Data Update Shows Orwellian Climate Science

Posted: August 6, 2020 by oldbrew in climate, Critique, data
Tags: ,

.
.
Even if so-called greenhouse gases were a climate problem, CO2 is only a very minor player compared to water vapour, and human-caused CO2 is only a small fraction of total atmospheric CO2. So what problem do we think we can solve?

Science Matters

Climate science is unsettling because past data are not fixed, but change later on.  I ran into this when I set out to update an analysis done in 2014 by Jeremy Shiers, which I discussed in a previous post reprinted at the end.  Jeremy provided a spreadsheet in his essay Murray Salby Showed CO2 Follows Temperature Now You Can Too posted in January 2014. I downloaded his spreadsheet intending to bring the analysis up to the present to see if the results hold up.  The two sources of data were:

Temperature anomalies from RSS here:  http://www.remss.com/missions/amsu

CO2 monthly levels from NOAA (Moana Loa): https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/data.html

Uploading the CO2 dataset showed that many numbers had changed (why?).

The blue line shows annual observed differences in monthly values year over year, e.g. June 2020 minus June 2019 etc.  The first 12 months (1979) provide the observed starting values from which differentials are calculated. …

View original post 1,100 more words

Comments
  1. gbaikie says:

    –Even if so-called greenhouse gases were a climate problem, CO2 is only a very minor player compared to water vapour, and human-caused CO2 is only a small fraction of total atmospheric CO2. So what problem do we think we can solve?–

    And what people’s problem are we solving?
    It certainly doesn’t appear one solving a problem for people who are poorer.
    So divide world population in 1/2, call one half poorer and other half richer, and you not solving any problem of the poorer half.
    CO2 is plant food. Having more food could be something the poorer half might be regarded as more important problem to solve.
    Another aspect is what does it cost to solve the apparent problem that richer 1/2 might regard as a problem.
    Say drug use is regarded as problem. If pass laws against the use of a drug use, that has costs.
    The benefit might be less people die from there being less use of a drug- assuming that law reduces that drug’s use. A major part of reducing death and injury, could be the drug’s effect causes/leads to more car accidents. And of course many other problems. But one costs enforcing the law {including trials and prison time}, plus one can cause illegal market for the drug- which lead numerous costs and violence.
    It seems significant problem caused trying to reduce CO2, has to cause more manufacturing to go to countries who don’t CO2 emission is important problem to solve- resulting in China becoming largest burner of coal in the world. Now if China were burning wood, and replaced burning wood with coal, China would same amount of energy with less CO2 emission. But that’s not what happened, instead manufacturing shifting to China resulted more CO2, because regions moved from were not emitted as much CO2 {they weren’t burning wood and had lower amount energy coming burning coal.
    Addition the stupid global warming religion, imagined burning wood {biofuels} was a lot better than burning coal.
    And that very similar to making drugs illegal- other countries make the drugs and China shipping huge amount fentanyl to US killing tens thousands of people per year- and large dying is due to drug users not being aware they taking this very dangerous drug.

    So, efforts to reduce CO2, have reduced global CO2 emissions and have cost trillions of dollars wasted emitting more CO2. Which I guess has helped the poor as more plant food is going into the atmosphere. But mass destruction of forests, doesn’t seem to helping anyone.

    But assuming one reduced CO2 emission by using nuclear energy.
    Well, I would say China is running out of coal, and probably not going to be as stupid as burning down it’s forests, and making nuclear reactors as not going to have any more coal to get energy from. No one can stop China burning all it’s coal. So, in sense China is going to solve the problem of
    too much CO2 emission, starting around +2030 AD.
    And if don’t count all massive costs inflicted by global warming religion, it seems this will have a low cost. Unless China government is incompetent. And everything points to the fact that Chinese government is incompetent. So China polluting the entire world with radioactive waste seems quite possible.

  2. Chaswarnertoo says:

    The ajustocene. If the data don’t fit your theory, change the data. Lysenkoism.

  3. MrGrimNasty says:

    The RSS change is no secret, it was widely predicted by skeptics, and widely reported when it happened.

  4. Phoenix44 says:

    It is simple fraud to change the data. There is no way to know if the changes make the data more accurate or not and so the data should not be changed. What – if anything – could be done is a analysis of where the data might be in error and a synthetic dara set produced. That could be used for research but should always be caveated as using the synthetic data.

    To change the original data and claim it is now “better” is wrong, and the fact the data moves significantly in one direction without any evidence of systemic error in that direction strongly suggests that the adjustments are flawed.

  5. Paul Vaughan says:

    Big Logistech Naivety

    Naivety is a blade of grass facing a lawn-mower.

    Hubriste[A]ch Mono Pole Lie

    Hubristics is a branch of logistics boasting the devilry of who’s amazing prophets?

    “We will change the data. The purpose is SOLELY to torment you.
    When you do not submit we will lock you down and muzzle you.
    If your naivety about what you can expect from us continues, your next stop is a concentration camp.”

    All-lies on the Lawn

    Suspiciously some STILL spin the illusion that “reason” “helps” in dealing with these people, who would need to be stripped of their power with a sense of urgency as a matter of raw survival.

    Cutting Ties with Concentration

    Those “reasoning” with abusers only fuel the abusers’ savage lust to be supreme abusers.
    Stopping the lawnmower requires something less naive than being a lawn.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s