Login    Forum    Search    FAQ

Board index » Racing Forum » Ken0069's Blog




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 441 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
Author Message
 Post Posted: Fri Jun 07, 2019 2:06 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 6:38 am
Posts: 11648
Location: Coming At Ya!
Yet another "warming" prediction FAIL!! Gotta love it!! =D>

Glacier National Park Quietly Removes Its ‘Gone by 2020’ Signs
Glaciers Appear to be Growing, not Melting in Recent Years

By Roger I. Roots, J.D., Ph.D.
June 6, 2019

Quote:
May 30, 2019. St. Mary, Montana. Officials at Glacier National Park (GNP) have begun quietly removing and altering signs and government literature which told visitors that the Park’s glaciers were all expected to disappear by either 2020 or 2030.
In recent years the National Park Service prominently featured brochures, signs and films which boldly proclaimed that all glaciers at GNP were melting away rapidly. But now officials at GNP seem to be scrambling to hide or replace their previous hysterical claims while avoiding any notice to the public that the claims were inaccurate. Teams from Lysander Spooner University visiting the Park each September have noted that GNP’s most famous glaciers such as the Grinnell Glacier and the Jackson Glacier appear to have been growing—not shrinking—since about 2010. (The Jackson Glacier—easily seen from the Going-To-The-Sun Highway—may have grown as much as 25% or more over the past decade.)

The centerpiece of the visitor center at St. Mary near the east boundary is a large three-dimensional diorama showing lights going out as the glaciers disappear. Visitors press a button to see the diorama lit up like a Christmas tree in 1850, then showing fewer and fewer lights until the diorama goes completely dark. As recently as September 2018 the diorama displayed a sign saying GNP’s glaciers were expected to disappear completely by 2020.

Video of the diorama two years ago.

https://youtu.be/Afa6mMMuZhg

But at some point during this past winter (as the visitor center was closed to the public), workers replaced the diorama’s ‘gone by 2020’ engraving with a new sign indicating the glaciers will disappear in “future generations.”

Almost everywhere, the Park’s specific claims of impending glacier disappearance have been replaced with more nuanced messaging indicating that everyone agrees that the glaciers are melting. Some signs indicate that glacial melt is “accelerating.”
A common trick used by the National Park Service at GNP is to display old black-and-white photos of glaciers from bygone years (say, “1922”) next to photos of the same glaciers taken in more recent years showing the glaciers much diminished (say, “2006”). Anyone familiar with glaciers in the northern Rockies knows that glaciers tend to grow for nine months each winter and melt for three months each summer. Thus, such photo displays without precise calendar dates may be highly deceptive.

Last year the Park Service quietly removed its two large steel trash cans at the Many Glacier Hotel which depicted “before and after” engravings of the Grinnell Glacier in 1910 and 2009. The steel carvings indicated that the Glacier had shrunk significantly between the two dates. But a viral video published on Wattsupwiththat.com showed that the Grinnell Glacier appears to be slightly larger than in 2009.

The ‘gone by 2020’ claims were repeated in the New York Times, National Geographic, and other international news sources. But no mainstream news outlet has done any meaningful reporting regarding the apparent stabilization and recovery of the glaciers in GNP over the past decade. Even local Montana news sources such as The Missoulian, Billings Gazette and Bozeman Daily Chronicle have remained utterly silent regarding this story.

More on this HERE!

_________________
Big Boyz Toyz!

Image

Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.

William Pitt, British Prime-Minister (1759-1806)


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post Posted: Tue Jun 18, 2019 8:04 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 6:38 am
Posts: 11648
Location: Coming At Ya!
England on course for 17th coldest June in 360 years

Quote:
Not just one day in June, but for the entire month. Welcome to the Grand Solar Minimum.

15 June 2019 – “Official data reveals that England is currently on for it’s 17th coldest June in records dating back to 1659,” according to Electroverse.com..

“The Central England Temperature (CET) record measures the monthly mean surface air temperatures for the Midlands region of England, and is the longest series of monthly temperature observations in existence.

It’s current mean reading for June 2019 (provisional to the 14th) is 12.6C (54.7F) — that’s 1C below the historically cool 1961-1990 average, the current standard period of reference for climatological data used by the WMO.

“In recent years, only the June’s of 1991, 1977 and 1971 ran colder. Before that, you have to back to 1923, 1916, 1908, 1906, 1860, 1823, 1821, 1749, 1745, 1725, 1705, 1698 and 1689 to find cooler months of June.”

Much more on this HERE!

_________________
Big Boyz Toyz!

Image

Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.

William Pitt, British Prime-Minister (1759-1806)


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post Posted: Tue Jul 09, 2019 12:08 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 6:38 am
Posts: 11648
Location: Coming At Ya!
Paul Ehrlich in 1970 wrote:
Between 1980 and 1989, some 4 billion people, including 65million Americans, would perish in the "Great Die-Off".


Al Gore in 2006 wrote:
Humans may have only 10 years left to save the planet from turning into a total frying pan.


Alexandria Cortez in 2019 wrote:
The world is going to end in 12 years if we don't address climate change.


THE DAY AL GORE WAS BORN THERE WERE 130 GLACIERS ON EARTH. TODAY ONLY 130 OF THOSE GLACIERS REMAIN! O:)

YOU CAN'T FIX STUPID!

_________________
Big Boyz Toyz!

Image

Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.

William Pitt, British Prime-Minister (1759-1806)


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post Posted: Wed Jul 24, 2019 10:19 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 6:38 am
Posts: 11648
Location: Coming At Ya!
More Data Shenanigans At NASA. “Unadjusted” Data Get Whole New Definition: No Longer “Raw”, But Now “Quality Controlled”
By P Gosselin on 23. July 2019

Quote:
By Kirye and P. Gosselin

What’s with NASA GISS? The data shenanigans there seem to have no end.

Most of us have noticed that with every new version of temperature data that gets generated by NASA GISS, the more warming that comes with it. The first half of the 20th century often gets cooled while the present gets warmed. This has been shown repeatedly.

One example is Cuiaba, Brazil. Though in this example the past appears not to have been cooled, the more recent v4 “unadjusted” data have been warmed by some 1.0°C throughout since 1960.

Image

Now the early 20th century in Cuiaba, Brazil is not warmer than the early 21st century. Presto, warming! Data: NASA GISS.

Now “unadjusted” data get a new definition

But another peculiar thing has been found. It seems NASA GISS cannot make up its mind on whether the “unadjusted” data are “raw” or if they are “quality controlled”.

When we look at the Key beneath the Cuiaba temperature chart posted by NASA GISS here, we see that “unadjusted” gets called “quality controlled” (marked yellow):

Image

Yet, when we go back to the archives and look at the data plot for Cuiaba, the Key beneath the chart has a different definition for “unadjusted data”. Here they were defined as “raw data as reported by the weather station”!

Image

Well, which is it? Is this another adjustment phase they snuck in? The page from NASA website was saved on June 20.

It’s bad enough that NASA GISS is taking it’s Version 3 “unadjusted” data and adjusting them to Version 4 “unadjusted” (warming them up), but now NASA GISS number crunchers seem unable to make up their minds whether the unadjusted data are “raw” or if they are “quality controlled”.

With all the confusion surrounding all the different versions and changing definitions, we have to wonder what on earth is going on at NASA GISS.

Data used to be raw, but now “quality controlled”

NASA used to claim that GHCN unadjusted are the raw data as reported by the weather station. But now they say that GHCN unadjusted are “quality controlled monthly means constructed by NCEI and other groups from raw data”.

A lot of fishy data business going on at NASA GISS.

From THIS article.

_________________
Big Boyz Toyz!

Image

Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.

William Pitt, British Prime-Minister (1759-1806)


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post Posted: Sun Aug 11, 2019 3:38 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 6:38 am
Posts: 11648
Location: Coming At Ya!
July 2019 Was Not the Warmest on Record
August 2nd, 2019 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

Quote:
July 2019 was probably the 4th warmest of the last 41 years. Global “reanalysis” datasets need to start being used for monitoring of global surface temperatures. [NOTE: It turns out that the WMO, which announced July 2019 as a near-record, relies upon the ERA5 reanalysis which apparently departs substantially from the CFSv2 reanalysis, making my proposed reliance on only reanalysis data for surface temperature monitoring also subject to considerable uncertainty].

We are now seeing news reports (e.g. CNN, BBC, Reuters) that July 2019 was the hottest month on record for global average surface air temperatures.

One would think that the very best data would be used to make this assessment. After all, it comes from official government sources (such as NOAA, and the World Meteorological Organization [WMO]).

But current official pronouncements of global temperature records come from a fairly limited and error-prone array of thermometers which were never intended to measure global temperature trends. The global surface thermometer network has three major problems when it comes to getting global-average temperatures:

(1) The urban heat island (UHI) effect has caused a gradual warming of most land thermometer sites due to encroachment of buildings, parking lots, air conditioning units, vehicles, etc. These effects are localized, not indicative of most of the global land surface (which remains most rural), and not caused by increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Because UHI warming “looks like” global warming, it is difficult to remove from the data. In fact, NOAA’s efforts to make UHI-contaminated data look like rural data seems to have had the opposite effect. The best strategy would be to simply use only the best (most rural) sited thermometers. This is currently not done.

(2) Ocean temperatures are notoriously uncertain due to changing temperature measurement technologies (canvas buckets thrown overboard to get a sea surface temperature sample long ago, ship engine water intake temperatures more recently, buoys, satellite measurements only since about 1983, etc.)

(3) Both land and ocean temperatures are notoriously incomplete geographically. How does one estimate temperatures in a 1 million square mile area where no measurements exist?

There’s a better way.

A more complete picture: Global Reanalysis datasets

(If you want to ignore my explanation of why reanalysis estimates of monthly global temperatures should be trusted over official government pronouncements, skip to the next section.)

Various weather forecast centers around the world have experts who take a wide variety of data from many sources and figure out which ones have information about the weather and which ones don’t.

But, how can they know the difference? Because good data produce good weather forecasts; bad data don’t.

The data sources include surface thermometers, buoys, and ships (as do the “official” global temperature calculations), but they also add in weather balloons, commercial aircraft data, and a wide variety of satellite data sources.

Why would one use non-surface data to get better surface temperature measurements? Since surface weather affects weather conditions higher in the atmosphere (and vice versa), one can get a better estimate of global average surface temperature if you have satellite measurements of upper air temperatures on a global basis and in regions where no surface data exist. Knowing whether there is a warm or cold airmass there from satellite data is better than knowing nothing at all.

Furthermore, weather systems move. And this is the beauty of reanalysis datasets: Because all of the various data sources have been thoroughly researched to see what mixture of them provide the best weather forecasts
(including adjustments for possible instrumental biases and drifts over time), we know that the physical consistency of the various data inputs was also optimized.

Part of this process is making forecasts to get “data” where no data exists. Because weather systems continuously move around the world, the equations of motion, thermodynamics, and moisture can be used to estimate temperatures where no data exists by doing a “physics extrapolation” using data observed on one day in one area, then watching how those atmospheric characteristics are carried into an area with no data on the next day. This is how we knew there were going to be some exceeding hot days in France recently: a hot Saharan air layer was forecast to move from the Sahara desert into western Europe.

This kind of physics-based extrapolation (which is what weather forecasting is) is much more realistic than (for example) using land surface temperatures in July around the Arctic Ocean to simply guess temperatures out over the cold ocean water and ice where summer temperatures seldom rise much above freezing. This is actually one of the questionable techniques used (by NASA GISS) to get temperature estimates where no data exists.

If you think the reanalysis technique sounds suspect, once again I point out it is used for your daily weather forecast. We like to make fun of how poor some weather forecasts can be, but the objective evidence is that forecasts out 2-3 days are pretty accurate, and continue to improve over time.

The Reanalysis picture for July 2019

More on this with maps and graphs can be seen HERE!

_________________
Big Boyz Toyz!

Image

Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.

William Pitt, British Prime-Minister (1759-1806)


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post Posted: Mon Aug 26, 2019 8:53 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 6:38 am
Posts: 11648
Location: Coming At Ya!
Michael Mann, creator of the infamous global warming ‘hockey stick,’ loses lawsuit against climate skeptic, ordered to pay defendant’s costs
August 25, 2019

Quote:
Michael Mann, a climatologist at Penn State University, is the creator of the “hockey stick graph” that appears to show global temperatures taking a noticeable swing upward in the era when humanity has been burning fossil fuels and dumping CO2 into the atmosphere. The graph was first published in 1998, prominently featured in the 2001 UN Climate Report, and formed part of Al Gore’s 2006 movie, An Inconvenient Truth.

The graph’s methodology and accuracy have been and continue to be hotly contested, but Mann has taken the tack of suing two of his most prominent critics for defamation or libel. One case, against Mark Steyn, is called by Steyn likely to end up in the Supreme Court. But another case, against Dr. Tim Ball was decided by the Supreme Court of British Columbia, with Mann’s case thrown out, and him ordered to pay the defendant’s legal costs, no doubt a tidy sum of money. News first broke in Wattsupwiththat, via an email Ball sent to Anthony Watt. Later, Principia-Scientific offered extensive details, including much background on the hockey stick.

The Canadian court issued it’s final ruling in favor of the Dismissal motion that was filed in May 2019 by Dr Tim Ball’s libel lawyers.

Not only did the court grant Ball’s application for dismissal of the nine-year, multi-million dollar lawsuit, it also took the additional step of awarding full legal costs to Ball. A detailed public statement from the world-renowned skeptical climatologist is expected in due course.

This extraordinary outcome is expected to trigger severe legal repercussions for Dr Mann in the U.S. and may prove fatal to climate science claims that modern temperatures are “unprecedented.” (snip)

Dr Mann lost his case because he refused to show in open court his R2 regression numbers (the ‘working out’) behind the world-famous ‘hockey stick’ graph (shown below).


Real science, not the phony “consensus” version, requires open access to data, so that skeptics (who play a key role in science) can see if results are reproducible. Of course, there are no falsifiable experimental data associated with the global warming predictions of doom, so it doesn’t really stand as science as Karl Popper defined it

This is an important victory in the process of debunking the warmist scare.

Update 1: Michael Mann disputes the notion that he lost (and more):

There have been some wildly untruthful claims about the recent dismissal of libel litigation against Tim Ball circulating on social media. Here is our statement (https://t.co/8tGoBZnE3Y): pic.twitter.com/ySeJcOktX9

— Michael E. Mann (@MichaelEMann) August 23, 2019
Update 2: technology.news has a rather different take than Mann, noting that further legal steps are on their way.

Penn State climate scientist, Michael ‘hockey stick’ Mann commits contempt of court in the ‘climate science trial of the century.’ Prominent alarmist shockingly defies judge and refuses to surrender data for open court examination. Only possible outcome: Mann’s humiliation, defeat and likely criminal investigation in the U.S.

The defendant in the libel trial, the 79-year-old Canadian climatologist, Dr Tim Ball ... is expected to instruct his British Columbia attorneys to trigger mandatory punitive court sanctions, including a ruling that Mann did act with criminal intent when using public funds to commit climate data fraud. Mann’s imminent defeat is set to send shock waves worldwide within the climate science community as the outcome will be both a legal and scientific vindication of U.S. President Donald Trump’s claims that climate scare stories are a “hoax.” (snip)

Michael Mann, who chose to file what many consider to be a cynical SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) libel suit in the British Columbia Supreme Court, Vancouver six long years ago, has astonished legal experts by refusing to comply with the court direction to hand over all his disputed graph’s data. Mann’s iconic hockey stick has been relied upon by the UN’s IPCC and western governments as crucial evidence for the science of ‘man-made global warming.' (snip)

The negative and unresponsive actions of Dr Mann and his lawyer, Roger McConchie, are expected to infuriate the judge and be the signal for the collapse of Mann’s multi-million dollar libel suit against Dr Ball. It will be music to the ears of so-called ‘climate deniers’ like President Donald Trump and his EPA Chief, Scott Pruitt.


As Dr Ball explains:

“Michael Mann moved for an adjournment of the trial scheduled for February 20, 2017. We had little choice because Canadian courts always grant adjournments before a trial in their belief that an out of court settlement is preferable. We agreed to an adjournment with conditions. The major one was that he [Mann] produce all documents including computer codes by February 20th, 2017. He failed to meet the deadline.”

Punishment for Civil Contempt

Mann’s now proven contempt of court means Ball is entitled to have the court serve upon Mann the fullest punishment. Contempt sanctions could reasonably include the judge ruling that Dr. Ball’s statement that Mann “belongs in the state pen, not Penn. State’ is a precise and true statement of fact. This is because under Canada’s unique ‘Truth Defense’, Mann is now proven to have wilfully hidden his data, so the court may rule he hid it because it is fake. As such, the court must then dismiss Mann’s entire libel suit with costs awarded to Ball and his team.

More on this HERE!

_________________
Big Boyz Toyz!

Image

Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.

William Pitt, British Prime-Minister (1759-1806)


Top 
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
 
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 441 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 26, 27, 28, 29, 30

Board index » Racing Forum » Ken0069's Blog


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

 
 

 
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
cron