August 24, 2014

What if it's all lies and hot air?

Remember decades ago, when the demise of humans was imminent, due to overpopulation and not enough food?  Everyone believed it.  Well regarded scientists believed it.  The science itself had no complexity, requiring only primary school maths (do some simple sums, simple extrapolation and simple prediction).

At least the last end-times prediction was based on real data, not computer modelling with only partial grounding in real world data and real world dynamics.

Does it matter if humans whip themselves daily for causing the warming of the planet, even if it turns out to be a wasted mass self-flagellation?  Well yes, of course it.  Decades of wasted debate, trillions of dollars, wasted economic, political and social capital.  That's why it matters:  the opportunity cost is devastating to current and future generations.
It goes to heart of the climate change debate — in particular, whether computer models are better than real data and whether temperature records are being manipulated in a bid to make each year hotter than the last.

“In (George Orwell’s) Nineteen Eighty-Four Winston Smith knows that, ‘He who controls the present controls the past’. Certainly the bureau appears intent on improving the historical temperature record by changing it,” Marohasy says.

“Repetition is a propaganda technique,’’ she wrote back to Birmingham. “The deletion of information from records, and the use of exaggeration and half-truths, are ­others.

“The Bureau of Meteorology uses all these techniques, while wilfully ignoring evidence that contradicts its own propaganda.’’

Marohasy has analysed the physical temperature records from more than 30 stations included in the BoM set that determines the official national temperature record.

And she remains disturbed by a pattern whereby homogenisation exaggerates, or even produces, a record of steady warming against a steady or cooling trend in the raw data.

Marohasy says the “corruption” of the data was of no practical consequence to climate scientists at BoM because they do not use historical data for forecasting either rainfall or temperature — they use simulation models that attempt to recreate the climate based on assumed physical ­processes.

But she says the remodelling is “of considerable political value to them, because the remodelled data better accords with the theory of anthropogenic global warming’’.

Marohasy says the unhomogenised/raw mean annual minimum temperature trend for Rutherglen for the 100-­year period from January 1913 through to December last year shows a slight cooling trend of 0.35C per 100 years.

After homogenisation there is a warming trend of 1.73C per 100 years. Marohasy says this warming trend essentially was achieved by progressively dropping down the temperatures from 1973 back through to 1913. For the year of 1913 the difference between the raw temperature and the ACORN-Sat temperature is 1.8C.

BoM is adamant the purpose of homogenisation is to remove non-­climatic disconuities. But Marohasy says because there have been no site changes or equipment changes at Rutherglen, but very large adjustments made to the data, it is perhaps reasonable to assume that the bureau has changed the record for Rutherglen because it is very different to the record for the neighbouring stations.
So many sheep, so few skeptics. 

Bureau of meteorology altering climate figures

Heat is  on over weather bureau homogenising temperature records 

August 10, 2014

It's been a while ...

Seems like an age since there's been a story worthy of penis chronicles.

This series of events brings up more questions than it answers. Did the lack of the lighter affect his decision to have relations with the driveway? Was he thinking "I'll either have a smoke, or fuck some sexy driveway. Whatever works out."

Texas man arrested for humping sexy driveway