Reliable? CRU, NASA, BEST, NOAA Land Temp Data Conflict By Up To 90% (0.8°C), Spawning ‘Large Uncertainty’

A new paper documents “remarkably different” land temperatures from one instrumental data set to another. In some regions there is as much as an 0.8°C conflict in recorded temperature anomalies for CRU, NASA, BEST, and NOAA. The relative temperature trend differences can reach 90% when comparing instrumental records. Consequently, the uncertainty in instrumental temperature trends — “0.097–0.305°C per decade for recent decades (i.e., 1981–2017)” —  is as large or larger than the alleged overall warming trend itself for this period.


In a just-published audit of the IPCC-preferred HadCRUT temperature data set, Dr. John McClean identified 70 problems that seriously compromise the reliability and accuracy of this IPCC-preferred instrumental record dating back to 1850.

Joanne Nova provides a summary of the main points from the paper, McLean’s Ph.D thesis.

  • McLean found freakishly improbable data, and systematic adjustment errors , large gaps where there is no data, location errors, Fahrenheit temperatures reported as Celsius, and spelling errors.
  • Almost no quality control checks have been done: outliers that are obvious mistakes have not been corrected – one town in Columbia spent three months in 1978 at an average daily temperature of over 80 degrees C.  One town in Romania stepped out from summer in 1953 straight into a month of Spring at minus 46°C. These are supposedly “average” temperatures for a full month at a time. St Kitts, a Caribbean island, was recorded at 0°C for a whole month, and twice!
  • Temperatures for the entire Southern Hemisphere in 1850 and for the next three years are calculated from just one site in Indonesia and some random ships.
  • Sea surface temperatures represent 70% of the Earth’s surface, but some measurements come from ships which are logged at locations 100km inland. Others are in harbors which are hardly representative of the open ocean.

Are Any Of The Temperature Data Sets Reliable? 

A new paper published in the Journal of Geophysical Research reveals that the recorded land temperature data from the four most commonly-referenced instrumental data sets — CRU, NASA, BEST, and NOAA — are “remarkably different” from one another.

In fact, the authors find that “for some areas, different data sets produce conflicting results of whether warming exists” due especially to variations in the use of “infilling techniques” — adding artificial temperatures to areas where there are no real-world measurements.

One data set trend can be “nearly 90%” different than another data set trend, which ratchets up the uncertainty to levels that undermine confidence in the overall reliability of the instrumental record.

Excerpts from the paper’s abstract and discussion/conclusion are provided below.


Rao et al., 2018

Land Surface Air Temperature Data Are Considerably Different

Among BEST‐LAND, CRU‐TEM4v, NASA‐GISS, and NOAA‐NCEI

“Several groups routinely produce gridded land surface air temperature (LSAT) data sets using station measurements to assess the status and impact of climate change. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fifth Assessment Report suggests that estimated global and hemispheric mean LSAT trends of different data sets are consistent. However, less attention has been paid to the intercomparison at local/regional scales, which is important for local/regional studies. In this study we comprehensively compare four data sets at different spatial and temporal scales, including Berkley Earth Surface Temperature land surface air temperature data set (BEST‐LAND), Climate Research Unit Temperature Data Set version 4 (CRU‐TEM4v), National Aeronautics and Space Administration Goddard Institute for Space Studies data (NASA‐GISS), and data provided by National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Center for Environmental Information (NOAA‐NCEI). The mean LSAT [land surface air temperature] anomalies are remarkably different because of the data coverage differences, with the magnitude nearly 0.4°C for the global and Northern Hemisphere and 0.6°C for the Southern Hemisphere.”

This study additionally finds that on the regional scale, northern high latitudes, southern middletohigh latitudes, and the equator show the largest differences nearly 0.8°C.”

“These differences cause notable differences for the trend calculation at regional scales. At the local scale, four data sets show significant variations over South America, Africa, Maritime Continent, central Australia, and Antarctica, which leads to remarkable differences in the local trend analysis. For some areas, different data sets produce conflicting results of whether warming exists.”

“Our analysis shows that the differences across scales are associated with the availability of stations and the use of infilling techniques. Our results suggest that conventional LSAT data sets using only station observations have large uncertainties across scales, especially over station‐sparse areas.”

The relative difference of trends estimated from different data sets can reach nearly 90% for different regions and time periods. CRU-TEM4v generally appears to have the largest grid box scale differences, while NASA-GISS has the smallest differences compared to BEST-LAND.”

The uncertainty of the LSAT [land surface air temperature] trend estimation caused by the data set differences (i.e., RMSD) ranges from 0.035 to 0.086°C per decade for the long-term trend (i.e., 1901–2017) to 0.097–0.305°C per decade for recent decades (i.e., 1981–2017).”

“In developing future LSAT data sets, the data uncertainty caused by limited and unevenly distributed station observations must be reduced.”

Image Source: Rao et al., 2018

78 responses to “Reliable? CRU, NASA, BEST, NOAA Land Temp Data Conflict By Up To 9078 (0.8°C), Spawning ‘Large Uncertainty’”

  1. Thomas Dobson

    In the early nineties, Iwas doing research for the Canadian Airforce on Magnetic Stability. For five years we monitored the remote sensing stations in the Arctic. We learned that the sunspot cycle was causing this instability. That’s when I started paying attention to the claims of AGW. Measurement was my specialty so I looked up NOAA’s methodology on their site on line. It didn’t take long to see that there was no way the uncertainty claims were accurate. The reference stated that the entire purpose was to show the trend, which is why all the extreme outliers were included. In other words this in no way reflects an actual temperature. One of the things that few people understand about measurement is resolution. There is no way to statistically improve the resolution of a measurement. Basically if your worst resolution in a data set of measurements is 0.1, the resolution of the entire data set can be no more than 1.0. This is basic stuff from the US government Metrology Handbook.

  2. Yonason

    “Are Any Of The Temperature Data Sets Reliable?”

    Outlook Doubtful

  3. Don from OZ

    Surely to get an average global temp it is necessary to take equally spaced measurements across the ENTIRE Globe 24/7, 365 days/yr.
    A practical impossibility.
    Here in Australia our daily weather reports show maximum temps for many townships varying by many degrees for towns only 10’s of kilometers apart with those on the Eastern seaboard usually lower than those on the other side of our ‘Great Dividing Range’. While our vast interior has very few recording stations.
    Average temp -baaa

    1. spike55

      And many of those stations are in urban areas, so the actual temperature may only be applicable to a small few km in radius.

      But through the wonders of “homogenisation” the rural land, which makes up the vast majority of Australia, takes on the same temperature and trend as those urban area.

      1. SebastianH

        Is that so? I thought it was established now that large cities in Japan are cooling and therefore the overall temperature index is lowered by large cities? Is it opposite in Australia because you are on the other hemisphere?

        1. spike55

          Yes, Australian urban areas are almost always far warmer than the surrounding countryside.

          Measured fact, that you can’t DENY.

          Do you have any measured facts about CO2 warming??

  4. Penelope

    Don from Oz,
    “Surely to get an average global temp it is necessary to take equally spaced measurements across the ENTIRE Globe 24/7, 365 days/yr.
    A practical impossibility.”

    I would be content w a mere honest comparison of the same weather stations year to year, as this might show a trend. Instead, they’ve eliminated many stations! And the estimates for these missing stations, and for vast areas w few stations are without credibility. Also the methodology seems to change
    every year.

    But then, what do we expect? Hoaxsters don’t care about the science– except to avoid it.

    1. Yonason

      Yes. All they do by their estimates is create noise that buries the real data, and then they go and “adjust” the real data to reflect their bias. It’s a mess, and nothing meaningful can be determined from it except that those in charge of maintaining the data are incompetent and/or corrupt.

    2. SebastianH

      Instead, they’ve eliminated many stations!

      I am sure they did this to promote the one-world government and suppress knowledge of primary water, right? 😉

      Hoaxsters don’t care about the science– except to avoid it.

      Exactly! Finally someone recognizes the problem with you guys. You don’t care about science.

      1. spike55

        We have been waiting for a LONG LONG time for you to produce ANY science whatsoever, seb [snip].

        You have been running around like a headless-chook in manic evasion of actually producing any science…

        Do you want to try .. just once??

        Q1. In what way has the climate changed in the last 40 years, that can be scientifically attributed to human CO2 ?

        Q2. Do you have ANY EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE at all that humans have changed the global climate in ANYWAY WHATSOEVER?

        Q3. Where does the bottom 10m of the atmosphere get the force from to CONTINUALLY counter the weight force of the many km of air above it?

      2. Don from OZ

        What nonsense you write Sebastian. We obviously weren’t talking about ourselves and you know it.
        How about instead of being obtuse and a stirrer you put forth some facts that show CO2 to be a significant greenhouse gas capable of altering temperatures. Or is that too much to ask of you?

        1. SebastianH

          What nonsense you write Sebastian. We obviously weren’t talking about ourselves and you know it.

          Really? Of course, only leftist Democrats are talking about themselves when they explain what their opponents are doing. Are you saying you guys aren’t “hoaxters”? I have to be careful with those terms. Apparently it is ok to call AGW proponents all kind of things, but once you expose a skeptic to his/her BS it becomes offensive 😉

          show CO2 to be a significant greenhouse gas capable of altering temperatures

          Go out, do the research. Try to blend out all your usual skeptic bubble websites.

          It’s knownledge that is over a century old now. Do you want me to explain relativity to you as well? I assure you there are much better sources out there as someone who’s primary language is not English on a random internet comment section trying to explain it in a few sentences 😉

          Or is that too much to ask of you?

          Is it too much to ask of you to inform yourself in less dubious regions of the internet? I should open up my own blog where I claim to be skeptical of something pretty obvious. And unless someone presents an explanation why I am wrong that I won’t call fake or a hoax I’ll say I am in the right and the science is not settled. Since I mentioned relativity, maybe I’ll become a skeptic of time dilation. All the experiments that confirmed this part are of course fake! Only newtonian physics are real physics! Convince me of the opposite! Too much to ask for?

          1. John Brown

            So you cannot point us to a science paper, that discusses the contributions of CO2 on the warming of the Earth?

            If there was such a paper would you not quote from it any time you get the question? Have the link ready every time you are being asked?

            You obfuscate your inability with a claim that you could explain relativity! I am all ear lets hear it. You could actually impress me with that.

            Heh, you no need use your own words. Just a link to a scientific explanation best a paper, would be good.

            Same goes for the excellent question from Don of Oz!

            “put forth some facts that show CO2 to be a significant greenhouse gas capable of altering temperatures.”

            The emphasis in the question was: “significant”
            and “capable of altering temperatures”.

  5. DR

    Yeah but it isn’t peer reviewed they’ll say.

  6. iggie

    For his next study, John M should check GISS NASA and ask how it can come up with this.

    De Bilt mean temp (prior to around 2011).
    https://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/show_station.cgi?id=633062600003&dt=1&ds=1

    De Bilt mean temp (cleaned and homogenised after 2011).
    https://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/stdata_show.cgi?id=633062600000&ds=5&dt=1

    1. Yonason

      I’m sure they [auditors] could learn a lot from Tony Heller, who’s been exposing that for what seems like it should have been long enough to get the attention of some honest scientists. Of course, under Obama no hard questions were going to be asked. And under Bush, the clueless, insufficient attention was paid to the red flags already being raised.

      Given how long there has been to poison the well, it may be quite a challenge to restore it to health. And, since the wrecking crew is still at it, the damage will only continue to accumulate until it is actively terminated, and competent scientists installed. This is not going to be fixed overnight.

      1. SebastianH

        iggie 9. October 2018 at 5:26 AM | Permalink | Reply
        For his next study, John M should check GISS NASA and ask how it can come up with this.

        What is your guess? A hoax? Scam? Fraud?

        @Yonason:

        I’m sure they [auditors] could learn a lot from Tony Heller

        If you listen to Tony Heller / Steven Goddard you are not the person that learns something, you are the one who believes a disinformer instead.

        The rest of your comment, well you want to suppress actual science … good for you. Haven’t you just posted a link to a podcast against totalitarian science? Troll!

        1. spike55

          “you are not the person that learns something, you are the one who believes a disinformer instead”

          You have NEVER been able to counter one thing that Tony Heller has said.

          You just don’t like that he opens up so many sores and lies of the AGW scam in such an easy manner.

          You really HATE it when real FACTS are brought into the open, don’t you seb 😉

          1. SebastianH

            You have NEVER been able to counter one thing that Tony Heller has said.

            It’s impossible to counter anything when you are the judge, spike55. Even if I told you 1 + 1 is 2 you would argue that I am wrong or ignore it 😉

            Here is why Tony Heller is a disinformer:

            https://tamino.wordpress.com/2018/08/08/usa-temperature-can-i-sucker-you/

            I know you have the urge to call Tamino a fraud or insult him or me in other creative ways, but maybe – just this time – drop your act and actually consider reading that blog post and understand what Tony Heller is doing. And no, this is not a leftist describing what he does …

          2. spike55

            Tamino is a low-level AGW apologist who has learnt to bend data but is extraordinarily BAD at it.. He been regularly found AND PROVEN to be LYING THROUGH HIS TEETH or just plain INEPT

            So he’s a natural for you to link to.

            “Even if I told you 1 + 1 is 2 “

            I would be AMAZED you got something correct for once !!!

            You have NEVER been able to counter TH’s FACTS

            You have been given several chances to show where his videos have been in error but in each case only produce your normal mindless bluster.

            you were EMPTY then, ze-seb,

            you are EMPTY NOW, ze-seb

            …. just like you always are.

            And pretending you are not far left (I understand your SHAME at admitting it)really is the height of SELF-DELUSION, ze-seb

        2. iggie

          ‘What is your guess?’
          I’ll leave that to others. But how do you change a temp data set so dramatically in just the past few years?
          Here’s another example (and there are many more).
          Before.
          https://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/show_station.cgi?id=620040300000&dt=1&ds=1
          After.
          https://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/stdata_show.cgi?id=620040300000&ds=5&dt=1

          The early 1940s have been adjusted down over 1C as you can see from the unadjusted data 3 to the homogenised version 5. Why?
          That’s more than the global rise in temps from 1900.
          Surely they didn’t have it that wrong in the past.

          Maybe here’s a clue.
          ‘It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip,
          but we are still left with “why the blip”.’ (Tom Wigley Sep 2009)

          1. Don from OZ

            Too true iggie.
            In that same month (22Sept2009) An exchange between Tom Crowley, (Texas A&M university)and Malcolm Hughes (univ of Arizona)
            Tom – So are you sure that some carbon dioxide effect is responsible for this? (warming) May we not actually be seeing a warming? (natural cycle)
            Malcolm – ..Although a direct carbon dioxide effect is still the best candidate to explain this effect, IT IS FAR FROM PROVEN..
            Yet they continued to push this UNPROVEN HYPOTHESIS.
            How can ordinary mortals believe them when they carry on so dishonestly?
            Surely we are entitled to be told the truth rather than unproven thoughts?
            Any wonder we don’t believe or trust them?

        3. spike55

          “you want to suppress actual science”

          You are the one suppressing science.

          You haven’t posted any in the last 2 or more years and you run away like [snip – SebastianH finds that word combo offensive]

          Here’s you chance to something other than yap and [snip – an animal movement that SebastianH finds offensive when referenced]

          Q1. In what way has the climate changed in the last 40 years, that can be scientifically attributed to human CO2 ?

          Q2. Do you have ANY EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE at all that humans have changed the global climate in ANYWAY WHATSOEVER?

          Q3. Where does the bottom 10m of the atmosphere get the force from to CONTINUALLY counter the weight force of the many km of air above it?

          Q4. How much energy does it take YOU to hold a 50kg weight for 10 minute as opposed to 20 minutes?

        4. sunsettommy

          Sebastian,

          you claim Tony Heller is a “disinformer”, yet can’t prove examples to support your claim. It is a common inability of Tony’s critics to actually debate him over their complaints about him, you are simply the latest drive by Heller hater.

          Nick Stokes and Stephen Mosher has publicly criticized Tony’s temperature charts that showed the documented changes being made over time and that his software based charts are bad. Tony challenges them and they run away.

          Over a year ago at WUWT, had a long run with Nick whom I was able to prove he was a thread fogger and a liar, culminating with coupe de grace comment that totally destroyed his lie, he suddenly run off and say no more.

          Meanwhile here he is attacking Tony from a distance like the coward he is, thus I told Tony Heller about it, which he started the first of 5 postings taking Nicks bullcrap apart.

          Nick Stokes : Busted

          https://realclimatescience.com/2017/09/nick-stokes-busted/

          That was the first of FIVE blog posts,taking Nick Stokes apart, Nick never defended his claims on Tony’s site, but stayed on WUWT.

          You haven’t convinced anyone here because you haven’t made an effective argument over anything, with your 000 batting average, it is NOT surprising that you have no support or fans here.

  7. Yonason

    Also this week, we learn that another audit team has discovered that windfarms need to be much bigger to increase their efficiency, and even if CO2 were responsible for warming, and even if CO2 could be reduced by installing bird/bat shredders, it would do no good because, due to the way the windmills mix air, they themselves cause warming.

    Not a good optics week for team AGW.

  8. Yonason
  9. spike55

    OT the witch from the left explains Democrat and leftist tactics.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sg1Nr7FHY5Q&feature=youtu.be

    We see similar lies and deceit all the time from our little seb.

    Leave the you-tube running for some further commentary on the SCAM that is AGW, and its juvenile scare-mantra.

    1. SebastianH

      A Tony Heller video 😉

      Are you admitting to run smear campaigns? Latests instance calling me “seb-puppy-troll” until it sticks …

      @Kenneth/Pierre: I do find that offensive, any chance you might delete those parts or is this “protecting feelings” thing a one-sided thing as well?

      @John Brown: see, this is the “us vs. them” thing I was writing about. If one replies to nonsense comments like this one from spike55 in a disagreeing manner you will automatically be put in a leftist or Democrat camp and voila, it’s a right vs. left thing again. I don’t get why climate change is apparently a left or right thing for guys like him. As if being conservative or far right automatically would demand from you to become a I-am-not-allowed-to-write-it-down-anymore.

      1. P Gosselin

        I have deleted/edited a number of such posts, but sometimes I’m in a hurry and some get through. I once told you that I was deleting some of his comments, but you wrote that you could handle it. Obviously you can’t handle it, and so I’ll delete his inappropriate comments. I ‘ll have to crack down on the name-calling here. Overall it really doesn’ make anyone look more intelligent.

      2. spike55

        I agree not to call him [snip]..

        Seem I hit a sore point. 😉

      3. spike55

        Remember

        EVERYONE is a troll.. except seb.. of course.

        roflmao !!

      4. spike55

        “A Tony Heller video”

        Yep, time for you to try to LEARN something !

        T****s are not very good at LEARNING, are you seb

        Wilfully blocking any new facts.. so sad.

    2. SebastianH

      Besides, it should be obvious that this politician is not describing what she or her party is doing, but what others are doing. Tony Heller at his best.

      Here is context to that clip, you troll!

      https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4754100/wrap-smear-context

      1. Yonason

        “Now I’m going to merchandise on the Press’ report of the smear that we made. …It’s a tactic.” – Nancy Pelosi

        It is obvious to anyone with a brain that that is exactly how the American Democrats and their surrogates in the Leftist Press play politics, each supporting the other’s lies to the detriment of everyone else.

        It is cheap, immoral, and probably illegal if anyone but a politician or a journalist did it, and anyone who is OK with it, cannot be trusted.

        1. SebastianH

          The “I’m” is not referring to her, that is crystal clear even in the short clip. You didn’t view the longer video that gives context to this, am I right?

          Don’t you think you are super biased when you interpret something like this as a politician stating that she does something like this? Republican Florida man (correct?) who believes in guys like Tony Heller and is calling AGW a scam and wants everyone in jail who doesn’t agree with his worldview. And you probably think you are the victim somehow and are being trolled by the one person who manages to stomach all the BS that you guys come up with in the comments 😉

          1. spike55

            You have yet to counter ONE SINGLE BIT of factual information in any one of TH’s clips.

            You are EMPTY of any evidence, just baseless, “oh-I-don’t-like it” crying and whimpering.

            You are certainly playing the pathetic “victim” role to the fullest, aren’t you seb.

            There is no doubt that Pelosi was trying to put far-left SOP onto others… just like you continually do.

            You seem to be very similar types.

          2. SebastianH

            Countering Tony Heller? Do you see my asking you countering a comedian too? Do your research, open your eyes and voila you’ll stop following figures like him.

            The victim here is honesty. Misinterpreting everything people say and write to this extent is not a “discussion of science” as John Brown categorizes what is going on this blog.

            There is no doubt that Pelosi was trying to put far-left SOP onto others… just like you continually do.

            I am neither far left nor is Ms. Pelosi doing anything but explaining to her audience how she got smeared. This is all happening in your black and white imaginary fantasy world.

          3. spike55

            “I am neither far left “

            Your self-delusion comes to the fore, yet again.

            Pelosi is explaining tactics that she knows by heart, being one of the main Democrat instigators of fake lies and news.

            Can we get back to science…

            Have you found answers to these questions yet, or are you still faffing around in the bottom of your *****-pit, amongst the other oozing muck, looking for some actual EVIDENCE.?

            Q1. In what way has the climate changed in the last 40 years, that can be scientifically attributed to human CO2 ?

            Q2. Do you have ANY EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE at all that humans have changed the global climate in ANYWAY WHATSOEVER?

            Q3. Where does the bottom 10m of the atmosphere get the force from to CONTINUALLY counter the weight force of the many km of air above it?

            CUE: yet another science-free evasion/distraction rant from seb. !!

      2. spike55

        If the cap fits. Yes TH has a habit of showing democrats at their very worst.

        And it is most definitely a tactic used to its utmost by the democrats and deep state in the USA.

        If the democrats and the far-left are accusing others of doing it, you can bet that its part of their meme.

        Look in the mirror, seb

        1. SebastianH

          And it is most definitely a tactic used to its utmost by the democrats and deep state in the USA.

          Nope.

          If the democrats and the far-left are accusing others of doing it, you can bet that its part of their meme.

          Nope.

          Your logic is deeply flawed and you seem to be very biased to one side even though you claim to be from Australia?

          Your logic perfectly fits you however. Whatever you say to others, one can bet that you are probably talking about your own problems. Mirror mirror yourself, spike55.

          1. spike55

            NO, my logic is spot on.

            Everything the leftist accuse other of doing, THEY are doing .

            That is how leftists operate.

            You came here purely as a [snip]..

            …and now you accuse EVERYONE ELSE of being one.

            You just cannot cope with getting any of your own garbage fired back at you.

            You prove my point. Thank You.

          2. spike55

            And you LACK of logic is based on manic AGW brain-hosing with a TOTAL INABILITY to support even the simplest most basic conjecture, that of CO2 warming

            The “fundamentalist” belief, cannot be shaken by the FACT that it has never been observed or measured anywhere on the planet.

            That is IRRATIONAL.

            You are not one who should EVER criticise the logic of others.

            I mean, you think a table doesn’t have to counter the gravity force of a 50kg weight placed on it..

            How much more IRRATIONAL does it get than that. !!

          3. SebastianH

            Everything the leftist accuse other of doing, THEY are doing .

            That is how leftists operate.

            Again, why is this a partisan thing for you? Why do you completely ignore what you are doing yourself and accuse others of doing just that?

            You came here purely as a [snip]..

            …and now you accuse EVERYONE ELSE of being one.

            I am assuming you wrote “troll” there? Do you think a comment that qualifies as troll comment doesn’t make its author a troll?

            To be perfectly clear, I am not accusing everyone else of being a troll (another misinterpretation). I am saying you guys display trollish behaviour and nevertheless try to mark the people you troll as being the trolls. I thought that is leftist behavior according to you? Do you identify as leftist now in your personal logic framework?

            You prove my point. Thank You.

            Unbelievable. You have no point you are just spreading BS and insult people and then call them the troll when they stick around.

            The “fundamentalist” belief, cannot be shaken by the FACT that it has never been observed or measured anywhere on the planet.

            The thing is, that is not a fact. Plenty of observations and measurements available. Calling it a hoax or a scam is something that I would classify as a “fundamentalist” belief though and you stick with that no matter what … how many points on the troll list does that check?

            I mean, you think a table doesn’t have to counter the gravity force of a 50kg weight placed on it..

            How much more IRRATIONAL does it get than that. !!

            You tell us, you came up with this sentence. I didn’t write anything like that. But I am still waiting for your answer. Since you are saying that table requires energy to counter gravity to hold up that 50 kg weight, how much energy does it require to do that for 1 hour? How much for 2 hours?

            Can you finally reply to this simple question?

          4. spike55

            “The thing is, that is not a fact. Plenty of observations and measurements available”

            THEN WHY ARE YOU INCAPABLE OF POSTING THEM.

            You would think with your DESPERATE NEED to get something correct, you would be able to post all this “evidence” that you say exists.

            I suspect you are still living in your little fantasy la-la-land just “pretending” to yourself you have some actual science.

            But you have made it patently clear…

            THAT YOU DO NOT HAVE ANY!!!

            So come on, PUT UP..

            or remain your usual empty mindless husk.

            Q1. In what way has the climate changed in the last 40 years, that can be scientifically attributed to human CO2 ?

            Q2. Do you have ANY EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE at all that humans have changed the global climate in ANYWAY WHATSOEVER?

            Q3. Where does the bottom 10m of the atmosphere get the force from to CONTINUALLY counter the weight force of the many km of air above it?

            Q4. How much energy does it require for YOU to hold up a 50kg weight for 2 hour compared to 1 hour.

            Q5. Where does the table get the force from to hold up the CONTINUAL downward force from the 50kg mass?

            … or do you DENY that the 50kg mass exerts a continual force on the table.
            (Back to seb’s fantasy fizzics.. so funny 🙂 )

            You still haven’t answered the first two, and you have proven you are INCAPABLE of answering the other three.

        2. spike55

          You want IRRATIONAL..

          … how about someone that thinks

          1. It doesn’t take any energy to hold up a 50kg weight.

          2. It doesn’t take any energy to hold a 60lb longbow fully drawn.

          3. It doesn’t take any energy to keep a gas compressed.

          Not that person is IRRATIONAL and is DENYING the very basics of physics.

      3. John Brown

        Since you reply to these posts, that have nothing to do with science, you are as guilty as now myself at not leading the scientific debate.

        It would be good if you was to stop jumping on these statements with a vigor that you do not spend on the scientific part.

        I hope you realize what you are doing here is not helping your case.
        Stop the political debate if you think there is a science debate to be had.

    3. Yonason

      @spike

      SERIOUS CRIMINAL PATHOLOGY

      Not only unashamed of the evil they commit, but even proud of it.

      thanks for the link!

  10. Yonason

    You can trust SebastianH. He’s told us himself that he’s the most reliable and trustworthy poster here.

    hahahahahahahahaha

    1. SebastianH

      Now if that is not troll behavior … what is?

      1. spike55

        “what is?”

        You asking if its not troll behaviour

        WHY are you doing that.. Attention-seeking ??

        Just complaining because that’s all you have left??

        You just cannot face the TRUTH about yourself.

        Your ONLY purpose here is to stop rational scientific discussion.

        You KNOW that, EVERYBODY knows that.

        1. SebastianH

          Spike55, honestly … what was the purpose of this reply of yours if not trolling me?

          P.S.: There is no rational scientific discussion here. When I don’t have time to comment you guys cheerlead each other and celebrate imaginary victories over the “AGW scam”. When I (*) comment you get your pitchforks out and attack the hell out of whatever I wrote with the loveliest insults you can come up with. Like puppies defending their human from the mailman. Cute, but ineffective and very misguided.

          *) or someone else who doesn’t share your view of the world.

          1. spike55

            Pierre, could you please remove the word “trolling” from seb’s post

            Also the word “puppies”

            Certainly no scientific discussion when you are around.

            You whole intent is to destroy scientific discussion. That is why you are here, Don’t LIE to yourself.

            Have you got ANY scientific evidence to back up CO2 warming???

            We are STILL waiting

            You attack science whenever it is introduced, and then expect us not to attack your idiotic evidence free rants.

            REALLY!! Its all just an ACT for you isn’t it seb. Particularly your pathetic “butter-wouldn’t-melt-in-my-mouth” act over the last could of days.

            We seem to have a new, more pathetic, SLIMIER seb ranting at the moment.

        2. Yonason

          Grow a sense of humor, SebH. You’ll live longer. And, even if you don’t, at least you’ll enjoy it more.

      2. spike55

        Pierre,

        Please snip all seb use of the word “troll”

  11. Ann Ceely

    I note, and am bemused by, but otherwise unaffected by your statement “as much as an 0.8°C conflict in recorded temperature anomalies”

    Consider that the anomaly temperatures quoted are ‘Estimated Averages’ by adding the min and max then diving by 2, this is not ever going to give a reliable average.

    Today, 9th Oct 2018, in my part of the world, minimum and maximum are 20 and 9 degrees C. But that doesn’t tell you what the average heat has been. How can any respectable scientist put his name to such a travesty?

    The fact that the Climate-Warming theorists use such unreliable data tells me they’re using an aweful lot of everyone else’s money to try to prove what they’d like to believe. But it isn’t working. They’re going to get more desperate, and more evil in their attitudes. We need to be ready!

    1. Yonason

      Yes. That’s basically what Lindzen says.
      http://www.euanmearns.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/lindzen.png

    2. SebastianH

      Ann Ceely,

      Today, 9th Oct 2018, in my part of the world, minimum and maximum are 20 and 9 degrees C. But that doesn’t tell you what the average heat has been.

      I am recording the temperature outside of our home in 5-minute intervals. The daily average is very close to the center between the min/max lines.

      https://imgur.com/a/jki99Vg

      It is definitely a good approximation in datasets where only min/max temperatures are available.

  12. Brian G Valentine

    Everybody knows that CRU, NOAA, etc was on a mission to make it “look like there is global warming,” I don’t think too many people actually believe them because they are so biased.

    Except the people who find merit in the IPCC, this leftist organization that attempts to give legitimacy to World Communism, how ridiculous.

    1. SebastianH

      I don’t think too many people actually believe them because they are so biased.

      Get out of that bubble of yours. The only people believing things are you guys.

      Except the people who find merit in the IPCC, this leftist organization that attempts to give legitimacy to World Communism, how ridiculous.

      And boom, the conspiracy leftist theme again. Seriously, I would love to listen in on conversations you have with your friends in real life. Are they sometimes rolling with their eyes or are they also caught in this echo chamber of yours?

      1. spike55

        Poor seb, he is so close to seeing his AGW anti-science bubble burst, and the whole farce come tumbling down

        The desperation is palpable. 🙂

        Do you really DENY the leftist one world agenda that has been shouted out loud by your leftist leaders?

        You need to go back for more brain-hosing so you are “on message”

        Not a conspiracy theory, its out there, stated LOUD and CLEAR.

        And YOU are a collaborator in this agenda.

        Probably UNWITTINGLY, because its the only way you can do things.

    2. Yonason

      YOU HAVE TWELVE YEARS TO COMPLY WITH OUR DIRECTIVE

      “UN issues yet another climate tipping point – Humans given only 12 more years to make ‘unprecedented changes in all aspects of society’ .”

      What happens if we don’t comply? Will they threaten to tell us more scary stories?

      “OK, everyone, gather around the camp fire, and weird old uncle Al is gonna tell ya how global warming will make giant spiders and snakes take up residence under your bed.”

      Yes, you heard me, SebH. Al Gore is O.L.D. Being born in 1948, that would make him 70. Hope that scares some sense into you. Oh, and how about Keven Ternberth? he’s 74. Obama’s science advisor is also 74. And just look at some of the horrific things he endorsed. Rajendra Pachauri, co-awardee of the Nobel Peace Prize (snicker) is 78. And Maurice Strong, father of Agenda 21, is so old he’s dead! (died at age 86)

      Those are all people you believe are correct, not because they are young, but because you think they are telling you the truth. They aren’t, but it’s not because of they are old. It’s because they are wrong.

      Bottom line, people are either right or wrong, depending on what they have stood for and done in their lives, not because how young or old they are.

      I don’t want to see you calling any skeptics “old” (or any other pejorative) as an ad hom anymore. GOT IT?!

      Oh, yeah. One more thing. I don’t want you complaining about my references unless you can point to something SPECIFIC that is wrong with them.

      1. spike55

        That’s what I thought was really bizarre, there’s seb thinking he can call people old retired white people,who should not be believed..

        .. but most of the instigators of the AGW scam are old white retired men.

        He obviously is very young and naïve, but complains about being called a p***y.

        Quite BIZARRE, and as with anything seb does..

        .. totally IRRATIONAL.!!!

      2. SebastianH

        What happens if we don’t comply? Will they threaten to tell us more scary stories?

        The one world government will enslave you in leftist indoctrination camps where you get brainwashed to conform to “our” (yes, of course I am part of the illuminati sponsered program too) ideas by watching videos of puppies chasing their tails all day long!

        And what about this rant about age? Are you alright?

        I don’t want to see you calling any skeptics “old” (or any other pejorative) as an ad hom anymore. GOT IT?!

        I am not calling skeptics old. I am merely observing that lots of skeptics or the authors who they admire are retirees. You guys keep arguing that only retirees are free to express their true opinions … which I call BS on.

        Oh, yeah. One more thing. I don’t want you complaining about my references unless you can point to something SPECIFIC that is wrong with them.

        What are you refering to? Do you need an explanation what is wrong with citing a tabloid publication? Or linking to a “zombieblog”?

        I am usually telling you what is wrong with your links. But I’ll remind you of this demand next time you don’t adhere to your own policy 😉

        Let’s try it out … what do you think about this rebuttal to a prominent skeptic argument (“climate has changed before”)?
        https://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-little-ice-age-medieval-warm-period-intermediate.htm

        Please refrain from telling us how much you dislike John Cook. He is neither the author of the linked text nor do you want to go full adhom after demanding others not to do it, right? So, what about that text do you find questionable? Be specific!

        1. spike55

          Poor ze-seb

          still linking to UNRELIABLE sites.

          Still worshipping UNRELIABLE energy supply

          seems to be in lurve with UNRELIABLE

          There is NOTHING in the SkS link that is anything more than the MINDLESS PROPAGANDA BLUSTER and twisted interpretations of fact that you have made you standard operating BS.

          Note the COMPLETE ABSENCES of any actually scientific proof of warming by CO2.

          It basically just a pack of assumption driven LIES.

          1. There is NOTHING untoward about the slight and highly beneficial warming out of the coldest period in 10,000 years.

          2.Ice ages. Note that peak CO2 was NEVER able to even maintain peak temperature, let alone cause it.

          3. WRONG.. a LIE.. CO2 does lag temperature, at all time scales.

          4, Palm-fringed Arctic: YES, the world has been warmer and had more CO2 many times in the past.. We are still very much in a cooler period of the current interglacial. BE very glad of that fact that there has been some slight warming from the LIA.

          5. 0.8C since the LIA.. and they call it fast ROFLMAO. They wouldn’t have the vaguest clue as to minor swings in temperature from the past.
          Anyway, apart from the now decayed El Nino transient there has been no real warming this century.

          There is NOTHING UNTOWARD happening with the climate.

          There is NO EVIDENCE that human or other CO2 has any effect on the climate.

          If you think I does, then answer these question, or stop your moronic proselytizing.

          Q1. In what way has the climate changed in the last 40 years, that can be scientifically attributed to human CO2 ?

          Q2. Do you have ANY EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE at all that humans have changed the global climate in ANYWAY WHATSOEVER?

  13. Penelope

    Guys,could I make a suggestion? Comments devoid of anything worth answering shouldn’t be answered. OR Don’t feed the troll.

    Frequently a ridiculous amount of space is wasted by the troll and those answering him.

  14. Reliable? CRU, NASA, BEST, NOAA Land Temp Data Conflict By Up To 90% (0.8°C), Spawning 'Large Uncertainty' | Un hobby...

    […] K. Richard, October 8, 2018 in […]

Leave a Reply

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this. More information at our Data Privacy Policy

Close