Monday, July 30, 2012

Devastating Destruction.....

.......of the Great Global Warming hoax.

For the first time, here is authoritative (WMO - ISO methodology) confirmation of Adolf's long held suspicion that temperature records world wide have been fudged by climate conspirators on a scale never before seen.



Never has so much snake oil been dressed up by so many to resemble Chanell No 5.

Alert readers will remember Adolf's challenge a couple of years ago.   A good bottle of Barossa Shiraz was offered to any person who could provide evidence of any raw temperature data which had been adjusted downward by the worlds horde of 'scientific' data adjusters.  The bottle was never claimed and now you can see why.

First, the authenticity:-

Watts et al 2012 has employed a new methodology for station siting, pioneered by Michel Leroy of METEOFrance in 2010, in the paper Leroy 2010, and endorsed by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) Commission for Instruments and Methods of Observation (CIMO-XV, 2010) Fifteenth session, in September 2010 as a WMO-ISO standard, making it suitable for reevaluating previous studies on the issue of station siting.

Second a sample of the disgraceful findings:-

Using Leroy 2010 methods, the Watts et al 2012 paper, which studies several aspects of USHCN siting issues and data adjustments, concludes that:
These factors, combined with station siting issues, have led to a spurious doubling of U.S. mean temperature trends in the 30 year data period covered by the study from 1979 – 2008.
Other findings include, but are not limited to:
· Statistically significant differences between compliant and non-compliant stations exist, as well as urban and rural stations.
· Poorly sited station trends are adjusted sharply upward, and well sited stations are adjusted upward to match the already-adjusted poor stations.
· Well sited rural stations show a warming nearly three times greater after NOAA adjustment is applied.
· Urban sites warm more rapidly than semi-urban sites, which in turn warm more rapidly than rural sites.
· The raw data Tmean trend for well sited stations is 0.15°C per decade lower than adjusted Tmean trend for poorly sited stations.
· Airport USHCN stations show a significant differences in trends than other USHCN stations, and due to equipment issues and other problems, may not be representative stations for monitoring climate.

Read the whole thing.

And then laugh at the stupidity of Gillard, caving in to the Greens on her suicidal Carbon Tax.

Then wonder, how many decades will it take for the so-called 'scientific community' to get back any semblance of credibility?

17 comments:

Snow Angel said...

Meanwhile, in the real world:

http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=2156

And cue the abuse...

Adolf Fiinkensein said...

Snow Angel

The same thing happened in the same place about 180 years ago and again some 150 or so years earlier.

You really must try harder.

Snow Angel said...

Good response. Except that's not actually true though now is it?

Adolf Fiinkensein said...

You're telling the story, Sunshine.

Go and have a look at the historic ice data from the Summit site.

Minobe said...

Professor Richard Muller changes sides. http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/jul/29/climate-change-sceptics-change-mind?intcmp=239

Snow Angel said...

Unfortunately, Minobe, most "sceptics" aren't quite as honest, being either rabid right-wing ideologues, in the pay of the fossil fuel industry or ummmm idiots.

Anonymous said...

One thing I always wondered about since this post is infact stored to perpetually, how would people in the future react? Is there so much certainty against AGW that you would risk being executed over this topic? Governments have always liked scapegoats.

Adolf Fiinkensein said...

Snow Angel@8:55

Well fuck me dead, you just spilled your guts.

Snow Angel said...

Ew. No way I'd fuck you, dead or otherwise.

Richard Watts said...

I'll claim that Shiraz.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/surface-temperature-measurements-advanced.htm

Look down at the Raw vs adjusted graph. Note the RAW value is at times higher than the adjusted value, hence it has been adjusted down.

Snow Angel said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

Anonymous at 9:11

10 - 10

FFS

Richard Watts said...

You can prove the world is warming with 5 things.

Ice cubes.

Boiling water.

Cold water.

Thermometers.

Measurement of ice extent.

Method: bring 500ml of water to the boil in two pots. Put 200 mls of 0.1 degree water in one pot and 200ml water equivalent ice in the other. Wait until the ice is melted and then insert one hand in each pot. Leave each hand immersed for a minute. Then with the hand you used in the cold water pot write a post on the internet claiming that climate change is a conspiracy.

onelaw4all said...

re: "Professor Richard Muller changes sides"

http://physicsandphysicists.blogspot.co.nz/2008/11/q-with-richard-muller.html


Sceptic, huh? riiiiiiiiiiight.

Snow Angel said...

That's right! A real climate change "sceptic" never changes their mind when confronted with the scientific evidence! It means the cheques stop.

Anonymous said...

@Richard Watts

Thats a pisstake right? I mean, you really arent that gullible and ignorant. Are you?
of course you are.

As for Dr Muller, this latest Paper smashes his work to pieces.

Snow Angel said...

No it doesn't, because it's not science. Sorry baby.