Wednesday, December 30, 2009

Are the oceans actually cooling?

A friend pointed me to an article D. E. Harrison and Mark Carson "Is the World Ocean Warming? Upper-Ocean Temperature Trends: 1950–2000" Journal of Physical Oceanology, 37(2007), p. 174-187. The authors divided the oceans up into 1 deg squares and looked at the temperature trends. They used grids which contained That article contains a picture of the world's ocean seen below. The authors state:

"Three features stand out from examination of Fig. 8.
First is that almost every 2 x 2 region underwent 20-yr
periods with warming and cooling trends (statistically,
about 95% of the regions change the sign of their trend
sometime throughout the 51-yr period). The ocean neither
cooled nor warmed systematically over the large
parts of the ocean for the entire analysis period
D. E. Harrison and Mark Carson "Is the World Ocean Warming? Upper-Ocean Temperature Trends: 1950–2000" Journal of Physical Oceanology, 37(2007), p. 184

An example taken from several sites shows that over the past 30 years the oceans may have been cooling.

Now, it is clear from the above that there hasn't been much warming over the past few decades. And right now, even NASA says the oceans are cooling. Look at the last four years of the oceanic curve in the picture below from .

So much for the hysteria

Thursday, December 24, 2009

An Old Failed Prediction of Global Warming

In 1976 Stephen Schneider published a book called The Genesis Strategy. It is about how near term cooling of the earth's climate would cause famines around the world. Schneider, at that time the Deputy Head of the Climate Project ant NCAR, proposed storing food to avoid mass starvation.

Climate skeptics have taken some of the passages in this book to indicate that climatologists were predicting a coming ice age. That is not entirely true. Global warming advocates chose passages that show that he was aware that CO2 could warm the planet and claim that skeptics are simply wrong.

This is not the post to get into that but I was interested in one of the predictions this guy made

Schneider wrote:

"There are various estimates of the response of globally averaged surface temperatures to a doubling of CO2 from a out 300 ppm to six hundred ppm by volume - a value projected to occur by about the years 2025 to 2040. State-of-the-art climate models unequivocally predict that such a doubling of CO2 would raise the surface temperature of the earth. Although these predictions vary considerably, probably the best order of magnitude estimate that can be made today is for a surface warming by some 1.5 to 3oK globally and that the temperature increase in the polar regions might well be amplified severalfold. But there is far less agreement over the magnitude and location of tghe warming than over the fact that CO2 will warm. Projection of the CO2 increase, granted the continuation of present trends to the year 2000, suggests, as said earlier, an increase in CO2 concentrations of about 20 to 25 percent, a change corresponding to an approximately 1 deg K global surface temperature rise (plus the assumed amplification at the poles." Stephen Schneider, The Genesis Strategy, (New York: Plenum Press, 1976), p. 180
Now, we have continued to put out CO2 as he was worried about, but his prediction of an additional 1 deg C change by 2000. This has not happened. The trend has gone up about a third of what he predicted and even the most beneficial interpretation says that he was wrong by half.

His book was also about the famine from droughts that would happen in the next 2 decades from when he wrote:

"Although it is possible that technology could provide for basic human needs for all humanity in fifty or one hundred years, the immediate fear is that serious threats to major portions of the human species will occur in the present decade or the next one; the threats will come if the production of essential goods and services continues to be so closely balanced with absolute need that only the slightest imbalance--whether produced inadvertently by the collapse of an overtaxed ecosystem, or deliberately by political removal of a technological prop--could mean death or extreme deprivation for millions." Stephen Schneider, The Genesis Strategy, (New York: Plenum Press, 1976), p. 17-18

The famines never arrived. How sad for Schneider but good for the world.

And of course, he played God pondering whether or not it was good to let people starve in the 1970s so that people in the 1990s could live. But the famine he predicted, didn't come to pass. Strike two

" An evaluation of whether it is "better" to let people starve now, even though food may be available, to prevent possible greater suffering later presents a moral problem of immense dimensions. I return to this issue shortly." Stephen Schneider, The Genesis Strategy, (New York: Plenum Press, 1976), p. 33

Who put him in charge?

He did say in a 1971 Science article that man would put so many aerosols into the air that we would trigger an ice age.

However, it is projected that man's potential to pollute will increase six- to eightfold in the next 50 years. If this increased rate of injection of particulate matter in the atmosphere should raise the present global background opacity by a factor of 4, our calculations suggest a decrease in global temperature by as much as 3.5°K. Such a large decrease in the average surface temperature of
Earth, sustained over a period of few years, is believed to be sufficient
to trigger an ice age.
S. I. Rasool and S. H. Schneider, "Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Aerosols: Effects of Large Increases on Global Climate," Science 173(1971), p. 141

Even with China pouring billions of tons of aerosols into the atmosphere, we have yet to trigger the ice age.

False prophets of doom should not be allowed to remain prophets of doom with records like this.

Monday, December 21, 2009

Earth is the only planet with an uncertain history

One of the fun things to do is to compare different charts of what the earth's temperature history is according to various sources for that history.

Watch history change from the IPCC Assessment Report 3 to IPCC Assessment Report 4. The thermal history of our planet, meaning the temperature in 1880 changed from 2001 to 2004. And they say that the present can't affect the past!

As you look at the pictures remember these are GLOBAL average temperature, and the climatologists are whipping the past's temperatures around like bulls toss china in a china shop. And remember both pictures are anomalies with respect to 1961-1990, so there is no change in the base for the calculation (which is a wonderful trick for the climatologists to pull--change the basis so you can't do a proper comparision but here they didn't do that.)

Let's start with the light blue arrow and work from past to the present. The peak in the AR4 report is about 1870, no earlier than 1869, but it is about 1865 in the lower report. The gray arrow shows a tempearture of -1.5 in AR4 but -.2 in AR3. A warm front must have passed through the CRU between 2001 and 2004 and changed the temperature in 1880.

About 1887, the AR3 report of 2001 shows a deep trough with no upward inflection. The temperture in that trough is -.5 C from the 1961-1990 average. But WOAH, look above, in AR4 the global temperature average has changed by 3/10ths of a degree--

One can't change the average without changing the input, and what you may have seen in my previous post are some of the changes in temperature due to changes in how they 'correct' the temperature.

The olive green arrow around 1910 has about a -.4 C anomaly in AR3 but a -.5 in AR4. Once again, a cold front came though the CRU in 2003 and changed the temperature in 1910. I think the physicists need to talk to the climatologists about what is really wrong with General Relativity. The climatologists certainly have figured out how to send information into the past.

The bright green arrow shows a spot of cooling in 1918 in AR3 but--gone in AR4. Must have been a piece of undigested cheese.

The black arrow shows the anomaly (1961-1990) in 1940 to be about zero in AR3 but above zero in AR4.

And about the time that this skeptic was born, the orange highlights that the first years of my life saw a cooling in AR3 but a warming in AR4. No wonder I am so conflicted.

Now lets compare data WITHIN the reports, from AR3 Scientific Basis compared with the Technical Summary.

To get these two pictures I went to here

And then selected The Scientific Basis and on the right, you will see chapters. I chose Chapter 2 and went to page 107 where I copied Figure 2.1a. That gives me the black and white graph in the upper part of the picture immediately above.

Then I went back to the same site. This time I took the Synthesis Report and chose English which then brought up another page with chapters on the right side. I chose on the right the Technical summaryWG1 and went to page 26

Figure 2 is again a plot of the temperature anomalies. Both are basis 1961-1990.

In the orange circle above you don't see quite the cooling above from the Scientific Basis as you see in the Synthesis Report. The climate changes even during the writing of these things--how fascinating. Also compare the highest peak in the 1880s in the orange circle with the height of the peak in the black circle on both graphs. In the above Scientific Basis report the 1880 peak is higher than the 1900 peak. but below in the Synthesis report of the same IPCC you see that the two peaks are about the same height. And look at the difference in what goes on in between those two peaks on the two charts.

The light blue highlighted area shows again that the 1917 cooling is in one of the pictures but not in the other. It seems that different fortune tellers predicts the history of the world slightly differently. Changing history is a really bad thing to do unless it is the old Soviet Empire or Earth.

Look at the bright green area. In one it is higher than 0 in the other it is below. Climatologists even in the same IPCC study can't agree on what the historical temperatures were. Yet we are supposed to believe all is settled, that pro's can't make mistakes, that we are not supposed to challenge those professional god-like climatologists, but simply sit at their feet while they tell us what to do. They are incapable of error and of being challenged, so we are told.

The height, relative to surrounding years is different in the 1960 warming and the 1970s low is flat in the upper but slightly rising in the lower picture

The two pictures use two different basis years, the upper uses 1961-1990 but the lower uses 1901-2000 for the anomaly calculation. It should only shift the data up or down, so I can't, in this comparison use absolute values of number, only relative numbers. What you will see is that these two temperature histories, one from the IPCC and the other from NOAA do not show the same history--history has changed (or as I prefer to say, they don't know what the H happened in the past).

With the red arrow there is a different slope to the cooling between IPCC
and NOAA.

In the IPCC report the coldest period was 1890, NOAA says it was 1910. Which was it, 1890 or 1910?

The green arrow in the lower graph marks 1918 cooling in the above. Below their smoothing takes it out, but the IPCC puts it in. But I want you to notice the relative pattern of the years 1917-1919. 1917 is medium 1918 is coldest and 1919 is warmest.

Now go back to the graph they produced in 1998.

History has changed 1917 is warmest, 1918 is still coldest but 1919 is now

The climatologists don't know what the temperature record is.

Sunday, December 20, 2009

Will the REAL temperature please stand up?

Most of us climate skeptics know how variable history is. By that I mean that the historical temperature records of the world change with each passing year. Instead of getting plots of observational data, we get plots of something else, God only knows what else, but the changes to the observed temperature record are all called corrections.

Well I used that against a global warming advocate I am currently debating. He made the very big mistake of sending me two pictures of the temperature record for Malye Karmaku, Russia, one from GISS and one from He claimed that the records were compatible. I saw vast differences in the temperature history from these two pro-anthropogenic global warming sites. He didn't bother to actually look at the data. Here are the comparisions of the temperature records for several towns downloaded from two different temperature record sources, both claiming to use the global historical climate network data. Clearly they are using different editions of the climate record. But note how history changes between these two sources.

If you enlarge the pictures and they are too big for your browswer, set the little 100% at the lower right of Internet explorer to 50%.

Let's start with Malye Karmaku. In all that is below, the top picture comes from GISS, the lower picture is data downloaded from, hereinafter, called The Magnificent Plotting Company

Now in the Upper GISS picture, one can see basically 4 pts in the purple circle. In the upper they are approximately -5,-6, -7.6, -5.5. But in Magnificent Plotting Company graph, they are approximately -4.5, -9, -9, -5. What is the true value of the temperature at Malye Karmaku in the years 1896-1900? It seems that two global warming advocating sites can't give a straight answer to that very simple question. In fact they are changing history. What was observed and reported is not what is being plotted.

No look in the red circle we have approximately -3,-3.8, -2.8, That is GISS. But in the magnificent plotting company we have -4.5, -3.5, -3.1. Once again, who can tell us what the real temperature was during those years in the 1920s? It seems that climatologists don't know what the temperature was in the 20s but they all assure us that global warming is settled science.

There is a dogleg in the GISS temperature in the 1950s but not in the Magnificent Plotting company. And a W shape in the Magnificant plotting company in the late 1950s which isn't to be found in the GISS data. Where oh where did the W go??? Might make a good song.

Now lets look at the green circle.about 1980 the GISS has one point in the circle at about -7.4 deg. The Magnificent Plotting company has 2 pointss both about -7 degrees. There is clearly a problem. No one seems to know what the temperature was, but they are sure that it has changed.

Now lets look at Dudinka, Russia. Here is the picture, GISS is in the upper part, the Magnificent Plotting Company data is in the lower part.

We start in the purple circle GISS says that the first year in the record was about -8.0 average temperature. The magnificent plotting company (MPC from now on) says it was -8.8--which is about the amount of 100 years of supposed global warming). In the green circle MPC says the temperature was -13 C but GISS doesn't use that year (approximately 1924). In the early 1940s we see 3 points in the red circle of the GISS (upper plot). They have the temperature of -6, -8.1 and -7 (all temp readings are approximate). The MPC has -6.6, -7.2 and -8.1, in that order and in the brown circle we have 3 points in the GISS (Upper picture) they are -11.5, -9.8, -9.6 and in the lower they are -10.8,-9.3, -10.3.

Will the REAL temperature please identify itself?

What about Salehard, Russia?

In the GISS plot the first point, about 1882, is at -7.5 in GISS but in MPC it is -7.1, not much of a change, but a change. Also note the two drop downs in the 1900s in MPC but only one in the GISS and another drop down in 1995 in MPC but not in GISS. In the green circle, that year, I believe 1960, is -6 in GISS but -5 in MPC. That change is worth more than 100 years of the supposed global warming, all happening between two of the data sources.

Question, if the climatologists don't know what the temperature was in Salehard in 1960 to within a degree how can they be sure that the globe has warmed by that much?

Ust'-Cil'Ma, Russia is another study in lunacy of the climatologists.

The record starts with two temperatures in the GISS of -2.2 and -3.2 C, they are -2.3 and -4.1 C in MPC. The 1920s pattern of temperature movement is entirely different with some values going positive in the MPC but none in the red circle going positive in GISS. In the blue circle we have in GISS -4.5, -4 C but in MPC we have -4.6 and -2.7 C for the same two points respectively. 1942 warms dramatically from GISS to MPC. Must be a warm front between these two editions of the global historical climate network (which may not really be historical at all). What is the REAL temperature???

Finally, let's look at Turuhansk, Russia. Same issue.

Turuhansk has two points around -5 C in the red circle on GISS but in MPC the two points are -3 C Once again miraculous warming going on that year, just from charting and or changing data source. In the dark dark blue circle around 1910 note how different are the patterns in the two charts. The low is about -10.5 in the MPC but only -9 C in GISS. In the light purple circle there is a -8.5 in GISS but nothing is used for that year in MPC. In the yellow circle we have 3 dots. In GISS they are -3.5, -4.5, -4.5 but in MPC they are -4, -4.4, -5. And in the brown circle in GISS we have the triplet (I am counting the one dot that fell really low and outside of the GISS brown circle) -4, -6, -3.5 but in MPC we have -4, -4.5, -3.8.

If different versions of the climatologist's data change this much, how in the heck can we know that the earth is warming? My strong suspicion is that the climate is only warming in the minds of the climatologists. The data, whatever the raw observational data says, is never shown.

They call it the Global Historical Climate Network, but it appears that history changes depending on the source of your data. Will the REAL temperature please stand up?

Friday, December 18, 2009

Siberia's made up warming

I must credit a friend, Dave Wallace, for finding this. It is fascinating. There is a site where one can go and get temperature data from around the world. The site had been recommended by a global warming advocate with whom I am debating. The site is this one. Dave noticed that the anomaly data given out by this site shows global warming but when one plots the regular temperature, it shows cooling. He was doing it for the stations north of the Arctic Circle. Being the totally untrusting guy that I am (sorry Dave), I had to repeat his experiment to see if it did it for me. It did.

One should be very aware that this is not a government site but they claim to be using government data. I went to the GHCN Temperature Data tab and on the page that comes up I selected Russia (Asia) and the region Siberia. After updating the list, it gave me 88 stations in Asiatic Siberia. I chose all of them and plotted the average temperature. This is the picture.

Now, if one takes the very same stations and plots the anomaly graphs, voila, global warming to the N-th degree, brought to you by the meticulous massaging of the data by your neighborhood climatologists.

See how easy it is to make the globe warm?

Below are the two pictures Dave created. The first is the data shown in temperature, the second is the anomaly plot. It is instant global warming

Wednesday, December 16, 2009

Siberia isn't warming

We are often shown pictures like this of the rising temperatures in Siberia. Big red dots is rapid warming:

Global warming folks constantly tell me that one of the predictions of global warming is that the high arctic will warm quicker than the rest of the planet.

So, I went to this site and downloaded every Russian station above 60 deg N latitude I could find and also got a couple slightly below 60 degree N. The data I downloaded is the RAW monthly data. The stations cover from 2 deg E longitude to 129 deg E longitude and from 57.8 deg N. latitude to 80 deg N latitude. There are 51 stations in this study--as I said, every Siberian station I could find.

I didn't want the corrected data as I don't know what kind of biases went into the data. Maybe in the future I will download and process that data.

I decided to calculate an average Siberian temperature for the entire time of Siberian temperature taking from 1814 to the present. In doing this one quickly learns that there are missing months of data and if you miss a December or January, you significantly warm the year's average temperature. But you also find that if you miss a July or August, you signficantly cool the yearly average temperature. Previous studies I had carried out on Siberian stations I had chosen to use only the max and min, or the degree days. This time I decided to throw out any year which was imperfect. If even one month was missing, I didn't use the data. I wanted as pristine a set of raw data I could get.

After averaging all stations each year from 1814 to the present, I get this amazing picture of climate in Siberia.

Clearly this is not what we are told is happening in Siberia, yet, this is the entire record. So, let's examine any issues that might be problematic.

The oldest record is from Arcangel'sk, Russia at 64.5 Deg N. Latitude. It has recent warming, but even now it's warming doesn't rise above past warm periods--nothing exceptional here.

The first problem is that up until 1851 there was only one station, Archangel'sk in all of Northern Russia. The second station came on line in 1851. By 1900 there were 10 stations running with a 100 degree longitude spread. If we look at Northern Russia's average temperature from 1899 to the present it looks like this.

Now let's look at the warming by longitude. From 2 to 100 deg longitude the Russian temperature record looks like this.

And east of 100 deg longitude the curve looks like this.

Now, given that this is the data that was reported--the raw data, HOW IN THE HELL DID THE LYING CLIMATOLOGISTS TURN IT INTO THE MAP SHOWN ABOVE???

I just saw this which might explain my question above:

"Climategate has already affected Russia. On Tuesday, the Moscow-based Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA) issued a report claiming that the Hadley Center for Climate Change based at the headquarters of the British Meteorological Office in Exeter (Devon, England) had probably tampered with Russian-climate data."

Now we know how the lying climatologists turned Siberian cooling into warming shown in the upper map.

Sunday, December 13, 2009

Climatological Hot Air and Hypocrisy

I have loved looking at the data contained in the CRU emails. I found this one source which contained the output of the millennium simulations for a couple of models. The email is from Gian-Kasper Plattner and starts like this:

Please find attached the Bern2.5CC model output for the IPCC-AR4
millenium simulations, all spanning the period from 1000 - 1998AD. Some
plots including a preliminary comparison between CLIMBER-2 and Bern2.5CC
results are additionally included (see infos below).

The actual yearly output numbers are in the email. So, I took the column identified as global average and plotted it. What a surprise. The hypocritical hot air coming out of the climatologists that all their models show unprecedented warming is simply not true.

Notice that the temperatures are declining and that we have yet to pass the warmth of the Medieval Warm Period. Yet they squawk continuously that we are about to have global overheat, and the seas will drown all the poor Bangladeshi's.

So, given this internal data for the AR4, what was actually published by these lying climatologists? This is what appeared in the AR4. Does anyone notice anything different between the two graphs? Doubt me? Go graph the data in that email yourself.

Do Armadillos show that the world is warming?

picture from here

Often one gets hit with anecdotal stories of animals moving north as evidence of the world's warming. One such animal is the armadillo. I grew up in northern Oklahoma. I didn't know what an armadillo was until my family moved to southern Oklahoma in the early 1960s. They used to scratch for insects outside my bedroom window at night.

A look at the above map will show that Armadillos have been moving north for over a century and that they were just crossing the Red River between Oklahoma and Texas in the early 1960s.

Is this evidence of global warming? I think not. Look at the levels of CO2 in 1880. It was about 290 ppm. When Keeling started in the late 1950s the CO2 was only 315 ppm. One should not have expected a lot of warming during that time. Nor should one expect lots of warming between 1850 and 1900 (and indeed there wasn't.)

But the armadillo started moving in 1850, long before the warming that is ascribed to its migration.

"Prior to about 1850, the nine-banded armadillo was not found north of the Rio Grande river. The sudden and extremely rapid armadillo colonization of the southern United States has puzzled quite a few biologists. The degree of range expansion per year is nearly ten times faster than the average rate expected for a mammal. Sightings of the animals farther north are reported every year, prompting many people to wonder just how far north the armadillo will go." source

Maybe there was a mutation. No one knows why he started moving north. Butone thing is sure. Since there was cooling of the world from 1940 to 1970, one can't say that the continued northward march of the armadillo was due to global warming, when the globe was cooling during that period. Yet during this cooling, he continued his northward trek. But, of course, when it is expedient to grab a fact and make it fit some preconceived viewpoint (that the world is warming and tropical animals will be in Duluth soon), then the armadillo becomes an easy target.

The picture above is the history of the armadillo migration. He started moving north before the warming started. The armadillo didn't care about the cooling or warming, he simply moved north.

Sunday, December 6, 2009

A Hundred Years of October Cooling

It is amazing how one stumbles into new information. I was looking at Arkansas October temperature history and noticed that it was cooling. I then checked Oklahoma--my home state, and it too was cooling. Before I knew it I had gone through every one of the lower 48 states. Only three states have October warming trends, Florida, Utah and Nevada. I was amazed. Why is this?

Well October is the in between month. Airconditioners which warm our thermometers in the summer are shut down (picture below), but the heating which warms our thermometers in the winter aren't going full blast yet.

So, October may be one of two months that one can actually get a relatively heat source free look at what is happening to the global climate. As you look at the charts below remember one thing, one very important thing--CO2 should work all year round, not just in specific months and not work in other months, like October. Clearly what you will see below is that CO2 has not warmed October in the US.

Let's start with South Dakota because it shows something that the CRU climatologists were aware of--a cooling since 1960. The trees of the world show cooling since 1960 and the climatologists specifically excluded the tree ring data after 1960 to 'hide the decline'. You can clearly see the turn down in temperature in 1960.

In documents/harris-tree/ the lying climatologists write the following in their program.

; Calibrates, usually via regression, various NH and quasi-NH records
; against NH or quasi-NH seasonal or annual temperatures.
; Specify period over which to compute the regressions (stop in 1960 to avoid
; the decline that affects tree-ring density records)


Other states show cooling starting as far back as the 1940s with the cooling never stopping in 1975 as is often claimed.

Note that these charts comes from NOAA at this site

I hate to have to admit it but my home state of Oklahoma is also backwards with regards to global warming. Since 1940 Octobers there have also been cooling.



Global warming hysteriacs certainly won't be mentioning the 60 years of October cooling in Iowa.

And Missouri:

The cooling is probably due to inbreeding up there.

CO2 takes a vacation in October. Even the entire US shows cooling over the past 70 years in October--a month they don't run airconditioners.

Below are the other states. All of them save three Florida, Utah and Nevada show cooling or flat trends. It seems that CO2 doesn't work in October. Here they are
























West Virginia:







South Dakota:

South Carolina:

Rhode Island:




North Dakota:

North Carolina:

New York:

New Mexico:

New Jersey:

New Hampshire: