Books Click images for more details
A few sites I've stumbled across recently....
Thanks to Robert B over at WUWT who thought up a great name for the era of climate science we are currently enduring – The Adjustocene, where no one will ever know what the temperature is.
Cartoons by Josh
View Printer Friendly Version
Ha ha, brilliant Josh. Children just won't know what temperature is, to paraphrase the independent.
But: 97% of all motorists drive on the other side of the road!
little boy lost: One of the stats from the mist of my schooldays was that there are more countries that drive on the left, but there are more motorists who drive on the right. (sometimes, even in the same country knowing some of the motorists I've met!)
It is amazing how modern technology can change history.
Christopher Columbus crossed the Atlantic on ice skates, towed by vegetarian polar bears, allegedly.
It's the 97% who drive on the wrong side of the road who cause 100% of the accidents.
Brilliantly conceived and executed, gentlemen.
Philip B: An OLD neighbour of mine would brag to me how safe a driver he was. "I haven't had an accident in donkey's years - but I've seen a lot."
Spot on. Terrific. The new verb for the Adjustocene is karlize. It has sparked a Congressional Oversight Committee investigation. NOAA has responded to a lawful committee subpoena by committing contempt of congress, a criminal act. Stay tuned for more Adjustocene fireworks from 'a place that does not drive on the "wrong" side of the road'.
Rud Istvan, does Karlising predate the Adjustocene ascent of Mann, or were they homogenised and blended by a climate science smoothie for fabrication purposes?
When you start joining the dots in climate science, you end up with a few tight circles.
Just to report on a day of bitter NW winds blowing in off the North Atlantic, o'er the Pennines, the thermometer registering 14.30 @ 2.0º C though less than that in the wind chill, frequent snow and hail squalls - just where is my global warming man?
Meanwhile, a report in the Times very amusingly highlights what could only be recorded as astonishing wishful thinking.
Gabriella Bennett, reporting on, entitled,
"Scotland's only vineyard all washed up". (paywalled).
The redoubtable Mr. Christopher Trotter, an optimistic fella indeed! Ah God! loves a trier mate, you will receive your reward in heaven.
Lovely quote here:
"When I first started the idea, the conversation was that, climate change was a reality. But now we don't know whether that climate change is going to mean sunshine or rain."
Lots of hard work but starting a vineyard in Scotland ( - just maybe under glass)? Och laddie - ye shudn' 'ave bin so green!
But then, we only know, known unknowns in the Adjustocene - what you get in the can, is not what it says on the label AND - the label is readjusted upwards prior to every annual UN IPCC climate change conference - how convenient is that?
"When you start joining the dots in climate science, you end up with a few tight circles."
"You end up running round in ever diminishing circles until, you disappear up your own fundament" - I think is what you were after gc.
Not "the temperature" but temperature itself is not known. In the Adjustocene, the concept of temperature itself is become lost.
To adjust the Adjumtocene, you need to loosen then tighten nuts.
And I don't mean Hazel, walnut etc.....
Athelstan, tight circles, fundaments and arseholes, are interchangeable in climate science, just like facts and fiction. It is how it was modelled, and how their models work (with multiple adjustments of course)
I thought that in the Adjustocene Era Karlize Theron would have been a co-author of the Hockey Stick papers?
And God looked into the fundament and said... arseholes!
Glad to see Josh has been visiting other geophysical eras
Anything to keep him from raising Cainocene
GC, Athelstan, The Oozlum Bird has been at it for awhile - rare as hens' teeth, genteel and entertaining. https://malagabay.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/the-physics-of-the-oozlum-bird.gifThe poor thing hardly rivals the intellectual black hole of the cultural climatism.
Dung, the Hockey Stick papers were used to wipe clean the fundaments of climate science. Twice daily, regular as clockwork (with Karlised adjustments)
William Connelley has been wiping wikipedia clean of inconvenient facts, meanwhile many climate scientists are looking to shove Mann's Hockey Stick into permanent darkness, to prevent too much light being shone on the source of the stench that permeates climate science.
This is seriously weapon grade ammunition. When Delingpole arrived on the climate sceptic scene, many moons ago, his idea was that to defeat the environmentalist abuse of science needed more than scientific rebuttal, it needed confronting by exposing them to ridicule.
temperature is going the way of gender: Its just what you chose it to be ..
Well up to the hilarious standard we have come to expect from Josh.
Unfortunate that the net effects of adjustments is to cool the global trend, though. keep THAT quiet.
As recently as July 12, Antarctic sea ice extent was at a record daily high extent for the satellite period of observations. For much of early 2015, Antarctic sea ice extent was either slightly above or slightly below the levels seen on the same date in 2014, the record high year. However, beginning in mid-July, the growth rate for Antarctic sea ice slowed significantly, causing the 2015 maximum extent to be only the sixteenth highest in the record
Could be the shortest-lived talking point on record.
Meanwhile, up North https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nuKVk1gMJDg
How dare the liberals demote Delingpole to # 6 on the Most Ridiculous list- this one performance alone :
assures his place in the Pundit Prattheon
If the sea level wasn't rising it would signify an ice age approaching.
Phil Clarke, the most important thing about sea ice is that it is as boring as ever, and continues to do nothing exciting. This is in clear breach of Climate Science Diktats and 'modelled evidence'.
The polar bears are loving it, though they would like someone to invent freezable ready sliced seal. Lacking an opposing thumb, they struggle with sandwich making.
@Russell 11:29; Well yours is a definite guarantee.
Gee is that the nsidc of Dr "Arctic Death Spiral" Serreze now dumbfounded by the recent Arctic recovery, the utter failure of his ice-free Arctic predictions and the general indifference about his howling mad notion that that Antarctic cooling is caused by global warming; entirely contrary to the AGW hypothesis, logic, rationality, meteorology and everything everyone else has ever said.
Who needs conspiracy theories when it's enough to notice that alarmists are all dumb as a post and mad as a hatter? Such folk used to wear sandwich boards declaring 'the end is nigh' and were eventually taken away by men in white coats. Now they are richly rewarded and promoted apparently for being wrong all the time about the science but right 'on message' for the neo-luddite cause.
Meanwhile planet earth has experienced a mere 0.6K/century, none of which was in the last 18 years, mostly or entirely naturally and net beneficial if the greening of the planet is a guide. Alas the luddites have made sure we'll be short of power on the back of unchecked hysteria. How many will die because of that? And do alarmists care about such short-term casualties? Doubtful since the death of untold millions from the 'green' ban on DDT didn't phase them! The hypocrisy makes true humanitarians sick to their stomach.
Oh sure the adjustments cause cooling.....What a porkie!
Is the satellite record acceptable for the ice cap scare, or does increased proximity render the satellite's cameras shortsighted and unable to focus on the ice extent? It seems another year has passed without all these cruise liners making their way through the North West Passage, as was 'projected'.
Climate science's projections of a wealthy future for climate scientists and their climatrollogists, are not looking as stable as arctic ice.
In order to stop the lack of warming in the Arctic, they need to build a major international airport there, and position thermometers so as to make the best use of any aircraft exhaust, and heat absorbing tarmac.
This has been a great success at Heathrow.
Thanks, Josh. That makes me smile.
Nice one.More concise than what I had been considering:RawdataneverbeenceneDontquestionortheywillcauseaceneDatafiddlershavelefttheceneMissingheatsankintooceansuncene
POA There is no need for the first WUWT link as it just goes to the main site.The second link goes to the first mention of AdjustoceneAnd Adjustocene was also made a new WUWT post Saturday satire – Welcome to the new era of climate ..which also features Joshes cartoon and more and North American comments.
Someone puts a link to NTZ: Two German Scientists Say GISS Has “Squandered Much Credibility” …Playing A “Shady Role” Jan 29th
The cruel irony is that the joke is on everyone.
Troll comments and follow ups removed.
For those worrying about the right side of the road.
“I’m a real gone daddy in my big yellow Caddy; three-quarters of the road is mine.”—Howie Stange, Real Gone Daddy, Jenn Records 1956
I thought it might be an idea to poke a little fun at our resident 'trolls' for a change. I am sure that Russell will go back under his bridge to wash his pants after the fright he got - but I think that 'Zed' might be turned on by the big cat. As for Phil well he will probably want to sue His Grace for keeping endangered species at the palace.
Many thanks for providing the link to the site discussing temperature adjustments both on land and at sea. I'm always keen to improve my knowledge (and to change my mind, if the circumstances suggest I should change it) but the website in question isn't good enough for that purpose.
Many of the critiques of land-based temperature adjustments that I have seen, especially at Paul Homewood's excellent site, go into great detail about the extent of the adjustments and the effect thereof. The site you link to, however, is superficial in its presentation to say the least - a distinct "move along, nothing to see here" sort of thing. I remain intrigued, but I would need to see much more information before I was convinced. I think these few paragraphs which I've cut and pasted from the site, rather give the game away:
"The land surface temperature trend has to be adjusted up because old temperatures were often too high due to insufficient protection against warming by the sun, possibly because the siting of the stations improved and there are likely more reasons.
The old sea surface temperature are adjusted downward because old measurements were made by taking a bucket of water out of the ocean and the water cooled by evaporation during the measurement. Furthermore, modern measurements are made at the water inlet of the engine and the hull of the ship warms the water a little before it is measured.
But while it is a pure coincidence and while other datasets may show somewhat different numbers (the BEST adjustments are smaller), the downward adjustment does clearly show that climatologists do not have an agenda to exaggerate global warming. That would still be true if the adjustments had happened to go upward."
The first paragraph is risible in its dismissive justification for adjusting land-based temperatures up. They can't even be bothered to make a decent job of explaining the reasons for the adjustments, relying instead on the pathetic "and there are likely more reasons". Quite apart from the fact that common sense tells us that land-based adjustments are much more likely to need to be adjusted down that up for the very reasons given as justifying the opposite adjustment, due to UHI effect etc.
Nice try, and I am prepared to watch these arguments with an open but critical eye. However, you and your lot will need to do much better than that. If the reasons for adjusting land-based temperatures up are so good, why not spell them out in detail, instead of refusing to supply the information to the US Senate Committee (in much the same way that Michael Mann never gets round to making disclosure in any of his law suits)?
Hey guys. I noticed Phil Clarke happened to link to a post by Victor Venema which argues adjustments reduce the amount of warming, implying those adjustments couldn't possibly be used to exaggerate global warming. In an odd turn of events, I had actually been working on a blog post which discussed that very argument, referencing that very same post, so I figured you guys might be interested in it. Feel free to check it out. It's title is the facetious: "Proof Adjustments Don't Exaggerate GW, They Just Exaggerate AGW." For a brief summary:
Again, what we see is temperatures in more recent times are largely unaffected. It is primarily the past which has been adjusted. So while it is true these adjustments shrank the total amount of warming, they did so primarily in the period where that warming would be more likely to be attributed to natural variability. In the period where warming would be (almost) solely attributed to human influences, the adjustments have little effect, but actually increase the total amount of warming.That anyone would offer this as a counterargument to global warming skepticism is remarkable. It is true this argument effectively proves adjustments to the data do not manufacture global warming out of thin air. It is also true this argument effectively proves adjustments to the data do not exaggerate global warming as a whole. But in doing so, this argument makes something of a case that adjustments to the data exaggerate anthropogenic global warming.And really, that’s what we all care about. The global warming debate, by far and large, is not about whether the planet has warmed since ~1850. The global warming debate is about how much humans have contributed to that warming, and how much they will continue to do so in the future. Pointing out adjustments to the data lessen the apparent role of non-human factors can only help fuel global warming skepticism.
That anyone would offer this as a counterargument to global warming skepticism is remarkable. It is true this argument effectively proves adjustments to the data do not manufacture global warming out of thin air. It is also true this argument effectively proves adjustments to the data do not exaggerate global warming as a whole. But in doing so, this argument makes something of a case that adjustments to the data exaggerate anthropogenic global warming.
And really, that’s what we all care about. The global warming debate, by far and large, is not about whether the planet has warmed since ~1850. The global warming debate is about how much humans have contributed to that warming, and how much they will continue to do so in the future. Pointing out adjustments to the data lessen the apparent role of non-human factors can only help fuel global warming skepticism.
For once I agree with you - the bad joke that green policies represent (fuel poverty, blighting our beautiful visual environment with useless wind turbines), looming energy blackouts, rising indebtedness, to name just a few; that joke is on everyone. We all have to pay (in many ways) for "green" insanity.
Thanks for the post - interesting comments.
It's nice to see an intelligent debate on the issues, which is much how I would prefer things to be. It's a shame one of the other sites you often visit (naming no names...) isn't so progressive.
Mark Hodgson, thanks, though I suspect whatever site you think I often visit isn't one I actually visit often. Aside from lucia's place, when it is active, there isn't any site in the global warming discussion I visit often. Most of the ones I've seen either aren't active or have managed to convince me the content they produce generally isn't worth my time.
You may, however, be thinking of a place that I seem to (negatively) comment at every time I do happen to visit. The fact I always seem to see something worth highlighting as a problem when I go there may make it seem I visit more often than I do >.<
"This temperature data has been adjusted. Pray I do not adjust it again."
My condolences to Andrew Montford-
We all go to the climare wars with the troops we have.
In 1976, R D Cess made a bad error, to claim the ratio of Earth's OLR, -18 deg C. to surface exitance, +15 deg C, is its 'Emissivity'. There is no such Physics: Emissivity is the ratio of real exitance to that of an ideal black body at the same temperature.
Cess' derived parameters. 'Planck response' and 'Planck feedback parameter', are baseless, as are the climate models. CO2-AGW is very low for our present climate configuration, being proved experimentally.
In the battle of the climare wars only one side turns up most of the time.
Well Russell, I guess that makes you Private Godfrey.
Notify me of follow-up comments via email.