The Fundamental Equation of Climate Scientology

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Al Gore, the Minister of Propaganda for the Church of Climate Scientology, recently explained that the unusually normal snowy winters are just more proof of Global Warming (souce (http://blog.algore.com/2011/02/an_answer_for_bill.html)):


An Answer for Bill February 1, 2011 : 11:43 AM

Last week on his show Bill O’Reilly asked, “Why has southern New York turned into the tundra?” and then said he had a call into me. I appreciate the question.

As it turns out, the scientific community has been addressing this particular question for some time now and they say that increased heavy snowfalls are completely consistent with what they have been predicting as a consequence of man-made global warming (http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2010-02-14/news/ct-oped-0214-page-20100212_1_global-warming-term-climate-change-snow):

“In fact, scientists have been warning for at least two decades that global warming could make snowstorms more severe. Snow has two simple ingredients: cold and moisture. Warmer air collects moisture like a sponge until it hits a patch of cold air. When temperatures dip below freezing, a lot of moisture creates a lot of snow.”

“A rise in global temperature can create all sorts of havoc, ranging from hotter dry spells to colder winters, along with increasingly violent storms, flooding, forest fires and loss of endangered species.”Minister Gore's new dogma has caused some confusion amongst the older traditional Climate Scientologists who were raised under the strict dogma that less snow was clear proof that the eschatological Climate Apocalypse was happening now. Here is a transcript from a video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d70iXVN5EVM&feature=player_embedded) from 2002 of esteemed Minster Senator Byrd declaring the Climate Apocalypse was well under way eight years ago:
"We need a climate change strategy, and we need a climate change strategy badly. Look at the kind of winter we've had here in Washington. One snow. Three inches. This is a drought that has come upon this area of the country during the winter season. What can we expect for the spring and summer season? What's going to happen to our crops, our livestock, our economy? This is serious. I've lived a long time - 84 years. Something's going on out there. I don't need a scientist to tell me that. The difference in the winters. The differences in the summers. In the temperatures. In the water levels. There's something happening and we had better be aware of it."
Sen. Byrd is correct. We don't need no stinkin "scientists" to tell us about our faith. Also, there is no reason these apparent contradictions should cause any concern or doubt about the validity of Climate Scientology. Both predictions are perfectly consistent with the Fundamental Equation of Climate Scientology:

IF (SNOW < NORMAL OR SNOW > NORMAL) THEN GLOBAL WARMING

And remember that anyone who thinks for themselves on this issue and refuses to submit to the HIVE MIND can be quickly silenced by merely gassing them with accusations of being holocaust deniers.

We live in interesting times - discourse about the weather has become one of the most divisive of all political issues!

[Clifford]

Al Gore, the Minister of Propaganda for the Church of Climate Scientology, recently explained that the unusually normal snowy winters are just more proof of Global Warming (souce (http://blog.algore.com/2011/02/an_answer_for_bill.html)):

Minister Gore's new dogma has caused some confusion amongst the older traditional Climate Scientologists who were raised under the strict dogma that less snow was clear proof that the eschatological Climate Apocalypse was happening now. Here is a transcript from a video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d70iXVN5EVM&feature=player_embedded) from 2002 of esteemed Minster Senator Byrd declaring the Climate Apocalypse was well under way eight years ago:
"We need a climate change strategy, and we need a climate change strategy badly. Look at the kind of winter we've had here in Washington. One snow. Three inches. This is a drought that has come upon this area of the country during the winter season. What can we expect for the spring and summer season? What's going to happen to our crops, our livestock, our economy? This is serious. I've lived a long time - 84 years. Something's going on out there. I don't need a scientist to tell me that. The difference in the winters. The differences in the summers. In the temperatures. In the water levels. There's something happening and we had better be aware of it."
Sen. Byrd is correct. We don't need no stinkin "scientists" to tell us about our faith. Also, there is no reason these apparent contradictions should cause any concern or doubt about the validity of Climate Scientology. Both predictions are perfectly consistent with the Fundamental Equation of Climate Scientology:

IF (SNOW < NORMAL OR SNOW > NORMAL) THEN GLOBAL WARMING

And remember that anyone who thinks for themselves on this issue and refuses to submit to the HIVE MIND can be quickly silenced by merely gassing them with accusations of being holocaust deniers.

We live in interesting times - discourse about the weather has become one of the most divisive of all political issues!

Hi Richard,

Whether global warming is true or not is based on the AVERAGE temperature across the globe, not on the fact that a particular region is experiencing a very cold winter or very hot summer.

Here are some excerpts from the 2010 Global Climate Report from the National Climatic Data Center. Here is the link for the full report.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/

1. For 2010, the combined global land and ocean surface temperature tied with 2005 as the warmest such period on record, at 0.62°C (1.12°F) above the 20th century average of 13.9°C (57.0°F). 1998 is the third warmest year-to-date on record, at 0.60°C (1.08°F) above the 20th century average.

2. The global land surface temperature for 2010 tied with 2005 as the second warmest on record, at 0.96°C (1.73°F) above the 20th century average. The warmest such period on record occurred in 2007, at 0.99°C (1.78°F) above the 20th century average.

3. 2001–2010 was the warmest decade on record for the globe, with a surface global temperature of 0.56°C (1.01°F) above the 20th century average. This surpassed the previous decadal record (1991–2000) value of 0.36°C (0.65°F).

Clearly the earth has been warming and at an accelerated pace. Its probably both a combination of natural cycles and man caused warming. How much each is contributing is probably unknown. And whether it will have more negative or beneficial effects is not known either in my opinion. But the scientific data does show the earth is warming.

Take care,

Clifford

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hi Richard,

Whether global warming is true or not is based on the AVERAGE temperature across the globe, not on the fact that a particular region is experiencing a very cold winter or very hot summer.

Here are some excerpts from the 2010 Global Climate Report from the National Climatic Data Center. Here is the link for the full report.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/

1. For 2010, the combined global land and ocean surface temperature tied with 2005 as the warmest such period on record, at 0.62°C (1.12°F) above the 20th century average of 13.9°C (57.0°F). 1998 is the third warmest year-to-date on record, at 0.60°C (1.08°F) above the 20th century average.

2. The global land surface temperature for 2010 tied with 2005 as the second warmest on record, at 0.96°C (1.73°F) above the 20th century average. The warmest such period on record occurred in 2007, at 0.99°C (1.78°F) above the 20th century average.

3. 2001–2010 was the warmest decade on record for the globe, with a surface global temperature of 0.56°C (1.01°F) above the 20th century average. This surpassed the previous decadal record (1991–2000) value of 0.36°C (0.65°F).

Clearly the earth has been warming and at an accelerated pace. Its probably both a combination of natural cycles and man caused warming. How much each is contributing is probably unknown. And whether it will have more negative or beneficial effects is not known either in my opinion. But the scientific data does show the earth is warming.

Take care,

Clifford
Hey there Clifford,

I agree completely that the real issue is the temperature. That's why I mocked the folks who are using weather events as "proof" of Global Warming.

As for the surface temperature records, they reliability is questionable for many different reasons, the most significant being that the "climate scientists" constantly rewrite history by changing the historical temperature records to create a greater illusion of warming. I've read a lot of articles about this problem, and it appears to be real. I don't recall exactly where the best articles are, but here are a few articles I quickly Googled that discuss this issue:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/05/02/a_tale_of_two_thermometers/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/28/nasa-giss-adjustments-galore-rewriting-climate-history/
http://climateaudit.org/2008/04/06/rewriting-history-time-and-time-again/

Furthermore, NOAA publicly admits that they have "adjusted" the US temperature record to create a temperature increase of over half a degree! Here is the link to the page on their official site (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/ushcn/ushcn.html), and here is the image of the total adjustments between the raw and the adjusted temperature data:

http://www.biblewheel.com/images/ts.ushcn_anom25_diffs_urb-raw_pg.gif

Can you explain why almost all of the adjustments push the temperatures higher the closer we are to present time? This graph appears to create Global Warming out of thin air.

And we also must remember that our instrumental temperature record only spans a century or so, which is a blink in geological time.

So there are many issues that need to be reviewed. And we must always remember HUMAN GREED and the fact that there are vast sums of money on the line for all the "climate scientists" seeking grants. They know they wouldn't get any money if the said "Don't worry, it turns out there is no problem" first because the money is being given because the world has been panicked by the climate doomsday freaks, and second because the politics have now made it anathema to say anything contrary to the HIVE MIND that equates independent thought with holocaust deniers.

I'm really glad you are challenging these point, and I am very much looking forward to your answers.

All the very best,

Richard

[Clifford]

Hey there Clifford,

I agree completely that the real issue is the temperature. That's why I mocked the folks who are using weather events as "proof" of Global Warming.

As for the surface temperature records, they reliability is questionable for many different reasons, the most significant being that the "climate scientists" constantly rewrite history by changing the historical temperature records to create a greater illusion of warming. I've read a lot of articles about this problem, and it appears to be real. I don't recall exactly where the best articles are, but here are a few articles I quickly Googled that discuss this issue:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/05/02/a_tale_of_two_thermometers/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/28/nasa-giss-adjustments-galore-rewriting-climate-history/
http://climateaudit.org/2008/04/06/rewriting-history-time-and-time-again/

Furthermore, NOAA publicly admits that they have "adjusted" the US temperature record to create a temperature increase of over half a degree! Here is the link to the page on their official site (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/ushcn/ushcn.html), and here is the image of the total adjustments between the raw and the adjusted temperature data:

http://www.biblewheel.com/images/ts.ushcn_anom25_diffs_urb-raw_pg.gif

Can you explain why almost all of the adjustments push the temperatures higher the closer we are to present time? This graph appears to create Global Warming out of thin air.

And we also must remember that our instrumental temperature record only spans a century or so, which is a blink in geological time.

So there are many issues that need to be reviewed. And we must always remember HUMAN GREED and the fact that there are vast sums of money on the line for all the "climate scientists" seeking grants. They know they wouldn't get any money if the said "Don't worry, it turns out there is no problem" first because the money is being given because the world has been panicked by the climate doomsday freaks, and second because the politics have now made it anathema to say anything contrary to the HIVE MIND that equates independent thought with holocaust deniers.

I'm really glad you are challenging these point, and I am very much looking forward to your answers.

All the very best,

Richard

Hi Richard,

Those 2 articles you gave me links to are typical of the tactics the global warming skeptics employ. They show that the climate data has been adjusted and claim its just because the climate scientists are trying to prove global warming. What they conveniently leave out is the reasons why they make those adjustments. They are based on sound statistical and scientific principles. The link you gave in your post to NOAA official site goes into a detailed explanation of this adjustment process in the first part of the article and shows why they made the 0.5 degree increase. In the historical climate record they have to make adjustments for stations relocations, different types of instruments used to measure temperatures, urban warming biases, etc.

For example, from 1950 to 1980, many sites were relocated from city locations to airports and from roof tops to grassy areas. This often resulted in cooler readings than were observed at the previous sites. When adjustments were applied to correct for these artificial changes, average US temperature anomalies were cooler in the first half of the 20th century and effectively warmed throughout the later half.

The cumulative effect of all adjustments is approximately a one-half degree Fahrenheit warming in the annual time series over a 50-year period from the 1940's until the last decade of the century. Hope this explanation helps.

Clifford

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hi Richard,

Those 2 articles you gave me links to are typical of the tactics the global warming skeptics employ. They show that the climate data has been adjusted and claim its just because the climate scientists are trying to prove global warming. What they conveniently leave out is the reasons why they make those adjustments. They are based on sound statistical and scientific principles. The link you gave in your post to NOAA official site goes into a detailed explanation of this adjustment process in the first part of the article and shows why they made the 0.5 degree increase. In the historical climate record they have to make adjustments for stations relocations, different types of instruments used to measure temperatures, urban warming biases, etc.

For example, from 1950 to 1980, many sites were relocated from city locations to airports and from roof tops to grassy areas. This often resulted in cooler readings than were observed at the previous sites. When adjustments were applied to correct for these artificial changes, average US temperature anomalies were cooler in the first half of the 20th century and effectively warmed throughout the later half.

The cumulative effect of all adjustments is approximately a one-half degree Fahrenheit warming in the annual time series over a 50-year period from the 1940's until the last decade of the century. Hope this explanation helps.

Clifford
Hey there Clifford,

Thanks for the answer. There are many assumptions that need to reviewed. I don't have a fixed opinion about this, and I am interested in reviewing those articles you dismissed "tactics" employed by "skeptics." I do not want to be a fool who believes the skeptics without reason, but neither do I want to be fooled by folks pushing a Global Warming dogma that goes beyond the facts, like Al Gore.

The thing about NOAA's adjustment graph is that it is a smooth continuous increase, nearly linear between 1960 and 1990. Why is this graph so smooth? What kind of "measurement errors" would create a nearly linear graph between 1960 and 1990 with a slope of about 0.016 degrees per year? Why would the errors continuously increase each year for three decades? Do you think it is caused entirely by corrections for the Urban Heat Island effect? Even so, it seems strange that it is so smooth. If you have access to any of the articles cited on their page, it would be interesting to look at the assumptions made, and how the actually arrived at the graph.

But this graph is not the only issue. There is a lot of talk on the skeptic blogs about the old temperatures being constantly changed, and it "just so happens" that the changes almost always favor the Global Warming hypothesis. This wouldn't be such an issue if the activist "scientists" at CRU in East Anglia had not been exposed (Climategate). I read the emails and it was pretty clear that they were not behaving as objective scientists.

One other interesting question. Are you familiar with the divergence problem? The tree ring data used to create the paleoclimate temperature record contradicted the instrumental temperatures. Why then should we have any confidence in the reconstructed temps? And these are the temps that were used to create the infamous "hockey stick." Do you know anything about this?

Thanks for your help bro.

All the best,

Richard

[Clifford]

Hey there Clifford,


One other interesting question. Are you familiar with the divergence problem? The tree ring data used to create the paleoclimate temperature record contradicted the instrumental temperatures. Why then should we have any confidence in the reconstructed temps? And these are the temps that were used to create the infamous "hockey stick." Do you know anything about this?

Thanks for your help bro.

All the best,

Richard

Hi Richard,

I know they use tree rings data to reconstruct temperature records before the time of instrumentation, but have not heard of the divergence problem. Could you send me some links so I could get up to speed. Thanks,

Clifford

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hi Richard,

I know they use tree rings data to reconstruct temperature records before the time of instrumentation, but have not heard of the divergence problem. Could you send me some links so I could get up to speed. Thanks,

Clifford
This wiki article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divergence_problem) is a fine place to start.

[Clifford]

Hi Richard,

According to the article the problem is mainly after 1950 and in the far northern forests. It said between 1600-1950 that tree ring reconstructions were consistent with other proxy measurements for the period. So it seems the older reconstructions were pretty reliable and that is the period you would need the data for, not in the modern age when we have instruments to make measurements. Must be something going on since 1950 to make the correlation unreliable. Of course one of the explanations is global warming is stressing the trees so they are not growing as much!

Take care,

Clifford

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hi Richard,

According to the article the problem is mainly after 1950 and in the far northern forests. It said between 1600-1950 that tree ring reconstructions were consistent with other proxy measurements for the period. So it seems the older reconstructions were pretty reliable and that is the period you would need the data for, not in the modern age when we have instruments to make measurements. Must be something going on since 1950 to make the correlation unreliable. Of course one of the explanations is global warming is stressing the trees so they are not growing as much!

Take care,

Clifford
Hey Clifford,

You got it! It's rather like the fallacy of "begging the question" - they assume (for various reasons) that the tree rings worked fine and that the divergence is itself cause by anthropogenic global warming. I found a good article from the skepticalscience.com site that is devoted to debunking "skeptical science."

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Hockey-stick-divergence-problem.html

They list a number of possible explanations. The first says "Various studies have noted the drop in Alaskan tree-growth coincides with warming-induced drought. By combining temperature and rainfall records, growth declines were found to be more common in the warmer, drier locations." Here they assume that the "drought" was caused by global warming! But there have always been droughts. They are not correlated with Global Warming. Some places get more precipitation, others less. This happens no matter what the general "climate" is. And so if this is the explanation then it means that the record is unreliable. My point is that this is a very complicated issue ... exceedingly complicated, and it involves all sorts of assumptions about things of which we are fundamentally ignorant. This is why I assert that the "faith" in the tree rings as reliable proxies is suspect at best, and NEVER should have been used in the ICONIC "hockey-stick" graph that was used to coerce everyone to submit to the Global Warming dogma.

There's a lot more to discuss. I find this fascinating.

Richard