blocked portion in the random manner described above. The radiation which reaches the planet is eventually re-radiated which in turn is partially re-radiated towards the planet surface.

Without this process, earth would re-radiate all of the energy it receives, resulting in wild fluctuations in day / night temperature and eventually, a frozen planet. What we actually have is a level of greenhouse effect which provides a climate which is suitable to sustain life as we know it. The CO2 is a part of this process, and therefore is clearly be reflective enough to contribute to this effect.

This being the case, where is the logical disconnect in the notion that an increase in CO2 molecule density will result in an increase in the rate at which radiation is randomly returned to earth. Given that CO2 is accumulating and the amount of energy trying to escape is increasing as more is re-radiated, do you not think that it is a cause for concern, especially given the observed climate anomaly (particularly the continued take-up of energy by our oceans)?
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
# Stryks 2014-04-03 00:54
----------
Part 3 / 3
----------

Moreover, if we are going to just dismiss the influence of CO2 out of hand, we then have to provide an explanation for the observed anomaly which matches as well as, if not better than the existing climate change theory. This requires that we must explain how we can increase atmospheric CO2 levels and NOT see warming, and provide multiple independent lines of evidence showing how another unknown mechanism is causing the anomaly.

To the best of my knowledge, there is no alternative which even comes close, and it just becomes harder if CO2 is ignored. Likewise, there are no indicators of any major unknown influences.

This is largely why I personally shrug off claims of pseudo-science or a conspiracy being carried out by the scientific community. I mean, who stands to benefit from this? Scientists? You mean the ones who are pilloried and roundly criticized for their findings (or even their existence) by blogs such as this one? Go take a look for something positive said about a climate scientist who supports AGW on this site.

Or perhaps you mean the hundreds or thousands of scientists who would be required to work day and night for the next few centuries to try and come up with some heretofore undiscovered mechanism which explains the anomalies which have been detected?

I just don't see it. There would be more benefit for scientists if they couldn't explain the observed changes at all.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
# Stryks 2014-04-03 00:56
----------
Part 4 / 3 (damn)
----------
Quoting J vdHeijden:
The fact that Venus has a high surface temperature may well be due to its 97 CO2 atmosphere - however the process of how it became so high does NOT imply it happened through a "runaway" greenhouse effect.


In regards to Venus, I wanted to clarify that I never proposed CO2 induced runaway warming on Venus, much as I do not believe that earth will get into a runaway warming scenario, via CO2 or other mechanism. That warming will be seen is, I think, quite clear, however the warming caused will always find an equilibrium point short of any tipping point you might like to mention (though defrosting methane clathrates are a concern).

Of course, we don't need too much of an increase in temperature for catastrophic results in regards to human existence, but on a planetary scale, I'm sure that a few million years after we're gone things will be business as usual.

What the Venus example was meant to demonstrate is that past a certain point, warming is too extreme to allow CO2 to be reabsorbed via natural processes. This is the result of runaway warming, where warming is not reversible. In context, it was meant to illustrate what would likely happen to Earth if it were possible to put all of earth's carbon dioxide into our atmosphere for long enough, which as I described originally, is not a realistic scenario.

But the theory of Venus is much like Earth in many ways. It starts out when the sun is weak, and the planet is mostly covered by ocean. CO2 is dissolved in the oceans over time, and volcanic and tectonic activity draws solidified carbon dioxide into the planets crust. As the sun gets warmer, so too do the oceans, and as they warm, they begin to release stored CO2 (much as air gains the ability to hold more water vapour as it warms, the oceans lose their ability to hold CO2 as it warms). The CO2 concentrations rise and as the temperatures begin to climb, so too does water vapour levels. Unlike Earth however, Venus warms past it's ability to recover. It starts to lose CO2 from the crust as runaway warming really kicks in and the planet begins to really heat up, eventually boiling the oceans away and melting the surface.

CO2 undoubtedly played a part in the warming, as did water vapour, but the warming was almost certainly a result of the type of atmosphere (including the presence of CO2) and the proximity to the sun. Mercury has a very weak atmosphere, hence the mention in the original post as a comparison.

Of course, all this is moot for Venus now. Given the nature of the atmosphere there, the hydrogen would have been mostly lost to space, and without liquid water, CO2 cannot be dissolved and therefore cannot be recycled as it can here on Earth. It's pretty much the definition of runaway warming.

But as I said, I don't contend that will happen on Earth, though as I also said, I don't think we need it to happen for us to achieve catastrophic outcomes.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
# Jack Spratt 2014-04-25 13:28
"The product history is still on the app. Assuming you're using the default theme, you simply need to tap on the clock icon, at the top of the list. "

Pure supposition.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
# Jack Spratt 2014-04-25 13:30
Let me try this again.

"Somehow, I don't think this was the argument you were trying to put forward, given that we have implemented our own large scale carbon release system and are currently overriding the natural cycle."

Pure supposition.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
# Stryks 2014-04-26 00:28
Quoting Jack Spratt:
Pure supposition.


Supposition that we are releasing large amounts of CO2? No ... definitely not supposition. The evidence is both abundant and self-evident.

Supposition that CO2 is part of a natural cycle? Plenty of evidence that this is not supposition. In fact, I see no evidence whatsoever trying to claim that CO2 does not exist as part of a natural system.

That our large scale release of CO2 would impact the natural cycle? Pretty much a logical conclusion, but one which is also supported by direct observational evidence.

So ... no. None of the quoted text was supposition.

What I think you wanted to say was that these things are correct, but that doesn't mean climate change is a reality or that it is influenced by CO2.

Of course, this goes against the vast majority of the science and the observational evidence which that science is based upon, so I guess we could just as easily label your dismissal of CO2 as a factor in observed climate anomalies as 'pure speculation'.

Well, unless you can explain the climate anomalies without the influence of CO2, while simultaneously explaining how increased CO2 in our atmosphere does *not* cause warming.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
# dev 2014-05-10 12:18
Quoting Stryks:


Well, unless you can explain the climate anomalies without the influence of CO2, while simultaneously explaining how increased CO2 in our atmosphere does *not* cause warming.


Of course they have been explained but you irrationally choose not to accept.
just as you irrationally choose to accept that cold can heat warmer lol

We already know that the radiation bands are filled at -70C making it passive in the atmosphere.
Robitaille has shown that Kirchhoffs laws and thus blackbody assumptions are not applicable.

I am surprised that the system sycophants know how to breathe without being told.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
# Claudius Denk 2014-05-10 12:48
Quoting Stryks:
Well, unless you can explain the climate anomalies without the influence of CO2, while simultaneously explaining how increased CO2 in our atmosphere does *not* cause warming.
It's not our responsibility to explain your imagination.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
# Jack Spratt 2014-05-10 13:43
[quote name="Stryks"]----------
Part 4 / 3 (damn)
----------
[quote name="J vdHeijden"]

"Of course, we don't need too much of an increase in temperature for catastrophic results in regards to human existence,..."

How much, exactly?

"What the Venus example was meant to demonstrate is that past a certain point, warming is too extreme to allow CO2 to be reabsorbed via natural processes. This is the result of runaway warming, where warming is not reversible."

Pure supposition.

"But the theory of Venus is much like Earth in many ways. It starts out when the sun is weak, and the planet is mostly covered by ocean. CO2 is dissolved in the oceans over time, and volcanic and tectonic activity draws solidified carbon dioxide into the planets crust. As the sun gets warmer, so too do the oceans, and as they warm, they begin to release stored CO2 (much as air gains the ability to hold more water vapour as it warms, the oceans lose their ability to hold CO2 as it warms). The CO2 concentrations rise and as the temperatures begin to climb, so too does water vapour levels. Unlike Earth however, Venus warms past it's ability to recover. It starts to lose CO2 from the crust as runaway warming really kicks in and the planet begins to really heat up, eventually boiling the oceans away and melting the surface."

Hypothetical.

"CO2 undoubtedly played a part in the warming, as did water vapour, but the warming was almost certainly a result of the type of atmosphere (including the presence of CO2) and the proximity to the sun."

Hypothetical.

"It's pretty much the definition of runaway warming."

That definition has no meaning in a system that can't do anything else.

" I don't think we need it to happen for us to achieve catastrophic outcomes."

Pure supposition
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
# JvdHeijden 2014-05-12 09:53
The problem we have in all the climate change debacle is that it never was about the science. It was about the money and still is. The politicians ran out of things to tax and the big money needed something to scare the population so they would keep their heads down and maintain profit, pay the taxs and inevitiably we all pay higher prices for our energy supplies. This is obviouse and it always amazes me that (even the Economist publication) so called socialists and liberals willingly call the energy market a free market when it is a cartel of half a dozen companies all owned and controlled by large stock holdings/ hedge funds etc.
We only have the opinion of scientists and the science research presented done under peer review - it is what our understanding is now - some of it is very poor science too. It is NOT established science that we can use to predict, ie to make an accurate assessment of what the future holds. When the "science" of climatology can accurately predict the climate based on data we have now, for say 10 yearly increments and still be on track in 50 years time, recording the changes needed to keep the model within acceptable limits then we will know we have an established a method to make some sensible policy on.
Most honest scientists of the "hard" disciplines would say this is impossible with our current computer technology - so we are stuck with policy and opinion based on greed, ignorance and capitalist economics out of control.
Taxation is NEVER going to stop the climate from changing any more than a windmill will stop the wind from blowing but they have one thing in common -perceived by some as something for nothing!
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
# bernard b carman 2014-05-12 11:28
@JvdHeijden you make most excellent points that the masses generally do not consider.

i must just make one comment regarding, "so we are stuck with policy and opinion based on greed, ignorance and capitalist economics out of control"

if "capitalist" economics were being implemented, then we would have a free market in the energy market without all the government interference.

while many tend to bastardize the meaning of "capitalism", i strive to remind folks that capitalism merely refers to an economic system which implements the free market, free from government interference.

of course, wherever an energy company violates the natural rights of others by polluting the air they breathe and/or the water they drink (for example), there would have to be some kind of practical and effective preventative measures in place to prevent this. 8-)
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
# JvdHeijden 2014-05-12 11:50
@ Bernard.
You also make a good point. We have capitalism to thank really for all the benefits of living in a modern, relatively free society. However human nature being what it is on a totally free market, would likely be disasterous for many. We need to practise some kind of "capitalism with a conscience" to achieve a acceptable social and living standards for as many as possible.Supported by a well balanced environmental policy based on good science and rational thought. I guess humanity has tried various models of social ideology in the past. i think it fair to say that capitalism has in general provided a rising standard of living for many people throughout the world. However a consequence of this is that asperation in a capitilist society causes a poor class to exsist
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
# Jack Spratt 2014-05-12 12:38
@JvdHeijden
Capitalism is nothing more than freedom in the area of economic transactions. Freedom from coercion from your neighbor and especially from your government.
Economic transactions are the engine, the life blood of a civilization. That the government would want to form a parasitical relationship with that engine is understandable but to be avoided (while actively working to extend freedom in all directions).
Any relationship the government forms with economic transactions beyond its mandate of protection of property and the maintenance of 'rule of law' introduces coercion into the transactions and therein lies a cesspool of corruption and all the evils of what a Left Wing culture likes to ascribe to 'Capitalism.'
There is absolutely nothing in the idea of freedom in economic transactions that prevents you (and your like minded friends and acquaintances) from pursuing a program to 'help' anyone you so choose to help.
But freedom itself demands that you not be given a gun to coerce your neighbors into your plans. To do so is to add a little tyranny. No matter how lofty your goals are, coercion or tyranny writ small (or large) is not justified or justifiable (John Rawls notwithstanding).
"However a consequence of this is that asperation[sic] in a capitilist[sic] society causes a poor class to exsist[sic]"
This is simply intellectual doggerel And that is being kind.
A consequence of economic transactions between consenting adults in a free society is that it causes poverty? Really?
Not only is that statement one of moral turpitude, but it blinds one to the actual fact that freedom in economic transactions has done away with more poverty in the world than all other methods combined over the whole of human history.
The opposite of freedom in economic transactions is slavery.
Let me guess, your one of those people for whom, 'Freedom is fine but a little bit of slavery makes it better.'
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
# bernard b carman 2014-05-12 12:59
i have to agree with Jack Spratt — an economic system which allows for free markets to tribe (Capitalism) is definitely not the impetus for poverty. in fact, it's the opposite.

from the onset of at least this nation, "capitalism with a conscious" was built in to our legal system by way of creating a government that was SUPPOSED to protect the natural rights of individuals.

so long as BOTH free markets AND protecting the natural rights of individuals is the modus operandi of a government, freedom and prosperity will have opportunity to flourish.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
# JvdHeijden 2014-05-12 14:54
Ok perhaps you mis understood me -I clearly said that capitalism has improved the living stardards for many in this world. If capitalism is based on a money system ( which it is)which has to have a finite supply to hold its value - then an inevitable consequence of capitalism is that we will aways have the poor. I agree we have to protect the rights of all individuals - but that does not protect them from ending up at the bottom of the pile. We have to make sure that poverty at least means having affordable access to the basic necessities of a humane existence ie roof overhead, warm ,dry ,basic food sanitation and clean water.
As for your comment"The opposite of freedom in economic transactions is slavery." is true - but show me how, in a free marketplace, you can avoid the explotation of human effort- that is what capitalism is based upon surely? how else. We still have rich and very poor where free markets operate .
"Let me guess, your one of those people for whom, 'Freedom is fine but a little bit of slavery makes it better.'"
I dont know how you interpreted that from what I said? What do you nean by slavery - Those that work in sweatshops to provide the clothes you are wearing? trapped economically because of the consequence of providing their labour a free market? that is what I was trying to explain - make no mistake Mr Spratt as a manufacturer myself,I most certainly do not condone it.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
# douglas nusbaum 2014-05-12 17:28
Quoting oscar manuel:
I also want to add that pictures of people wearing masks to protect against smog in China and India are totally fake. They photoshop them on the people. The rising sea levels are totally fake...as is the pictures of the England coast posted on 05/02/2014 on BBC. I was just on that train today...its still there and the sea is totally calm. I was in L.A. Calif. a few days ago.... there's lots of rain, the streets are flooded...the whole "drought" story about Calif. is totally fake. The resevoirs and swimming pools are totally full. I am totally in agreement that all this is made up. They say the Oceans are getting more "acid", those guys must be on "acid". They are actually getting less acid. Those satellite pictures of the shrinking glaciers have been photoshopped to make it look that way. They are doing this to shrink the profits of our oil companies. The Tar Sands in Alberta are actually good for the rivers and the native people complaining just because they can't drink the water....its all a lie. I believe this article. The scientists are making all this up. I don't know why but they should know better. The stories about boats sailing through the N.W. passage are total lies. The ice is thicker than ever. I am so happy that Mr. John O'Sullivan has finally come up to show us how we have be totally duped by all the scientists and news reporters everywhere. They are all against the oil companies that are only trying to make a honest living. Some of the excutives have actually had to move into smaller houses, give up their vacation homes because of these lies.


Your post is 31 days late. Or you are off of your medications
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
# douglas nusbaum 2014-05-12 17:36
Quoting John vdHeijden:
Part 1 I have a career of some 40 years past, working along those in the "hard " sciences of math physics chemistry and particulary control theory .As a result I have developed world leading, reliable products based on established science.
Climate science? - Nah its a psuedoscience. I have not read one paper that examines the greenhouse effect and is properly challenged,analysed and supported by the theory of Thermodynamics. Thermodynamics has never let us down. It tells us that there can be only one source of heat in the solar system that is capable of maintaining temperatures on planet earth that being the SUN.
The climate change psuedoscience tells us that the human race is responsible for changes in the heat stored in the atmosphere ( actually are very vague as to where the heat stored and according to what theory is in fashion) Take the much heralded greenhouse theory, Thermo dynamics tells us that the effect is not perfect ( there is no such thing as a perfect gas that reflects all re-radiated heat back to earth - it leaks heat - much like the insulation used in a thermosflask). This means that the the heat available on earth can only ever follow the SUNs output long term it simply can not keep rising unless the suns output does the same. Sure the insulation ( greenhouse effect) can increase causing the planet to heet up - but that can only be a temporary thing if the suns output does not do the same ( the insulation leaks).


I do not believe your post. First of all if you have the expertise that you claim you would have not have misspelled heat. Second, you are really claiming that if you put a constant heat source, say an electric light bulb into a sealed box, wait until the box reaches thermal equilibrium and then cover the box with a blanket that the inside of the box will not not go to a higher temperature and remain at that higher temperature? If that is your claim, then your claim to making a living as a scientist is a lie.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
# bernard b carman 2014-05-12 17:40
@JvdHeijden — i believe that perhaps the disagreement was with the possible unintended implication that as opposed to other economic systems, poverty is an inevitable consequence of capitalism alone.

for certainly, there is poverty with all other economic systems, and usually far worse overall than in a more capitalistic one. i use "more" as a caveat because from my viewpoint, there has been little to no free markets in America whatsoever for a very, very long time. those who disagree with me on this might consider which markets — besides the black market — have no interference of the STATE whatsoever.

but you bring up another issue which i believe noteworthy:

"If capitalism is based on a money system which has to have a finite supply to hold its value..."

for a free market system to properly function, there also must be a free market in competing currencies. fiat currency manipulated by a cartel of crooks (politicians & bankers) along with a direct taxation system ("income" tax), will never yield a society of prosperity. rather, it is ALWAYS used to control people's spending while the insiders create wealth from the debt of all future generations in perpetuity — the ruling class continues to grow richer, while the working class continues to grow poorer.

so again, post-1913 America is NOT based on a capitalist economic system. rather, elements of both socialism & fascism have been adopted over time. American citizens have been turned into wage slaves thinking their natural & sacred liberties are actually recognized by the "Neo-Amerikan" IN-justice system. generally, only when one is confronted by the tyrants of the ruling class does one come to understand this.

some might wonder how any of this could be on topic regarding this thread…?

while i agree with your earlier post in regards to the globalist agenda of "climate change", i believe the issue is more about control over the people than about merely finding new mechanisms for taxation.

if it wasn't for an endless supply of "money" which is created out of thin air by the ruling/looting class, such "endless wars" would not be possible... like this war on anyone/everyone who does not subscribe to this “climate change” indoctrination which is now even included in the government's school books.

unlimited wealth among the ruling class allows for an endless degree of corruption in a vast array of subjects… including this one. such is why i believe that the corrupted “money” system — including the Federal Reserve and fractional banking systems — is the number one most important political issue of all.

How To Be A Crook
www.youtube.com/watch?v=2oHbwdNcHbc
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
# Jack Spratt 2014-05-12 19:02
@bernard b carman
How to be a Crook. Very familiar story if you know or have read Murray Rothbard.
Let me return the favor.
daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/2014/03/dealing-with-climate-change-prevention.html
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
# JvdHeijden 2014-05-13 04:53
@ douglas nusbaum
You are like so many who write about climate change without any understanding of fundamental scientific principle. The first rule is to read and then comprehend what is said . Regarding my spelling (typo's mainly due to the poor performance of tc/ip), since when has spelling had anything to do with a individuals expertise in a subject!!?).
So, Nowhere did I claim to be a scientist - I am an engineer who uses science.
If you understood anything about thermodynamios and what I said about the greehouse effect I said that the temperature on Earth can only follow the heat output of the Sun since it is the only driving energy source available.
Now go away, study some science and make sure you understand it before making ridiculous comments.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
# JvdHeijden 2014-05-13 05:05
@bernard b carman.
We are actually in agreement, Bernard! - I unfortunately I do not possess your eloquence or wider understanding in the evolution of socio -economic principles in expressing my views.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
# Zeek 2014-05-17 06:30
IMF Carbon Tax Scam from day 1. :-)
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
# Juel D 2014-06-27 02:01
Yeah those pesky scientists earning their millions out of a global conspiracy to homogenise global temperatures to falsify evidence for climate change! I hate it when I see them driving around their Mercedes and Porsches, deliberately driving through puddles on the side of the road and spraying us proletariat scum as they laugh and drive on to their golden gated mansions! They're DEFINITELY on the governments (OR WORSE) payroll to try and trick us into believing climate change!

If only they were more like the corporately sponsored purveyors of truth on this website or the venerable almighty Goddard! They wouldn't have an agenda would they? They're scientists of the highest calibre? They wouldn't support sacked, discredited scientists!

Use your brains. There isn't a government conspiracy to control the populace through enforced climate change legislature. Period. A scandal THAT big would be uncovered in a breeze. It's like the systematic abuse of inmates in Abu Ghraib and Camp Nama as directed by the US presidential office. You can only keep up the game going as long as you can stop the truth leaking out, or people involved talking. In this case ACTUAL US soldiers, agents etc.. divulging information to journalists and other media outlets. Or via a wikileaks style exposé. Evidence FOR climate change has been gathered consistently over the last 30 years, to imply that the multiple sources of peer reviewed scientific evidence is all somehow falsified is so minute! That given the bulk and scale of data collected and apparent lack of counter argument by those who deny climate change (By which I mean non fringe, peer reviewed and accepted evidence) that it's beyond reasonable doubt.

It's illogical. They can control people and justify Orwellian laws much more simply than tampering with scientifically peer gathered evidence on a global scale. Unless of course they're controlled by the Illuminati and/or (depending on who you ask) the New World Order. Why not just spy on your populations through a mass gathering of personal information through say, electronic communications? Spread fear and xenophobia and militaristic fervor through the threat of those darn terrorists... Wait forget all that. That's too much effort... Wait a minute!
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
# Jvd heijden 2014-06-27 06:18
@ Juel d.
No climate change does not have to be a conspiracy at all - morelike the element of irrational human stupidity that drives unwarranted reactions.This has come about because the "concept" or belief that the human race is somehow responsible for and is capable of correcting or preventing climate change!! This new ideology has made a great oportunity to create more business in an evolving world economy and opinion about our limited resources. I think your comment is somewhat niave both on the science and the politics on climate change:-
1) Science -Peer reviewed science is NOT established science - established science has been quite different from the opinions of scientists and research of the day.It takes many years of observation and cross examination of hard evidence before all the elements of research can be shown to fit irrefutably with what has already been established. Thermodynamics is one of the most powerful and successful establish science we have to discribe the behaviour of the known universe.To date there is NO established science to show that changes of the climate are significantly affected by human activity.
2) Politics - How is it that we have revenue generating policies already in place before the science is established? Follow the money any you will soon see why. You surely must see that taxing people to change the climate is a pretty stupid idea based on science - because we know that the climate has changed - it what it does - and someday it will not be so accomodationg to a large human population. Green taxes are funding massive investment in wind farms. A spokesman from the National Grid in the UK stated that the renewable energy sources were pretty in terms of helping meet the base load. The cost and complication of managing the output from these resources was difficult to justify.Green taxes hurt the less well off because of the added cost of this poor quality expensive renewable energy
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
# doug nusbaum 2014-06-28 01:52
Quoting JvdHeijden:
@ douglas nusbaum
You are like so many who write about climate change without any understanding of fundamental scientific principle. The first rule is to read and then comprehend what is said . Regarding my spelling (typo's mainly due to the poor performance of tc/ip), since when has spelling had anything to do with a individuals expertise in a subject!!?).
So, Nowhere did I claim to be a scientist - I am an engineer who uses science.
If you understood anything about thermodynamios and what I said about the greehouse effect I said that the temperature on Earth can only follow the heat output of the Sun since it is the only driving energy source available.
Now go away, study some science and make sure you understand it before making ridiculous comments.


Yep. And the suns radiative output has been constant or going down over the past 100 or so years. But the temperature has been going up. Perhaps you do not accept this bit of information, which only indicates, as I posted earlier, that you less able to learn from your environment than trees, forrests, and single celled organisms living in the sea.

engineers are careful, and proof their work. You obviously do not do that. And you failed to address my other answer to your statement about a driving energy source. If you increase the insullation / block radiative loss then the body inquestion must get warmer to loose the same amount of heat coming in. An actual engineer would be aware of that.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
# Jvd heijden 2014-06-29 09:43
@doglas nusbaum.
It is vital to seperate science from belief, when forming policies which have the capability of severely disruoting everthing we have achieved in civilisation - whether climate change is human driven or not.
To address your reply to :- "Second, you are really claiming that if you put a constant heat source, say an electric light bulb into a sealed box, wait until the box reaches thermal equilibrium and then cover the box with a blanket that the inside of the box will not not go to a higher temperature and remain at that higher temperature?"
What you say is correct - and according to the 2nd law of TD, the equilibrium temperature is depended on how good the insulation is - if it is perfect then the temperature inside the box will eventually rise to that of the filiament - because no heat can escape. As I said the greehouse effect is by no means perfect one could assume that since molecule C02 re-radiates infra red isotropically, only 50% of the absorbed heat is directed back downwards towards earth, causing it to rise in temperature. If the system is taken as a whole and approximated as a black body,the heat radiated back into space follows an aproximation of the Plank( freqency)Stefan - Boltzmann law (power)and is dependent upon the 4 power of its temperature above absolute zero. For radiant heat transfer back into space through gasious emmitters the time constants can be very long which therefor makes it difficult to determine or model the heat flow from the driving source(Sun)back into space. Your example of 100 years may not even come near providing support for your claim
So it is not a simple as you claim in a lossy system with an imperfect reflector.
What the science must show is that the temperature of the earth is rising due to human activity.The data sets and computer models we have are by no means adequate to show that the changes in climate we observe today have any relevance whatsoever, in terms of the longer term variance caused by the only major driving energy ie output from the Sun or for that matter any other cosnic radiation impinging on the earths upper atmosphere.
Now ask yourself why climate change policy has ben so rapidly put into place - when many good scientists admit - "we simply do not know if mankind is significantly influencing theclimate" and not saying "we are 95% certain" - as that is NOT science
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
# Bob Lee 2014-08-15 09:30
I check the weather for Mojave, CA at NOAA daily, for the last two weeks they have showed results of at least 10 degrees above the actual temps. This morning at 6 AM it is 62 degrees yet they report 72. I decided to do a search and find out what in the world is going on, it is obvious that their results are flat out lies. I will never use NOAA again. I don't care what any one thinks, I'm here and see the truth for myself.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
# cws 2014-10-21 10:19
What I don't understand is why so many scream we are all going to burn up in X number of years but do nothing to stop it.

The little Ice Age caused by volcanic activity and limited or no sun spots cooled the planet causing it to snow in the summer one year.

There were no man made industries during that time period. So if the planet can change temps due to nature, why has none of the taxation climate hawks not suggested using volcanic activity to cool the planet now? It is historical documentation that it did cool the planet so if we are REALLY all going to burn up, this seems a logical short term choice and one of the reasons I doubt the science behind this tax scam.

Research Organizations are funded by the Government who is looking for a new tax source so this man made crisis is a win win scenario for grant requesting organizations who need government funding and the governments who are investing in those organizations who can frighten the unwashed masses into believing that taxes on industry will fix this supposed issue.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
# JvdHeijden 2014-10-22 08:53
@cws
Agree with you,anyone with half a brain cell knows that the policys behind AGW are not backed up with any ratified science whatsoever. It has been politically expedient to blame human CO2 emissions for changes in the global temperatures :- as a means to raise revenue for governments, to create new markets and to control energy supply development.We are still comming out of an ice age, there is no scientific evidence that we will cause a meltdown through CO2 emissions.Even so it, is a very convenient ideology for governments and corporations to promote - a fear factor to justify taxation to fund alternative energy schemes, creating new markets in technologies which are supposed to solve our problems and protect the environment.They do niether and none have a hope of meeting our energy demands in the future. We only have the opinion of scientists and their sacred "peer review" - none of which is established science until irrefutible real evidence is presented( not based on modelling which at the very least needs to be independently audited ). Evidence which can be reproduced from new indepentendly audited / verified, data sets and yields valid predictions for climate change, directly linked to human activity. Well all remember the cold fusion scam claimed by a qualified respected scientist, which fell apart once it was independently scrutinised. Independent scrutinisation of data sets and computer modelling used in climate science needs the same kind of public investment as the research itself - and it is not happening.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
# douglas nusbaum 2014-10-22 17:30
Quote:

So, Nowhere did I claim to be a scientist - I am an engineer who uses science.
If you understood anything about thermodynamios and what I said about the greehouse effect I said that the temperature on Earth can only follow the heat output of the Sun since it is the only driving energy source available.
Now go away, study some science and make sure you understand it before making ridiculous comments.
You better hope that your employer does not see this or you will find yourself without a job.
If what you said were true then earths temperatures would have tracked solar output
Here is a picture showing that either 1. it does not, or two there is a vast conspiracy going on www.epa.gov/climatechange/images/science/SunsEnergyTemp.jpg
According to your theory, a box in front of a bright light would reach the same temperature whether or not it was insulated. You are right about not being a scientist, or having much understanding of it.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
# douglas nusbaum 2014-10-22 17:33
Quoting CarbonDisclosureProject:
The global warming scam is known as the Carbon Disclosure Project run out of London and its last estimated worth is 87 trillion dollars. It's all a carbon tax.


Jews run the banmks. Jews are overly represented in the sciences especially the hard sciences, and especially in nobel prizes. Jews control the media. Just another Jewish conspiracy We are so good at it. :-)
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
# JvdHeijden 2014-10-23 05:38
@DB -"You better hope that your employer does not see this or you will find yourself without a job.
If what you said were true then earths temperatures would have tracked solar output"
I have no concerns about my employment. I have simply asked you to use your brain and think about what you read and understand about climate change - science is always open to challenge - and it is not for a scientist to impose his opinions on others as being correct untill they can provide the irrefutible, independently reproducable evidence.
Clearly you did not bother with learning or understanding anything about Thermodynamics.
1)The temperature of a
To know if the eaths temperature is rising or falling it is something that can only be studied at the macro scopic scale. A body in isolated space ( Earth) is simply dependent on the radiate Heat energy input vs Heat emitted energy output - being enrgy,they are time dependent quantities. The rate of heat loss ie radiation from the earth is a complexed quantity to calcuate as it is highly dependent on the Earths temperature which is a function of the heat transfer processes going on within the climate and the mass of the Earths constituents ( air water and rock basically).
2)As I pointed out to you,The Earths temperature would only directly follow the radiant heat output of the sun if absorbsion/ radiation was based on a simple single function ie that the Earth is a perfect black body - It is NOT. The earths temperature is ultimately driven by the suns output - no matter what amount of insulation the level of Greenhouse gas is present as it is the only source of radiant energy available to do that. The Greenhouse effect is NOT a perfect one way ( ie Heat in - no heat out) insulator.Co2, the single one component we are suppose to be so worried about ,like any other greenhouse gas, radadiates in all directions - 50% say must go back into space, so the Earth will at some stage give up its heat through radiation back into space as its temperature rises.Due to the vast thermal mases involved, there is a huge time constant in transfering heat at the surface into the components that store and re- radiate heat( Oceans Rock, water vapour, Co2 Methane etce ).Re radiation is dependent on cloud cover and many other gasious components in the atmosphere that allow/ disallow heat to emitted from the planet.That is why we do not see the direct graphical relationship that you niavely expect in a graph that only covers 30 years!!. We are ( were!!) seeing a period of positive integration where global surface temperature was rising ( you will note it actually stopped rising some 12 years ago!!) The problem that posses for a niave theory that is based upon "increase green house gas means higher temperature on earth" may not be true at all in the longer term because we are simply looking at a "frightning" detail with a magnifying glass, and conveniently ignoring the big picture - to create policy which has no real scientific basis for concern.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator

Add comment

PLEASE report all spam/inappropriate comments using the 'Report to administrator' link.
Most recent comments first.


Security code
Refresh