Ocean News

[ImaginaryNumber]

If you don't want to setup double standards, then you have to apply this to yourself AND to the very corrupt foundation of human made CO2 is responsible for climate change. The IPCC.

UN IPCC Scientist Blows Whistle on Lies About Climate, Sea Level
Written by Alex Newman

STOCKHOLM, Sweden — The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (UN IPCC) is misleading humanity about climate change and sea levels, a leading expert on sea levels who served on the UN IPCC told The New American. In fact, it is more likely that sea levels will decline, not rise, explained Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner, the retired head of the paleogeophysics and geodynamics at Stockholm University. A new solar-driven cooling period is not far off, he said. But when Mörner tried to warn the UN IPCC that it was publishing false information that would inevitably be discredited, they simply ignored him. And so, dismayed, he resigned in disgust and decided to blow the whistle.
........

UN IPCC Scientist Blows Whistle on Lies About Climate, Sea Level https://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/31472-un-ipcc-scientist-blows-whistle-on-un-climate-lies

Congratulations! Once again you have demonstrated your unerring nose for quackery. Here's some more of the garbage produced by Mörner.

Dowsing
In 1995, Mörner gave several courses in dowsing at Stockholm University in the summer program, and also outside of the university.[2] He claimed that dowsing could be used not only to find water, but also to discover Curry and Hartmann lines. [You might want to look up Curry and Hartmann lines as well] When reported in the press, he received sharp criticism from the Swedish scientific community and the Swedish skepticism movement.[3] Mörner persisted[4] and the conflict escalated,[5] leading to a formal ban from the president of the university to teach dowsing, citing the Law on Higher Education, until he could present scientific evidence for dowsing. In the summer of 1996 Mörner held a symposium at the university where he presented what he considered to be supporting evidence for his teachings. A committee appointed by the university dismissed Mörner's claims in December 1996.[6] He was named "Confuser of the Year" for 1995 by Vetenskap och Folkbildning,[7] a Swedish organisation in support of the broadening the understanding of the scientific method. The renowned American skepticist James Randi offered him a reward of US$971,000 if Mörner could show that dowsing worked in a scientifically controlled experiment. Mörner later rejected the offer.[8] As late as 2002 Mörner reaffirmed his stance in a documentary on Swedish television.[9]

Views on sea level change
......Mörner's claim that sea levels are not rising has been criticised for ignoring correctly calibrated satellite altimeter records, all of which show that sea levels are rising.[23]

 

[Yobarnacle]

Learn Dowsing Archives | Discovering Dowsing https://www.discoveringdowsing.com/category/learn-dowsing/
hUMANS have senses and natural instincts normally undeveloped. They can be developed! Like the sense you are being lied to, or danger is near. Psychic ability exists in some individuals. Law enforcement hires them. Dowsing isn't psychic, and I am not a dowser, but I don't offhand dismiss the possibility, some folks have an affinity for water and sense it nearby.

I am often amazed by human beings, especially in their creative talents. Aren't you? To be able to visualize something that never existed and cause it to become real, makes sensing water a pale (pail?) talent by comparison!

Views on sea level change
......Mörner's claim that sea levels are not rising has been criticised for ignoring correctly calibrated satellite altimeter records, all of which show that sea levels are rising.[23]

"blasted those who use incorrect “correction factors” in their data to make it appear that seas are rising worldwide. That is just wrong, he said.

 

[Yobarnacle]

I will offer you a better example of a skill or ability, not possessed in a developed usable capacity by the vast majority without intensive effort and training.
Independence.
I have read you post the phrase, walk and chew gum at the same time.
Independence is that ability ramped up in spades!
As a jazz drummer, I know personally what effort it requires to learn, to train yourself, how to control both feet and both hands to each independently do different things simultaneously. Conscious control over each independent limb, while also sight reading music score, maintaining perfect rhythm, .watching the director, and hearing the music, and on occasion, singing as well! Concentration. Sustained attention span! Motor control!
Human beings are wonderfully adaptable!

 

[ImaginaryNumber]

...The renowned American skepticist James Randi offered him a reward of US$971,000 if Mörner could show that dowsing worked in a scientifically controlled experiment. Mörner later rejected the offer.[8] .....

.....I am often amazed by human beings, especially in their creative talents. Aren't you? To be able to visualize something that never existed and cause it to become real, makes sensing water a pale (pail?) talent by comparison!.......

That is the beauty of the scientific process. If a person claims to have some extraordinary abilities then there should be no problem demonstrating those abilities under controlled conditions that are designed to weed out fact from fiction, wishful thinking from demonstrable phenomena.

To re-use a comment you recently made:
"[Mörner] overplayed [his] hand. [Mörner was] called!"

 

[Yobarnacle]

Perhaps, or...
Perhaps he recognized a trap, not a true test, but one where everything and everybody was arrayed against him.
We can only speculate. Everybody who isn't plastic, a blows with the wind crowd pleaser, has some ideas that aren't popular.
When not popular, they are difficult to defend. The hecklers distract you too much!

Credibility may be diminished by unpopular ideas, but those anomalies don't erase the expertise in a field where their expertise is renowned and respected! Though their enemies try hard to correlate the two!

 

[ImaginaryNumber]

Perhaps, or...
Perhaps he recognized a trap, not a true test, but one where everything and everybody was arrayed against him.
We can only speculate. Everybody who isn't plastic, a crowd pleaser, has some ideas that aren't popular.

You do a lot of speculating. You seem to be very good at it. Have at it.

When not popular, they are difficult to defend. The hecklers distract you too much!

Apparently Mörner was easily distracted -- a surprising characteristic for a University professor. The offer of USD$971,000 was insufficient to improve his concentration! <LAUGH>

 

[Yobarnacle]

You do a lot of speculating.

Not nearly as much speculation as YOUR clan does. I base that remark on all the future disaster predictions you post.

Frankly, I would not prematurely stipulate you (or they) are good at it. 2030 is inexorably coming! To a neighborhood near you!

 

[ImaginaryNumber]

Not nearly as much speculation as YOUR clan does. I base that remark on all the future disaster predictions you post.

Frankly, I would not prematurely stipulate you (or they) are good at it. 2030 is inexorably coming! To a neighborhood near you!

They are not all in the future. Some have already started -- as anticipated.

 

[Yobarnacle]

Some of the data has already been corrupted and doctored, as I posted awhile back. And as Moner claimed.

 

[Yobarnacle]

UPDATE – BOMBSHELL: audit of global warming data finds it riddled with errors https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/10/11/bombshell-audit-of-global-warming-data-finds-it-riddled-with-errors/
Just ahead of a new report from the IPCC, dubbed SR#15 about to be released today, we have this bombshell- a detailed audit shows the surface temperature data is unfit for purpose. The first ever audit of the world’s most important temperature data set (HadCRUT4) has found it to be so riddled with errors and “freakishly improbable data” that it is effectively useless.

From the IPCC:

Global Warming of 1.5 °C, an IPCC special report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty.

This is what consensus science brings you – groupthink with no quality control.

HadCRUT4 is the primary global temperature dataset used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to make its dramatic claims about “man-made global warming”. It’s also the dataset at the center of “ClimateGate” from 2009, managed by the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at East Anglia University.

The audit finds more than 70 areas of concern about data quality and accuracy.

But according to an analysis by Australian researcher John McLean it’s far too sloppy to be taken seriously even by climate scientists, let alone a body as influential as the IPCC or by the governments of the world.

…

Main points:

• The Hadley data is one of the most cited, most important databases for climate modeling, and thus for policies involving billions of dollars.
• 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.
• When a thermometer is relocated to a new site, the adjustment assumes that the old site was always built up and “heated” by concrete and buildings. In reality, the artificial warming probably crept in slowly. By correcting for buildings that likely didn’t exist in 1880, old records are artificially cooled. Adjustments for a few site changes can create a whole century of artificial warming trends.

Details of the worst outliers

• For April, June and July of 1978 Apto Uto (Colombia, ID:800890) had an average monthly temperature of 81.5°C, 83.4°C and 83.4°C respectively.
• The monthly mean temperature in September 1953 at Paltinis, Romania is reported as -46.4 °C (in other years the September average was about 11.5°C).
• At Golden Rock Airport, on the island of St Kitts in the Caribbean, mean monthly temperatures for December in 1981 and 1984 are reported as 0.0°C. But from 1971 to 1990 the average in all the other years was 26.0°C.

More at Jo Nova


Your AGW comrades don't care where they get their talking points, counting on shutting out any detractors.

 

[Yobarnacle]

Professor Frederick Seitz, formerly president of the National Academy of Sciences who in 1996 wrote in The Wall Street Journal,

"I have never witnessed a more disturbing corruption of the peer-review process than the events which led up to this (1995) IPCC (Second Assessment) report."

Those events included the deletion of 15 passages from the document that had been approved by all 28 contributing authors who expressed considerable doubt about man-made global warming including these two:

• "None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed changes to the specific cause of increase in greenhouse gases."
  
• "No study to date has positively attributed all or part (of the climate change observed) to (man-made) causes.
• and
• "Manipulate the data supporting the claims of a sudden and dangerous increase in the earth's temperature;
• Not disclose private doubts about whether the world was actually heating up;
• Suppress evidence that contradicted the hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming (AGW);
• Disguise the facts around the Medieval Warm Period, when the earth was warmer that it is today;
• Suppress opposition by squeezing dissenting scientists out of the peer review process.

Normally, disclosure of fraudulent behavior on this scale would throw the proponents of any position into disrepute and spell the end of their political power. Not so with the advocates of global warming.

i You believe in correcting errors, demand THESE be corrected!

 

[ImaginaryNumber]

i You believe in correcting errors, demand THESE be corrected!

This is one person's opinion from 25 years ago. The corrections by the IPCC (if warranted) are made with each subsequent update -- of which there have been a number.

 

[ImaginaryNumber]

UPDATE – BOMBSHELL: audit of global warming data finds it riddled with errors https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/10/11/bombshell-audit-of-global-warming-data-finds-it-riddled-with-errors/
Just ahead of a new report from the IPCC, dubbed SR#15 about to be released today, we have this bombshell- a detailed audit shows the surface temperature data is unfit for purpose. The first ever audit of the world’s most important temperature data set (HadCRUT4) has found it to be so riddled with errors and “freakishly improbable data” that it is effectively useless......

This "bombshell" is from two years ago. I was able to find a fair amount of Internet discussion from about that time, but then very little after 2018. Here's my tentative thoughts.

All data sets have bad data. Cleaning up data is a recognized and needed task for all temperature analyses of this type.

McLean did indeed find a number of totally ridiculous data points in the HadCRUT4 data set that had not been clean up. Very embarrassing for the Hadley people, I should hope!

Hadley acknowledged at least some of the bad data found by McLean and presumably clean it up. But maybe not all the bad data. Not sure about this.

It's not clear that even with all the bad data points cleaned up that the overall trends shown by the temperature data would be substantially different from the trends shown with the bad data points included.

This last point is supported by my post here in which it was noted that the three major temperature data sets (NOAA, NASA, Hadley), compiled by three independent teams of scientists, are substantially in agreement with each other.

Furthermore, the Berkley Earth group, which was funded by a number of skeptical private donors (including the Koch brothers), did a re-analysis of all three of the above data sets, specifically looking for trouble, and concluded that:

Berkeley Earth also has carefully studied issues raised by skeptics, such as possible biases from urban heating, data selection, poor station quality, and data adjustment. We have demonstrated that these do not unduly bias the results.....The analysis shows that the rise in average world land temperature globe is approximately 1.5 degrees C in the past 250 years, and about 0.9 degrees in the past 50 years.​

This chart shows the results of all FOUR data sets superimposed on each other -- essentially in agreement.

http://static.berkeleyearth.org/pdf/annual-comparison.pdf

 

[A II]

Ember → A half-yearly analysis of Europe’s electricity transition - July 22, 2020 (PDF) ‘‘ Renewables Beat Fossil Fuels . . . . . . . ’’

 

[Yobarnacle]

This is one person's opinion from 25 years ago. The corrections by the IPCC (if warranted) are made with each subsequent update -- of which there have been a number.

GIGO.
The original obvious bias and lack of ethics remains pervasively undiminished in the IPCC. And in the AGW movement in general.
Fruit of a poison tree is never good fruit,

Not acceptable to blow it off as if it no longer matters. The entire AGW hypothesis is based on what IPCC published inspite of the very authors refuting that hypothesis, but that part of the report was deleted!
AGW hypothesis is pure political garbage! Just as professor Moner explained!.
Always was, still is!