When Climate Data does not suit the Narrative, Change the Data

The Canadian government is omitting and deleting 100 years of actual observed climate data in favor of climate models. Its clear that the pesky real data that does not support the climate alarmist narrative the Trudeau government wants to promote is better deleted and forgotten.

The temperature data is part of a new website by Climate Change Canada meant to be used by policymakers to “support and enable Canada’s climate change adaptation planning, and improve access to relevant climate data.” i.e. It will be used for developing official government policy.

Cataloged temperature measurements collected between 1850-1949, real observed, collected temperature data, were replaced by data from 24 models and historical simulations based on data collected from 1950-2005. i.e., the actual historical data was replaced in the models by modeled data extrapolated from a period a century later.

The inconvenient truth is that the actual data doesn’t reflect the official climate alarmist narrative supported by the Trudeau government:

  • Vancouver was hotter in 1910 than it was in 2017;
  • Toronto was warmer in 1852 than it was in 2017;
  • Moncton was 4 degrees warmer in 1906 than in 2017;
  • Brandon, Man., had 49 days where the average daily temperature was above 20C in 1936, compared to only 16 in 2017, with a high temperature of 43.3C that year compared to 34.3C in 2017;
  • The hottest temperate ever recorded in Canada happened before 1950 – September 15, 1937, saw a high of 45 degrees Celsius in Yellow Grass, Saskatchewan – which meant it was also excluded from the new climate change website.

Yet another example of climate activism fudging the data to suit the narrative.

This follows a similar story from 2009 about the University of East Anglia’s (Norwich, England) Climatic Research Unit (CRU) being forced to reveal it had tossed actual data in favor of modeled data, following requests for the data under FOIA. In a statement on its website, the CRU said: “We do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (quality controlled and homogenized) data.”

What’s really galling in the CRU case is the lame excused used for the destruction of the data was the need to save space. The revised figures were kept, but the originals — stored on paper and magnetic tape — were tossed (i.e. destroyed) when the CRU moved to a new building.

Roger Pielke, professor of environmental studies at Colorado University, discovered data had been lost when he asked for original records. “The CRU is basically saying, ‘Trust us’. So much for settling questions and resolving debates with science,” he said.

… and don’t get me started about Michael Mann. Sheesh! Mr climate hockey stick, father of global warming alarmism, took Canadian climate scientist Dr Tim Ball to court for libel. Dr Ball basically outed Mann as a charlatan. In trial, Mann defied the court, refusing a direction by the British Columbia (Canada) Supreme Court to turn over data and methodology relating to his, now infamous and thoroughly discredited, Hockey Stick chart. Mann was found in contempt, and must pay Dr Ball’s court costs. In addition to the rather substantial financial penalty, the judgement essentially establishes Mann’s hockey stick as debunked, indefensible hokum. i.e. Fake Climate Data. This is the way climate alarmism will end, not with a bang, but a whimper. And so it goes …

“There is no climate emergency”

More than 500 scientists and professionals in climate and related fields have sent a “European Climate Declaration” to the Secretary-General of the United Nations asking for a long-overdue, high-level, open debate on climate change.

There is no climate emergency … climate science should be less political, while climate policies should be more scientific,” the declaration states. “Scientists should openly address the uncertainties and exaggerations in their predictions of global warming, while politicians should dispassionately count the real benefits as well as the imagined costs of adaptation to global warming, and the real costs as well as the imagined benefits of mitigation.”

“Climate models have many shortcomings and are not remotely plausible as policy tools … there is no statistical evidence that global warming is intensifying hurricanes, floods, droughts and such like natural disasters, or making them more frequent … therefore, there is no cause for panic and alarm.”

The letter further declares that CO2 is not a pollutant. It is essential to all life on Earth. Photosynthesis is a blessing. CO2-mitigation measures are as damaging as they are costly. “We strongly oppose the harmful and unrealistic net-zero CO2 policy proposed for 2050,” they decared.

Finally, climate scientists are attempting to bring rationality and real science back to the discussion. Methinks a hyperventilating 16-year old was one prop too far.

update 181019: Whom to BelieveThe website Climate Feedback presents itself as ” … a worldwide network of scientists sorting fact from fiction in climate change media coverage. Our goal is to help readers know which news to trust.” As far as I can tell, their main objective is attempting to invalidate climate skeptic articles. Fair enough.

But what are you to make of “Letter signed by “500 scientists” relies on inaccurate claims about climate science.” The article refers to the recent letter to the UN signed by 500 scientists, stating unequivocally that “There is No Climate Emergency.” The article starts off with “the claims contradict or misrepresent the evidence uncovered by geoscientists, failing to provide support for its conclusions downplaying the threat of climate change …”

In this article, and throughout the website, the reviewers empower science as the arbiter in the climate change debate, and the importance of publishing in peer-reviewed journals. So these 500 scientist are in fact charlatans, not backing their statements with real science? Or perhaps more to the point, it is science that does not suit the climate alarmist narrative espoused by Climate Feedback contributors. As far as I can tell, there is not a single article on the site that does not endorse the climate alarmist narrative. How can that be possible, unless the contributors themselves are shilling for that narrative.

e.g. A recurring point in a number of the articles is to just stick your head outside and observe. Melting glaciers, shrinking sea ice, rising sea levels et al … wait … Ahh, rising sea levels. Google it yourself. Sea levels have been rising for 10,000 years, as we moved out of the ice age (neanderthals must have been lighting too many fires and mammoths farting too much). But over the last few decades, rising sea levels have slowed considerably, way below average. How does that suit the narrative? Try to make sense of sea ice shrinking and expanding. What is the trend? These experts continuously accuse others of cherry-picking data, and yet preach using their own version of the truth. Yes, whom to believe.

Confessions of a climate scientist: the global warming hypothesis is an unproven hypothesis

Dr. Mototaka Nakamura has spent decades studying cloud dynamics and forces mixing atmospheric and ocean flows on medium to planetary scales. He has published 20 climate papers on fluid dynamics. He is what one would call an expert on climate science.

Dr Nakamura is one of an increasing number of climate scientists who are taking a stand against the shrill bullying of the man-made climate change crowd. In June, he published a small book in Japanese on “the sorry state of climate science”. It’s titled Confessions of a climate scientist: the global warming hypothesis is an unproven hypothesis.

Quadrant Online has published an article that neatly summarizes Dr Namamura’s position. That, while climate models are useful tools for academic studies, “the models just become useless pieces of junk or worse (worse in a sense that they can produce gravely misleading output) when they are used for climate forecasting.” He further states, “I am confident that some honest and courageous, true climate scientists will continue to publicly point out the fraudulent claims made by the mainstream climate science community in English.”

He projects warming from CO2 doubling, “according to the true experts”, to be only 0.5degC. Hardly the existential climate event we are told we are faced with.

On a related note, last year, Dr Jordan Peterson had some interesting views on climate change. In this conversation, he references the work of Bjorn Lomberg to understand how, when you prioritize the myriad issues we are faced with to actually improve the world and the lives of its inhabitants, addressing climate change does not make the short list. Read Lomberg’s recent article in The Australian, “A Climate of Burning Money” to begin to understand the nature of the fraud that is being perpetrated on us.

There are powerful, hidden players beating this drum to their own selfish ends, and ruthlessly trying to censor critics. The lead off in Tony Heller’s video below quotes Dr Ottmar Endenhofer, from 2010: “One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has nothing to do with environmental policy anymore … We (UN-IPCC) redistribute the world’s wealth by climate policy.” As always, follow the money.

Tony Heller’s Gift To Climate Alarmists

Tony Heller compiles a list of highly selective data presentations climate alarmists use to present their case. As you can see, the actual data in its true historical context presents a much different story than the narrative the climate alarmists use to browbeat skeptics. The lead off quote by Dr Ottmar Enderhofer is likely the most revealing as to what is actually at play here.

In October 2015, Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change, admitted in a news conference that the goal of environmental activists is not to save the world from ecological calamity but to destroy capitalism. “This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution,” she said.

Mike Shedlock (aka Mish) decompresses Heller’s video and adds some more context, thoroughly exposing climate alarmist agenda for what it is — a fraud. In fact, at the root of it is financial fraud.

As always, follow the money.

krazy kyakers

Ottawa has the good fortune of being near lots of water, mostly in the form of two rivers, the Ottawa and the Rideau.  The Rideau drains into the Ottawa.  Historically, the Rideau Canal was built to accommodate trade between Ottawa and as far as Kingston.

To facilitate boat traffic, a number of locks were installed.  In addition to the locks, dams were built, typically next to the lock, to manage the flow of water.  Near to where I live is a lock/dam called Hogs Back.  The dam side flows over a series of rocks, that are typically quite nice to look at, but with the spring melt, become a raging rapid.

So, this spring (2014), I brought my video camera down to Hogs Back to capture the wild torrents, much more wild than in other years, crazy huge flows.  After a bit of filming, a fellow asks if I am there to video the kayakers.  “Huh?”, I said.  He tells me three kayakers are suiting up getting ready to run the Hogs Back rapids.

So, I stick around and capture the following video.  Amazing stuff.  For 20 seconds in the rapids, it must have been invigorating, not to mention very cold.

For comparison, here are some pix of the flow in June,  Very pretty, but not nearly as dangerous. Note when the initial kayaker goes over the first flow, that is the same point as the first picture below.  Pretty amazing.

hogsBack_01
hogsBack_02
hogsBack_03

 

Ooo Eee Oo Ah Ah

A recording technique that has long been used for interesting and amusing effect is to change the speed of the playback.  Faster would raise the pitch, slower would lower it.  In some cases, artists slowed the tape speed down during tracking to make instrument parts easier to play or to hit higher notes, and then sped up for the final mix. Other times they would adjust the tape speed during mastering to get a sound they liked more.  The timbre of the notes changes.  Guitars played back at even slightly faster speeds sound chimier.  Vocals at slightly slower speeds have a deeper resonance.

One of my favorite Beatle songs, which coincidentally used this technique, is Rain, where the master was slowed down.  The guitars sound sublime, especially that little guitar break at 2:33.

In thinking about the Beatles use of the varispeed technique, it occurred to me that the backing vocals on Magical Mystery Tour sounded like they were pitched upwards.  And indeed they are.  Here are some parts with the final version followed by the slower playback which would have been used during tracking:

 

On a tape machine, this was easy to do, as you just needed to flip a switch for preset speeds (typically 30ips, 15ips, 7.5ips and 3.75ips), or change the voltage to the capstan motor (varispeed) for continuous increments.  In the digital world, this is, surprisingly, not  straight forward.  Pitch tuning (Autotune, Melodyne, …) allows you exceptional ability to change notes.  But this does not sound the same to me, and more extreme changes result in artifacts that sound bad.  Changing the playback speed for recording or mastering takes a couple of extra steps.

All that to say, as a little exercise, I took a run at Alvin and the Chipmunks, to see what the real voice behind the little critters actually sounds like.  Here is the amusing result at half-speed, from the original 1958 recording of Witch Doctor that started it all for Alvin:

 

Finally, the most famous chord of all time …

… the opening chord of A Hard Days Night has been successfully dissected.

In this radio interview with Randy Bachman on CBC’s Guitarology program, RB talks about meeting Giles Martin, son of George Martin, at GM’s private studio at Abbey Road. In the studio, GM has access to digitized copies of all the Beatle’s multitrack source tapes.

After pondering what he would like to hear, RB is provided with solo’d track by track playback of “the chord”.  When it is all put together, HE NAILS IT!  Give it a listen …

 

Here is the breakdown he describes:

  • Track 1: George on Rickenbacker 12-string  GCFACG
  • Track 2: Paul on Bass playing D
  • Track 3: John on 6-string xxDADG

The notes being picked up are:  A-C-D-F-G

  • From a G perspective: 1-2-4-5-b7
  • From an F perspective: 1-2-3-5-6
  • From a D perspective: 1-b3-4-5-b7
  • From a C perspective: 1-2-4-5-6
  • From an A perspective: 1-b3-4-b6-b7

Closest thing to call it would be a Dm11 or an F6add9.  Whatever you call it, you can’t make the chord sound properly with only one hand (chording) and one guitar.

What a sound. This is TOO COOL!!

Sound engineer humor

One of my favorite sites is gearslutz.com, where people, mostly sound engineer types, talk about … gear.  Most of the time, the conversations are about experiences with specific pieces of recording equipment or techniques.  Some can be offbeat and really amusing, like this one — He Is…the Most Interesting Gear Slut!

Basically, assembling all the collected wisdom, knowledge and opinion about gear, talent and luck, and packaging it as hyperbole.  Here are some samples:

  • He mixed the entire Hotel California record in one day on headphones in a room AT Hotel California and then left without checking out
  • Word clocks sync to him
  • He records a whole band perfectly with one mic, in one take, on one track, on tape — and mixes it to surround sound … telepathically
  • He pronounces Moog correctly
  • He’s so forward thinking that the last time he played guitar was tomorrow
  • He can tune a piano and tuna fish
  • He’s won Grammy’s for songs he almost worked on
  • He once wrote a concerto for dog whistle
  • He thought he’d made a mistake once, but he was mistaken
  • He can hear, pan, eq and add effects to the sound of one hand clapping
  • At a lecture, he once uttered, “just do it” and walked off the stage.  Nike tried to sue him for using the catch phrase, but ended up being sued themselves by him as he had already developed that exact shoe style for a song intro that required someone running into a house.  The album was “Nike Runner” and the title song was “Just Do It”.  He did however let Nike keep making the shoe pump that he had invented for the compression effect on that intro. It eliminated sock issues by compressing foot sweat.

… well, *I* think they are really funny. 😎

Gender exhibitionism strikes again

How does one rise above an ocean of talent?  Well, sex sells, we all know that.  On the international stage, gender exhibitionism and gender confusion clearly help bring attention to yourself.  Of course, gender bending is not new among entertainers — Bowie, Marilyn Manson, Boy George, Madonna, Lady Gaga, Annie Lennox, are all or have been gender opportunists, that exploit gender and gender ambiguity as suits them at the time, invariably to shock.

All that to say, the latest in the parade of gender opportunists is the 2014 winner of the Eurovision music content, Conchita Wurst, an intriguing transgender entertainer from Austria.  Here is his/her performance of Rise Like a Phoenix:

The video is well conceived, and the song is an exceptional platform for Conchita. It could easily be the theme song for a James Bond film.

Conchita’s real name is Tom Neuwirth.  I have to say, for me the beard is disconcerting in this context. As it is meant to be, no doubt. However, that is a minor distraction, as the performance, the presentation and the song are exceptional.

Here is a photo of ungendrified Tom:

Along the same gender ambiguity meme, here is a great video by French artist Stromae, and his/her performance of Tous Les Mêmes (All The Same):

The house always wins, but how much?

“I spent half my money on gambling, alcohol, and wild women.  The other half I wasted.” – WC Fields

Here is a visualization prepared by data scientist Seth Kadish.  The chart presents the house odds in gambling in Las Vegas casinos, the percent of wagered money won by the house against the total revenues for the week.  For example, if $100 is wagered on blackjack, the house will take 11%, or $11.  The data comes from reports published by the Nevada Gaming Control Board .

gamblingYou should already know that the house always wins, or more precisely, the odds favor the house.  If it doesn’t, they unilaterally convict you of card counting and ban you from ever playing in the casino again.

The chart is hard to read here, so if you want to see the detail, go to Seth’s site.  The pithy summary is:

  • sports parlay cards are the worst odds for the player, with the house taking nearly 40% of the amount of money wagered (upper left quadrant)
  • 3-card poker is the worst card game, at about 33%
  • roulette is about 18%
  • craps is about 14%
  • blackjack is about 11%
  • your best odds is the $100 slot, at about 4%

This is not to condemn gambling, but it *is* a money pit.  Thanks for playing.