The Dark Lord arrives

Another warmist here on a taxpayer funded jolly?

300m plus to go

Should this piece of scaremongering (based on shonky GoreBull science?) ever come to pass and if the forecast sudden temperature change doesn't kill all via a mass extinction phase, I'll be right mate. At 1000' ASL, 1.5m of higher tides is nothing. Will sort out a few things like low lying cities and the politicians that infest them.

Still a few hundred metres left to high tide before the hordes will come and want to sign up a new foreshore and seabed deal at the beach of the future at my place. Yes, they will have a hard time proving continuous occupation. I suppose there will be a new 22nd Century interpretation of the gravy train to deal with re-worked full and final settlements as current ones are wiped out with each new high tide.

Smoking gun?

The GoreBull Warmists and Tree Huggers Inc may be slightly pissed after the discovery of this gem.

I do not understand the exact math behind correlations, but correlations can apparently be scaled as below

• 1.0 Perfect
• 0.9 Good
• 0.5 Fair
• 0.25 Poor
• 0 or negative - No match

On to the topic

Joe D’Aleo, an AMS Certified Consulting Meteorologist, one of the founders of The Weather Channel and who operates the website ICECAP took it upon himself to do an analysis of the newly released USHCN2 surface temperature data set and compare it against measured trends of CO2, Pacific Decadal Oscillation, and Solar Irradiance. to see which one matched better.

It’s a simple experiment; compare the trends by running an R² correlation on the different data sets. The result is a coefficient of determination that tells you how well the trend curves match. When the correlation is 1.0, you have a perfect match between two curves. The lower the number, the lower the trend correlation.

Off Joe went finding these interesting results when looking at various data set trends against the rise in CO2 levels

• Ice core sampled CO2 content back to 1880 gave an R2 correlation of 0.44 (less than Fair)
• Solar irradiance gave an R2 correlation of 0.57 (better than Fair)
• PDO (La Nina / El Nino) plus AMO (Atlantic cycle) gave gave an R2 correlation of 0.83(considered Good)

Because those with the faith continuously spout that 11 of the highest temperatures have been in the last 13 years, he looked at this period very closely and found a 'No match' correlation of 0.02. Now children. I think that is not a valid starting point when you you are high on a soapbox, spouting forth gospel.

Further intrigued, he looked at the correlation of the UK data set and the satellite data set. Not good with an R2 of 0.01 and 0.02 respectively. End result, the satellite data does not match the rising CO2 trend either.

And his conclusion:

Clearly the US annual temperatures over the last century have correlated far better with cycles in the sun and oceans than carbon dioxide. The correlation with carbon dioxide seems to have vanished or even reversed in the last decade.

Given the recent cooling of the Pacific and Atlantic and rapid decline in solar activity, we might anticipate given these correlations, temperatures to accelerate downwards shortly.

While this isn’t a “smoking gun” it is as close as anything I’ve seen. Time will give us the qualified answer as we have expectations of a lower Solar Cycle 24 and changes in the Pacific now happening. [emphasis mine]

Global Warming as the Noo Religion is plain crap, as I have long suspected.

Time to rug up people, looks like its getting colder.

Shonky Science

In my opinion, the status of the Nobel Prize has just plummeted to reside along with quacks, charlatans, the NZFSA and politicians quoting science. Fancy awarding a prize for the mockumentary which was gored, point by point, in recent days in the UK.

I always thought the Nobel prize was given for the creme de la creme of the scientific world, obviously not.

Assisting promoters of shonky science is not where this prize should be. Did the judges get brought off a nice black tie dinner with Mr Gore earlier?