cool_look

it is clear enough that the climate is changing that the UN did a thing, founding the IPCC in the 80ies

circular argument... the various religions did a thing and founded priesthoods... does that offer proof of their various gods ?

they even did a thing and founded their priesthoods before the IPCC... does that make them correct ?

But those 'extremes' increasing never stand up to scrutiny.

Are we never allowed to have a hot summer ?

What about the very many hot summers that are recorded in 350 years of records that pre date the industrial revolution and therefore CO2 emmissions.

The hottest June on record is 1846...

Heatwaves need to become more clustered. At the moment we get them every so often at roughly the same rate we always did.

As mentioned June ( very hot ) was 18th out of 350.

There were 17 other hotter Junes in 350 years... many pre industrial revolution and therefore immune from CO2 considerations.

NASA says Antarctica has been gaining ice:

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-o...

Ice loss from antarctica not a large contributor to the small sea level rises around the world

"In a study spanning two decades, a team of researchers led by Colorado State University found declining numbers of..."

20 years, is but a blink of an eye. It takes us back to 1997 only. What was the longer term trend ? How would they know if we started in a local maximum, or how often populations rebound ?

I complain that we barely have enough arctic and antarctic satellite samples and we have those from 1979.

So any decline of anything is linked to climate change automatically ?? That doesn't follow at all.

A Journalist telling us not to trust people. That is quite rich

It got hotter until 1998 and plateaued until today 2017+, occasionally setting small new highs (0.1C when margin for error is 0.4C).

That was already accepted and should not be trumpetted as further "proof".

"lets out data when it suits"

that is rich coming from a journalist.

It is common in many fields for a small group to produce 'agreed text', that other parties then sign off on

* PR pieces ( http://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html )

* Legislation ( http://www.linklaters.com/Insights/Publication1005Newsletter... )

* Standards Body text ( say Oracle for OpenJDK, MS for Mono ) ( https://www.taylorwessing.com/globaldatahub/nisd-draft-text-... )

The NY Times itself will accept Associated Press articles ( say on an Afghan Election result ) and mostly just clone the words 1-to-1.

From the stackoverflow comments its clear that theoretical models have been proposed to infer the temperature on land from the ocean database.

the main concern is that the models are pure junk science.

so saying "our models say it is so" is precisely the problem

that was just one of many many charges of tampering[1].

honestly this cristicism of the NOAA, NASA is pretty unwelcome by most HN people, so im not proposing everyone accept this immediately.

but the facts are out there and slowly if what i am saying is correct ( time will tell ) the the tampering will start being rolled back.

[1] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/11367272/Climategate-the-...

Sorry to hear about anyone losing jobs.

The NOAA has been suspected of doctoring the record[1], of all varieties including the satellites once they got control of them[2]. there will be more insider stories of how some conspired to fake AGW data [3]

so I think it likely that the revisions and corrections will be challenged soon and we will see that the revisions had no factual basis. Many will resign, probably jumping before pushed. The cuts are unfortunately prejudging the outcome.

[1] https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2015/11/21/noa...

[2] https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2016/03/08/rss-satellite-tem...

[3] https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2017/02/12/boo...

On the surface it is about preventing deletion.

But the subtext is that any 'discoveries' or 'corrections' will be rejected out of hand.

The prime ones being the recent corrections to the land temperature record that cooled the 1930s and 1940s and heated 2009 onwards yielding a steady linear increase graphic.

When those corrections are placed under the microscope and likely reversed, what will the reaction be ? Scientific shills of the Republicans are making up Alternative Facts... here is our precious archived dataset that true believers can reference.

So now we have complete polarisation.

Left leaning people will not accept any science generated under a Right leaning government

and as we already know Right leaning people find it hard to trust the science coming from a Left leaning government.

thats why my dreamt up example included just factual statements "350 this month".

doesnt make it better though, does it ?

(forced to use a side account to comment on this)

You have to look at it from the Trump teams point of view. They honestly don't see that the 'free speech' argument holds water. They see it as abuse of a public position to spread falsehoods.

Basically EPA employees in the Trump Team's view are perpetuating climate alarmism ( again in the TT view ).

So they are stopping that.

Just flip it around just for a second. I'll choose an equivalent that would cause liberals to shut down the twitter of an official.

Imagine a Department of Health official was tweeting photos of aborted foetuses and keeping a tally "350 aborted this month. #whatawaste".

There would be calls to stop that official speaking out.

more than 40 samples. 200 samples at minimum.

"Long term" is misleading and relevant only to a space age start point where we launched satellites.

2000 year ice core samples:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/04/15/western_antarctic_me...

Longer records exist in ships logs showing that ships sailed through an ice-free arctic.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/07/03/goddard_polar_ice?pa...

According to official US Weather Bureau records (pdf) from 1922, there was open sailing very close to the North Pole that year. Anthony Watts unearthed this quote from the Weather Bureau:

"In fact, so little ice has never before been noted. The expedition all but established a record, sailing as far north as 81 degrees in ice-free water."

So much lower extent than today.

That is a compelling explanation.

I agree that mild warming has clearly occurred. the hot summers and warmer winters are both clear and must also have been corroborated by local people ( im in the UK so completely unqualified to say )

i dont put much stock in the new highs that nasa have documented. we have had warming but the warming has decelerated IMO. New highs are to be expected and we are not currently getting cooler

Look, I'm not American, but why would they foresake a state because of the state's predominant Voting habits?

1 in 3 voted Republican, are they going to be thrown to the wolves because of the other 2 ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_ele...

I know Chris Christie is implicated in blocking traffic in New Jersey, but punishing a state is a whole different league.

Ain't that the truth.

Neither side is free of lynch mobs and people conveniently ignoring facts that don't fit their pre-agreed agenda.

This is just a side account of a regular HN user so sick of lynch mobs that I have to use a pseudonym.

And what precisely does this have to do with man made global warming ??

Not every drought / flood / tornado is a result of global warming.

In fact there have been recent studies showing that extreme weather ( drought, flood as mentioned ) has not gotten more frequent since we started emitting large amounts of CO2.

Recent Study (2016): Trends in Extreme Weather Events since 1900 An Enduring Conundrum for Wise Policy Advice - Prof MJ Kelly

http://www.omicsgroup.org/journals/trends-in-extreme-weather...

Comments and refutations instead of mere downvotes appreciated.

so that chart is from 2003 - 2009 ... and that is evidence of what exactly?

6 samples of a multi century phenomenon and you are ringing an alarm bell !

the chart smacks more of searching around for a chart that shows a decline to prop up the "ice is in trouble narrative".

ice extent ( recovered from 2008/12 ) , ice age ( recovered again from 2012 ), ice thickness ( recovered ), ice refreeze date ( recovered ), polar bear population ( highest its ever been )

now its ice mass that is the panic chart of the day. but 6 samples, its just not enough

i did read the links... what basis do you have for thinking i didn't.

so tell me, what about the radiosonds not corresponding to the corrections? oh, did you not know about counter evidence outside this article that also point to tampering ?

no, you just slung mud

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/03/06/weekly-climate-and-en...

difference yes.

you dont see the similarities?

oh come on. tell me how many samples of a multi century phenomenon like the arctic ice do we have ??

less than 40 samples ( years )

i have read all the literature and it is not convincing.

we've been warned variously about ice extent, ice age, ice thickness, time of refreeze. Most have shown 'recovery' from any perceived low points, so the alarmists have to switch to a different measure continually.

but again we only have 40 samples and then ice core measurements.

ice core measurements are prone to both the sins of commission and ommission. commission in cherry picking "just so" locations like ice shelves for thickness measurements. and ommission for conveniently ignoring samples that dont fit your agreed outcome

and what about skeptics who think the current explanations are deeply flawed and being propped up for continued funding ?

this happens outside climate science, why should it be different because Climate ?

See the physics lady critical of the Higgs boson project: http://backreaction.blogspot.co.uk/2016/08/the-lhc-nightmare...

"I hope that this latest null result will send a clear message that you can’t trust the judgement of scientists whose future funding depends on their continued optimism."

in this case translate optimisim for Climate Pessimism

Long time HN user using a throwaway account because of the lynch mob ( both sides )

The article page 3 mentions a crucial get-out-of-jail card that HN is taking completely hypocritically at face value.

Namely that NOAA adjustements are in response to Met Office/Hadley/UEA adjustements.

this should be setting off "tampered" alarm bells

Lets step away to make parallels:

UK Copyright extended to harmonise with US.

US copyright then extended to harmonise with UK copyright

HN response: The copyright holders are colluding to extend the term globally

======

NOAA adjustments: We're harmonising because of Met Office / Hadley / UEA adjustments

HN: Yay science, nothing fishy could be going on here because Scientists.