Gavin Goes For Two In One Day

Posted: February 20, 2015 by tallbloke in solar system dynamics

.
.
Catastrophist Gavin Schmidt spreads more Climate FUD. Why is this man in charge of a supposedly neutral scientific institution at NASA GISS?

Real Science

ScreenHunter_1107 Feb. 19 19.08ScreenHunter_1108 Feb. 19 19.08  ScreenHunter_1109 Feb. 19 19.10

Actual scientists call it the “jet stream” – rather than “extreme”

screenhunter_224-jan-21-20-19

View original post

Comments
  1. Jaime says:

    We should be thankful that there are ‘scientists’ brave enough (or stupid enough) to commit themselves to communicating the climate change message on Twitter. We might never know otherwise how flimsy and absurd is the scientific basis upon which they pronounce the imminence of deadly man-made climate change. Blog comments and longer written articles are all very well but they cannot match a few back and forth tweets for the rapid-fire demolition of scientific credibility which so often ensues when scientists like Gavin Schmidt engage with the uneducated proles on Twitter. Long may the GS Twitter account endure!

  2. E.M.Smith says:

    New York dealing with icy waters for commuter boats. Heating oil futures rising fast. Record cold breaking historical records for decades, with some in the 1800’s falling.

    Warm it isn’t…

    Also, the assertion that the extra snow is due to warmer water… that water is near Florida and the warm moist air gets pulled up to make snow. Were it record warm water, we would have some hurricanes or at least large thunderstorms to show for it. We don’t. We have air so cold I can’t use the hot tub and freeze warnings in N. Florida.

  3. Kon Dealer says:

    Is Gavin Schmidt, Michael Mann’s “separated at birth twin”?
    They look the same, sound the same and are both fraudsters.

  4. Paul Vaughan says:

    Community Alert:
    new luke campaign based on STRICTLY false assumptions

    The ever-dishonest, increasingly deceptive, aggressively distorting lukes are basing a new campaign on FUNDAMENTALLY FALSE SPATIAL ASSUMPTIONS:

    “By casting doubt on the occurrence of a Little Ice Age in Europe, our findings further strengthen the case for anthropogenic global warming.”

    Change points and temporal dependence in reconstructions of annual temperature: did Europe experience a Little Ice Age? (2012)
    http://www.ucd.ie/t4cms/WP12_10.pdf

    It’s the same old darkly corrupt trick over & over & over again at wuwt & ce:
    1. Pretend climate is strictly temporal (rather than spatiotemporal).
    2. FALSELY ASSUME (non-existent) land-ocean geometry UNIFORMITY.

    It works because (let me be honest because this is going on for decades now without improvement, so a spade has to more clearly be called a spade) the audience is functionally innumerate, especially when it comes to aggregation criteria fundamentals.

    After what I saw at ce today I’ve added 3 more names to the list of confirmed wuwt & ce climate dark agents. That brings the total to 11.

    My advice for serious, sensible people: Don’t waste any of your time trying to negotiate with wuwt/ce dark agents. Their game is to bully, coerce, and aggressively thought police for very serious political aims & ends. For them the truth is peripheral and it doesn’t matter.

    This trick with aggregation criteria is a particularly nasty trick, as almost no one has the spatiotemporal aggregation criteria fundamentals background to directly understand firsthand exactly what trick is being played. This stuff isn’t covered ANYWHERE in any Stats graduate programs. Additionally, this is cross-disciplinary and it falls beyond the cutting edge of all relevant individual & combined fields (including stats & fluids). A full THEORY (not to be confused with OBSERVATIONS) of turbulent spatiotemporal fluid aggregation statistics has NOT yet been developed. The dark agents are taking advantage of awareness of this. They’re pushing assumptions that are proven by law-constrained observations & simple geometric axioms to be LOGICALLY FALSE IN A STRICT BLACK & WHITE SENSE. They see it as facilitating easy deception of thoroughly ignorant masses …and quite frankly, they are correct: the ignorant masses don’t have a clue that the distortion artistry is based on PROVEN FALSE assumptions (…nor will they ever, as correction of a problem of this magnitude with an education system takes at least several generations and by that time there will be plenty of other problems eclipsing the problems of interpreting history…)

    Even if you can’t understand deeply firsthand, can you understand the mindset & attitude behind this language??

    “By casting doubt on the occurrence of a Little Ice Age in Europe, our findings further strengthen the case for anthropogenic global warming.”

  5. oldbrew says:

    ‘the case for anthropogenic global warming’ struggles when there isn’t ANY new warming for nearly 20 years.

    Official climate theory is going in the opposite direction to reality. How long can that be maintained?

    ‘February cold could push Great Lakes to record ice cover’

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/wp/2015/02/19/february-cold-could-push-great-lakes-to-record-ice-cover/

  6. dscott says:

    Question: Do we have an astrophysical answer as to why the jet stream dipped south in 1977 and 2014/15? Are there any similarities in the moon’s orbital parameters that account for both events?

  7. tallbloke says:

    Of interest, there is a 74 year tide which operates in the high latitudes. The half period of that is 37 years. 1977+37=2014

  8. dscott says:

    So there we have the answer then, a periodicity of lunar factors controls the polar vortex.

    Describe this tide some more and what lunar orbital parameters create this tide.

  9. tallbloke says:

    dscott: Check out the second ever post on this blog using the archive facility left bottom.

  10. oldbrew says:

    16 lunar nodal cycles (4 sets of 4) = almost 15 Jupiter-Saturn conjunctions (5 sets of 3)

    http://icesjms.oxfordjournals.org/content/63/3/401.full

    On a longer timescale 95 LNC (1768.22y) matches the 1768 year J-S/S-U/J-U cycle of 1768 years pretty well.
    Also 1863 draconic years (‘the time taken for the Sun (as seen from the Earth) to complete one revolution with respect to the same lunar node’ – Wikipedia) is only about 9 days less than 1768 years.

    https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2014/10/26/why-phi-giant-planets-update/