Record Cold, US and Europe: Global Warming?

[carpedm9587]

This is simply awesome. Thanks!

[Roy]

You have to look outside of the "official" record , or get your hands on "unadjusted" data. I would have thought this was obvious,

It is obvious. What is not obvious, is what unadjusted data you used to conclude that "the last 17-years ... has exhibited a slight cooling trend", if not the NASA and NOAA data that you claim has been actively and deceptively destroyed.

It's equally obvious that you don't actually have any such data, and that your ignorant claim is based on forgetting that the start of the so-called "pause" was more than 17 years ago, and being too stupid to understand that it's an example of lying-with-statistics that doesn't work with data from 2000 to 2017.

But you unwittingly make a good point: since we obviously can't trust the official record keepers then who can we trust?

Certainly not you.

Produce some data that supports your claim that "the last 17-years ... has exhibited a slight cooling trend", or retract it.

My is wilting.

[Cow Poke]

My is wilting.

You're not eating it fast enough.

[stfoskey15]

You have to look outside of the "official" record , or get your hands on "unadjusted" data. I would have thought this was obvious, but maybe not because uncorrupted records are becoming almost impossible to find, and the agencies in question aren't open about when and how "adjustments" are made.

I mean, the pause was obvious to everybody with alarmists at a loss to explain it, until NOAA "adjusted" the data, and *PRESTO* no more pause. And then they refused to show their work. It's quite the scandal.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...e-climategate/

But you unwittingly make a good point: since we obviously can't trust the official record keepers then who can we trust? What I do know is that the government shouldn't be making policy decisions based on fraudulent data.

http://berkeleyearth.org/understandi...perature-data/

[Leonhard]

The raw data depends on where you are in the world. For the US, you can get the raw unadjusted data from the GHCN archives. Its quite a messy beast of a data set, but its sufficiently well documented so you can write your own programs to replicate their adjustments (I'll be doing that this Sunday and see how close I get).

Its not those records we don't have a simple public access to. Its the global datasets that Berkeley BEST and NASA GIST have gathered. Personally I think they should make them publically available as well.

Sadly I'll just make do with the US Surface Stations Network and perhaps also the Oceanographic data.

[Leonhard]

Which in interesting as in these very years China and India were ramping up their industries, putting, exponentially, more C02 into the atmosphere.

It was not exponential, and now its growth is slowing down.

Its true that China ramped up its industry between 2000 and 2010, but its CO2 output grew at a mostly linear rate. And they're breaking the curve now, slowing down the growth of emissions, with the goal of turning it around in 2025. Mostly they achieve this by firing up natural gas plants instead of coal power.

[seer]

It was not exponential, and now its growth is slowing down.

Its true that China ramped up its industry between 2000 and 2010, but its CO2 output grew at a mostly linear rate. And they're breaking the curve now, slowing down the growth of emissions, with the goal of turning it around in 2025. Mostly they achieve this by firing up natural gas plants instead of coal power.

I don't know about linear, but China and India were putting a lot more Co2 into the air, and I haven't heard that India is slowing down. Yet we still had a "pause" - well, that was until they changed the numbers. And see natural gas is a good alternative until solar and wind become more cost competitive and reliable.

[Leonhard]

and I haven't heard that India is slowing down

True but their output is only a few percent of the global output. China, US, Europe and Russia dominate the CO2 output, though all of these countries are doing things to start changing that. The poorest parts of India and Africa would benefit so much from getting cheap energy, that I think the good that would come of that should allow them a little leeway. At least our output per capita needs to come way down before we can rightfully complain about a country that produces significantly less per capita than us.

Yet we still had a "pause" - well, that was until they changed the numbers.

Yeah I'm looking into the adjustments. They documented them fairly extensively, just not the code they used (which they argued was simple enough to reproduce). I'll see about making a set of posts detailing my adventure into that stuff.

And see natural gas is a good alternative until solar and wind become more cost competitive and reliable.

I've never argued against the use of natural gas. That stuff is pretty cool.

[seer]

I've never argued against the use of natural gas. That stuff is pretty cool.

The greens hate that as much as they do nuclear. And to be honest, it will take decades for renewables to handle the kind of frigid conditions we are experiencing in the US.

[Leonhard]

The greens hate that as much as they do nuclear.

I've always been a proponent of nuclear power.

And to be honest, it will take decades for renewables to handle the kind of frigid conditions we are experiencing in the US.

I'm not sure what cold temperatures have to do with large scale solar installations. Those are easy enough to keep snow free. The solar panels tend to get warm anyway so the melt often causes the snow to slide off. And in large scale installations there's often systems or procedures in place to clean the panels.

Roof top solar panels are another matter, but only a small part of the energy will come from those. That's more for early adopters or people who wanna produce their own power.

[seer]

I've always been a proponent of nuclear power.

So you favor nuclear and natural gas - good...

I'm not sure what cold temperatures have to do with large scale solar installations. Those are easy enough to keep snow free. The solar panels tend to get warm anyway so the melt often causes the snow to slide off. And in large scale installations there's often systems or procedures in place to clean the panels.

First, up here the sun is just not that strong in winter, and what do you do when 25 of the last 30 days were almost completely overcast? Not that I have a problem with renewables, I have no love for big oil, gas or electrical.

Roof top solar panels are another matter, but only a small part of the energy will come from those. That's more for early adopters or people who wanna produce their own power.

Remember I looked into that, it won't work on my roof.

[Adrift]

I've always been a proponent of nuclear power.

When I was growing up, being anti-nuclear energy was a very left-leaning, tree-huggy thing, but It seems like Gen X liberals are far far more nuclear friendly than ever before. Personally I don't like the concept, but I suppose that's based more on my indoctrination on films like Silkwood, and Class of Nuke 'Em High, and the Chernobyl and Fukushima disasters. I'm totally pro-green energy though. This is one of those left/right debates that I only tangentially understand. Like, in another time and place, the shoe could have been on the other foot. Even if Global Warming is a lie (which I'm relatively confident isn't), sources of energy that are less pollutant are something that Christians should be for if they believe that we are to be good stewards of the earth.

[Leonhard]

So you favor nuclear and natural gas - good...

Natural gas is a good stop gap on the road to nuclear or renewables. It produces half the CO2 per kilowatthour compared with coal. Unfortunately Denmark doesn't have cheap access to natural gas, so we're going directly to solar/wind, which is a bit uphill at the moment.

Thankfully there's tons of wind in Denmark. Less sun though.

[seer]

Thankfully there's tons of wind in Denmark. Less sun though.

Yes, I saw a bunch of those cool old wooden windmills when I was there in 75.

[rogue06]

When I was growing up, being anti-nuclear energy was a very left-leaning, tree-huggy thing, but It seems like Gen X liberals are far far more nuclear friendly than ever before. Personally I don't like the concept, but I suppose that's based more on my indoctrination on films like Silkwood, and Class of Nuke 'Em High, and the Chernobyl and Fukushima disasters. I'm totally pro-green energy though. This is one of those left/right debates that I only tangentially understand. Like, in another time and place, the shoe could have been on the other foot. Even if Global Warming is a lie (which I'm relatively confident isn't), sources of energy that are less pollutant are something that Christians should be for if they believe that we are to be good stewards of the earth.

You forgot the one two punch of the movie The China Syndrome followed about a week after its release of the accident at Three Mile Island.