Climate: LNG in B.C. vs Alberta tarsands

[agentaqua]

<iframe width="600" height="450" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/FDRnH48LvhQ" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Video: Watch 27 Years of Arctic Ice Melt as It Gets Dangerously Younger
Read more at https://indiancountrytodaymedianetw...c-ice-melt-it-gets-dangerously-younger-159027

 

[agentaqua]

Sound familiar?

http://www.iflscience.com/editors-blog/failure-real-science-good-and-different-phony-controversies
...
Phony controversies, on the other hand, can usually be traced to a handful of opponents, often outside their fields of expertise. Challenges to the scientific consensus on climate change mostly come from engineers and economists, not working climate scientists, and tend to originate in think tanks and lobbying groups, not university research labs. Fears about vaccines can be traced to a handful of thoroughly debunked studies, and are stoked by politicians and celebrities, not medical researchers.
...
Phony controversies tend to play out in the media, through press releases, stump speeches, and polemical writing reshared via social media. Reliable reports from scientific journals are difficult to find, even after chasing back long chains of references.
...
Phony controversies, on the other hand, are endless, with proponents clinging stubbornly to the same positions year after year. Even as their sources are discredited, their conclusions remain unchanged, because phony science is less interested in truth than in selling a conclusion

 

[agentaqua]

http://theconversation.com/overcoming-the-social-barriers-to-climate-consensus-36889
Overcoming the social barriers to climate consensus

 

[seadna]

Or maybe this sounds familiar - http://thefederalist.com/2014/01/17/the-death-of-expertise/ - in particular, this paragraph

The confidence of the dumb

"There’s also that immutable problem known as “human nature.” It has a name now: it’s called the Dunning-Kruger effect, which says, in sum, that the dumber you are, the more confident you are that you’re not actually dumb. And when you get invested in being aggressively dumb…well, the last thing you want to encounter are experts who disagree with you, and so you dismiss them in order to maintain your unreasonably high opinion of yourself. (There’s a lot of that loose on social media, especially.)

All of these are symptoms of the same disease: a manic reinterpretation of “democracy” in which everyone must have their say, and no one must be “disrespected.” (The verb to disrespect is one of the most obnoxious and insidious innovations in our language in years, because it really means “to fail to pay me the impossibly high requirement of respect I demand.”) This yearning for respect and equality, even—perhaps especially—if unearned, is so intense that it brooks no disagreement. It represents the full flowering of a therapeutic culture where self-esteem, not achievement, is the ultimate human value, and it’s making us all dumber by the day.

Thus, at least some of the people who reject expertise are not really, as they often claim, showing their independence of thought. They are instead rejecting anything that might stir a gnawing insecurity that their own opinion might not be worth all that much."

 

[GLG]

I see the temp records are in question ..... again
Here is a video from 2011
[tciQts-8Cxo]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tciQts-8Cxo#t=37
[h=1][/h]

 

[GLG]

[kTk8Dhr15Kw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kTk8Dhr15Kw

 

[agentaqua]

New White Dog: "I was wrong"!

 

[agentaqua]

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/02/10/3621259/here-comes-the-sun/

One Of The World’s Largest Solar Energy Farms Is Now Open In California
BY EMILY ATKIN POSTED ON FEBRUARY 10, 2015 AT 9:11 AM

The Desert Sunlight solar farm in Desert Center, Calif., opened on Monday. Built by First Solar, the project generates enough electricity to power 160,000 average California homes.
CREDIT: USA TODAY/SCREENSHOT

The largest solar farm on American federal public land was dedicated on Monday in California’s Riverside County desert, a project the state hopes will help it meet its ambitious renewable energy goals.

The Desert Sunlight Solar Farm — a 550-megawatt farm that is also one of the largest solar plants in the world — began operating in December 2014, but Monday marked the day it was officially dedicated by U.S. Interior Secretary Sally Jewell. Jewell said the project can provide enough energy to power more than 160,000 average California homes every year — a huge help for the state in meeting its goal to increase its renewable electricity use to 50 percent by 2030.

“This is the beginnings of a renewable energy future,” Jewell said at the dedication. “Renewable energy where the source of the energy never goes away, where we don’t have to emit any carbon into the atmosphere.”

Built and operated by First Solar, the Desert Sunlight Farm sits on about 3,600 acres of federal land. It is partly a product of the U.S. Department of Energy, which reportedly gave the project about $1.5 billion in loan guarantees. In a report also released Monday, the DOE said that it has so far provided $4.6 billion in loan guarantees to support large solar projects in the U.S.

California Gov. Jerry Brown set the state’s ambitious goal to have 50 percent of its electricity come from renewable sources by 2030 last month, after noting that utilities were already on track to meet the state’s previous goal to have 33 percent renewable electricity by 2020. Brown told the L.A. Times that utilities needed more incentive to keep signing new contracts with large wind and solar firms, which is why he upped the goal.

“Many thought the initial 33 percent goal was too challenging, yet California will readily surpass that number,” Martín Múgica, president of Iberdrola Renewables, which is developing wind and solar projects in the state, told the Times. “The governor’s plan will spark innovation across the electricity sector and clearly encourage large-scale renewable energy development.”

 

[ClayoquotKid]

"an open letter to William Ruckelshaus, the first EPA Administrator, written by former U.S. Navy Admiral Thomas B. Hayward, a former chief of naval operations and commander-in-chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet, rebutting testimony on climate change delivered by Ruckelshaus and other former EPA employees sometime earlier that year."


THOMAS B. HAYWARD
Admiral, U.S. Navy (Retired)
June 24, 2014

The Honorable Wm. Ruckelshaus
Madrona Venture Group
999 3rd Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98104

Dear Bill,

By now you have no doubt been inundated with congratulatory adulation for your testimony, along with some of your predecessors at EPA, before the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works regarding Climate Change. I wish it were possible for me to join in the chorus; but, being counted among the “deniers” that the President and many others enjoy bashing I cannot let you get away without some pushback.

It was somewhat encouraging to read your words that you “believe there is legitimate scientific debate over the pace and effects of climate change …” But, then you went on to state that there is “no legitimate debate of the fact of the earth’s warming or over man’s contribution.” Aye, there’s the rub.

No one, of course, is contesting the earth’s warming since the end of the Little Ice Age. Of course it has, and probably will continue until the next ice age. It is discouraging, however, when global warming alarmists lean on the proclamation that temperatures are increasing at accelerated rates based on media reports that we have experienced several recent years of the highest temperatures on record. Not only are they factually wrong, but allegedly, this is supposed to be proof that it is “man’s contribution” through irresponsible use of fossil fuels causing this potentially calamitous trend.

FACT is, temperatures were 1-2 degrees higher than present for almost all of the past 10,000 years. (See red part of the graph below)



FACT is, since 1480 AD, there have been more than 20 periods warmer than present, long before that nemesis CO2 began to rise. (see red areas in graph below)



FACT is, there have been three periods of global warming and three periods of global cooling since 1850. The first two occurred BEFORE rise in atmospheric CO2. See graph below.



FACT is, there has been no global warming over the past 17 years and 9 months, an observation that the IPCC has been unable (or unwilling) to address. See graph below.



FACT is, global COOLING, not warming, has been occurring for the past decade. (See downward sloping satellite data in the graph below)



FACT is, CO2 has always lagged temperature rise. See graphs below.



Bill, in your testimony you make a point of relying on the recent reports of the IPCC, the National Climate Assessment and the CNA to emphasize the urgency of confronting these forecast calamities. I would like to share my thoughts, and those of thousands of authentic scientists (of which I am not one), about these reports. (BTW, while there may be hundreds, or even a few thousand scientists who ascribe to the AGW theology, you should be aware that in 2007 a petition was signed by 31,487 scientists, among whom were 9,029 PhDs, disputing the AGW theory and the work being done by the IPCC. You are outnumbered 10 to 1).

IPCC. Everyone knows that this is a political organization created to prove that human activity (read fossil fuel/CO2) is the cause of global warming (read Climate Change/Climate Disruption). The NCA and CNA reports are totally dependent on the IPCC for their “analyses.” And, the IPCC is totally dependent on “models” to support its proclamations. In fact, your own testimony favorably refers to the “models” of the world’s leading scientists as justification for your call to urgency.

FACT: IPCC models’ results are not even close to real data. See below. With each passing year, their results diverge even further from real data. What are we to conclude?



As for the NCA and CNA reports, they made no effort to listen to both sides of this significant national issue. The authors were already biased in the direction of condemning fossil fuels and/or failed to seek scientific opinion from those who might challenge the anti-CO2 thesis. I challenge you or any of your scientific associates to provide even ONE piece of empirical evidence that links human activity (i.e. CO2) as the primary cause of global warming.

FACT: Sea levels are not rising abnormally. Sea level rise has been relatively constant since 1850, long before increase in CO2. The rate of sea level rise has actually DECLINED over the past 5-7 years. To get the much exaggerated rates of sea level rise predicted by IPCC would require absurdly large change in the amount of sea water and there is no source for it—Antarctic is getting colder and the ice sheet is NOT melting. See graph.



FACT: The Antarctic ice shelf is at an all-time high. See graph below.



FACT: Arctic sea ice, that evinced unusually large melting in 2012, has returned to its normal state and rates of accumulation and melting.


FACT: Extreme weather events are not more common now, no matter what we perceive to be happening. See graphs.





Bill, I am obviously not the one to debate scientific data with other scientists. But, we do have such an individual right here in our neighborhood, Dr. Don Easterbrook, Geology Professor Emeritus at Western Washington University. As you are aware from the booklet I sent you a few weeks ago, my interest is national security energy policy, which today is being inadequately developed and exploited in large measure because of the hyperbolic dimension of the anti-fossil fuel cacophony in opposition to all things carbon. I would be delighted to introduce Don Easterbrook to you at any time that you would deem it useful from your perspective to hear facts from “the other side.” Just let me know.

To Summarize:
The globe is not warming alarmingly. In fact, it has been cooling for at least a decade.
Sea levels are not rising abnormally.
Fossil fuels are not a significant Climate Change factor.
There is no empirical evidence that supports the AGW hypothesis.
Our national energy policy is in disarray.
Let’s do what the President said we should do – “All of the Above.”

Sincerely,

 

[OldBlackDog]

Because there are a number here who feel they are right and there should be no discussion on global warming.
I would send you and them to this thread.
I think all of you will find it very interesting as a number of SCIENTISTS are discussing and arguing over temperature adjusting.
Please note the names of the people involved.
http://judithcurry.com/2015/02/09/berkeley-earth-raw-versus-adjusted-temperature-data/

It is a long thread and being added on to all day.

 

[OldBlackDog]

Global is not covered by 21 buoys.
Wikipedia you new choice of knowledge?

Thanks for this Ziggy. I was - of course - alluding to the satellite technology - although that blog is still misleading as there have been weather buoys in service since the 1970s: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weather_buoy

"Between 1951 and 1970, a total of 21 NOMAD buoys were built and deployed at sea.[3] Since the 1970s, weather buoy use has superseded the role of weather ships by design, as they are cheaper to operate and maintain.[4] The earliest reported use of drifting buoys was to study the behavior of ocean currents within the Sargasso Sea in 1972 and 1973.[5] Drifting buoys have been used increasingly since 1979, and as of 2005, 1250 drifting buoys roamed the Earth's oceans.[6]"

Weather buoys use neither ships intakes nor XBT.

In addition, satellite pop-up tags and similar technology has been used since 1998: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pop-up_satellite_archival_tag

Van Dorn and modern improvements to that method have been used since the 1930s to get water samples at depths.

so no - this blog article is still not accurate about both the dates, and the availability of different platforms and different sampling methodologies and equipment.

 

[agentaqua]

Global is not covered by 21 buoys. Wikipedia you new choice of knowledge?

How did you come to the conclusion that we need 21 more ocean buoys before we declare climate change not a hoax??

I don't need to go to peer-review science to state that there are ocean buoys out there recording temperatures, anymore than I need peer-reviewed science to state that there are ships out there sailing around on the globe, either. Are ships a hoax too?

 

[agentaqua]

http://www.opb.org/news/article/tar...t-in-mile-long-trains-as-spill-planning-lags/

Big Trainloads Of Tar Sands Crude Now Rolling Through NW

OPB | Feb. 9, 2015 1:01 a.m. | Updated: Feb. 9, 2015 11:41 a.m.

Contributed By: Tony Schick

Since 2012 Union Pacific has been moving oil through Oregon on mixed freight trains. In late 2014, the railroad began moving several mile-long trains of crude oil per month through the Northwest.

Kool Cats Photography / flickr

Trains carrying mass loads of heavy crude oil from Canada’s tar sands have begun moving through the Northwest, creating the potential for an oil spill in parts of Oregon and Washington where environmental agencies have no response plans or equipment in place.

Union Pacific now moves between seven and 10 of these mile-long trains of Canadian crude per month through Northwest states, according to railroad spokesman Aaron Hunt. They can carry more than a million gallons of oil.

The trains originate in Alberta, moving through Idaho to Washington. From there, some are bound for refining in Western Washington and others travel along the Columbia River into Portland and south into California.

The seven to 10 monthly trains represents a big increase over Union Pacific trains that had previously been hauling mixed freight that included oil tank cars. The mile-long “unit trains” began in late November, according to the railroad, but spill planners at Oregon’s Department of Environmental Quality and Washington’s Department of Ecology didn’t learn of the new shipments until late January and early February, respectively.

Both agencies, along with emergency responders and rail safety inspectors, were previously caught unprepared in 2013 when shipments of sweet light crude from North Dakota’s Bakken oil fields started moving through the region.

Railroads are required to notify states about oil shipments larger than one million gallons under an emergency order from the federal Department of Transportation. The order was filed in response to national concerns about local fire departments being caught unaware or kept in the dark when these “rolling pipelines” were passing through their jurisdictions.

That order applies only to Bakken crude; shipments from Canada are exempt. Oregon Sens. Ron Wyden and Jeff Merkley have called on the federal DOT to expand its regulation to include all shipments, with the aim of avoiding a situation like mile-long trains of tar sands crude moving without knowledge from the agencies tasked with oil spill cleanup.

“It is unacceptable that volatile tar sands oil has been moving through our communities for months and yet Oregon officials only found out about it last week,” Wyden said in a statement released to OPB/EarthFix. “This apparent lack of communication with state officials responsible for Oregonians’ health and safety is exactly why I have been pushing for an iron-clad rule to ensure first-responders in our communities are notified about these oil trains.”

Officials in Oregon and Washington said they lack the resources and authority for adequate spill planning along rail corridors. Rail lines touch more than a hundred watersheds in Oregon and cross more than a thousand water bodies in Washington.

Unlike plans for marine transports and storage facilities, plans for who responds, how and with what equipment are lacking in Oregon and Washington when it comes to rivers and lakes.

“We will respond, but our response won’t be as effective as it would be with the facilities where we’ve reviewed their plans, we know what they contain,” said Bruce Gilles, emergency response program manager at Oregon’s DEQ.

Should a train full of tar sand oil spill today, response teams will be “going in somewhat blind,” and that means they won’t be able to work as quickly as they should, Gilles said.

“You’re going to lose time, and that time translates into increased environmental damage and costs to clean up,” he said. “That’s the bottom line.”

David Byers, response manager for Washington’s Department of Ecology, said the state has begun filling the regional gaps where it lacks response plans, but the effort will take years.

Byers said tar sands crude presents many cleanup challenges the state’s never handled before.

Bitumen is a hydrocarbon extracted from Alberta’s tar sands. It’s too thick to be transported like conventional crude. It’s either refined into a synthetic crude — making it more like conventional crude oil — or combined with additives that give it a more liquid consistency.

A heavy tar-like substance, bitumen can sink when it hits water. It’s also stickier, meaning it’s tougher to remove from wherever it spills. That’s what happened when a pipeline burst and spilled into the Kalamazoo River in Michigan. The cleanup cost exceeded $1 billion.

Frequent rain and fast-moving rivers in the Northwest mean a lot of sediment that oil can stick to, further complicating cleanup.

Byers and Gilles say they have no way of knowing what specific type of crude is in a given oil tanker car. Knowing that they’re dealing with a tar sand crude oil spill would dramatically influence their response.

“It’s much harder to clean up on the bottom of a river bed,” Byers said. “Or if it sinks in, for example, Puget Sound, it’s going to be more difficult to clean up, and even more challenging for us to even locate and detect where the oil has migrated to.”

It wouldn’t just be up to Oregon or Washington officials to handle spill-response duties if an oil train derailed in their state. Union Pacific has 30 hazardous materials responders across its 32,000 mile network and relies on private contractors for handling spill incidents.

“This team of experts directs training, preparation and response for any type of accident involving hazardous materials,” spokesman Aaron Hunt said in an email. “We move hazardous materials on behalf of our customers because it is our job.”

 

[agentaqua]

http://www.commondreams.org/news/2015/02/09/tar-sands-activists-being-targeted-fbi

Published on Monday, February 09, 2015

by Common Dreams
Tar Sands Activists Being Targeted by FBI

The agents 'appear to be interested in actions around the tar sands and the Keystone XL pipeline,' said a lawyer working with the protesters.
by Deirdre Fulton, staff writer

Megaload protest at the Calumet Montana Refinery in Great Falls, Montana. (Photo: Herb Goodwin/Facebook)


FBI investigators with nebulous intentions have attempted to question anti-tar sands activists in several states, the Canadian Press reported over the weekend.

While the dozen or so protesters who have been contacted hail from different organizations, they have one thing in common: mutual participation in so-called "megaload protests"—intermittent highway blockades set up the last few years to complicate the enormous, football-field-sized shipments of processing equipment up to Canadian tar sands mining operations.

"It’s actually pretty spooky to have the FBI show up at your door, ask one question and leave. I think they were there to put me on notice that I was being watched."
—Herb Goodwin, eco-activist

Larry Hildes, a lawyer working with the protesters, said the phone calls and visits have been happening the last few months in the northwestern states of Washington, Oregon, and Idaho.

"They appear to be interested in actions around the tarsands and the Keystone XL pipeline," Hildes told the Canadian Press. "It’s always the same line: 'We’re not doing criminal investigations, you’re not accused of any crime. But we’re trying to learn more about the movement'."

Journalist Alexander Reid Ross first detailed the FBI probe last month for the Defending Dissent Foundation. He wrote:

On Oct. 9, Herb Goodwin was approached at his home in Bellingham by two FBI agents asking about a group called Deep Green Resistance (DGR). The FBI and Joint Terrorism Taskforce had previously contacted several members of DGR and their families both by phone and through home visits in places as dispersed as Georgia, New York and Seattle.

Goodwin was alarmed but not surprised when the lead agent "flashed a badge and claimed to be from the FBI." Refusing to tell him anything beyond her first name, "Brenda," she provided a sloppy excuse for not presenting a business card. The other person identified himself as "Al Jensen," and his card identified him as a member of the Criminal Intelligence Unit of the Bellingham Police Department.

"Jensen jocularly mentioned that we knew each other from the Occupy movement/camp and train blockade, attempting to coax up conversation," Goodwin said in an e-mail. "I did not take the bait."

"It’s actually pretty spooky to have the FBI show up at your door, ask one question and leave," Goodwin told the Spokesman-Review. "I think they were more interested in megaloads than in Deep Green Resistance. I think they were there to put me on notice that I was being watched."

Another environmentalist, Helen Yost of the group Wild Idaho Rising Tide (WIRT) received an ominous text message on December 10, just days after returning from a road trip organizing for the third annual Stand Up! Fight Back! Against Fossil Fuels in the Northwest! protest.

"I work with the FBI," the message read. "Could you give me a call back—I would appreciate it."

According to Ross, "Yost believes that the agent’s calls were related to her role as an organizer with WIRT."

She told the Associated Press in January that she refused to talk to the agent. "We don’t see ourselves as posing any threat," she said. "We see the FBI contact as being unwarranted."

ClimateProgress points out:

The FBI investigations may be unsettling for activists, but compared to environmentalists in other countries, activists in the U.S. have little to fear. A report last year found that Brazil is the most deadly country for environmental activists, with 448 deaths in the country between 2002 and 2013. In Honduras, 109 environmental activists were killed during that time period, and in the Philippines, 67 were killed.

"Many of those facing threats are ordinary people opposing land grabs, mining operations and the industrial timber trade, often forced from their homes and severely threatened by environmental devastation," the report states.

For its part, the Bureau claims it only investigates potential crimes, not political movements. "The FBI has the authority to conduct an investigation when it has reasonable grounds to believe that an individual has engaged in criminal activity or is planning to do so," said FBI spokeswoman Ayn Dietrich. "This authority is based on the illegal activity, not on the individual’s political views."

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License

 

[agentaqua]

http://e360.yale.edu/digest/norway_...om_coal_companies_over_climate_concerns/4357/

09 Feb 2015: Norway Divests National Fund
From Coal Companies Over Climate Concerns
Norway has divested its sovereign wealth fund — the largest in the world and worth roughly $850 billion — from coal companies, marking the first time a nation has divested for reasons related to climate change. Over the past three years, the country has dropped investments in more than 100 companies involved in coal mining, tar sands development, cement production, and mountaintop removal coal mining, officials announced. In a report released last week, the fund's directors said that risks associated with carbon emissions, deforestation, and poor water management outweigh the benefits of continuing to invest in these companies. Critics point out that the fund, which has been built with earnings from Norway's profitable oil industry, still holds roughly $40 billion in fossil fuel investments. The country says it will continue deciding on a case-by-case basis whether to divest from those holdings.

 

[agentaqua]

Because there are a number here who feel they are right and there should be no discussion on global warming.
I would send you and them to this thread.
I think all of you will find it very interesting as a number of SCIENTISTS are discussing and arguing over temperature adjusting.
Please note the names of the people involved.
http://judithcurry.com/2015/02/09/berkeley-earth-raw-versus-adjusted-temperature-data/
It is a long thread and being added on to all day.

Thanks for this link, OBD. It's obvious that you haven't read it yet, though.

Just skip to the bottom summary where it says:

"In summary, it is possible to look through 40,000 stations and select those that the algorithm has warmed; and, it’s possible to ignore those that the algorithm has cooled. As the spatial maps show it is also possible to select entire continents where the algorithm has warmed the record; and, it’s possible to focus on other continents were the opposite is the case. Globally however, the effect of adjustments is minor. It’s minor because on average the biases that require adjustments mostly cancel each other out"

Kinda shooting yourself in the foot there OBD.

 

[OldBlackDog]

LOL! You need to read, you think 21buoys are enough to do the worlds oceans?

Here, you need to go here.http://judithcurry.com/2015/02/09/berkeley-earth-raw-versus-adjusted-temperature-data/

How did you come to the conclusion that we need 21 more ocean buoys before we declare climate change not a hoax??

I don't need to go to peer-review science to state that there are ocean buoys out there recording temperatures, anymore than I need peer-reviewed science to state that there are ships out there sailing around on the globe, either. Are ships a hoax too?

 

[OldBlackDog]

Love his last line which tells it all about him. Well, of course: I’m an expert.

Or maybe this sounds familiar - http://thefederalist.com/2014/01/17/the-death-of-expertise/ - in particular, this paragraph

The confidence of the dumb

"There’s also that immutable problem known as “human nature.” It has a name now: it’s called the Dunning-Kruger effect, which says, in sum, that the dumber you are, the more confident you are that you’re not actually dumb. And when you get invested in being aggressively dumb…well, the last thing you want to encounter are experts who disagree with you, and so you dismiss them in order to maintain your unreasonably high opinion of yourself. (There’s a lot of that loose on social media, especially.)

All of these are symptoms of the same disease: a manic reinterpretation of “democracy” in which everyone must have their say, and no one must be “disrespected.” (The verb to disrespect is one of the most obnoxious and insidious innovations in our language in years, because it really means “to fail to pay me the impossibly high requirement of respect I demand.”) This yearning for respect and equality, even—perhaps especially—if unearned, is so intense that it brooks no disagreement. It represents the full flowering of a therapeutic culture where self-esteem, not achievement, is the ultimate human value, and it’s making us all dumber by the day.

Thus, at least some of the people who reject expertise are not really, as they often claim, showing their independence of thought. They are instead rejecting anything that might stir a gnawing insecurity that their own opinion might not be worth all that much."

 

[OldBlackDog]

And you have read all the replies? really.

Thanks for this link, OBD. It's obvious that you haven't read it yet, though.

Just skip to the bottom summary where it says:

"In summary, it is possible to look through 40,000 stations and select those that the algorithm has warmed; and, it’s possible to ignore those that the algorithm has cooled. As the spatial maps show it is also possible to select entire continents where the algorithm has warmed the record; and, it’s possible to focus on other continents were the opposite is the case. Globally however, the effect of adjustments is minor. It’s minor because on average the biases that require adjustments mostly cancel each other out"

Kinda shooting yourself in the foot there OBD.

 

[agentaqua]

LOL! You need to read, you think 21buoys are enough to do the worlds oceans? Here, you need to go here.http://judithcurry.com/2015/02/09/berkeley-earth-raw-versus-adjusted-temperature-data/

I'm a little worried about you OBD. you're not smelling burnt toast are you?

The link you gave - the one where you shot yourself in the foot - does NOT say we only have 21 ocean buoys.

However, the non peer-reviewed but multi-authored and multi-checked online encyclopedia Wikkipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weather_buoy says: "Drifting buoys are the dominant form of weather buoy in sheer number, with 1250 located worldwide"

Shall I precall 911 for you? have the "9" and the 1st "1" punched - waiting...