Comments on: Global warming spreads by word of morph

By: Gary

Gary — Fri, 23 Dec 2011 08:04:26 +0000

No doubt about it it is unethical fraud. Out of it if it is accepted, people will be taxed, people will loose jobs, and possibly whole communities destroyed, because of someones political agenda. The greens are such unethical dirtbags.

By: Richard C (NZ)

Richard C (NZ) — Thu, 22 Dec 2011 20:42:42 +0000

Jimmy Works His Arctic Magic

Posted on December 22, 2011 by Steven Goddard

[See blink comparator] http://www.real-science.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Gidd_12_2011.gif

Despite having no data north of 80N, Hansen has determined that it was very hot there in November. By fabricating a huge 4-8C anomaly at the North Pole, he is able to keep global temperatures (barely) rising this century, while HadCRUT shows global temperatures falling.

He also did a bang up job warming Greenland well above measured temperatures. RSS showed almost all of Greenland cold, but Hansen’s magic crayon did an impressive job of heating the place up.

[See image]

http://www.real-science.com/jimmy-works-arctic-magic

By: Richard C (NZ)

Richard C (NZ) — Wed, 21 Dec 2011 20:34:25 +0000

NOAA data is readily accessible by all comers (not just US citizens0 and being one that does I’m grateful for the free information but I steer well clear of temperatures preferring warts-n-all HadCRUT3 to any US sourced series due to the dodgy adjustments (see below), but these NCDC monthly adjustments are a revelation as to the extent of the manipulation.

The blogosphere is rife with examples but just a couple that I’m sure most are already aware of:-

The US series blink comparator:-

http://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/1998changesannotated.gif?w=500&h=355

NASA GISS – Adjusting the Adjustments

http://climateaudit.org/2010/12/26/nasa-giss-adjusting-the-adjustments/

I.e. give GISS a MISS and now NCDC also.

By: Richard Treadgold

Richard Treadgold — Wed, 21 Dec 2011 20:28:44 +0000

Hi Richard, I can’t resist this!

On the face of it, CO2 simply “affects” past temperatures. That is, it is one of such influencing factors.
You could only use “effects” if CO2 was the only, or the vastly predominant, influence, since in this context it means “cause”.
I hope that’s clear.

Thanks, now I wander back to work.

By: Richard C (NZ)

Richard C (NZ) — Wed, 21 Dec 2011 19:55:19 +0000

Yes. Just as CO2 can produce phenomenal warming in the future, it also has amazing retroactive capability to produce warming and cooling in the past that must be constantly accounted for. Otherwise if nothing was done, who would ever know that past temperatures are effected by CO2 in this way?

English technicians lurking may question my use of “effected”, viz:-

tr.v. ef·fect·ed,
1. To bring into existence.
2. To produce as a result.
3. To bring about.

Not being an expert in my first (and only) language, is is possible that I have inadvertently used the wrong word and perhaps “affected” would be more appropriate:-

adj. af·fect·ed,
1. Acted upon, influenced, or changed.
2. Emotionally stirred or moved.
3. Infected or attacked, as by disease.

I’m open to correction.

By: Clarence

Clarence — Wed, 21 Dec 2011 15:40:29 +0000

Unbelievable!

I could understand a once-and-for all-revision. Perhaps even a second one is some aspect is overlooked. But every month! And always incremental amounts in the same direction!

Can anybody think of an innocent explanation?