World Meteorological Organization says climate data is uncool The World Meteorological Organization's Commission for Climatology has called for governments to refresh their “climate normals” more often. Climate normals are thirty-year chunks of weather observations that are used as baselines for comparison with more recent events. The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) says the data …
We live in a false paradigm reality, bounded by faux science, fake history, filtered news and financed with a fiat currency. There is NO Carbon climate forcing, NO 'sustainable' energy, NO 'peak' oil and NO big bang. Visit FauxScienceSlayer and think about...."Becoming a TOTAL Earth Science Skeptic". We have been LIED to about everything.
See Klimawandel at youtube.com/watch?v=AybBEulpy44
While we ARE getting lied to about many things, most data simply DOES point to changing weather patterns over the last few decades. Whether this is natural or influenced (and to what degree) by mankind is less clear cut because of the dense overgrowth of "greenie" sponsored BS "research" in that area.
The proposal won't junk 1961-1990 data, which the WMO advocates retaining “as the base period for monitoring and assessing long-term climate variability and change … over the course of this century and beyond.”
So they intend to enshrine a random 30 year period of Earth's 4,500 million year existence as the "base period" for all ongoing climate studies? I guess this means the climate finally got off the couch only in 1961? Who knew?
On the Other hand the US Climate Reference Network does show a slight cooling trend if you add the necessary arithmetic to the data plotted here:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/temp-and-precip/national-temperature-index/time-series?datasets[]=uscrn¶meter=anom-tavg&time_scale=p12&begyear=2004&endyear=2014&month=12
USCRN is a network of stations that actually conform to siting and operation guidelines rather than the usual speckle of warm wet dog shite.
Globally, 9 of the 10 hottest years ever recorded have been in the 21st century and 2013 was 37th consecutive year the yearly global temperature was above average (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2013/13) .
Even if you accept that, in one country there was some marginal cooling .. so what?
It's not like that country's on a separate planet.
Really, grow up and accept reality.
Well here's the thing. Let's look at some published peer reviewed literature BEST (we won't quibble about them having to start a new journal to get published) , where they cheerfully tell you that 70% of the US instrument network is between 2C to 5C in error "or possibly more" . Then we look at NCDC that has just admitted to using fabricated data from closed stations in the USHCN data set, although it doesn't matter because "their algorithm is working as designed". Now I used to run a metrology system under automotive industry quality standards, some of it for those special clients where the numbered pages that all had to be accounted for were used. If I had run my network this badly, with made up data included, I would have lost the company work, been fired, and possibly gone to jail. And let's bear in mind that by global standards the US network is well funded and well managed.
So the key points:
Why are we taking trillion pound decisions based on a system that wouldn't qualify as fit to sentence tuppeny bolts and washers.?
There's no point in haggling about hottest or coldest years when the data source is irredeemably shite. You can polish a turd, mythbusters proved it, but a turd it remains, in the meantime everything you used in the process is covered in shit.
He grabs the bar, he grunts he strains, he goes into the squat..., oh dear the logical fallacy of argument from authority has just shot out of his arse and is running around the arena flipping the bird at the crowd who frankly look unimpressed and slightly bored....
There is a difference between can't and shouldn't and certainly between false confidence and realistic assessment of error...
This post has been deleted by its author
Let's assume for the moment that all the climate change deniers are right. Ok, forget about climate issues. Next.
So, what about all the... heavy metals in the ocean? depletion of nutrients in the soil? drilling? fracking? destruction of rain forests and habitats? species? cancerous levels of smog in asia? poisonous rivers in india? huge plastic rubbish island floating in the ocean? etc, etc...
You are using your scepticism about climate change to completely ignore the myriads of other (completely obvious) data about how the world is being frcked up by people, And almost using that position to endorse all sorts of completely idiotic and destructive policies.
It's not just about the climate change.
@ Nigel The Pigeon
Last I checked the people ignoring everything but 'climate change' was the Co2 religion followers. There is a spectrum of absolute deniers of climate change through various uncertainties finishing with absolute believers in MMCC co2 theory. The only people I hear ignoring actual pollution is the absolute believers because they want everyone to concentrate on a single gas to the ignorance of science, people and reality.
In fact (and such facts are often voiced by everyone not in the absolute believer camp) the pursuit of destructive polities is what the absolute believers regularly insist. And then provide false figures, blatant lies and justification arguments more shaky than that of a cult or religious zealot lobby.
Climate change deniers is a big brush to tar with. It seems to encompass everyone who is not in the absolute believer camp. Yet those absolute believers will occasionally have to accept the lack of knowledge we currently have in climate. They want the answer before the hard work (science) has been done.
"So, what about all the... heavy metals in the ocean? depletion of nutrients in the soil? drilling? fracking? destruction of rain forests and habitats? species? cancerous levels of smog in asia? poisonous rivers in india? huge plastic rubbish island floating in the ocean? etc, etc..."
One at a time.
"heavy metals in the ocean" - Um, yeah. whatever you say.
"depletion of nutrients in the soil" - Granted, in places, but that's just farmland, a tiny fraction of the biosphere, and rather temporary in the big picture.
"drilling" - So?
"fracking" - You say that like it's a bad thing.
"destruction of rain forests and habitats" - Okay, but stuff has always happened to habitats. Life adapts. Besides, all that new CO2 is engendering lots of green growth worldwide! Aren't you happy?
"species" - Ah, lots of niche species going extinct, the horror. Like there's a dearth of competition for those niches? Get real.
"cancerous levels of smog in asia" - Oh noes!! Whatever will we do! Those poor helpless Asians need OUR help! Um, no. They will solve the smog issue the same way we did, or die trying.
"poisonous rivers in india" - Well no wonder, with all those dead bodies and *ugh* floating down to the sea. Again, they will deal.
"huge plastic rubbish island floating in the ocean" - Turns out that's way overblown:
http://news.sciencemag.org/environment/2014/06/ninety-nine-percent-oceans-plastic-missing
Aaah. The two minute panic is at an end. Nice, but wouldn't want it to go on all day...
that article you linked to suggests that 99% of ocean plastic may be being eaten by fish. did you read it?.. or are you saying thats a good thing?..
I did read it, and all they know is that the plastic they were assuming was there is not there. Every other claim they 'suggest' turns out to be totally unsupported by facts, which they finally admit. You were saying?
@BigJohn
Your attitude is all wrong, and you miss the point. Every. Single. Time.
So, lets assume that your strange conclusion of that article is correct, and 99% of all the plastic we know is being dumped in the ocean, has infact magically disappeared (not what the article says at all, but anyways..) ....
...that still leaves 1% of... millions of tons.
It is clear that you couldn't care less. Or, if you dispute that figure then why even link to the article at all?
Plasticgeddon? Mostly made-up:
"Ignore the photos that you think show the Great Pacific Garbage Patch. Andrés Cózar of the University of Cadiz in Spain is the man who once extrapolated the 1 million-ton estimate. Since then, however, he has led research that collected samples at 141 ocean sites. Cózar's new estimate: 7,000 to 35,000 tons of plastic are floating in the ocean.
Cózar's team didn't find country-size islands of plastic bags strangling baby birds and sea turtles. It found "micro plastics." What people think of as a dump doesn't look like floating junk. Instead, ocean current "convergence zones" are swirling with flecks of plastic - like a snow globe half a minute after shaking - and with considerably less plastic trash than expected."
http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/saunders/article/Pacific-garbage-patch-tale-as-flimsy-as-a-5596400.php
@Sailfish
Ok, so then lets say there's 10 kilotons of plastic floating in the ocean. Great. The figure used to be zero. What will the figure be in 50 years? Do you care? I do.
We are not winning when someone can prove that we have only f-cked something up 50% instead of 500% (or whatever). Stop treating it like a victory. That is not a win, and a reason to continue f-cking things up by refusing to acknowledge it!
(*) I presume you will now calculate the exact percentage figure, and entirely miss the point again.
Yay. Blinkers on. Let's get cancer!
Incredibly, I just provided credible information that the whole Fantasy Plastic Floating Island was made-up BS and that the amount of floating plastic is over 2 orders of magnitude less than was originally guessed at (by the very person who made that claim in the first place, I would add) and it doesn't phase you at all! Then, even the New! Improved! Wild @ss Guess is given in a ridiculous range of 7-35K tons that it even further beggars the credulity of that claim.
The only difference between Warmists and Bible Thumpers belief systems it seems is instead of fire and brimstone, we'll all die off cancer. Even so, the human life span continues to climb and all the Warmists compute, via rickety running average models, that the Armageddon inflection point continues to be 100 years in the future.
#insufferable
It's clearly sensible to use up to date data where possible, especially given that the WMO makes it clear that data for 1981-2010 is available. Why would you use a data set 20 years older than that?
However the reason given - change in the mix of atmospheric gases - is bizarre. All you really need to say is "use the up to date data in case things have changed". You don't need to say what you think may have caused the change or even that you think there has been a change. Cart before the horse!
"Because that's well known (man made increases in CO2) and hasnt been in any serious scientific doubt for at least a decade now."
The climate gets warmer then it gets colder. This has happened for millions of years, all without the intervention of man. In this cycle the CO2 concentration increases after the temperature rise ie the CO2 does not cause the temperature rise. This fact is a little unfortunate for the climate change industry but can be ignored, or explained away, as is done for the lack of temperature rise in the last 17 years.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
