Limiting Data


The NASA GISS temperature maps may be over-reading, above the big vertical-component magnetic anomalies

This posting was re-published with permission from the NeuralNetWriter

By: Peter Ravenscroft

Geomag anomalies may cause the The GISTEMP maps from NASA to over-read


Text: The satellite temperature maps from NASA may all be nonsense. Here is why.

from Peter Ravenscroft, 20.12.09

No reliable global temperature maps at all?

First, Climategate is worse than we thought, as the data appears to have been deliberately skewed, in the standard global temperature dataset against which all the others we have are calibrated. Christopher Monckton has described the problem in detail here. So, as the satellite map are calibrated against the East Anglia CRU dataset, the world standard, the lurid colours of the planetary temperature hotspots are now suspect.

But we may have a worse problem than mere dishonesty in science and derivative error. We may have serious undetected error of an entirely different sort in the satellite readings.

Just have a look at the big brown patch on the map here:


NASA is saying that in March 2008, that entire region, in essence the whole of Siberia, was between 5 and 8.5 degrees C hotter in Mach 2008 than the average for their baseline period, 1950-1980.

Is this believable? The entire planet is in a huge flap because the world overall may have warmed by something under 1 C degree in a century. We have just all agreed, apparently, to try stop the temperature-tide from coming in, by pegging the rise at 2 degrees C., by some date, relative to the present. King Canute must be rolling about in glee in his grave, since his legendary strand- line stunt was to show his court sycophants that his power was in fact somewhat limited. So, if the temperature is up over 5 degrees in March (northern spring), relative to 30 to 60 year ago, why are there not endless reports of catastrophe from the steppes? Why are the yaks and the Mongols not fleeing west? Or south? Or to the the moon?

Maybe the map is gibberish, through no fault of anyone. And all the rest of them. I will ask James Hansen of the GISS, to give them a fair right of reply. He fields the questions on satellite temperature data, according to their website.

I am not saying that what follows is so, just that it seems very possible.

To start, the Goddard Institute of Space Science at NASA so distrusts its own satellite temperature data for Africa south of the equator that it has taken to blanking it all out. As per the map here.

Next, some information from a little-known place. The Hermanus Magnetic Observatory, is located in the delightful seaside resort of that name. Hermanus is not far from the south end of Africa, and I caught a mackerel in the harbour there, as a kid, fishing with my Dad. So I am sure on that point, at least. The HMO is responsible for monitoring the magnetic field changes for southern Africa and its surrounds, and for issuing warnings about problems that may arise for navigation systems, from those changes. Here is their website:

The Hermanus Magnetic Observatory (HMO)

They have been at it since 1932, were originally in Cape Town, at the university, but they shifted along the coast to a magnetically quiet area when the electric trains went in. The HMO is news to me, I best admit. They do keep things quiet there, it seems.

They have said that the magnetic shifts associated with the South Atlantic Anomaly (the SAA), are damaging satellite instruments. They place the source of the shifts causing the SAA at 3,000 kms down, at the earth’s core-mantle boundary and consider they are part of the beginning of a magnetic pole reversal. In 2004 Dr Pieter Kotze of the HMO said the reversal is due anytime between tomorrow and 3,000 years from now. See here:

Something weird is going on below us
SUNDAY TIMES – Johannesburg, South Africa.

I have no problem at all with any of that, but I think one can perhaps refine the problem area, and that something of considerable import may follow.

Some NASA satellite temperature maps still show the region of intense warming in Angola, that GISS NASA now blanks out. See this one such map:

It is undoubtedly on the edge of the SAA, but it far more closely matches the change in the vertical or radial or z component of the magnetic fied, down at the core-mantle boundary. That is simply another way of observing the same overall thing, but perhaps it gives a sharper perspective.

The possibility, or perhaps better the likelihood is, that the satellite temperature instruments at least, have not been physically damaged, but are now seriously over-reading, as they pass over the vertical mag field anomaly below northern Angola. The centre and the location and shape of at least part of the northern edge of the two anomalies there, temperature and deep magnetics, match closely, on some maps at least.

Conversely, the SAA is large, and we do not have matching temperature anomaly over all of it, as far as I can see.

So, it may be that the temperature sensors in the satellites are particularly susceptible to changes in the Z component of the magnetic field below. I should here insert that I know absolutely nothing of how those sensors work, but will try find out next, on the Internet. I am merely going by what the HMO is saying – present magnetic shifts are damaging some satellite instruments.

And here comes the larger problem.

As I have a few times published on ABC Pool, there is also a very close correlation between the other three of the world’s four largest temperature and deep magnetic anomalies – those, in size order, being Siberia north of Lake Baikal, Canada west of Hudson Bay and the Antarctic Peninsula and the seas to its west. Perhaps PTMA1, 2 and 3 with Angola as PTMA4, would save dots in hyperspace and time, where “PTMA” stands for Paired Temperature and Magnetic Anomalies) But these, regrettably, just having got their own acronyms, an important step up in the class and hierarchical struggles that beset physical phenomena, may now turn out to be mere instrument errors.

In other words, Siberia and Canada and the Antarctic Peninsula may not have warmed up nearly as much as the satellite maps say they have, or in fact at all. We now should be very unsure.

And this is a damn nuisance to me, if correct, as I have just almost finished a 470-page book that assumed they were real and were controlling the climate. So I hope the instrument are reading reality, but now have serious doubts. It’s called science, I believe. Admit you may have screwed up, and don’t try hide the decline of your model.

This is as big a problem for the carbonists as for me, unless they can show that the real temperature picture matches where the 500 AQUA satellite AIRS map show the carbon dioxide is really coming from. And then, they will have an even larger problem, since the CO2 is very clearly coming from the seas and the deep sedimentary basis, and not from our cities.

Their best hope is that the AIRS readings are gibberish too.

I have emailed Pieter Kotze to see what he has to say, if he cares to, but it is now Christmas. Probably the Copenhagen Fiasco was enough for all of us for one week.

Maybe the magnetic decline will not matter a jot for centuries – until the mag poles flip and melts the icecaps. Then you can moor your dingy to the sharp bit on top of the Sydney Opera House, to catch some of the fine parrotfish living on the coral on the roofs below.

Time to look at the thermometer on the wall at home a bit more closely? And at the plants outside, to see what they think about it all?

Merry Christmas all. Including to many friends out in the Pacific Islands. Maybe the climate is just fine, this Christmas. And will be for the rest of your life. Just be nice to the parrotfish, as they are our brothers and sisters.

Peter Ravenscroft.

Closeburn, Queensland, 20 December, 2009.

PS. The carbonists leaving Copenhagen today are having their Hamlet moment, and are trying to get us all to see things their way. “To be or not to be?”, that is their gloomy question, as per that earlier prince of Copenhagen. Doom is upon us, they explain sourly, because we did not agree to trash the world economy and starve billions, to save coral atolls that all coped perfectly well with huge rises in sea level when the last glacial went away. But then, the coral was healthy, because
the parrotfish had not all been eaten. The parrotfish eat the algae that overwhelm the coral when they are all eaten. Etc. And, see Charlie Darwin’s book on coral reefs. They build up, as their volcanic bedrock bases sink down. Thousands of feet. Quite happily. First week geology.

Record Heat is Proof of Global Warming, Record Cold Should be Ignored Part 2

We’ve talked about this before.  Record cold temps don’t count for anything and are shunned, but the moment there is record heat, that is definitive proof as far as the Church of Global Warming is concerned.  Not only are temperatures down now compared to the last fourteen years, but they are also down compared to the last 1000 years and the last 65 million.  We’ve also pointed out here the record cold that we experienced all throughout the United States and the world, so it’s not just us saying this.

But as predicted, the Church is using high temps now as more proof of Global Warming.

From USA Today:

March, April, May and June set records, making 2010 the warmest year worldwide since record-keeping began in 1880, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration says.

“It’s part of an overall trend,” says Jay Lawrimore, climate analysis chief at NOAA‘s National Climatic Data Center. “Global temperatures … have been rising for the last 100-plus years. Much of the increase is due to increases in greenhouse gases.”

Lets first dispute what he is saying.

The claims “Part of an overall trend” and “Rising for the last 100-plus years” are easily dealt with.  Anyone can find a trend anywhere if the limit their data enough.  In this case, he is limiting his data to the last 100 years (or rather the 100 years before the temps started going down.)  If I, for example, Looked at the temps and their trend between 4:00am and 11:00 am, I could say the temps are going up, and would be accurate.  If however I looked at the temps for the last 24 hours, a different story is told.

They are looking at the last 100 years because that is what fits their claims, and anyone who believes this hog-wash apparently doesn’t question the fact that the process used to record world-wide temperatures in the 1880s were not as accurate as the 1950s.  And the 1950s were not as accurate as the 1970s.  The 1970s were not as accurate as now.

To quote myself:

Eco-Fascist: warmest in a hundred years bla bla bla, I love Al Gore bla bla bla
Me: 100 years eh?
Eco-Fascist: Yeah.
Me: Think those temperature records of 1908 are accurate?
Eco-Fascist: Yeah.
Me: Like… Satellite accurate?
Eco-Fascist: ummmm… sure.
Me: *Bitchslap*

Then there are other issues with temperature records like pulling the stations in Siberia from the global temperature averages, but I digress.  As ClimateGate has shown us, those who have much to gain on the Church of Global Warming, are willing to manipulate data to fit their preaching.

From the same article:

Marc Morano, a global-warming skeptic who edits the Climate Depot website, says the government “is playing the climate fear card by hyping predictions and cherry-picking data.”

Joe D’Aleo, a meteorologist who co-founded The Weather Channel, disagrees, too. He says oceans are entering a cooling cycle that will lower temperatures.

He says too many of the weather stations NOAA uses are in warmer urban areas.

“The only reliable data set right now is satellite,” D’Aleo says.

Jay Lawrimore, climate analysis chief at NOAA‘s National Climatic Data Center also said: “Much of the increase is due to increases in greenhouse gases.”

Um yea, for a rebuttal of this, you can look anywhere on the Church of Global Warming.

Take note how very few (if any) of the ‘cooling’ articles mention Global Warming or Climate Change. Three others from USA Today in January (here, here, and here) talk of the record cold, but do not dare to mention Global Warming or Climate Change at all.

It is amazing that while there are tens of thousands of scientists who don’t subscribe to this religion, the people who do are in absolute disbelief of their existence, or continue to belittle us for daring to look outside their window of dogma.  Speaking of which, I have talked with Dr. Art Robinson on this issue before.  Who the hell are we to even say that 280ppm of CO2 is “normal”?

But I digress.  Keep an eye on the news and how they report this religion.  Then note, as I did during the 2008-2009 and 2009-2010 winters how little you hear about it.  Every summer is proof of Global Climate Change and an excuse for larger government to those who are looking for reasons for their God (Al Gore) to be right, and every winter means absolutely nothing.


Cap & Tax, Faulty Computer Models, and an ‘F’ for the UN IPCC

From Reuters:

The United States released a new draft report on climate change on Monday, one week before the expected unveiling of a compromise U.S. Senate bill that aims to curb heat-trapping greenhouse emissions.

The report, a draft of the Fifth U.S. Climate Action Report that will be sent to the United Nations, says bluntly: “Global warming is unequivocal and primarily human-induced … Global temperature has increased over the past 50 years. This observed increase is due primarily to human-induced emissions of heat-trapping gases.”

And the key to all of this is of course…. giving them more power and control:

Without action to stop them, climate-warming greenhouse gas emissions will rise over 8,000 megatonnes by mid-century, the draft said. By adopting measures detailed in a bill passed last year by the U.S. House of Representatives, these emissions will drop beneath 2,000 megatonnes. They’re now about 6,500 megatonnes. The United Nations measures greenhouse gas emissions in megatonnes, or million metric tons.

In completely unrelated news, the air travel incident over the EU is blamed on flawed computer models.  But we all know how little computer models play into the Global Warming debate… oh wait…

The ONLY reason this is coming out now is because those in power currently (Obama, Pelosi, etc) want to quickly rush through a cap-and-tax bill like they did the healthcare bill. 

In completely unrelated news, the air travel incident over the EU is blamed on flawed computer models.  But we all know how little computer models play into the Global Warming debate… oh wait…

The ONLY reason this is coming out now is because those in power currently (Obama, Pelosi, etc) want to quickly rush through a cap-and-tax bill like they did the healthcare bill.

This also helps to hide the news of the IPCC getting a big fat ‘F’ in their research.

“We’ve been told this report is the gold standard,” said Canadian global-warming skeptic Donna Laframboise, who runs the site and who organized the online effort to examine the U.N.’s references in the report, commonly known as the AR4.

“We’ve been told it’s 100 percent peer-reviewed science. But thousands of sources cited by this report have been nowhere near a scientific journal.”

Mark my words, their going to rush this thing through.  There has been too much bad press in the topic of Global Warming lately.  They tried feeding us this line using the cho-cho train and the airplane noises.  That didn’t work, so now comes the cramming of the spoon.

On Ice

As Mann’s “Hockey Stick” is attacked, the Church steps in to defend it

An article by Fiona Harvey, Environmental Correspondent for highlights the attempts of an environmentalist to hide the bad news that their precious hockey stick is coming under serious attack.  Though I do not think the intent was to bring a negative light to the efforts of the leaders of this religion (note the tone when talking about “Skeptics”), sometimes you simply cannot report something as positive.  She should have taken Al Gore’s technique and simply ignored it.  Let’s take a look at what she is saying.

A key piece of evidence in climate change science was slammed as “exaggerated” on Wednesday by the UK’s leading statistician, in a vindication of claims that global warming skeptics have been making for years.

Professor David Hand, president of the Royal Statistical Society, said that a graph shaped like an ice hockey stick that has been used to represent the recent rise in global temperatures had been compiled using “inappropriate” methods.

The criticism came as part of a report published on Wednesday that found the scientists behind the “Climategate” e-mail scandal had behaved “honestly and fairly” and showed “no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice”.

Okay, she goes out to remind the readers that those who disagree with global warming are “skeptics”, a derogatory term used by the environmentalists.  Then she goes on to tell us how the scientists who were responsible for hiding data, and using “tricks” to change data were behaving themselves.  Yea… because when someone says “try and change the Received date!  Don’t give those skeptics something to amuse themselves with” that totally makes me think there was “no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice.”

The e-mails were hacked last autumn from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia. They caused a storm, as they appeared to show scientists manipulating and concealing data.

 “Appeared” huh?

Although Wednesday’s report – commissioned by UEA with advice from the Royal Society, the UK’s prestigious national science academy – exonerated the unit’s scientists, it criticized climate experts for failures in handling statistics.

 “It is very surprising that research in an area that depends so heavily on statistical methods has not been carried out in close collaboration with professional statisticians,” the report concluded.

 Why would this be surprising?  These people are trying to save the planet!  Good God, man, they don’t have time to fact check or talk to a statistician before throwing numbers around!  I mean, they don’t even have enough time to use all the temperature data, so they have to be selective about what temperature data they use…  wait, what?

 The hockey stick graph was a key part of the scandal. In the e-mails, UEA’s Professor Phil Jones referred to a “trick” to “hide the decline” in temperatures suggested by certain sources of data. A similar trick was used in the hockey stick graph.

 This is a fun one.  Look at how the hockey stick graph completely ignores the Medieval Warm Period.  That’s some trick.

Michael Mann's Hockey StickThe actual temperature record

 The UEA scientists said that “trick” merely referred to a scientific technique – an explanation accepted by some skeptics, including Lord Lawson, former Tory chancellor.

 Oh my, is she trying to paint some skeptics in a positive light by saying this explanation was already accepted by some of them?  Doubtful.  She is using those she disagrees with to try to prop up those who she agrees with.  That’s like using Tom Coburn to prop up Nancy Pelosi by saying “See, republicans like her, this is one republican I agree with.” 

 Prof Hand said his criticisms should not be seen as invalidating climate science. He pointed out that although the hockey stick graph – which dates from a study led by US climate scientist Michael Mann in 1998 – exaggerates some effects, the underlying data show a clear warming signal.

 Of course criticisms should not be seen as invalidating the science!  After all, global warming can’t even be invalidated by cold winters or record snowfall.  They have written this one so that nothing can or should invalidate their dogma.

 He accused skeptics of “identifying a few particular issues and blowing them up” to distort the true picture. The handful of errors found so far, including the exaggerated hockey stick graph and a mistaken claim by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that Himalayan glaciers would disappear by 2035, were “isolated incidents”, he said. “If you look at any area of science, you would be able to find odd examples like this. It doesn’t detract from the vast bulk of the conclusions,” he said.

 It would be funny if it wasn’t so thick of an attempt to be one-sided.  The fact that there are issues with their science religion help to show those of us who are not lost in the faith of manmade global warming that there are indeed serious issues with the data.  The scientific method itself is designed specifically to tear at these errors to progress science.  When you have people like Michael Mann bitching that it’s not fair because some “skeptics” are going after the issues behind their science, it helps to point out how little actual science is being done here.

 The report into the science produced by UEA, which came from a panel chaired by Lord Oxburgh, a scientist and former Shell chairman, was the second investigation into Climategate in the UK. The first, by a committee of MPs, also found the scientists innocent of manipulating data, though it said they may have breached Freedom of Information legislation.

 Note how Fiona also makes it quite clear that Lord Oxburgh (how dare he to attack the Church) is a scientist, but couruppted by being a former Shell Oil chairman.  Try this with every Church member you know.  The moment they bring up studies funded by or influenced by Big Oil, try asking them if studies funded by Big Oil are biased, what about studies funded by environmentalists?  Those too should be biased, right?  naaa.  “Its not evil when we do it” will most likely be the response you get.

 An investigation into the scientists’ handling of FOI requests is still under way.

Yea, and I bet it is as open and non-biased as it can be.  Riiight.

Record Heat is Proof of Global Warming, Record Cold Should be Ignored

It is not hard to find members of the Church clamoring all over themselves with their proof of global warming by pointing out record heat.  A simple Google search will give you all the pages you want for this (despite many of them ignoring the last 10 years of cooling).

But during a record cold spell, in times like this, one must be reminded by the true believers that just because heat is a sign of global warming, that doesn’t mean cold is the opposite:  A sign against.

A couple of examples for you:

ABC News:

Beijing had its coldest morning in almost 40 years and its biggest snowfall since 1951. Britain is suffering through its longest cold snap since 1981. And freezing weather is gripping the Deep South, including Florida’s orange groves and beaches.

Whatever happened to global warming?

Such weather doesn’t seem to fit with warnings from scientists that the Earth is warming because of greenhouse gases. But experts say the cold snap doesn’t disprove global warming at all — it’s just a blip in the long-term heating trend.

Christian Science Monitor:

The brutal cold snap that has put much of the Northern Hemisphere on ice this week doesn’t disprove global warming or mean we’re off the hook for greenhouse emissions.

No sane climate scientist would say that global warming means never having another severe cold snap. What it does mean is a gradual shifting of the odds away from record-breaking cold days and toward record-breaking hot ones.

The Independent:

Closer to home, while we shivered yesterday, in Madrid the temperature was 10C against a seasonal average of 9C, and in Rome it was 13C, compared to an average of 11C. The weather’s natural variability means it is impossible to draw long-term conclusions about a changing climate from any single episode, be it of hot, or cold.


Surely, this means that all of this talk — or at least some of it — about global warming is hype.
No, it doesn’t.

But he said it was wrong to focus on single events – whether they were cold snaps or heat waves – which were the product of natural variability.

Instead they should look at the underlying, longer term trends for the climate which were more ”robust” evidence of the changes which are happening.

They go on and on.  The dilemma here is they are all saying the same thing: 

Just because we’re in a cold snap, doesn’t mean we should see that as a sign of anything.  Instead we should look at the bigger picture.

Much like the Wizard of Oz, here they say one thing, but behind the curtain, something else entirely is going on.

Now, again, the Interweb is a fantastic source of information.  Anyone can Google and disprove what their saying now in regards to not paying attention to a single weather event.  They have all argued at one point or another that every time it gets hot for a day, that warmth is proof positive of climate change.  Even watching the media reflects this, as television is bombarded every summer with Global Warming this, Climate Change that every time the mercury rises even for a short event.

Yet now that big-time cold is happening, and not just for a day or an isolated event, they yelp to ignore the facts behind the curtain.

As one commentator (by the name of board_member) wrote on the Independent article:

Wait just one cotton-pickin’ minute, it seems like only yesterday (maybe 2 weeks ago), all you climate warm-mongers were screaming and shouting, touting VERY localized observations of warming trends to reinforce your claims of the devastating effects of anthropogenic global warming. Now that the same observations don’t support that claim, you’re saying that the localized observations are meaningless? What gives?? Which is it??

You’re not trying to sell us something, are you? Surely not!

You see, I have two problems with the whole “Let’s look at long-term trends” thing that they are spouting now.

They weren’t saying it in the summer, or when they wanted to point out localized observations of warming.

Even if we go back a thousand years, we still aren’t looking “long-term trends” which go back millions of years.

The earth has been warming/cooling with and without humans here.  We are even at a low point when it comes to the earth’s temperature, as the average global temperature is somewhere around 6-8 degrease census warmer then the earth is now, but all of this history and “long-term trends” is ignored for 1000 year hockey stick graphs to pick and choose the reference points.  I’m sorry, but 1000 years of history on the Earth (which even ignores the medieval warm period) is like me judging climate trends for the next year based off of the last fifteen seconds.

In the case of measuring history and pointing fingers, size matters, and no one wants to show the temperature record going back millions of years because it completely blows away the entire notion of human caused global warming.  Sorry guys, but my graph is bigger.

Get Adobe Flash playerPlugin by wordpress themes