tablet

if Tony Heller is lying about NASA altering graphs , or he were altering them himself , it would be easy to prove , and could therefore be discounted . but I think the link was removed because his evidence is quite compelling as to historical data being corrupted

he's pointing out altered graphs , so Tony Heller is altering graphs ? or is he just showing graphs that have been altered ?

here is a NASA graph from 2000 and here is the same graph from 2017 NASA have added about 1 degree C , why would they alter past , historical temperature records ? except it does make it look warmer now

but it's quite obvious that NASA are changing their past temperature readings making it appear warmer now that it would have had they left them unaltered

Valentina Zharkova just gave a presentation , and because her model was one of 4 out of 100 that successfully predicted the low solar cycle 24 , you should give her a listen https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DXLqOzJ27YA

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/283946141_Decadal_variability_in_seawater_pH_in_the_West_Pacific_Evidence_from_coral_d_11_B_records Ocean acidification is predicted to reduce the saturation state of carbonate minerals in seawater and potentially threaten the existence and development of many marine calcareous organisms, such as calcareous microorganisms and corals. Model calculations have indicated an overall decrease in global seawater pH of 0.1 relative to the preIndustrial era value, and a further pH reduction of 0.2–0.3 over the next century. We here estimate the OA rates from the two long (>150 years) annually resolved pH records from the northern SCS (this study) and the northern GBR [Great Barrier Reef], and the results indicate annual rates of -0.00039 +/- 0.00025 yr and -0.00034 +/- 0.00022 yr for the northern SCS [South China Sea] and the northern GBR [Great Barrier Reef], respectively. … [T]hese two time-series do not show significant decreasing trend for pH. Despite such large errors, estimated from these rates, the seawater pH has decreased by about 0.07–0.08 U over the past 200 years in these regions. … The average calculated seawater pH over the past 159 years was 8.04 [with a] a seawater pH variation range of 7.66–8.40.

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0191947 “Over a period of 32 days, larval survival, growth in size and weight, and instantaneous growth rate were assessed in a crossed experimental design of two temperatures (10°C and 12°C) with two CO2 levels (400 μatm and 900 μatm CO2) at food levels mimicking natural levels using natural prey. Elevated temperature alone led to increased swimming activity, as well as decreased survival and instantaneous growth rate (Gi). The comparatively high sensitivity to elevated temperature in this study may have been influenced by low food levels offered to the larvae.” “Larval size, Gi and swimming activity were not affected by CO2, indicating tolerance of this species to projected “end of the century” CO2 levels. A synergistic effect of elevated temperature and CO2 was found for larval weight, where no effect of elevated CO2 concentrations was detected in the 12°C treatment, but a negative CO2 effect was found in the 10°C treatment. Contrasting CO2 effects were found for survival between the two temperatures. Under ambient CO2 conditions survival was increased at 12°C compared to 10°C.” [Survival rates increased with warmer water temperatures]

https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-64666-4_6 “Strong physiological controls, but of a different character, are found in corals grown in a Free Ocean Carbon Enrichment Experiment (FOCE) conducted in situ within the Heron Island lagoon (GBR). These corals exhibit near constant pHcf values regardless of external changes in temperature and seawater pH. This pattern of strong physiologically controlled ‘pH-homeostasis’, with elevated but constant pHcf has been found despite large natural seasonal variations in the pH (±0.15 pH units) of the lagoon waters, as well as the even larger super-imposed decreases in seawater pH (~0.25 pH units) designed to simulate year 2100 conditions.” “In natural reef environments we thus find that the processes influencing the up-regulation of pHcf in symbiont-bearing corals are subject to strong physiological controls, behaviour that is not well simulated in the current generation of aquaria-based experiments with fixed seawater pH and temperature.”

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0192496 There were no significant differences in average temperature among the incubation buckets during the incubation period (Table 1; 1-factor PERMANOVA: Pseudo-F5,71 = 0.18, P = 0.98). pHT differed significantly between high and low pH treatments and there were no significant difference among buckets within treatments (1-factor PERMANOVA pair-wise tests: P > 0.05). There were no significant differences in diatom food concentration among buckets (1-factor PERMANOVA: Pseud-F5,59 = 0.29, P = 0.91).

https://academic.oup.com/icesjms/article/74/4/926/2669543 The ocean acidification (OA) literature is replete with laboratory studies that report species sensitivity to seawater carbonate chemistry in experimental treatments as an “effect of OA”. I argue that this is unintentionally misleading, since these studies do not actually demonstrate an effect of OA but rather show sensitivity to CO2. Documenting an effect of OA involves showing a change in a species (e.g. population abundance or distribution) as a consequence of anthropogenic changes in marine carbonate chemistry. To date, there have been no unambiguous demonstrations of a population level effect of anthropogenic OA, as that term is defined by the IPCC.

no , I don't accept that it is possible ,, here's why ( below )

in what science book is a PH of 8.1 or 8.4 an acid ? anything towards 7 would be neutralization , not acidification , because at anything above 7 , it's not an acid , even just taking it to 7 would be neutralization

electroverse article above https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/late-snowpack-signals-a-lost-summer-for-greenlands-shorebirds/ quote : Millions of shorebirds descend on the Arctic each year to mate and raise chicks during the tundra’s brief burst of summer. But that burst, which usually begins in mid-June, never arrived this year for eastern Greenland’s shorebirds, a set of ground-nesting species. Instead, a record late snowpack—lingering into July—sealed the birds off from food and nesting sites. Without these key resources avian migrants to the region will not reproduce in 2018, experts say. Breeding failures like this may grow more common because some climate change models predict increased springtime snow in the shorebirds’ nesting habitat.

just in case people thought I was joking about the BBC changing their stance on climate reporting ( in case it is some kind of fake conspiracy. please just try a search online

the report in question doesn't cover 2018 ,,,,, did you not bother reading it , or are you just having a go again ?

what the BBC have done in the above article is commonly known as a " Chop-job " , taking sections of the report for dramatic effect , but leaving out any section that are less certain https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/about/state-of-climate the graphs below are from the Met office's own website the BBC state the hottest days are getting hotter it was hot this year ,but it was exceptional , the graph shows that the last 10 years generally are no where near 1975,1976,1990,1995,2003 and 2006 their graphs also show that the number of " Hot " days is declining it also shows that droughts are declining and the very strange statement about " Tropical nights " , nights above 20 degrees , if you look at the Met office map I think it's very likely that they are recording the urban heat island effect , the BBC also don't report sections that talk about dry spells , the 1960's to the 1990's is known to scientists as a " flood poor period " the quote " the longest dry spell of the year for the UK is typically of the order of 20 days , ranging from approximately 17 in the north of Scotland to 24-25 in East England . there is some evidence of a decline of 13 per cent in dry spell duration since the 1980's . however it should be acknowledged that for all the precipitation indices the period 1961 to present is relatively short for diagnosing variability . trends in the UK precipitation are not well represented by a linear trend . the most recent decade has recorded an average longest dry spell for the UK of 18 days compared to the 1981-2010 average of 19.9 days and 20.5 days for the 1961-1990 . in 2017 western areas had shorter dry spells than average , for example 12.7 days for Wales compared to a 1981-2010 average of 19.3 , in contrast some parts of south England coast and central belt of Scotland were above average " I would be careful what I believed from the BBC now their policy has changed towards climate reporting , they can now say anything they like without offering a balanced viewpoint the BBC's recent article on sea level rise is another gem , using Skipsea in North Yorkshire as an example ,,, unfortunately , costal erosion is not sea level rise , so only the hard of thinking would believe that whopper

Ocean acidification ,, that's a good one , Ocean's have a PH of between 7.8 and 8.2 , they are a base not an acid , carbon dioxide mixed with seawater can produce a very small amount of Carbonic acid . Carbonic acid is very weak and when added to water it does not completely dissociate , you would need tens of millions of gallons of it to alter the PH of the Oceans by 0.1 per cent , at which point , it would be , scientifically , Ocean Neutralization , there would still be no acid involved in the finished product , the alarmists use Acidification because it sounds scary , Dr Peter Ridd , formally of James Cook University pointed this out about the Great Barrier Reef ,,,,so they sacked him earlier this year

the oceans are not a carbon -sink , the only way to make them absorb more carbon dioxide than they do now would be to alter the atmospheric pressure of the whole planet , like you do when you make fizzy drinks , pressurize the liquid and inject carbon dioxide , but when the pressure is released , the gas escapes , or are you inferring Henry's law is wrong ? ( William Henry , Chemist 1774 - 1863 )

Antarctica , is it really warming up to any extent ? you may notice that the warmer water is around western Antarctic , where the Helium-3 was found in samples taken in 2014 the sources of these graphs are : Jones Et Al., 2016 https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate3103 Fan Et Al., 2014 http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/staff/cdeser/docs/fan.antarctic_seaice_trends.grl14.pdf Purich Et Al., 2018 https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-17-0092.1 Jones Et Al., 2016 https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate3103

so , just because there is actual physical evidence , to support the theory of volcanic action under the Pine Island Glaciers , that doesn't mean there is seawater coming into contact with volcanic action in western Antarctica ? it actually proves that there is a large ( by the amount of Helium-3) volcanic heat source coming in contact with the sea under the glaciers of western Antarctica , in fact it's the only natural way to get Helium-3 into seawater

does anyone remember back in May , when I suggested there was a volcanic heat source under west Antarctica ( Pine island in fact ) and many on here disagreed with me , when I was away I heard about water samples taken in the 2014 expedition that were analysed , and to the amazement of everyone ( except me ) Helium-3 has been discovered in the sea off pine island , does anyone of the very learned people here know how you get Helium-3 in seawater ( I mean naturally of course , not by pumping it into the ocean ) (( warning - this was taken from an article I read on the internet )) http://www.cfact.org/2018/06/27/volcanic-heat-found-under-antarcticas-fastest-melting-glacier/ a quote from said article : Previous research has identified a network of volcanic rifts beneath Western Antarctica that could be contributing to the ice sheet’s instability. A 2014 University of Texas study concluded that “large areas at the base of Thwaites Glacier are actively melting in response to geothermal flux consistent with rift-associated magma migration and volcanism.” The Thwaites Glacier is another retreating Antarctic glacier. The heat source beneath Pine Island is 25 times greater than an individual volcano, scientists said. I guess those Russian robot subs that were sent down sort of missed that one

the IPCC is a political organisation , and as such , should always be regarded with a healthy amount of scepticism , so you have to look to the science behind the SR#15 report , which , to a great extent is HadCRUT4 ..So is HadCRUT4 a good assessment for which to base a global report on , and unfortunately no it isn't , it is riddled with very serious errors https://researchonline.jcu.edu.au/52041/ if you don't want to read the paper from John Mclean PhD here are the main points The Hadley data is one of the most cited, most important databases for climate modelling, 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 harbours 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. Mclean finds " Ultimately it is the opinion of this author that the HadCRUT4 data, and any reports or claims based on it, do not form a credible basis for government policy on climate or for international agreements about supposed causes of climate change" if you add to this Mr Al Gore's admission on American TV that "“The language that the IPCC used in presenting it was torqued up " ...I don't know what he means by "torqued up" but I'm guessing its to scare gullible people into believing him please check this for yourselves - PBS NEWSHOUR – ONE-ON-ONE – Broadcast: October 12, 2018 ( the quote is 1 minute 30 seconds into the interview ) now an open minded person would come to the conclusion that the IPCC report SR#15 , based on HadCRUT4 data set , with bad data , poorly or not checked at all , would be not worth the paper it is printed on and so before I go , let me just add the response the met office gave when confronted with this audit - Britain’s Met Office has welcomed an audit from Australian researcher John McLean that claims to have identified serious errors in its HadCRUT global temperature record. “Any actual errors identified will be dealt with in the next major update.’’ The Met Office said automated quality checks were performed on the ocean data and monthly updates to the land data were subjected to a computer assisted manual quality control process. “The HadCRUT dataset includes comprehensive uncertainty estimates in its estimates of global temperature,” the Met Office spokesman said. “We previously acknowledged receipt of Dr John McLean’s 2016 report to us which dealt with the format of some ocean data files. “We corrected the errors he then identified to us,” the Met Office spokesman said. to be clear , Mr Mclean didn't " claim " to find errors , he flagged them , so I guess we will just have to wait for HadCRUT5 and SR#16 and see if they give us another 12 years ( I'm betting they will )

there is a very simple reason why they use 1979 as a start date , it was a record high year for arctic sea ice , and if your at the top of a mountain , any direction is down , the 1990 IPCC report contained satellite data from the early 1970's ( see below ) one of the most dishonest acts a scientist can do is to hide critical data , yet here we see it lets look at the Reykjavik temperature record for the same time period , note how cold it was in 1979 , and note the temperatures in the 1940's when CO2 was at a much lower level so if there is no correlation between carbon dioxide and temperature , is there a natural cause for the temperature change ? possibly ? the AMO so have any agency used any underhand means to alter the temperature that we can see , and have we any evidence of said tampering , here is the GISS surface temperature analysis , showing raw , and homogenized data , you can see for yourself what was done if you cool the past it makes the present appear warmer , the graph below was captured last October , from NASA , the altered temperature can be clearly seen and here we see their current graph something changed at NASA ,,, what could that have been for them to radically alter their graph ? , Senator Malcolm Roberts questioned Gavin Schmidt about his data , a furious Schmidt denied tampering with data , but did alter his graphs ????? if this does not give you a sense that there is something going on that is very wrong ,,, well , maybe your just comfortable with being told things that are not true

I take back what I said void , I bet this is a very common practice for your brethren , deciding that thermometers were no longer capable of measuring temperature , so they substitute a " homogenized" temperature , and guess what !!! it better suits all those incredibly accurate climate models that they keep bringing out ( none of which has been successful in predicting anything , ever , not one climate model has been right )

it wasn't in a paper , the clip I posted ( that was removed because someone didn't want it viewed ) was her being interviewed on Australian sky news, and the ridiculous response from the Bureau of Meteorology , who then 2 weeks later changed their story , but we can't have people on TV telling the truth about climate , can we , the newspaper link was just to illustrate the fact ( that it did happen , even though many will be glad that a true case of climate fraudsters being caught red handed knocking 1 degree off the minimum temperature , but not broadcast worldwide )