The Greatest Scientific Fraud Of All Time — Part XXVI
Before moving on from this business of July 2019 supposedly being the “hottest month ever,” I want to pause to take note of some follow-on propaganda fresh out of the Washington Post.
A week ago today on August 13, the Post published a lengthy “climate” piece with the scary headline: “2°C: BEYOND THE LIMIT: Extreme climate change has arrived in America.”
The piece is several thousand words long and carries the by-lines of the entire Post climate propaganda team: Steven Mufson, Chris Mooney, Juliet Eilperin and John Muyskens.
The gist is that “extreme” climate change — defined here as an increase in annual mean temperature exceeding 2 deg C over some year in the past — has now been observed in certain areas of the United States.
Not the whole U.S., mind you, but only certain areas — and not very large areas at that. Excerpt:
“These winters do not exist anymore,” says Marty Kane, a lawyer and head of the Lake Hopatcong [NJ] Foundation. . . . [A] century of climbing temperatures has changed the character of the Garden State.
The massive ice industry and skate sailing association are but black-and-white photographs at the local museum. . . .
New Jersey may seem an unlikely place to measure climate change, but it is one of the fastest-warming states in the nation. Its average temperature has climbed by close to 2 degrees Celsius since 1895 — double the average for the Lower 48 states.
The WaPo writes, “The massive ice industry and skate sailing association are but black-and-white photographs at the local museum.” This is a recent photo of Lake Hopatcong where people are snowkiting. Refrigeration killed the ice industry and a simple image search turned up hundreds of these contemporary photos. –CCD Ed.
Before getting into more details of this article, let me first turn to how the Post chose to use the article in its editorial section.
On Sunday, August 18, the Post had an unsigned editorial with the headline “Global warming is already here. Denying it is unforgivable.”
The basic idea here is to use the definitive reporting of the Post’s crack team to scare the readers and to bash President Trump:
GLOBAL WARMING is already here, striking substantial regions of the United States with increasing severity.
That is the upshot of an exhaustive Post investigation in which Steven Mufson, Chris Mooney, Juliet Eilperin and John Muyskens analyzed decades of local temperature records and identified a variety of hot spots where warming has proceeded more quickly. . . .
The warming will continue. Humanity has steadily shifted the chemistry of the atmosphere, in ways that could not be reversed quickly even if the rational policy were being implemented. The carbon dioxide that emerges from smokestacks and tailpipes lingers in the air for decades.
All the more reason to change behavior now. Yet, whether for political advantage or out of sheer pigheadedness or both, President Trump continues to deny and ignore reality. It is beyond unforgivable.
Yes, our President acts out of “sheer pigheadedness” and “continues to deny and ignore reality.” Anybody with half a brain could tell that from reading the Post’s definitive reporting.
Or could they? For starters, the Post states that they have relied for their analysis on temperature data from NOAA:
A Washington Post analysis of more than a century of National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration temperature data across the Lower 48 states and 3,107 counties has found that major areas are nearing or have already crossed the 2-degree Celsius mark.
But aren’t those the very data that, as discussed in Parts XXIV and XXV of this series, have been substantially adjusted to cool earlier-year temperatures?
Yes, they are; but you won’t find one word about that subject in this article. And exactly how much are those adjustments quantitatively for any of the stations discussed in the piece? Again, you won’t find one word about that here.
So, do they give you a link to the source of the data and a guide to what they did so that you can check on how they got their results?
At first glance, they seem to, but try to follow what they have done and I guarantee you that you will get nowhere. The link they provide is called (by them) the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Climate Divisional Database.
There are many follow-on links on that page to various data broken down by state or region, but how have they gotten down to particular towns (e.g., Lake Hopatcong, NJ).
Here’s the explanation:
To make the maps, we applied the same linear regression method for annual average temperatures to NOAA’s Gridded 5km GHCN-Daily Temperature and Precipitation Dataset (nClimGrid), which is the basis for nClimDiv. For mapping purposes, the resolution of the data was increased using bilinear interpolation.
Aha! It’s the magic of “bilinear interpolation.” With 100% certainty, no one will be able to replicate what they have done.
And of course, once again nothing on the NOAA page that is provided says anything about the adjustments that have been made to the data.
And then there’s the Post’s map of places where the temperature has supposedly gone up so dramatically. The dark reds are the places where the temperature has supposedly gone up more than 2 deg C:
OK, a couple of questions:
-
The areas of 2+ deg C increased temperatures seem rather small — indeed smaller in aggregate than the broad swath of Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Georgia that has actually cooled. Are we to believe that the increase in CO2 concentration of the atmosphere from 0.03% to 0.04% acts only in these concentrated pockets? That’s rather implausible.
-
Two of the pockets of warming are the two largest metropolitan agglomerations in the country, New York and Los Angeles. Could urban heat island effects have anything to do with this? The Post provides no discussion of that, of course. (And why no comparable hotspots in Chicago, Houston or Atlanta? Maybe they adjusted those away — you have no way of knowing.)
Going through the data they have linked to, I try to find the closest thing I can to what they have done. There is a function for producing a temperature record for a state (but not a town like Lake Hopatcong or New York City) from 1895 to 2018.
Let’s try New York State:
What? That’s not very scary!
Granted, there were a few recent years where the average temperature (indicated by the blue series) got up as much as about 5 deg F (2.8C) above the long term average of 45, but then the temperature dropped right back down and ends right about where it began on (or just above) the 45 deg F line.
I guess we just aren’t doing the right “bilinear interpolation” — or something like that.
Looks to me like this whole effort by the Post is a total bust. But then, I’m the first to admit that I am “beyond unforgivable.”
Read more at Manhattan Contrarian
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.
Trackback from your site.
Richard T Harding
| #
I would like to know how New Jersey manages to keep all that hot air in New Jersey without some of it leaking out. Baffling !
Reply
Nick Schroeder
| #
The GreenHouse Effect Anti-Theory
By reflecting away 30% of the incoming solar energy the atmosphere/albedo makes the earth cooler than it would be without the atmosphere much like that reflective panel behind a car’s windshield.
Greenhouse theory has it wrong.
The non-radiative processes of a contiguous participating media, i.e. atmospheric molecules, render ideal black body LWIR from the surface impossible. The 396 W/m^2 upwelling from the surface is a “what if” theoretical calculation without physical reality. (refer to: TFK_bams09)
Greenhouse theory has it wrong.
Without the 396 W/m^2 upwelling there is no 333 W/m^2 GHG energy up/down/”back” loop to “warm” the earth. (refer to: TFK_bams09)
Greenhouse theory has it wrong.
Man caused climate change is negated by these three points. Hysterical speculations over sea levels, ice caps, glaciers, extreme weather, etc. are irrelevant noise.
Zero greenhouse effect, Zero CO2 global warming and Zero man caused climate change.
Geoengineering
One popular geoengineering strategy proposed for countering imaginary global warming/climate change is through reducing net solar heating by increasing the earth’s albedo.
This increase is accomplished by various physical methods, e.g. injecting reflective aerosols into the atmosphere, spraying water vapor into the air to enhance marine cloud brightening, spreading shiny glass spheres around the poles with the goal of more reflection thereby reducing the net amount of solar energy absorbed by the atmosphere and surface and cooling the earth.
More albedo and the earth cools.
Less albedo and the earth warms.
No atmosphere means no water vapor or clouds, ice, snow, vegetation, oceans and near zero albedo and much like the moon the earth bakes in that 394 K, 121 C, 250 F solar wind.
These geoengineering plans rely on the atmosphere cooling the earth thereby exposing the error of greenhouse theory which says the atmosphere warms the earth and with no atmosphere the earth becomes a -430 F frozen ball of ice.
Zero greenhouse effect, Zero CO2 global warming and Zero man caused climate change.
Space – the Hotter Frontier
One of the heated issues underlying greenhouse theory is whether space is hot or cold.
Greenhouse theory says that without an atmosphere the earth would be exposed to a near zero outer space and become a frozen ice ball at -430 F, 17 K.
Geoengineering techniques that increase the albedo, the ISS’s ammonia refrigerant air conditioners, an air conditioner in the manned maneuvering unit, space suits including thermal underwear with chilled water tubing, UCLA Diviner lunar data and Kramm’s models (Univ of AK) all provide substantial evidence that outer space is relatively hot.
But outer space is neither hot nor cold.
By definition and application temperature is a relative measurement of the molecular kinetic energy in a substance, i.e. solid, liquid, gas. No molecules (vacuum), no temperature. No kinetic energy (absolute zero), no temperature. In the void & vacuum of outer space the terms temperature, hot, cold are meaningless, like dividing by zero, undefined. Same reason there is no sound in space – no molecules.
However, any substance capable of molecular kinetic energy (ISS, space walker, satellite, moon, earth) placed in the path of the spherical expanding solar photon gas at the earth’s average orbital distance will be heated per the S-B equation to an equilibrium temperature of: 1,368 W/m^2 = 394 K, 121 C, 250 F.
Like a blanket held up between a camper and campfire the atmosphere reduces the amount of solar energy heating the terrestrial system and cools the earth compared to no atmosphere.
This intuitively obvious as well as calculated and measured scientific reality refutes the greenhouse theory.
Zero greenhouse effect, Zero CO2 global warming and Zero man caused climate change.
Conclusion
Since the earth is actually hotter without an atmosphere, radiative greenhouse effect goes straight into the historical trash bin of failed theories and all the handwavium, pseudo-science, thermodynamic nonsense pretending to explain it follows close behind.
If my anti-theorem is incorrect why so and how so, bring science.
If my anti-theorem is correct contemplate the consequences.
Nick Schroeder, BSME CU ’78, CO PE 22774
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Nick,
The Earth would not be hotter without the atmosphere. It is the atmosphere (especially water) that absorbs and store energy from the sun.
The surface of a satellite facing the sun is heated to 250 F. The surface opposite the sun is -250 F. Satellites have radiators under solar panels or other shaded areas to get rid of the heat generated by the electronics and humans aboard. Without an atmosphere the Earth would be like the moon and have the same temperature.
Clouds in the atmosphere are not reflecting light back into space. Water is transparent and absorbs light When it absorbs energy it also radiates energy which gives the appearance of reflecting but is different. A wall painted red will reflect the red wave length of light giving it its color. A red piece of glass will absorb light and radiate red light in all directions. The water in clouds is absorbing light and radiating light in all directions which make the clouds appear white from above, below and from the sides.
The contention that the primary gases (nitrogen, oxygen, and argon) in the atmosphere do dot absorb energy/heat from the sun because they do not emit infrared radiation is utter nonsense. If it was true you would not be able to heat your home or cook food in a conventional oven. Emitted and absorb radiation are different things and not necessarily the same.
.Herb
Reply
Zoe Phin
| #
Wrong, Herb, Earth’s surface would be hotter without the atmosphere.
Reply