What are the watchers watching?

“Watching the deniers” website has a plethora of photos of Australia burning. As expected, there are no photos of Siberia and Alaska breaking cold records in 2011 and 2012, Russians buried in snow and freezing, etc. New news articles of this, either. In the interest of fairness, I am presenting a few of the stories the climate people left out.

https://anhonestclimatedebate.wordpress.com/2009/03/05/south-east-australian-heatwave-in-january-2009-is-not-detectable-in-“global-warming”-data/

http://www.sitnews.us/0113Viewpoints/010613_marvin_seibert.html

http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2013-01-04/science/36147689_1_western-alaska-temperatures-ice-age

http://rt.com/news/russia-freeze-cold-temperature-379/

http://www.radioaustralia.net.au/international/2012-12-26/scores-dead-as-russia-freezes/1066016

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn23048-sea-level-rise-could-lead-to-a-cooler-stormier-world.html

Anyone notice Makiko’s name? This would be the guy who’s entire life is now spent getting his face on any television show he can. Not a scientist.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2257995/Trapped-icy-prison-1-000-ships-stranded-frozen-ocean-China-gripped-extreme-cold-snap.html

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/06/does-noaas-national-climatic-data-center-ncdc-keep-two-separate-sets-of-climate-books-for-the-usa/

Alaska had a record cold summer 2012 after record cold 2011-2012 winter. The cold continues this winter. In Russia, the cold continues with hundreds freezing to death. One article noted the number of dead would be reported weekly instead of daily. It was unclear if this was a positive development.

Problems with claims of the watchers:

First, the use of photos showing fires, etc is a MARKETING tactic. No scientist uses photos in place of actual data. Any time you see photos—as with al Gore (the tax and enviro sell out championed by climate change people) it’s not about science, it’s about marketing.

Second failure to include new record lows show a fundamental lack of knowledge—or a deliberate lie—on the part of the speaker. Climate change is postulated on changes in the Global Mean Temperature. How do we calculate this? We add together all the data values from our thermometers and divide by the number of stations. We can look at average highs, average lows, etc. For the moment, we will ignore “corrections” that are usually applied.

Say in 2012 Australia’s new high temperature was +2 degrees over the previous record. Then let’s assume Alaska’s new “high” temperature was -2 degrees over the previous record. When calculating the mean, the +2 cancels out the -2. Colder temperatures count and leaving them out is unacceptable.

Averages are fascinating statistics. Consider the following example of average temperatures (which are made up for this example):

Year one Year two Year three Year four Year five
Jan 25 15 30 0 35
Mar 55 50 60 65 40
July 90 100 105 105 85
Sept 70 75 55 70 80
Average 60 60 60 60 60

Scan 5

In all cases, the average is 60 degrees. Year one seems pretty “normal”. Years two through four are going to be called “hot”. Year three may break a previous temperature high. Year four may set a record low. These graphs show weather/climate are always changing. Which graph represents “extreme” weather?

Another sign of the lack of science in climate change is the use of terms like “horrendous” “catastrophic” “megastorm” and so forth. Wait—why is that not science? Because these terms lack a precise meaning—yesterdays’ storm can be tomorrow’s megastorm if the news machine needs a crisis. There is no standardized definition of these terms which is not acceptable in science. The terms are great for SyFy movies and the like—or at least SyFy seems to love such titles, but that’s about it. The terms are also useful if you are trying to frighten/intimidate people into believing climate change is a crisis.

How would a scientist report the temperatures in Australia? (Again, using made up numbers here)

Jan 1                            Jan 2                               Jan 3                                   Jan 4

41 degrees                 42 degrees                  40 degrees                            41 degrees

breaks record

If asked what Jan 2 setting a new record means, the scientist would answer: Based on the data presented, Jan 2 had a temperature higher than any recorded in the past for that day.

If asked about what breaking multiple records or all previous records, the scientist would say: Based on available data, the temperature exceeded all past recorded temperatures.

If pushed to give a “better” answer in response to the question about record-breaking, the scientist replies: This is all we know—it’s hotter today than it has been in the past.”

Should the questioner persist, it should be pointed out that the temperature record set in 1960 broke an all-time high as well. What did that mean? That it was hot. Nothing more.

Adding an additional color to the temperature map just means our current classification system needed revised. There is no magic to the colored charts used to show temperatures. Generally, the charts replace data because data is boring and pretty colors on maps are interesting.

The watchers have no proof in their latest posting that the world is getting hotter and people did it–science is no where to be found.

Advertisements

2 comments on “What are the watchers watching?

  1. Sou says:

    This is a fantastic rebuttal to science. If only more people realised that breaking records is nothing new, it happens all the time. As you say, in the sixties there were hot records set. It’s worth adding that in the seventies there were more hot records, in the eighties more and the heat records in the nineties were only surpassed by the heat records in the naughties. To say there were no records broken in the past would be silly not science. In fact, it wouldn’t be a record if it didn’t break a past record so there must have been records broken in the past. It’s just logical.

    I agree with you it would be good to write about cold records. It should be easier than writing about hot records because these days there aren’t nearly as many cold records to keep track of.

    Good luck with your blog. I hope to read more logic like you’ve posted here.

  2. You have a very nice weblog over here. I just wanna say thanks for all the interesting information on it. I’ll follow your blog if you keep up the good work!

Agree? Disagree? Leave a comment!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s