Friday, March 11, 2011

Global warming linked to earthquake

Yep, the nutters are all out there again, spreading their nuttiness around. Staffan Nilsson, president of the European Economic and Social Committee, said the following:




"The earthquake and tsunami will clearly have a severe impact on the economic and social activities of the region. Some islands affected by climate change have been hit. Has not the time come to demonstrate on solidarity – not least solidarity in combating and adapting to climate change and global warming? Mother Nature has again given us a sign that that is what we need to do." source

My bolding

Yep, Mother Nature is telling us via earthquakes to stop emitting CO2. The lunatics clearly run the political machinery here on planet earth.

Sunday, March 6, 2011

Comparisons of closely spaced corrections

In many of the early posts on this blog, I compared the temperature records of nearby cities, those sited on similar settings less than 25 miles apart. One would think that the temperatures measured at two towns less than 25 miles apart should be quite similar. They weren't.

Today I am looking at the corrections applied to 3 nearby cities. One would think that there would be physical causes for the corrections applied. This doesn't appear to be the case. The three towns in question are York, Geneva, and Fairmont, Nebraska. The three towns are located north south in central Nebraska.

York


Fairmont
Geneva

The spacing is something close to how I spaced them above.


One can download the raw monthly means and the final edited monthly means at this site by chosing the towns one wants to examinehere.

By subtracting the raw observations from the final edited data, one can get what the totality of corrections to the raw observation are. For Fairmont, NE, the corrections look like this:



The station moves are the jumps in the level of correction. These plateaus represented by the various station locations shows that there is an inherent 2.5 deg F variation in the average temperature measured due simply to where the thermometer is sited. Yet we are constantly told that we can tease a 1.1 deg F of warming out of this data. The fact that the corrections are 2.2 times that signal says that this data isn't good enough for what they claim they can do with it.

Geneva, NE shows the same kind of phenomonon. Merely subtracting the raw observed data from the corrected data shows a similar pattern.



Again, there is almost 2.5 deg F difference in the bias's simply due to station sitings.

Now let's compare the corrections made for these two towns, only 24 miles apart.



This chart shows some correlation in the step functions in the corrections. But the above chart raises some questions. Did both towns move siting spots at the same time? Why would there be a correlation in the bias if they did that? While one might initially think that the total correction to two nearby towns should be the same, or move similarly, they shouldn't do it in this pattern. It isn't likely that Fairmont and Geneva, NE decided together to move their weather stations at the same time, both to hotter and then both to cooler sites. This makes zero sense for these two towns which are 8 miles apart.

If we subtract the two correction series we find how the corrections alter the relative temperature streams from observed to final editing.



Looking at the above, you can see that from 1953 to the present there have been almost 3 degrees of warming added to Fairmont, NE compared to Geneva's temperature ust 8 miles away. The problem I have with this kind of correction is that it is very difficult to think of a physical cause for such a strange set of corrections.

Let's now throw comparisons of York and Fairmont into the mix. York is 18 miles north of Fairmont. When one subtracts the final edited temperature series from the raw observed temperature series it looks like this:



The red is York and I have compared its correction to Fairmont, 18 miles south. Once again, there is too much similarity in when the step functions occur. The chart below shows all three towns with 5 major bias changes all happening in the 3 towns very closely in time.



There are other funny things about these corrections, that seem to have no physical causation, that would make any sense. The high frequency part of the correction has the two nearest towns out of phase while Geneva and York, on opposite sides of Fairmont, are in phase.



The high frequency corrections are like marking the beak and wing tips of a bird. When both wings are hot, the beak is cold. When the beak is hot, the wings are cold. What physics could possibly cause this to be the case? I can think of none, yet this is what the GISS is doing to the data with their highly mathematical but non physical corrections to the observed temperatures.

To conclude, to believe that these corrections are valid, one must believe that all three towns re-sited their stations at nearly the same times for 100 years, and that when the central town, Fairmont is hot, the other two are cold and vice versa. This strains credibility.

Saturday, March 5, 2011

You wee people don't really need electricity

One of the more idiotic things to come out of the global warming delusion is the idea that we must get off of fossil fuels in order to save the planet. This has led the politicians to endorse all sorts of energetic nonsense (politicians are not known for having taken lots of physics courses in college). The politicians have endorsed and subsidized wind and solar, even though the amount of subsidy was huge and the return in energy tiny (politicians are not known for their business acumen either). This lunacy in both business and physics traverses the political landscape.



The current chief executive of the UK national grid was interviewed on the British Broadcasting's Radio 4.audio

Right at the end of that interview, Stephen Holliday says rather matter of factly, that the British households will simply have to get used to a 3rd world kind of energy supply. Electricity simply won't be consistently available to cook the evening meal or heat the home. Tough luck if it gets cold. Here is the quote.

The reporter asked about wind power:“Does it work? Cause when the wind doesn’t blow, how does your grid cope?"

Stephen Holliday replied:
"The grid is going to be a very different system in 2020, 2030.
“We keep thinking about we want it to be there and provide power when we need it. It is going to be a much smarter then.
“We are going to have to change our own behavior and consume it when it is available and available cheaply.”

So, all you wee people, if you heat your home with electricity, you may have some cold winters if these idiots have their way with you.

What about the jobs that will be lost in their green Eden? Everyone now works on computers. Computers work on electrical power. If that power is inconsistent and unpredictable, jobs will be lost. This probably means YOUR job, but that is such a small sacrifice you will make to save the planet. Thank you for your sacrifice. The political class, of course, won't have to make those sacrifices because you were stupid enough to do it.

Having recently had experience with not having electricity because wind turbines froze up when the ice came, the global warming alarmist view of the future is bleak indeed. here

Monday, February 21, 2011

More weird corrections

Again taking the final temperature of several towns and subtracting from it, the raw data, we get more of the strange pulsating corrections.







These total correction curves clearly show that the climatologists think that the raw data is as many as 3-5 degrees in error, which is why they correct it that much, yet they tell us that the observations are good enough to measure to the accuracy of a tenth of a degree. I always learned that if you have to make a degree correction, you can't claim that you have tenth of a degree precision.

For Nonymous, please explain why there is a jitter in the error, meaning one must believe that the error is sinusoidal. What causes this sinusoid?

Sunday, February 20, 2011

Really Weird Final minus Raw

Those who never look at the data never get to see things like this.

At this CDIAC site you can download the monthly raw and monthly mean temperature records. This is accomplished by merely checking TMEAN and TMEANRAW in the box on that page. It will then give you the link to a CSV file that can be downloaded an the data put into an Excel spreadsheet.

I then opened the CSV file and subtracted the raw data from the final data. I think people should see what the climatologists think of as good corrections to the data.

I did this tonight for Albany Texas. Here is the picture of the total correction, by month for this temperature station.



Looks like crap.

Tuesday, February 15, 2011

Urban Heat Island in Pictures part 5

This will be the last of the urban heat island posts. Tonight we will look at Vancouver, Beijing and London. Below is Vancouver in 1986. Notice that the hottest (reddest parts of the city are rather limited in this photo.



By 2004, the red has spread. Compare how much larger the hottest areas now cover.



The urban heat area has grown and the temperature risen over the 22 year difference. Placing a thermometer in the middle of this for that period of time will make it look like the world has gotten hotter, which it has because Vancouver has gotten hotter because it uses more energy today than it did in 1986

London also shows the hottest temperature in the central city area. Urban areas are hot and putting thermometers within the boundaries of major cities is guaranteed to make it look like the globe is warming.




Then one of my favorite spots on earth, Beijing, China where I lived two wonderful years. The urban heat island once again rears its ugly heat, yet the IPCC crowd, like Phil Jones of the Climate Research Unit, published that there is no urban heat island effect in China. What hogwash that is.



It is the height of scientific incompetence for the AGW global warming hysterics to claim that waste heat from the cities don't matter. As long ago as the 1970s, climatologists knew that waste heat would heat cities up mercilessly. The modern hysteriacs ignore this.


“By the year 2000, experts estimate, the urban megalopolis of Bosnywash—the continuous city covering 11,000 sq miles from Boston through New York to Washington, D. C.—will be pourint out manmade heat equal to 50 percent of the sun’s heat in winter, 15 percent in summer.”
“The climate will be warm, as anyone knows who lives in a big city—from 1 to 3 deg C warmer than if the city were not there.” Asphalt streets and concrete pavements soak up sunlight.” Lowell Ponte, “Global Cooling, (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1976), p. 27

Even Stephen Schneider knew this.

"The urban heat island is a phenomenon well known to city dwellers, even if most haven't heard the name. Because of their intense energy consumption and unnatural physical characteristics, as pointed out earlier, cities are often hotter downtown (especially at night) than the surrounding countryside. The heat island is most noticeable at the center of cities, and the mean annual isotherms (lines of constant temperature) of Paris, for instance, are as much as 2° C (3.6° F) warmer at the city center than out of town (Figure 21). Very similar conditions can be shown for other cities, as summarized in an excellent article by Helmut Landsberg, a noted senior climatologist at the University of Maryland."Stephen Schneider, The Genesis Strategy, (New York: Plenum Press, 1976), p. 154

Yet, James Hansen only gives 0.3 deg correction for the urban heat island


J. Hansen et al, “A Closer Look at United States and Global Surface Temperatures,”
J. Geophys. Res., 106, 23947-23963
available at
The magnitude of the adjustment at the urban and periurban stations themselves, rather than the impact of
these adjustments on the total data set, is shown in Plate 2l. The adjustment is about -0.3°C at the urban stations and
-0.1°C at the periurban stations. In both cases these refer to the changes over 100 years that are determined by
adjusting to neighboring “unlit” stations.

available at http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2001/...ansen_etal.pdf p 6

And the IPCC guys correct city heat even less.

Accordingly, this assessment adds the same level of urban warming uncertainty as in the TAR: 0.006°C per decade since 1900 for land, and 0.002°C per decade since 1900 for blended land with ocean, as ocean UHI is zero. Climate Change 2007: Working Group I: The Physical Science Basis” IPCC Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch3s3-2-2-2.html


A look at any of the urban heat thermographs that I have posted show that the IPCC claim is absolute, utter rubbish. Yet they claim that they are the ones with the truth. Of course, they want more research funds for their labs and maintaining the myth that they are actually doing something right is necessary to obtain that grant money, as they live high off the backs of the tax payers.

Wednesday, February 9, 2011

Urban Heat Island in Pictures part 4

Continuing with our look at urban heat island effects, I want to first comment that an anonymous commenter was asked a question about whether or not it is good scientific practice to place climatological thermometers in the hottest places in urban settings. I asked him if this was a good procedure to ensure that we would get a pristine data set. My experience has taught me that warming hysteriacs will no more answer that question than young-earth creationists will answer a question about why there are so many footprints throughout the geologic column, which should indicate an old earth. We will see if I am right.


There is often the claim that small towns don't have urban heat island effects. We will test that claim and find it wanting by using in a small town, population 277. This work was done Warwick Hughes and is excellent work. It can be found at this site.

He used an IR thermal monitor and drove through the small town. When he got to the center of the town, the temperature was 1.7 deg C hotter than the surrounding area.



Why did he see this result? Even small towns today use electricity, air conditioning, cars, cement roads etc. All these things heat up the environment. Below is a google earth of that town. You can see all the houses, each using electricity, presumably heating and AC. This town is the very same size as the little town my ranch is next to.



So when the IPCC crowd says that rural and cities show no difference, one might want to at least think of the possibility that rural areas are also heated up compared to the surrounding areas. Note in the above picture that there are cement roads. Most of the roads where my ranch is are dirt.

Now let's go on to look at another town, Baton Rouge Louisiana. Note how the roads are much hotter than the grassy or tree covered areas. There is a 40 deg C difference in temperature if you leave the natural areas. This will be important when we look at where the meteorology professors at the University of Arizona place their USHCN thermometer.



Every picture I have shown in this series, or almost every picture has shown that the roads are hotter than the surrounding, more natural areas.

Detroit shows the same thing. The cement roads are extremely hot.





So if the meteorologists know that roads are hot, then why in the hell do the professors at the University of Tuscon put their thermometer, which is used in the US Historical Climate Network, on top of cement? Don't they know that roads are hot? Or do they do this to keep the myth alive that they are showing a warming earth?




The meteorology profs at University of Arizona should know better. There is also a power plant one block to the east. In case the readers don't know, power plants put out a lot of heat. I previously 2 days ago, published the picture of Paso Robles, California showing that its thermometer was on cement in a parking lot by the city hall, next to a cement street. Looking at the thermographs of cities, it is quite clear that cement makes for a hot radiating surface that would affect the temperature.

Bartow Florida's station might as well be on cement. It has a pitiful amount of grass under it but it is surrounded by cement streets, parking lot and heat emitting buidling. And this is one of the stations they claim is good for being a baseline for climatological studies.


The thermal images shown above demonstrate that the cement can be 40 deg C hotter than grassy areas. This will affect the US Historical Climate Networks and their accuracy for measuring the global temperature rise.

I will ask the commenter again if placing thermometers on cement, which is 40 deg C hotter than the country side is good scientific practice. No doubt he will wish to talk about everything other than that.

Tuesday, February 8, 2011

Urban Heat Island in Pictures part 3

We have been examining the claim by the IPCC that the urban heat island effect is only about .06 degrees for 100 years as stated at source

This absolute utterly crazy claim is essential for the hysteriacs to maintain the fiction that the world is warming, not just the cities surrounding the thermometers. Tonight we will look at Toronto, Canada first.



The green is less than 23 deg C and the purple is above 30 deg C, a temperature spread of more than 7 deg C on this thermograph of Toronto. Yet the climatologists claim

“Studies that have looked at hemispheric and global scales conclude that any urban-related trend is an order of magnitude smaller than decadal and longer time-scale trends evident in the series (e.g., Jones et al., 1990; Peterson et al., 1999). This result could partly be attributed to the omission from the gridded data set of a small number of sites (<1%) with clear urban-related warming trends. ” “Climate Change 2007: Working Group I: The Physical Science Basis” IPCC Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007
source


Small number of sites with urban warming? What a laugh that is. Every city I have shown you has at least a 6 deg C temperature rise for the urban heat island effect. and tomorrow I will show the work of a guy who proved that even small towns have urban heat island effects, small though they are.

What about Providence, Rhode Island? It has quite an urban heat island effect. Below shows that the green is about 25 deg C and the purple is 40 deg C. This is a 15 deg C range.



See that area I have circled. The original blogger, Ed Caryl, who pointed this out, notes that the temperature for Providence is in that purple area. It is the airport, with 1300 deg jet engines heating the area. Yes, the hysteriacs know where to place the thermometers to make the world appear as if it is warming. If they were true scientists, they would actually think about how to get data NOT subject to the criticism Caryl made.

You can see the siting of the thermometer at the hottest place in Providence at this site. You can see that it is 15 deg C hotter than the surrounding countryside, and you are told to believe that it makes no difference. I have a bridge to sell you.

Lets finish up tonight with Washington D.C.



This map is in Fahrenheit. There is a 35 deg spread of temperatures from the rural to the hottest parts of the urban landscape here. THIRTY-FIVE DEGREES, and Jim Hansen says the urban heat island effect needs only a 0.3 deg C (~0.6 deg F) correction, and the IPCC says one needs only a 0.06 deg C correction. And you, Mr. Global Warming Hysteriac are foolish enough to believe them. You have no skepticism at all.

Urban Heat Island in Pictures part 2

This is the second in a series on urban heat island issues. To remind the readers from the last post, the IPCC says that urban heat island effects are miniscule. The IPCC says

"Clearly, the urban heat island effect is a real climate change in urban areas, but is not representative of larger areas. Extensive tests have shown that the urban heat island effects are no more than about 0.05°C up to 1990 in the global temperature records used in this chapter to depict climate change. Thus we have assumed an uncertainty of zero in global land-surface air temperature in 1900 due to urbanisation, linearly increasing to 0.06°C (two standard deviations 0.12°C) in 2000.” Climate Change 2001:
Working Group I: The Scientific Basis
2.2 How Much is the World Warming?
source

So, what does that mean? The IPCC is correcting the data downward about 1/20th of a degree. James Hansen in a peer reviewed journal gives a bit more of a correction but it is only three-tenths of a degree.

J. Hansen et al, “A Closer Look at United States and Global Surface Temperatures,”
J. Geophys. Res., 106, 23947-23963

Available here p 6

"The magnitude of the adjustment at the urban and periurban stations themselves, rather than the impact of these adjustments on the total data set, is shown in Plate 2l. The adjustment is about -0.3 [deg] C at the urban stations and -0.1 [deg]C at the periurban stations."

People should know that the Stefan-Boltzmann law says that one can determine the temperature of an object by measuring the radiation spectrum. This is a well known law of physics. The equipment used to make these pictures measures the peak in the spectrum and calculates the temperature the surface had to be to give off that much radiation. The higher the temperature, the shorter is the radiation's wavelength at the peak of the spectrum. Since radiation tries to equilibrate with all radiation surfaces around it, a thermometer in a hot spot will be made much hotter by the surrounding radiation. If you recall in the last post, Phoenix, AZ had their thermometer at the airport which happens to be the very hottest spot in Phoenix. That will affect the temperature the thermometer reads. With that as background, let us once again look at the thermal pictures of cities taken by infrared equipment.

Below is a picture of the urban heat island effect in Budapest Hungary taken in 2005. You can see the surrounding more rural area has a dark blue temperature of 19-22 deg C. The hottest spots in Budapest are greater than 45 deg C, yet the IPCC says that the urban heat island effect is negligible. The thermal imagining shows how silly that claim is. This photo has more than a 25 deg C variation from the country to the city. That is anything but insignificant. The average color of the city is yellow-orange, which means that the city is mostly 35 deg C which means at the very least a 13 deg C rise in temperature.



Below is a thermal picture of Sydney, Australia Feb 6, 2009.



The range of temperature is from 28 to 33 deg F, a 6 deg variation. You can see that the roads are all very hot, which is why weather services say that we should not locate temperature stations on top of cement or asphalt. The cement becomes hot and affects the thermometer. Yet, the genius's at the USHCN have located lots of thermometers on top of cement and they have taken very few steps to correct this lunacy. Below is Paso Robles California.



You can go to Google street view and see this station at the corner of 13th and Paso Robles St. It is at the City Hall, on cement. The above thermal image of Sidney shows how stupid it is to place a thermometer there and then claim that it doesn't affect the thermometer. One can only speculate why scientists behave in this fashion.

Then let's end this installment by looking at Montreal, Canada



The dark blue in the NW part of the covered area is 17 deg C. The purple is 33-45 deg C. This is at least an urban heat island effect of 16 deg C yet, Hansen tells us solemnly that one only needs a 0.3 deg C correction for the urban heat effect. What utter nonsense that is. Everything in the center of Montreal is radiating more than 16 deg C higher than the country side. And many of the hypnotized hysteriacs will continue to believe that the urban heat island is of no significant amount, merely because they are told to believe that. They can't think for themselves in any significant way. And that is sad.

Monday, February 7, 2011

Urban Heat Island in Pictures

This will be the first of a series of posts on urban heat island effect.


One of the things that I have become quite convinced of is that the urban heat island effect is vastly underestimated by the warmist hysteriacs. They underestimate the urban heat systematically and attack anyone who might question what they are doing. Anytime someone says that the urban heat island effect is tilting the data, giving an erroneously high temperature, the warmists always point to a chart done by NASA which shows that small and large towns are warming the same. Below is the chart.



This chart is trotted out as proof that the urban heat island is nothing to worry about. What they don't tell their readers is that both the green (rural) and red(urban) curves are highly edited and adjusted.

The warmists can believe that all they want to, but we are going to look at the temperatures inside urban areas vs the rural/natural area around the city and calculate the temperature difference between the city and the natural environment.

How will we do this? I went through the internet looking for published pictures of infrared pictures of the urban areas. Most of these have temperature scales so one can see what the temperature difference is.

As you look through these pictures remember what the IPCC says about the urban heat island effect. They say it is insignificant. Cities don't make much difference to the temperatures measured inside the cities. The infrared pictures, which measure temperature, tell a very different story. But first, what the IPCC says.


"Clearly, the urban heat island effect is a real climate change in urban areas, but is not representative of larger areas. Extensive tests have shown that the urban heat island effects are no more than about 0.05°C up to 1990 in the global temperature records used in this chapter to depict climate change. Thus we have assumed an uncertainty of zero in global land-surface air temperature in 1900 due to urbanisation, linearly increasing to 0.06°C (two standard deviations 0.12°C) in 2000.” Climate Change 2001:
Working Group I: The Scientific Basis
2.2 How Much is the World Warming?
source

So, what does that mean? The IPCC is correcting the data downward about 1/20th of a degree.

The IPCC says elsewhere

"Accordingly, this assessment adds the same level of urban warming uncertainty as in the TAR: 0.006°C per decade since 1900 for land, and 0.002°C per decade since 1900 for blended land with ocean, as ocean UHI is zero". Climate Change 2007: Working Group I: The Physical Science Basis” IPCC Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007
source

.006 deg C per decade over 100 years is a correction of only .06 deg C. This is a very very tiny correction. Remember this as we look at the pictures of the temperatures measured by the infrared thermal cameras. Let's start with Phoenix, Arizona.




Note that there is a 30 deg temperature difference between the countryside and the city center, and this picture is taken at night time. The web page this came from says:

"Over the two decades, as the Phoenix Metropolitan area has grown dramatically in size, the "urban heat island" effect has developed, which has caused temperatures in the center of the city to become much warmer than those on the outskirts of the valley. The concrete and asphalt of the city retains the heat of the day, and releases it slowly as compared to the surrounding desert terrain, which cools much quicker at night. The ASOS weather sensor has always been located near the Sky Harbor runway complex, and as the heat island effect intensifies, the nighttime lows at Phoenix keep rising every year. The summer of 2003 saw the all time record high minimum temperature at Phoenix (93 degrees) shattered as a new mark of 96 degrees was established! Several times during the summer the old mark of 93 was tied or broken, as well"
source

Note that the thermometer is at the airport. It is the bright yellow in this photo. Below is the actual picture of the weather station. Notice it isn't far from very hot cement runways.



The thermometer is located in the hottest place it could be placed in Phoenix. It is in the 30 deg C part of Phoenix. If the thermometer were out in the countryside, it would read significantly cooler. Yet the warmists claim that the urban heat island effect is miniscule. They claim that cities only heat the areas by .06 deg C, not the 30 deg clearly seen in the thermographs taken by infrared cameras. Clearly this is crazy.

Even peer-reviewed articles dispute the warmist claim. Jay S. Golden said:

The 0.86 F per decade warming rate for Phoenix is one of the highest in the world for a population of its size and can be compared with other cities to highlight the effects of rapid urbanization in the region. For example, Los Angeles’s rate was 0.8 F per decade; San Francisco, 0.2 F per decade; Tucson, 0.6 F per decade; Baltimore, 0.2 F per decade; Washington, 0.5 F per decade; Shanghai, 0.2 F per decade; and Tokyo, 0.6 F per decade .” Jay S. Golden, “The Built Environment Induced Urban Heat Island Effect in Rapidly Urbanizing Arid Regions – A Sustainable Urban Engineering Complexity,” Environmental Sciences, 1(2004):4,p. 321 – 349
http://caplter.asu.edu/docs/smartWebArticles/100001_Two.pdf

Phoenix has the highest rate of warming in the world for cities of its size. Yet the warmists will tell you that that is not due to urbanization but due to CO2. That warming is .86 deg F, or .47 deg C per decade. 0.47 deg is half the warming claimed for the past 100 years!!! Below is a chart from Golden's article showing how Phoenix has warmed compared to a more rural area, Casa Grande National Monument about 30 miles south of Phoenix (not that the rural area has no heat island effect).





We will continue this in a couple of days. Just look at the thermal IR temperature measurements and you can see for yourself that the temperatures in the city center are much much hotter than the surrounding areas. A thermometer placed in the hottest spot in the city simply can't be unaffected by the radiation temperature of the surrounding landscape.

Saturday, February 5, 2011

Failed Predictions of the Alarmists

In 1831 a Baptist convert, William Miller, was asked to preach. Based upon his reading of Daniel 8:4 he predicted that Jesus would return on March 21, 1843.He gathered tens of thousands of followers. His followers sold their homes and businesses to wait on the hill tops. Nothing happened. Miller then revised his calculations and said that he would come on Oct 22, 1844. Nothing happened. His successor in the Adventist movement, Ellen White, then said in 1850 that there were only months left before Christ would return. When that didn't happen, Ellen White's last prediction of the return was in 1856 where she said that some alive at the 1856 convention would see the return. That too didn't happen.

We rightly shake our heads at such a belief system that inspires such false predictions but which still attract large numbers of followers. Scientists are fond of laughing at such things. But what do we do when science engages in the same kind of behavior? Global warming alarmists have for decades been making equally apocalyptic predictions, all of which fail. Below are some of them.

I have looked for predictions made by global warming alarmists in the distant past. I must admit that I had failed to find them in google searches. Then, David Whitehouse posted a page last month which showed me where to get them. I must tip my hat to him. source I will repeat some of his quotations here, but I have found more.

One of the most interesting quotations dredged up by Whitehouse is James Hansen's numerical prediction in 1986 that the world would be 2 degrees warmer in merely 20 years, that is, by 1986.


Hansen predicted that global temperatures should be nearly 2 degrees higher in 20 years, ‘which is about the warmest the earth has been in the last 100,000 years.’” AP Overheating of Earth Poses Survival Threat, “ The Press-Courier,(Milwaukee) June 11, 1986
source

Well, that didn't happen. He was being quoted using deg F, but in deg C he predicted a .88 deg C temperature rise in 20 years. The reality is (see picture below) that the temperature rose less than half that much.



And according to the next prediction we should be an additional .9 deg Centigrade hotter in another 10 years.

Hansen said the average U.S. temperature has risen from 1 to 2 degrees since 1958 and is predicted to increase an additional 3 or 4 degrees sometime between 2010 and 2020.” AP Overheating of Earth Poses Survival Threat, “ The Press-Courier (Milwaukee), June 11, 1986
source

Hansen's doomsday temperature mis-prediction can't come true because the last one didn't.

For those who don't like anything but peer reviewed predictions, here it is out of the Journal of Geophysical Research.

"The 1 [deg]C level of warming is exceeded during the
next few decades in both scenarios A and B; in scenario A
that level of warming is reached in less than 20 years and
in scenario B it is reached within the next 25 years.
" J. HANSEN, I. FUNG, A. LACIS, D. RIND, S. LEBEDEFF, R. RUEDY, AND G. RUSSELL, “Global Climate Changes as Forecast by Goddard Institute for Space Studies Three-Dimensional Model, Journal of Geophysical Research, Atmospheres, 93, NO. D8, PAGES 9341-9364, AUGUST 20, 1988, p. 9346

He erroneously predicted that the rate of warming would be half a degree per decade.

"The computed temperature changes are sufficient to have
a large impact on other parts of the biosphere. A warnting
of 0.5[deg] C per decade implies typically a poleward shift of
isotherms by 50 to 75 km per decade. This is an order of
magnitude faster than the major climate shifts in the
paleoclimate record, and faster than most plants and trees
are thought to be capable of naturally nilgrating [Davis,
1988]
” J. HANSEN, I. FUNG, A. LACIS, D. RIND, S. LEBEDEFF, R. RUEDY, AND G. RUSSELL, “Global Climate Changes as Forecast by Goddard Institute for Space Studies Three-Dimensional Model, Journal of Geophysical Research, Atmospheres, 93, NO. D8, PAGES 9341-9364, AUGUST 20, 1988, p. 9357


He spread this erroneous prediction around via willing but unskeptical reporters and environmental organizations.

“A major report from the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environment Program earlier this month concluded that without a major effort to fight warming, global temperatures could increase by 0.54 degrees Fahrenheit per decade until the middle of the next century, and sea levels could rise by a foot.” Guy Darst, “Nasa Scientist Says Future Droughts Likely,” The Lewiston daily Sun, June 24, 1988, p. 6
source

Of course this wasn't the earliest failed prediction of Dr. James Hansen, mis-predictor par excellance:

“Within 15 years,” said Goddard Space Flight Honcho James Hansen, “global temperatures will rise to a level which hasn’t existed on earth for 100,000 years”. Sandy Grady, “The Heat is On,” -- The News and Courier, June 17th 1986


And he implied that seas would rise 85 feet in the next 5 years:

“The last time the world was three degrees warmer than today – which is what we expect later this century – sea levels were 25m higher. So that is what we can look forward to if we don’t act soon. None of the current climate and ice models predict this. But I prefer the evidence from the Earth’s history and my own eyes. I think sea-level rise is going to be the big issue soon, more even than warming itself.” --Jim Hansen, “Climate change: On the edge” The Independent, 17th February, 2006source

Yep scare the readers so he can keep that grant money rollin' in. Halleluyah!

And he is utterly inconsistent. Above he says that a 1 degree rise would make it hotter than anytime in the last 100,000 years. But here he says that a one degree C rise makes it hotter than anytime in the last 500,000 years.

"How long have we got? We have to stabilise emissions of carbon dioxide within a decade, or temperatures will warm by more than one degree. That will be warmer than it has been for half a million years, and many things could become unstoppable.” Jim Hansen, “Climate change: On the edge” The Independent, Friday, Feb 17, 2006 source


Hansen got the World Meteorology Organization and the UN to endorse his ridiculously alarmist rates of temperature rise. Once again they proclaimed, as if it were actual fact, that the world was about to warm at the rate of .54 deg F per decade.

“A major report from the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environment Program earlier this month concluded that without a major effort to fight warming, global temperatures could increase by 0.54 degrees Fahrenheit per decade until the middle of the next century, and sea levels could rise by a foot.” Guy Darst, “Nasa Scientist Says Future Droughts Likely,” The Lewiston daily Sun, June 24, 1988, p. 6
source

The actual value is 1/5th of that alarmist prediction. But hey, why should the facts get in the way of a good belief system, that keeps the grant money flowing from the taxpayers?


And in 1985 he even got Carl Sagan involved, misleading people into thinking that the world would be 9 deg F hotter in merely 15 years.

“Few scientists now dispute that today’s soaring levels of carbon dioxide and other gases in the atmosphere will cause global temperature averages to rise by as much as nine degrees Fahrenheit sometime after the year 2000, Sagan said.” Robert Engleman, “Fossil Fuels Bring Trouble,” The Vindicator, Dec 12, 1985, p. 59
source

Only idiots would doubt what Carl has pontificated here. Approximately 4.5 Deg C warming in 15 years. How could we doubt? It WAS the consensus and consensus is the all in all of scientific knowledge. If everyone believes something wrong, it is bound to be true. Isn't that correct? That is what the eco-wacko global warming folks want you to believe.

At a Congressional hearing these panic stricken Global Warming Hysteriacs solemnly testified that in merely 25 years all sorts of bad things would be going on.

“Other scientists gave senators the same grim picture of the United States with the ozone nibbled away: Average temperatures up nine degrees, sparse rainfall destroying crops, melting polar ice slicing beaches at such places as Atlantic City by 85 feet in 25 years, 2 million yearly cases of skin cancer.” Sandy Grady, “The Heat is On,” The News and Courier, June 17th 1986
source

Anyone been to Atlantic City gambling lately? If so, you have disproven this hysterically funny mis-prediction of the hysteriacs.

Does anyone actually believe now that this 1986 hysteriac prediction will come true?

"A predicted rise in sea level of one foot within the next 30 to 40 years will drive much of the Atlantic and Gulf shoreline inward by 100 feet and some of it by more than 1,000 feet, according to marine geologists." Erik Eckholm, “The Rising Seas Problems will Seep Far Inland,” Chicago Tribune, March 16, 1986
source

30 years from 1986 is 4 years from now. My suspicion is that it is highly unlikely that this will happen.


In 1982 Hermann Flohn gave the Arctic ice only 20 more years of life. He said it would be totally gone by 2002

"Hermann Flohn of the University of Bonn, West Germany, said studies of the Arctic Sea ice cover have shown that prolonging the summer melt season by as little as two weeks annually would free the Arctic of ice in about 20 years.” “Scientists predict World’s Climate Will Warm Up”, The Leader-Post-Jan 9, 1982,
source

How could we possibly disbelieve him. He is a scientist. He is part of the CONSENSUS! Since he must be absolutely correct, the ice I took pictures of as I flew over the Arctic Ocean in 2005 and 2006 (17 times) really wasn't there. Here is a picture of what wasn't there in 2005 because CONSENSUS said it wouldn't be.



Hansen has left us with other mis-predictions to laugh at in a few years, of course, by then the global warming hysteriacs will have ruined the world economy with their stupidity, but never mind. He predicted that the world would be 8 deg F hotter in 2030. That is about 4.2 deg C hotter. Since we have warmed .4 deg C since the prediction, we have another 3.8 deg C to go.


“If scientist James Hansen is correct, humankind may be turning planet Earth into a giant steamer and the population into unwilling clams.
The director of the Goddard Institute for Space studies in New York City, who spoke Wednesday at the University of Florida, forecasts the average global temperature rise as much as 8 degrees Fahrenheit by 2030. This, he said, would more than double the annual number of days in many U. S. cities with weather in the 90s.”
John Wood, “Earth is heating Up, Space Scientist Warns, “ Gainesville Sun, Sept 4, 1986, p. 1
source


In 1989 there was this prediction of bad times in 10 years. Anyone feel like we have been in something as bad as nuclear war?

And the Worldwatch Institute, an environmental research organization, calls the 1990s ‘the turnaround decade’ in which people will either stop polluting or face an environmental disaster as devastating as nuclear war.” Mitchell Landsberg, “Bright or Blight,” The Item, Oct 23, 1989, p. 1,Source


And here is one that has been falsified in just a year and a half. In early 2009,Stephen Chu, Obama's always loudly proclaimed, Nobel Laureate who can't be doubted when he talks of climate, because he got a Nobel in an entirely unrelated field, i.e. in high temperature superconduction, said this about global warming and the California snowpack:

Chu recently told the Los Angeles Times that global warming might melt 90 percent of California's snowpack, which stores much of the water needed for agriculture. This, Chu said, would mean "no more agriculture in California," the nation's leading food producer. Chu added: "I don't actually see how they can keep their cities going."
No more lettuce for Los Angeles? Chu likes predictions, so here is another: Nine decades hence, our great-great-grandchildren will add the disappearance of California artichokes to the list of predicted planetary calamities that did not happen. Global cooling recently joined that lengthening list. George Will, "Dark Green Doomsayers," Feb 15, 2009
source

Well, just 2 years later we find that the snowpack holds more water than at anytime in the past 17 years. source But of course, we all know that the alarmists now say warming is cooling and much snowfall is to be expected on a hot earth.

But we are told that we should never doubt the proclamations of a Nobel Laureate, even if he is pontificating about things outside his field of expertise. After all, his is the CONSENSUS view.

One of my favorite failed predictions came out of the pages of the Rocky Mountain News, that rag staffed by gullible reporters. This one turned up on a google search


It's the year 2008 and global warming has caused half of London to be submerged under water. Rocky Mountain News - May 1, 1992

Admittedly, I haven't been in London since 2004, but it was very much above water at that time.

To close this up, we need to ask why we should believe their incredibly apocalyptic predictions when their last set of apocalyptic predictions failed. Like the Millerites, they constantly revise their predictions when the proclaimed event doesn't happen on their time schedule. How are we to trust their predictions about 2100 when their predictions about the past 20 years have been so false? Remember we will not be here in 2100 to check out how false they are. We will all be dead. But then, that is part of the scam. Make scary predictions so far out that one can never be proven wrong. Make those predictions dire so that the grant money can continue to flow. In my opinion, the who thing is nothing but a political agenda to keep the tax dollars flowing for the greedy researchers.

Friday, February 4, 2011

War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Warming is Cooling






Having been prevented from going to the ranch because of the fear of ice on the roads (in this increasingly warm earth we live on), I began thinking about yesterday's electrical problems we experienced. I got mad as hell and decided to post again.

We are beginning our descent into 3rd world status. Due to the irrational fear of carbon dioxide and the dependence upon supposedly green energy, Texas, yesterday and today is experiencing rolling blackouts, including the blacking out of hospitals. The lights at my office went out for about 45 minutes yesterday. Wonderful, how do we run computers without power?

Why are we doing this? Because we are saving the world from global warming. The utterly ignorant warmists have fought every single coal fired electrical generation plant in the US. This has left us with too little electrical generation capacity when the nation gets as "warm" as it is today. (Yes, Virginia, 25 deg F (19 deg F a couple of days ago) in Houston is evidence that the world is indeed warming). And this administration has vowed to bankrupt the coal industry. source We get 40% of our electricity with which we keep ourselves warm from coal. Bankrupting the coal industry will put out your lights. Yet, they don't care about you. We are too stupid to know what is best for us. We must freeze in the dark so they can feel good about themselves. Thus we must do away with coal, oil and natural gas and go to renewable energy, like wind and solar, which doesn't work when the snow and ice comes.

The things that the ignorant warmists don't seem to be able to think through is that when ice storms come, the ice sticks to the blades of the wind turbine making them stop. No wind energy today to keep Texas warm. Today we have rolling blackouts. The green energy that the genious, know-more-than -the-average-guy warmists foist on us doesn't work when you really need it; when it is icy and cold. But then, neither do solar cells work well when covered with ice and snow and the skies cloudy. (very little solar electricity in Texas today). Yep the green paradise we live in doesn't work when we really need it. Yesterday, and I suspect today as well, we need more fossil fuels.

Dallas hospitals were blacked out yesterday.source source Yep, all those ventilators and monitors were deprived of electricity from the electical company. But hey, who cares about those sick people in the hospital anyway. If the electricity goes out and they die because of these green policies, then many greens will celebrate the extinction of a few more cells in that eco-cancer tumor which is what they view people are. Does this sound harsh?

It is what THEY say about their fellow man. Shearman is an advisor to the IPCC who is also a medical doctor and he seems to think that people are bad, indeed a disease.


We are a malignant eco-tumour, an uncontrolled growth of a single species that threatens the existence of all other species on Earth. Mankind as a cancer on the Earth may be a shocking concept. It challenges our ideals of progress, rationality, science and development. It renders our systems of philosophy and ethics mere dust. For it says that the problem is people.”David Shearman with Gary Sauer-Thompson, Green or Gone, (Kent Town, South Australia, Wakefield Press, 1997), P. 117



I bet Shearman uses his fair share of gasoline and electricity generated from coal. But when it comes to the sick, we can't spare a few kilowatts. Well, yippee, a few dead sick people in the electricity-less hospitals of Dallas should make them happy. GO GREEN and BE GONE. That should have been the title of Shearman's book. The Greens steal food from the mouths of the poor and put it in gas tanks. They leave us without heat and light in the winter. They turn off the electricity on your sick relatives and they claim to be compassionate. They stop the electricity for your job and tell you that YOU PEOPLE are the problem. They of course, being wiser than the rest of us, get to tell us how much gasoline, heat and food we need. They will be our nannies. They are the true fundamentalists who should be feared.


Shearman isn't alone in thinking of humanity as a disease. He cites James Lovelock


“Humankind behaves in some way as a bacterium, or like the cells of a tumour…so that, the human species is now a serious planetary disease.” the human species is now a serious planetary disease.”
James Lovelock, Gaia, cited by David Shearman with Gary Sauer-thompson, Green or Gone, (Kent Town, South Australia, Wakefield Press, 1997), P. 117


What is their cure for this disease? You get to live without modern amenities, but they, being wiser, get to live with them. Someone has to sacrifice and live with our technology, so kindly, they will volunteer for that.

We are experiencing, under the leadership of these warmists, the post industrial collapse of the US. If there is no energy, you will have no jobs. here

Yet, when we tell them to look out the window, and see how cold it has been the past few winters, they dismiss the suggestion as if it is stupid to look out and actually SEE what the weather is doing and proclaim self-righteously, that 'weather isn't climate'. WHATEVER is happening outside is a one-off, irrelevant to climate. Even if it happens over and over and over. All over the world, the past 3 or 4 winters have been very cold. But that doesn't matter to the true beleivers. Even if record cold happens in both the north and south hemispheres it doesn't matter. It doesn't matter that Britain had its coldest December on record--coldest EVER last year.(source) Sweden had more snow in Nov than in the past 100 years?


“There were a number of days in a row with below-freezing temperatures, so called ice days. And that we have that before Lucia (December 13th) hasn’t happened in more than 100 years,” she said.
source


Oslo had the coldest November since 1919 source


So, the question is, how many harsh winters will it take for the global warming crowd to wake up to the fact that their predictions of hotter temperatures aren't coming true?

Three of the top ten northern hemisphere snow covers occurred in the past 3 winters. During these past 3 winters the sun has not had many sunspots. 2008 was almost blank of spots. Even today the sun only has the most anemic of spots. Yet the IPCC claims that the sun has little to do with our warming, or cooling.

Snow cover Million sq km source source



rank Year Week N. Hemisph
1---1978--6---------53.65
2---2010--7---------52.17
3---1978--7---------52.07
4---2008--4---------51.89
5---1979--2---------51.55
6---1972--6---------51.41
7---1985--2---------51.24
8---1972--5---------50.89
9---2008--5---------50.74
10-1985-- 3---------50.49

I would also note that #11 is from 2008 as well.

Yet we are told that warming can cause extreme cold. (ABC News's Linsey Davis' reportsource

To put this lunatic statement in context it is Orwellian. “War is Peace” "Freedom is Slavery” “Ignorance is Strength," and "Warming is Cooling"

Orwell was right. People will actually believe anything so long as the group around them beleives it. And like the poor people of the Soviet Union, who were expected to one day beleive that Stalin was good, the next they had to denounce him, modern warmists are today expected to proclaim the lack of snow is evidence of warming when there is less snow and abundance of snow is evidence of warming when there is an abundance.

Back in 2000, warming actually meant warming. Dr. David Viner of the UK Climate Research Unit said that snow was going to be rare.



However, the warming is so far manifesting itself more in winters which are less cold than in much hotter summers. According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become "a very rare and exciting event".
"Children just aren't going to know what snow is," he said."Charles Onians “Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past," The Independent, Monday, March 20, 2000,


source



That same article has another East Anglia Climate researcher say the following:


David Parker, at the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research in Berkshire, says ultimately, British children could have only virtual experience of snow. Via the internet, they might wonder at polar scenes - or eventually "feel" virtual cold.
Charles Onians “Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past,"
“ The Independent, Monday, March 20, 2000
source



And for those who don't listen to anything that isn't peer reviewed, this from Nature:




In a warmer world, less winter precipitation falls as snow and the melting of winter snow occurs earlier in spring.”T. P. Barnett, et al, Potential impacts of a warming climate on water availability in snow-dominated regions,” Nature, 438,2005, p. 303



This from Regional Environmental Change: Ski slope owners are warned of less snow at lower altitudes.




A warming implies a reduction of snow in all districts, but the loss is overproportional in lower altitudes. The direction of economic impacts is clear – income losses and adaptation costs – but magnitude and time frames remain uncertain.M. Breiling and P. Charamza, “The impact of global warming on winter tourism and skiing: a regionalised model for Austrian snow conditions,” REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGE, Volume 1, Number 1, p. 4




This from Mountain Research and development:

"The future of Swiss alpine winter tourism must be reassessed in view of global climate change in order to determine possible strategies for overall development of mountain regions. At present, 85% of all Swiss ski areas still have sufficient snow cover. A 300-m rise of the snow line, however, would reduce this to about 63%. As a consequence, skiers will expect more artificial snow, go on winter holidays less often, and concentrate on ski areas at higher altitudes."Hans Elsasser and Paul Messerli, “The Vulnerability of the Snow Industry in the Swiss Alps,” Mountain Research and Development 21(4):335-339. 2001



There is more snow in Oslo and Sweden. Record snows fell this year in Chicago, New York, and Utah and points in between. What does that mean for this 'lesser snow' prediction?

But when there clearly is more snow, suddenly the Alarmists proclaim that they have been predicting quite the opposite. The Orwellian Al Gore, then writes that none of this happened. Like Soviet citizens who were suddenly expected not to remember the cosmonaut removed from a previously published paper source, you are expected not to be able to remember the above statements made by Hadley research scientists.

And what about the email from Kevin Trenberth from the hacked climategate emails decrying the lack of warming at present?

Well I have my own article on where the heck is global warming? We are asking that here in Boulder where we have broken records the past two days for the coldest days on record. We had 4 inches of snow. The high the last 2 days was below 30F and the normal is 69F, and it smashed the previous records for these days by 10F. The low was about 18F and also a record low, well below the previous record low. This is January weather (see the Rockies baseball playoff game was canceled on saturday and then played last night in below freezing weather).
. . .
The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a
travesty that we can't. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.

source



Note that I am in full agreement with Trenberth's assessment of the current observing system, something true beleivers seem to ignore. Their own experts are saying "The data are surely wrong"!!!!! Yes, place thermometers in heat ridden cities next to air conditioners and you get bad data. But nevermind, belief dies hard. When a denier says it the warmist believers gasp. When Trenberth, a warmist, says it, they all disbelieve it means anything.

And note that Trenberth is using WEATHER and wondering where the heat was. When a 'denier' uses weather they say you shouldn't do that. What hypocrites.

And then we have Al Gore. Al Gore changes history:

Al Gore,"An Answer for Bill" February 1, 2011 : 11:43 AM
“In fact, scientists have been warning for at least two decades that global warming could make snowstorms more severe. Snow has two simple ingredients: cold and moisture. Warmer air collects moisture like a sponge until it hits a patch of cold air. When temperatures dip below freezing, a lot of moisture creates a lot of snow.”

source

REALLY???? Then why did Viner and Parker proclaim that snowfall would become less and no one in the future would know what snow is? Why would ski slope owners be told that in the future there would be no snow? source

And why, when the editor of Skeptic magazine, Lowell Ponte, wrote his book about global cooling, could he write that warming would come out of global cooling, just as the present group of nutters think cooling comes out of warming


Such cooling, he said, 'means more volatile weather. It will be more hot, more cold, more wet and more dry, just as it was in the seventeenth century."Lowell Ponte Global Cooling (Englewood Clliffs, Prentice-Hall, 1976, p. 40



Al Gore's last paragraph says the same thing, of global warming:

Al Gore,"An Answer for Bill" February 1, 2011 : 11:43 AM
“A rise in global temperature can create all sorts of havoc, ranging from hotter dry spells to colder winters, along with increasingly violent storms, flooding, forest fires and loss of endangered species.”

source

Regardless of whether the world cools or warms, they all want to predict that cooling is warming and warming is cooling. In that way they can explain anything at all and scare you into giving them your precious tax dollars. Such is the lunacy of a ecological fundamentalist belief system.


“War is Peace” "Freedom is Slavery” and “Ignorance is Strength," "Warming is Cooling" All is well in this Orwellian world.

Sunday, January 23, 2011

Data interpreted both ways.

Contrary to claims of many modern Holocene denying climate hysteriacs, the 1970s did have a number of writers who beleived that the world was going to cool down. Among these were Stephen Schneider, the founder of the Climate Project at the National Center for Atmospheric Research. He wrote:

" I have cited many examples of recent climatic variability and repeated the warnings of several well-known climatologists that a cooling trend has set in-perhaps one akin to the Little Ice Age-and that climatic variability, which is the bane of reliable food production, can be expected to increase along with the cooling." Stephen Schneider, The Genesis Strategy, (New York: Plenum Press, 1976), p. 90

Notice that Schneider says climate variability is caused by the cooling. Schneider eventually became a global warming alarmist but back in the 1970s when he wrote the above, he also wrote:

"The Dramatic importance of climatic changes to the world's future has been dangerously underestimated by many, often because we have been lulled by modern technology into thinking we have conquered nature. But this well-written book points out in clear language that the climatic threat could be as awesome as any we might face and that massive world-wide actions to hedge against that threat deserve immediate consideration. At a minimum, public awareness of the possibilities must commence, and Lowell Ponte's provacative work is a good place to start." Book jacket endorsement of Lowell Ponte's, The Cooling, (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1976)

I point this out to show that at that time the hysteria was on cooling, at least as far as Schneider was concerned. I also point this out to verify that this book was within the mainstream of climatological thought at that time. This makes the following passage from Ponte's book interesting, at least to me.

In countering the claim that a heat wave disproved global cooling, Ponte relates:

"But as Dr. Lamb pointed out calmly, such heat waves have accompanied every past global cooling and are to be expected. A high-pressure zone blocked warm air and chilled the North Atlantic. Now another hihg-pressure zone was blocking cold air and bringing extremes of heat into Europe. But such blocks were both symptoms of a cooling climate. Such cooling, he said, 'means more volatile weather. It will be more hot, more cold, more wet and more dry, just as it was in the seventeenth century.'" Lowell Ponte, The Cooling, (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1976), p. 40

Back then global cooling explained everything, hot, cold, wet or dry. Cooling was everything.

But today things are soooo different. we are so much better. Today global warming explains cold, hot, wet and dry.

The alarmists have just changed horses, not the need for alarm.

Here is the concluding statement from a climate blog advocating global warming alarmism.

According to the scientists at NOAA, the extreme weather of 2010 may very well be the “new normal.” Hotter, colder, wetter, drier. And way beyond inconvenient.http://trackerblog.trackernews.net/2010/07/27/hot-cold-wet-dry-when-weather-becomes-climate/

Yep now instead of global cooling causing every kind of weather imaginable it is now global warming. As Ecclesiastes says, there is nothing new under the sun.

Even academic literature is littered with the idea that global warming is a universal causation of everything, hot cold, wet and dry.

" Our
results indicate that fine-scale snow albedo effects influence the
response of both hot and cold events and that peak increases in
extreme hot events are amplified by surface moisture feedbacks.
Likewise,we find that extreme precipitation is enhanced on the lee
side of rain shadows and over coastal areas dominated by convective precipitation. We project substantial, spatially heterogeneous
increases in both hot and wet events over the contiguous United
States by the end of the next century, suggesting that consideration of fine-scale processes is critical for accurate assessment of
local- and regional-scale vulnerability to climate change"

Noah S. Diffenbaug, et al, "Fine-scale processes regulate the response
of extreme events to global climate change," PNAS, 102(2005):p. 15744

That article was edited by Stephen Schneider.

"Conservation group WWF has blamed climate change for the coldest August in Sydney for more than 60 years.
The freezing temperatures are proof of the urgent need to cut carbon pollution, according to WWF development and sustainability program manager Paul Toni."
"We can expect more extremes in climate," Mr Toni said.


http://news.theage.com.au/national/big-chill-a-symptom-of-climate-chaos-20080901-46yx.html

"A senior engineer from National Climate Center, Ren Fumin told Beijing Times:

"The severe coldness this winter can be called an extreme weather event. The direct reason for this is the atmospheric circulation anomaly. The main reason is the emergence of new EI Nino Phenomenon caused by global warming."
"Weather expert: Extreme cold weather in N China caused by global warming" January 7, 2010
http://www.china.org.cn/environment/2010-01/07/content_19195436.htm

As if no El Nino's ever occurred before the 1900s. What a laugh.

"'Even though this is quite a cold winter by recent standards it is still perfectly consistent with predictions for global warming,' said Dr Myles Allen, head of the Climate Dynamics group at Department of Physics, University of Oxford." Richard Alleyne"Snow is consistent with global warming, say scientists" The Telegraph Jan 23, 2011 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/topics/weather/4436934/Snow-is-consistent-with-global-warming-say-scientists.html

The article this is from has the following as the teaser,

"Britain may be in the grip of the coldest winter for 30 years and grappling with up to a foot of snow in some places but the extreme weather is entirely consistent with global warming, claim scientists." Richard Alleyne"Snow is consistent with global warming, say scientists" The Telegraph Jan 23, 2011http://www.telegraph.co.uk/topics/weather/4436934/Snow-is-consistent-with-global-warming-say-scientists.html

But cold as well as hot as well as wet as well as dry can be due to global cooling or global warming, whatever explanation is needed.

Thursday, January 20, 2011

Where is the rejoicing?


Where is the rejoicing??? We have heard years of whines and complaints about the Arctic ice melting and (wipe my eyes free of the tears) how this is killing the (wipe them again, sob, sniff) pretty polar bears.

But when the Arctic Ice is, as it is now, ABOVE the long term average, there is SILENCE, not cheering from those most vocal about saving the (gotta wipe a few more tears here, sigh, wait a minute while I compose myself).....polar bear who can't fend for himself if we don't (loud crying here) stop using fossil fuels. Today the Arctic ice is above the long term (1979-2008) average. Where is the cheering?

Could it be that the lack of cheering is because polar bears are really only a pawn in their political gamesmanship? The polar bear isn't what they are worried about, it is political control.

Below is the current ice extent anomaly. Pardon me while I go off an cry because of the lack of truthfulness among the global warming hysteriacs

Picture from :http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/recent365.anom.region.1.html

Monday, January 17, 2011

The Beat of Water Vapor

I have been so busy with a tech start up that I run that this blog has had to suffer. This is going to be short but the first picture attached shows the total precipitable water vapor in the atmosphere over time. The source is referenced in the first picture.

Above that I have taken the UAH satellite temperature, and put it just above the water vapor. You can see the wonderful correlation with satellite temperature, only the temperature is delayed a few months from when the water vapor content of the atmosphere rises.


The second picture,

The picture below adds one more curve to the display, the CO2 curve You can clearly see that the satellite temperature marches to the beat of water vapor and doesn't match the CO2 curve. CO2 doesn't go up and down with the temperature. It is water vapor that drives the climate, not CO2.



Climate hysteriacs are simply ignoring data like this.

Thursday, April 29, 2010

Blank sun, cosmic rays, clouds and cooling

Today's update: Cosmic Ray flux has hit an all time high for the space age! That should mean more clouds, increased albedo and a cooling earth--sorry AGW folk.


Cosmic Rays Hit Space Age High 09.29.2009
September 29, 2009: Planning a trip to Mars? Take plenty of shielding. According to sensors on NASA's ACE (Advanced Composition Explorer) spacecraft, galactic cosmic rays have just hit a Space Age high.

"In 2009, cosmic ray intensities have increased 19% beyond anything we've seen in the past 50 years," says Richard Mewaldt of Caltech. "The increase is significant, and it could mean we need to re-think how much radiation shielding astronauts take with them on deep-space missions."



Above: Energetic iron nuclei counted by the Cosmic Ray Isotope Spectrometer on NASA's ACE spacecraft reveal that cosmic ray levels have jumped 19% above the previous Space Age high.

The cause of the surge is solar minimum, a deep lull in solar activity that began around 2007 and continues today. Researchers have long known that cosmic rays go up when solar activity goes down. Right now solar activity is as weak as it has been in modern times, setting the stage for what Mewaldt calls "a perfect storm of cosmic rays."


http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2009/29sep_cosmicrays/




One can look at the following picture to see that as the solar magnetic field has dropped, the cosmic ray intensity has risen strongly.



A theory that is gaining experimental support among some climatologists and solar scientists links the rise of cosmic ray flux to an increase in clouds

“Growing evidence, such as the correlations
between paleoclimate records and
solar and cosmic ray activity indicators
(e.g., 10Be, 14C), suggests that extraterrestrial
phenomena are responsible for at
least some climatic variability on time
scales ranging from days to millennia
(Friis-Christensen and Lassen, 1991;
Tinsley and Deen, 1991; Soon et al., 1996;
Svensmark, 1998; Beer et al., 2000;
Egorova et al., 2000; Soon et al., 2000;
Björck et al., 2001; Bond et al., 2001;
Hodell et al., 2001; Kromer et al., 2001;
Labitzke and Weber, 2001; Neff et al.,
2001; Todd and Kniveton, 2001; Pang and
Yau, 2002; Solanki, 2002). These correlations
mostly surpass those, if any, for the
coeval climate and CO2. Empirical observations
indicate that the climate link could
be via solar wind modulation of the
galactic cosmic ray flux (CRF) (Tinsley
and Deen, 1991; Svensmark, 1998; Marsh
and Svensmark, 2000; Todd and
Kniveton, 2001; Shaviv, 2002a, 2002b)
because an increase in solar activity results
not only in enhanced thermal energy
flux, but also in more intense solar wind
that attenuates the CRF reaching Earth.
The CRF, in turn, correlates convincingly
with the low-altitude cloud cover on time
scales from days (Forbush phenomenon)
to decades (sun spot cycle). The postulated
causation sequence is therefore:
brighter sun => enhanced thermal flux +
solar wind => muted CRF => less lowlevel
clouds => less albedo => warmer
climate. Diminished solar activity results
in an opposite effect. The apparent departure
from this pattern in the 1990s
(Solanki, 2002) may prove to be a satellite
calibration problem (Marsh and
Svensmark, 2003).”
Nir J. Shaviv and Jan Veizer, “Celectial Driver of Phanerozoic Climate?” GSA Today, July 2003, p. 5
http://www.gsajournals.org/archive/1052-5173/13/7/pdf/i1052-5173-13-7-4.pdf


"Not until six years later would they be able to test the proposed mechanism in a lab. In 2006, Svensmark assembled a team at the Danish National Space Center to undertake an elaborate experiment in a reaction chamber the size of a small room. Dubbed SKY (Danish for "cloud"), the experiment mimicked salient features of the chemistry of the lower atmosphere, adding ultraviolet rays to mimic the actions of the Sun. Naturally occurring cosmic rays were filtered in through the ceiling."

"What they found left them agape: a vast number of floating microscopic droplets soon filled the reaction chamber. These were ultra-small clusters of sulfuric acid and water molecules-the building blocks for cloud condensation nuclei-that had been catalyzed by the electrons released by cosmic rays. They had expected some effect. The surprise was that the electrons acted as catalysts-each causing not one but several reactions before being lost to the environment. This strengthened their notion that a relatively small change in cosmic radiation could have a significant effect on climate."
Lawrence Solomon, The Deniers," (Richard Vigilante Books, 2008), p.155-156







"Close passages of coronal mass ejections from the sun are signaled at the Earth's surface by Forbush decreases in cosmic ray counts. We find that low clouds contain less liquid water following Forbush decreases, and for the most influential events the liquid water in the oceanic atmosphere can diminish by as much as 7%. Cloud water content as gauged by the Special Sensor Microwave/Imager (SSM/I) reaches a minimum ≈7 days after the Forbush minimum in cosmic rays, and so does the fraction of low clouds seen by the Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) and in the International Satellite Cloud Climate Project (ISCCP). Parallel observations by the aerosol robotic network AERONET reveal falls in the relative abundance of fine aerosol particles which, in normal circumstances, could have evolved into cloud condensation nuclei. Thus a link between the sun, cosmic rays, aerosols, and liquid-water clouds appears to exist on a global scale." Henrik Svensmark, Torsten Bondo, Jacob Svensmark, "Cosmic Ray Decreases Affect Atmospheric Aerosols and Clouds," GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 36, L15101, 4 PP., 2009




An understandable explanation of this can be found at Henrik Svensmark, Torsten Bondo, Jacob Svensmark, "Cosmic Ray Decreases Affect Atmospheric Aerosols and Clouds," Draft source


"Explosive events on the sun provide natural experiments for testing hypotheses about solar influences on the Earth. A conspicuous effect is the sudden reduction, over hours to days, in the influx of galactic cosmic rays (GCRs), first noticed by Scott E. Forbush in 1937. Such Forbush decreases (FDs) are now understood to be the result of magnetic plasma clouds from solar coronal mass ejections that pass near the Earth and provide a temporary shield against GCRs [Hilary, 2000]."

source


Cosmic Rays allow ionization nuclei to form which causes clouds. When the sun has few sunspots we have more cosmic ray influx. Anyone doubting that can go look at the Be10 proxy for sunspot numbers.

From Wiki

"An increase in solar activity (more sunspots) is accompanied by an increase in the "solar wind," which is an outflow of ionized particles, mostly protons and electrons, from the sun. The Earth's geomagnetic field, the solar wind, and the solar magnetic field deflect galactic cosmic rays (GCR). A decrease in solar activity increases the GCR penetration of the troposphere and stratosphere. GCR particles are the primary source of ionization in the troposphere above 1 km (below 1 km, radon is a dominant source of ionization in many areas)."

"Levels of GCRs have been indirectly recorded by their influence on the production of carbon-14 and beryllium-10. The Hallstatt solar cycle length of approximately 2300 years is reflected by climatic Dansgaard-Oeschger events. The 80–90 year solar Gleissberg cycles appear to vary in length depending upon the lengths of the concurrent 11 year solar cycles, and there also appear to be similar climate patterns occurring on this time scale."
source

But of course, the AGW folk will continue to claim that the sun plays almost no role in our climate.


And compare the information and picture above with the picture of the albedo which began to strongly rise in 2000 along with the cosmic ray intensity.