Archive for December, 2009

No twentieth century warming

Thursday, December 31st, 2009
ice out day of Lake Winnipesaukee

ice out day of Lake Winnipesaukee

The earliest ice outs, and thus the warmest years, were in the 1950s.  The warming from 1975 to 1998 is real, but not very large – just a blip in the overall cooling trend from 1950.

During the 1950s, Winnipesaukee ice outs were generally around Julian day 100, which is usually April 10.  These days, it is around Julian day 107, which is usually April 17 – the ice is taking longer to melt, therefore, these days the weather is cooler than it was in the 1950s.

Data and calculations here – you will not find that replicability if you look at “peer reviewed” research.

If one selects the lakes with the best data, no sign of twentieth century warming.

Similarly for the weather station record. which indicates no twentieth century warming

Sea ice areas are unchanged, and sea levels rise is small and slowing, consistent with the overall shape of the above graph.

The vertical axis is the Julian day number of the ice outs.  The little green dots are the julian numbers of ice out days for particular years, the graph is the seven year rolling average of the ice out day.  Smaller numbers, representing warmer years, are at the top of the graph, larger numbers, representing cooler years, are at the bottom.  Lake Winnipesaukee was selected because lots of people who have no interest in global warming have an interest in this ice out day and report it, because it enables them to do business and get to their properties, hence the ice out day is a valid number.  It is the top hit in google for ice outs, excluding global warming related hits.

Lakes whose ice out day is subject to less interest are likely to have the same reliability problems as the instrumental temperature record.  If one has to look hard for historical data, that data is unlikely to be accurate because few people were monitoring it.  Since the data is likely to be inaccurate, one can always cherry pick data that proves anything one wants to prove, which cherry picking is apt to slowly become making up data outright – since one already supposedly knows what the data should show, searching overly hard for data that one knows must be true is apt to become outright forgery, as the Climategate documents directory shows happened with the instrumental temperature record.

If there are gaps in the data, as there generally is with the instrumental record and with many lake iceouts, that means few people are monitoring it.  If few, then perhaps none, perhaps the data is consciously or unconsciously fraudulent, and whether legitimate or not, no way to prove it legitimate.  Incompleteness is a symptom of other problems.  If a lake is so obscure that one cannot find a lake ice out for this year on the internet from boating enthusiasts, did anyone really find the lake ice out for 1950, or did they just make it up?

It is hard to estimate global climate from the instrumental record, but the most plausible evidence, if we exclude cities for the urban hot spot effect, and use only climate stations with good stability, refraining from efforts to patch together lots of fragmentary climate station records of unclear provenance, is that the 1950s were the warmest period in the twentieth century, and that the warming from 1975 to 1998 was just a small fluctuation in the long term cooling trend since 1950

The documents directory of the climategate files reveals that Harry could not derive global temperatures from the instrumental data, that the hadcrut global temperatures, the supposed instrumental record, had come right out of Tim’s ass.

Various people have attempted to reconstruct the global temperature record from the instrumental record but the data are not of quality that would enable this to be done.  The jumps resulting from moves of weather stations and suchlike are much larger than the climate changes one is trying to detect.  You cannot get a silk purse out of a sow’s ear.  Weather stations keep moving their thermometers, changing the way they record data, and so on and so forth.  Until 2004 no one was trying to do measurements that would be suitable for evaluating climate change – some would say they were trying from 1998, but they surely were not succeeding until 2004.

The only instrumental global temperature records are, like the climategate instrumental record, the result of someone’s secret sauce which they will not reveal, for no one who will reveal his method of calculation can produce anything from weather station data that they will claim to be plausible or credible.  Lots of people have tried.

For some examples of the difficulties encountered, see  Watts up with that, xx, xx. The GHCN adjustments were obviously fraudulent and intended to create fake global warming in the instrumental record, but it is impossible to say what adjustment would be reasonable and uncontroversial.  There is room enough in the gaps between one weather station and the next to manufacture global warming, global cooling, or have temperatures dance the watutsi.  Obvious the CRU was wrong to exclude those weather stations that showed world temperatures falling – but if the world climate trend depends on what stations you exclude and what you include, one can have little confidence in the trend derived from any particular set of weather stations.

Science is replication, not peer review.

What happens behind the scenes in peer review was revealed in the climategate emails

Peer review, as revealed in the climategate emails, is in practice theological review.  If it is peer reviewed, it is a lie. If it appears in “Nature” or “Science” it is a lie.  The truth is not allowed.

Which fact is obvious from the fact that non peer reviewed reports show their data and method of calculation, and peer reviewed reports on political  topics do not.  If it is peer reviewed, it cannot be replicated.  If it cannot be replicated, is not science.

Working through these non peer reviewed reports, replicating them, one can prove that various peer reviewed reports are criminal frauds. When we got the inside info, when the climategate files came out, we found in the documents directory the programs that did what we had already proven had been done.  Climategate confirmed what replicated research had already proven.  Replicated is the gold standard.  Peer reviewed is not.

We had already proven that global warming was criminal fraud.  Then we got confirmation from inside in the Climategate files, proving that our account of how global warming was cooked up was indeed how it was cooked up.

Merry Christmas

Friday, December 25th, 2009

There is a reason that the United States, the most Christian nation in the world, is also the most free nation in the world.

And that reason is that of all the deadly superstitions that infest the world, Christianity is the least murderous, the least oppressive, fosters the least hatred and envy, and is responsible for fewer wars and mass murders than any religion of comparable size.

And the comparative decency of this belief system is best displayed in the Christmas celebration, where people genuinely wish each other a merry Christmas, for Christmas is not a merely a Christian celebration, but a celebration in which Christians wish good to all men, and invite all men to join in the celebration.  And I recommend that you should join in, whether you believe or not.  This is a time to be be merry, to be with family, and to catch up on what far flung family members have been up to.

When a man ceases to believe in God, the most likely result is not that he will believe nothing without evidence, but that he will believe anything that seems to show the universe caring.  Those who will not believe in God, are apt to believe in the power of crystals, their horoscope, in ghosts, spirits and angels, in Anthropogenic Global Warming, in Gaia, the cycle of life, in mystics, and in anything else that is apt to make it seem that the universe cares.

The universe does not care, but men do care.  The world has no meaning, but man gives it meaning.  I care.  Merry Christmas.

Warmism for politicians

Wednesday, December 23rd, 2009

If Sarah Palin is so amazingly dumb, how come she gets everything right on a complex issue, and explains it in language that the average voter can understand?

Sarah Palin explains climate change, covering every issue, except for the documents directory of the climategate files, in clear, easy to understand language.

She makes one minor error,  describing “hide the decline” as hiding the decline of temperature, when in fact they were hiding the decline of a proxy for temperature, but this oversimplification does not affect the point, the point being that they were tricking you by hiding an inconvenient fact that would suggest that there is nothing unusual about recent changes in climate.  Since she compressed all the Climategate emails into a single wonderfully stinging paragraph, a harmless oversimplification was difficult to avoid.

The e-mails reveal that leading climate “experts” deliberately destroyed records, manipulated data to “hide the decline” in global temperatures, and tried to silence their critics by preventing them from publishing in peer-reviewed journals. What’s more, the documents show that there was no real consensus even within the CRU crowd.

After concisely summing up the more easily understood part of Climategate  (the emails), she then goes on to argue that costs and benefits of climate change proposals must be realistically evaluated:

But while we recognize the occurrence of these natural, cyclical environmental trends, we can’t say with assurance that man’s activities cause weather changes. We can say, however, that any potential benefits of proposed emissions reduction policies are far outweighed by their economic costs. And those costs are real.

“Natural cyclical” and “economic costs” summarizes the entire Hockey Stick versus Medieval Climatic Optimum argument in a nutshell.  She has repackaged the complex scientific debate of the blogs into something for voters and politicians.

She then, in a classic politician’s move, points to Australia as foreshadowing the climate change bandwagon hitting the rocks of Climategate.  Since every politician wants to get on the winning side, this is a compelling argument for her fellow politicians.

I predict that she will once again demonstrate the power to turn the debate around and shape political outcomes, as she did with health care.  While Obama looks powerless, she looks powerful.  Obama bows before kings, though in protocol kings and presidents should treat each other as equals, and gets snubbed by our major creditor, the equivalent of a banker not giving you an appointment, while Sarah changes the world from her facebook page.

The ability to make a complex and difficult topic as simple as it can be is the mark of a truly brilliant scientist.  The ability to make a complex and difficult topic a little bit simpler than it can be is the mark of a truly brilliant politician.

The extraordinary inanity of nation building

Tuesday, December 22nd, 2009

The counter insurgency planners have presented a clever plan on how they propose to counter Afghan insurgency by building an Afghan nation.

When first I saw slides from this presentation, I assumed them to be parody, but no, they are the real thing.  The people planning this war really are this stupid, crazy, and evil.

COIN experts demonstrating their amazing expertise

COIN experts demonstrating their amazing expertise

There are a great pile of slides, and they all look like the above. Hat tip The Austrian Economists.

I did a search for blog posts linking to this amazing pile of essence of evil madness, to find the New York Times treating it with the solemn respect that one would be ruler of all mankind should give another would be ruler of all mankind. Democracy’s Arsenal also displays the semblance of profound respect for this moronic madness, but from his image selection, his tongue is well and truly in his cheek.

The Taliban have a notorious tendency to mistake the customs of their tribe for the word of God, but at least they do not mistake themselves for God.

How bloggers saved the world

Sunday, December 20th, 2009

The Air Vent tells us that China saved the world, which is true, but China saved the world because of what bloggers did.

The enemy plan was to use global warming to roll back science, technology and western civilization.   Copenhagen was to have established a “world climate treaty organization” which would exercise centralized control over all the worlds economies, thereby avoiding that inconvenient embarrassment that ensues whenever socialist economies face comparison with capitalist economies.

Someone released the Climategate files.  I initially believed that this was a hacker from outside, but reading through the files, it is evidently an insider, for each file that I examined is good stuff, which is to say, exceedingly bad stuff.  Each file was being wrongfully and illegally withheld from a freedom of information request, or demonstrates an anti scientific approach and outlook, or both.

Climategate resulted in the removal of Malcolm Turnbull as leader of the Australian opposition, the first mainstream politician to fall to bloggers, and his replacement by Tony Abbot, who proceeded to save Australia from trading in carbon indulgences, and to challenge the leader of the Australian government to a double dissolution election over anthropogenic global warming.

This was a bold move when most of the mass media was preaching imminent climate doom.  The polls showed that a double dissolution election held on that issue would be a disaster for the opposition– but polls have been known to change when the people hear two voices instead of one voice.  The government chickened out.

Having won without taking it to the people, Tony Abbot then adopted a blander position similar to that of Sarah Palin – that climate change can be prevented by vague and unspecified means without it costing anybody anything, and the science is not settled.

With Australia, China’s main carbon supplier, out of the picture, it was then difficult to for China to join the treaty.  Without China, there could be no treaty.

The Chinese do not understand democracy and constitutional government, so they reasonably enough blame Rudd, the leader of the Australian government, for the climate skeptic policy of Tony Abbott, leader of the opposition.  After all, they think, surely the government, not the opposition, sets climate policy. With great indignation they pointed out that Rudd is preaching Warmist Alarmism, yet Australia is practicing climate skepticism.   That, at least, is their rebuttal to the Warmist Alarmists. And so, no World Climate Treaty, nor any World Climate Treaty Organization.

So the world is saved for a little longer, and bloggers saved it.  Perhaps the Chinese would have saved it without Abbot’s skeptic policies, but spectacle of Rudd preaching sacrifices to the Chinese that he was unwilling to take to Australian voters, and therefore unable to impose on Australians in the face of Abbot’s opposition, angered them.

What the climategate files reveal.

Sunday, December 20th, 2009

The killer directory in the climategate files is not the email directory, but the documents directory, for the documents directory reveals how the graphs of doom were generated.  One should only employ the emails directory to illuminate what is documented in the documents directory.

The Climategate files reveal that the graphs of doom are irreproducible, for Harry was unable to reproduce them, except by means at best extremely dubious, “So what the hell did Tim do?!!” at worst frankly fraudulent.  “Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!”

The documents directory reveals that data issuing from the Warming alarmists is fake, for it was Harry’s job to produce or reproduce these graphs of doom, and he describes in alarming detail how the graphs of doom were manufactured.   Every graph generated from the programs and data of the documents directory  of Climategate files is at worst a lie, at best fabricated without concern for truth, and proves the falsity of those graphs of doom that Harry was required to reproduce, for he was unable to reproduce any of them by legitimate means.

The Climategate files reveal that the method of anthropogenic warmist alarmism is that “scientists” construct a consensus, and then they examine data and papers for conformity with the consensus.  Data that fails to conform to theory is rejected, then hidden or deleted. Papers that fail to conform are rejected. They then direct some menial postgrad student, first Tim, then later Harry, to produce graphs that show the result that they have already determined that the graphs will show.

What the climategate papers reveal is religion, not science, for when we read Harry’s comments and code, it is apparent that his job is not to find what the data shows, but to force the data to show a result that has been predetermined.

More surface temperature fraud

Monday, December 14th, 2009

The Climategate files revealed that the Hadcrut surface temperature series was fraudulent, and cast doubt on the Giss surface temperatures.  Small Dead Animals and Watts up with that, and more soon discovered fraud in the Giss surface temperature series,  and now fraud in the GHCN series.

Which is all the surface temperature series that support global warming.  All of three them.  Each one is fraudulent.  Twentieth century warming has not been replicated.  Excluding all temperatures series based on fraud, the remaining evidence indicates that the 1930s were as warm or warmer than the present.

How “Science” responds to heresy

Monday, December 14th, 2009

Australian Climate Madness has a revealing video.

The professor refuses to address the question,  then the UN goons come out to stop the questions.

Thousands of scientists endorse evidence of anthropogenic global warming

Friday, December 11th, 2009

And every single one of them can be easily proven to be a fraud who should be in jail.

If one endorses evidence of anthropogenic global warming, the evidence one is endorsing is the findings of the IPCC. And one of the major findings of the IPCC is Phil Jones surface temperature data. So if one endorses evidence of anthropogenic global warming, one endorses the surface temperature data – which we now know came out of Tim Mitchell’s @%$#.

“So what the hell did Tim do?!! As I keep asking.”

Thousands of scientists endorsed the IPCC publications. They might say, “I trust Phil Jones, I can’t imagine he would lie.” If someone says that, he’s not speaking as a scientist, he is speaking as an outsider who is taking someone else’s word for it. But what they’re doing is claiming to speak as scientists, pretending to have examined the evidence, when the Climategate files reveal they have not, that they could not have, for Phil Jones has no evidence for them to examine. So each of them is guilty of fraud, each of them should be in jail.

Science education, both informal and formal, is full of “check it out for yourself”. You don’t get to say that you understand a mathematical theorem unless you’ve actually gone through the proof – probably regenerated the proof as an exercise based on the instructor’s clues. You don’t take anybody’s word for it. There is no trust in math. Zero. No need for it. And in programming, you have to write the damn program for yourself. You don’t take anybody’s word that it works. And in physics, you’re not learning physics unless you do the labs, and see for yourself. Otherwise you’re just doing not-very-rigorous mathematics.

But when it comes to global warming, all of a sudden the talk is of “consensus”. All along, the science student has been taught not to trust anyone, not even his own teacher. To trust only his own senses and his own mind. And now, we’re supposed to trust a “consensus”

The most incriminating part of the Climate gate files is not “hide the decline”.

The most incriminating part of the Climate gate files is not “So what the hell did Tim do?!!”

The most incriminating part of the Climate gate files is the dog that did not bark in the night time – that no one, except for Harry, showed any interest whatsoever in the data, in checking the data out, in the process of reasoning and mathematics connecting data to results, that Phil Jones delegated what was supposedly the major job of the CRU, estimating global temperatures, to a postgrad, and never asked how that postgrad obtained the desired result – that everyone, except for Harry, viewed science as the task of building a consensus and imposing that consensus on all, not the task of gathering evidence and trying to figure out what the evidence reveals.

What the Climategate files reveals is not science, but religion. Scientists replicate. Synods build consensus. The Climategate files show a synod in action.

Official lies

Wednesday, December 9th, 2009

Official statistics have gone the same path as peer review.

Obama holds a jobs conference, and then immediately after Obama’s cheerful jobs conference, the BLS tells us that there are fewer unemployed, and more jobs.

Supposedly there are over a million more jobs this year than the same period last year – yet withheld income for salaried employees and payroll tax have fallen 19% compared to the same period last year.

Private employment surveys, x, x, such as ADP and Trim Tabs tell us that everything is going to hell in a handbasket. 

Spengler points out that 300,000 people disappeared from the labor force, yet the BLS reports no increase in “discouraged workers” or workers forced to take part-time jobs for economic reasons.

The government tells us everything is getting better and better.  Who are you going to believe?