Sunday, August 30, 2009

How "'Correcting" the Data Heats the Earth



The above chart, taken from a NOAA website says some rather disturbing things about the veracity of the claim that the earth has warmed. The above picture has been bandied around the internet but I have never seen someone follow the logic of what it means.

First, if the editing of the data set requires the editors to warm the present vs the past, it means that they must beleive that our thermometers today measure too low of a temperature.

Secondly, that implies they think today's thermometers are worse than those used in the past because those used in the past are uncorrected but today's crappy thermometers must be 'corrected' before they will give the 'true' temperature.

Thirdly, the logic following from this is that the NOAA crowd thinks that technology has gotten worse over the 20th century requiring the 'correction' seen in the above picture. I have a solution for them. REPLACE ALL THESE MODERN MMTS THERMOMETERS WITH THE SYSTEM USED IN 1900. Then they won't have to go to the work of fixing the bad output of the technologically horrible modern thermometers. That conclusion seems to follow directly from what they do. If the modern MMTS thermometers were more accurate, more reliable, they should, one would think, require less 'correction' than the technologically primitive thermometers of 1900. Nostalgia is a grand thing.

I could not find the difference series in tabular form. I would love to have it, but, it isn't necessary as I can use the chart to create an approximation curve to the one above. Thus, I took the chart, and read the values off for every 5 years and then interpolated in the in between years. This will introduce a wee bit of error, but won't affect the general conclusions of what I am going to show below. I am interested in what the USHCN temperature anomaly would look like if I removed the editorial bias--the after the fact changes to the observed temperature.

After creating the approximate bias curve, I then downloaded the USHCN temperature anomalies from a Nasa site.The anomaly data is taken from http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D.txt which goes with the figure D described as:

Annual Mean Temperature Change in the United States
Annual and five-year running mean surface air temperature in the contiguous 48 United States (1.6% of the Earth's surface) relative to the 1951-1980 mean.

[This is an update of Figure 6 in Hansen et al. (1999).]

Also available as large GIF, PDF, or Postscript. Also available are tabular data.

(Last modified: 2009-01-09)


source

I then subtracted the false warming inserted into the data by the GISS editors and the curve would look like this--so this is approximately what the raw data shows. I used the 5 year running average curve, which is the one most people see.



Note that the 'warming' of the past 30 years does not take us beyond the natural range seen in the 1930s. If the warmth is being inserted into the data by the editors, who effectively are telling us that the modern thermometers are not as good as those used 100 years ago and thus need to be corrected towards warmer temperature, then why should we beleive their bunk?

The last picture shows all three curves on the same graph. Only after the editors working for Hansen get through with the editing of the raw data does global warming happen. Before they get their hands on the data, the world isn't warming.



I am reminded of the butler in the original movie version of The Shining. I loved the way he used the word, 'correct'. Yes, the Goddard Institute for Space Studies, 'corrects' the temperature record, and by doing so, they make the world warm up.

Saturday, August 29, 2009

Putting Sunshades on the Earth--Catastrophic Idea

The Wallstreet Journal had the following

Other more speculative approaches deserve consideration. In groundbreaking research, J. Eric Bickel, an economist and engineer at the University of Texas, and Lee Lane, a researcher at the American Enterprise Institute, study the costs and benefits of climate engineering. One proposal would have boats spray seawater droplets into clouds above the sea to make them reflect more sunlight back into space—augmenting the natural process where evaporating ocean sea salt helps to provide tiny particles for clouds to form around.

Remarkably, Mr. Bickel finds that about $9 billion spent developing this so-called marine cloud whitening technology might be able to cancel out this century's global warming. The benefits—from preventing the temperature increase—would add up to about $20 trillion
Bjorn Lomborg, " Technology Can Fight Global Warming" Wall Street Journal, Aug 28, 2009, Opinion page.

This is a catastrophic idea. Here is why.


Today the present stretch of consecutive days without a sunspot became 49 days. The importance of that is that this stretch is now the 4th longest observed period of time where the sun has no spots. In 5 days, should it continue, it becomes the third longest.

The importance of this is that the sun outputs less energy when there are no sunspots. When the sun has few sunspots, it outputs about 2-3 watts per meter squared less energy than when it is at the peak of the solar cycle. The IPCC says this about that forcing

"The TAR states that the changes in solar irradiance are not
the major cause of the temperature changes in the second half
of the 20th century unless those changes can induce unknown
large feedbacks in the climate system."

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter1.pdf
Chapter 1 p. 108

They have consistently so far denied any feedbacks. Well,... in a moment.

Now, we are about 3 years late for the start of the next solar cycle. Watch the failed predictions

This from NASA:

Actually, solar minimum, the lowest point of the sun's 11-year activity cycle, isn't due until 2006, but forecasters expected 2005, the eve of solar minimum, to be a quiet year on the sun.



In March 2006 Nasa said:

For almost the entire month of February 2006 the sun was utterly blank. If Galileo had looked at the sun on his 442nd birthday, he would have been disappointed—no sunspots, no spin, no discovery.
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2006/06mar_solarminimum.htm


From another Nasa site. The models say!

March 10, 2006: It's official: Solar minimum has arrived. Sunspots have all but vanished. Solar flares are nonexistent. The sun is utterly quiet.

Like the quiet before a storm.

This week researchers announced that a storm is coming--the most intense solar maximum in fifty years. The prediction comes from a team led by Mausumi Dikpati of the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR). "The next sunspot cycle will be 30% to 50% stronger than the previous one," she says. If correct, the years ahead could produce a burst of solar activity second only to the historic Solar Max of 1958
Solar Storm Warning

03.10.2006
source

Of course they were all wrong.

But even in Dec 2006 they didn't know they were wrong

Dec. 21, 2006: Evidence is mounting: the next solar cycle is going to be a big one.

Solar cycle 24, due to peak in 2010 or 2011 "looks like its going to be one of the most intense cycles since record-keeping began almost 400 years ago," says solar physicist David Hathaway of the Marshall Space Flight Center. He and colleague Robert Wilson presented this conclusion last week at the American Geophysical Union meeting in San Francisco.
. . .
"It all hangs together," says Hathaway. Stay tuned for solar activity

here

Yes, it all hung together and was so wrong. The sun, like the climate, is so nonlinear.

In March 2007 NOAA's solar cycle prediction committee said.

The next 11-year cycle of solar storms will most likely start next March and peak in late 2011 or mid-2012 – up to a year later than expected – according to a forecast issued today by NOAA’s Space Environment Center in coordination with an international panel of solar experts.
http://web.archive.org/web/20071006015810/www.swpc.noaa.gov/SolarCycle/SC24/PressRelease.html


In Dec 2007 Nasa wrote:
The big question now is, when will the next solar cycle begin?


It could be starting now.

"New solar cycles always begin with a high-latitude, reversed polarity sunspot," explains Hathaway. "Reversed polarity " means a sunspot with opposite magnetic polarity compared to sunspots from the previous solar cycle. "High-latitude" refers to the sun's grid of latitude and longitude. Old cycle spots congregate near the sun's equator. New cycle spots appear higher, around 25 or 30 degrees latitude

The region that appeared on Dec. 11th fits both these criteria. It is high latitude (24 degrees N) and magnetically reversed. Just one problem: There is no sunspot. So far the region is just a bright knot of magnetic fields. If, however, these fields coalesce into a dark sunspot, scientists are ready to announce that Solar Cycle 24 has officially begun.
NASA - Is a New Solar Cycle Beginning?
source

With bated breath we watched as nothing happened.

IN May 2008 a powerpoint presentation at a conference related the prediction of the solar cycle 24 . Slide 14 of http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/SolarCycle/SC24/Biesecker2008.ppt says

Solar Minimum will be in March, 2008
Re-affirmed by panel in March, 2008
Cycle 24 will be small
Ri = 90
August, 2012
or
Cycle 24 will be large
Ri = 140
October, 2011
The panel is still split

slide 14 http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/SolarCycle/SC24/Biesecker2008.ppt


Then in May 2009, NOAA's prediction panel wrote:

May 8, 2009 -- Solar Cycle 24 Prediction Update The Solar Cycle 24 Prediction Panel has reached a consensus decision on the prediction of the next solar cycle (Cycle 24). First, the panel has agreed that solar minimum occurred in December, 2008. This still qualifies as a prediction since the smoothed sunspot number is only valid through September, 2008. The panel has decided that the next solar cycle will be below average in intensity, with a maximum sunspot number of 90. Given the predicted date of solar minimum and the predicted maximum intensity, solar maximum is now expected to occur in May, 2013. Note, this is a consensus opinion, not a unanimous decision. A supermajority of the panel did agree to this prediction.
http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/SolarCycle/SC24/index.html

But, in March and April, we had a 44 day stretch without sunspots according to Marshall Space Flight center, and now in August we have had a stretch of 40 days--so far. Solar minimum may not have been Dec 2008. since we have fewer sunspots this year so far than we had in 2008 it is hard not to call this year the minimum--so far. 80% of the days this year have been spotless.



Such failed predictions should alert us that our models are not as good as we think they are. We should have lots of sunspots by now but we don't. As of today the current spotless streak reached 49 days in a row without a sunspot.


And today comes a Science article which basically says IPCC is wrong. There are feedbacks which amplify the small temperature differences and can warm the earth far beyond what one would expect merely on energy grounds.

See. Amplifying the Pacific Climate System Response to a Small 11-Year Solar Cycle Forcing Gerald A. Meehl, Julie M. Arblaster, Katja Matthes, Fabrizio Sassi, and Harry van Loon Science 28 August 2009: 1114-1118.


and at ACRIM, a NASA satellite mission we see that since 2003 the energy output of the sun continues to decline.
http://www.acrim.com/pictures/earth_obs_fig4.jpg

Now, this lack of sunspots and lack of energy output has caused July this
year to be one of the coolest in history.

From Pennsylvania
July 2009 coldest in 33 years, weather service says
by STEVEN FARLEY, Of The Patriot-News
Tuesday August 04, 2009, 4:39 PM
If you thought July was cool, you were right: It was the coldest July since 1976 and the ninth coolest on record since 1888, according to the National Weather Service in State College.

http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2009/08/july_2009_coldest_in_33_years.html

Many states had their coldest July's ever--EVER.
http://www.examiner.com/x-219-Denver-Weather-Examiner~y2009m8d14-US-temperatures-for-July-coldest-in-15-years

From NOAA
"For the contiguous United States the average July temperature of 73.5°F was 0.8°F below the 20th century average and ranked as the 27th coolest July on record, based on preliminary data.
An abnormally strong and persistent upper-level pattern during the month helped produce a large number of record low temperatures east of the
Rockies, while warmth was focused west of the Rockies.
Four of the seven states that make up the Central U.S. (Ohio, Illinois,
Indiana, and West Virginia) experienced their coolest ever July in 115 years of records. The region's three remaining states of Kentucky, Missouri, and Tennessee recorded either their second or third coolest July in history. Pennsylvania also experienced a record cool July, while Wisconsin and Michigan each had its second coolest on record.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/

On another forum, where I was once soundly ridiculed for my beliefs but now am tolerated, a guy from New Zealand described his very very cold winter down there in June:

In support of what Glenn has said, it was been the one of the coldest June's in New Zealand this year, and it has been one of the coldest July's as well .

Newspaper articles in support for the above:
...
Thought June was chilly? You'd be right | Stuff.co.nz
The big chill (+pics) - news - waikato-times | Stuff.co.nz
...

And as I commute to work on my Mountain Bike, I must admit that riding at -5°C plus the windchill factor (which pushes it to below -10) is not very fun



It has warmed in August but one must know that not every month will be cold.


Now, some hysteriacs are suggesting that we go block sunlight in massive geo-engineering projects. If we go put shades on the earth and reflect MORE heat, we may find that we cause another year without a summer. We almost had that this year.

It is frosty in New England this year.
http://www.breitbart.tv/august-in-new-hampshire-temperatures-dropping-into-the-30s/

And the last time that happened was 1816.

"The infamous eruption in 1815 of Tambora, on the Indonesian island of Sumbawa, seven hundred miles east of Krakatoa, ejected twice the volume of material into the atmosphere (eleven cubic miles of rock, ash, and dust, compared with Krakatoa’s six). The devastation it caused locally was profound—supposedly fifty thousand dead, an entire language (Tambora) extinguished, an entire island rendered uninhabitable for years. But its climatic effects were astounding too. For it lowered the world’s temperature by almost one Celsius degree, on average: for every day when the normal temperature might be thirty-three, just above freezing, the temperature in the year after Tambora would be thirty-one degrees Fahrenheit, and ice would have formed on every pond and, more fatally, on every newborn crop, flower and hatching egg."
"So in New England the farmers claimed that 1816 was ‘the year without summer.’ There were frosts as far south as New Jersey in late May, in upper New England in June and July, and the growing season was slashed from the usual 160 days to seventy. Soup kitchens opened in Manhattan. Livestock had to be fed on fish carried over from the Atlantic seaports—1816 is also still remembered as ‘the mackerel year.’ There were crop failures-"the last great subsistence crisis of the Western world’—and, as a result, there was emigration to the Western states. No small number of today’s Californians can rightly lay responsibility for their being Californians squarely at the door of the proximate cause of that year’s ruinous cold—Tambora, a volcano unknown to most of them, and ten thousand miles away. (Although there was migration into California from Europe, in Newfoundland quite the reverse took place: Migrants were sent back east across the ocean, because there was not enough for them to eat.)
"And yet back in Europe it was just as bad. The weather for 1816 is the worst recorded, with low temperatures stretching as far south as Tunisia. French grapes could not be harvested until November. The German wheat crop failed entirely, and prices for flour had doubled in a year. In some places there were reports of famine, and in others there were riots and mass migrations. The diaries and newspapers of the day present a litany of miseries. It is said that Byron composed his most miserable poem, "Darkness"—Morn came and went—and came, and brought no day—under the influence of that dismal year; and Mary Shelley may have written Frankenstein while gripped by a similarly unseasonable melancholy." Simon Winchester, Krakatoa, (New York: HarperCollins, 2003), p. 292-293

Now, even before the Tambora eruption, the lack of sunspots had already lowered the temperatures of the few stations in operation at that time.



From 1780 until 1815 the dearth of sunspots had caused the Europe to cool between 1 and 1.5 degrees. see picture below. Then came a big volcano which further caused the cooling. Some farmers called it Eighteen hundred and starve to death. It froze every month of the year in New England, the result of few sunspots and a big volcano.

The fact that we are 3 years late for sunspots and that this inter-cycle period has had 700 total spotless days (since 2004) combined with the fact that the average is about 485 should get everyone' attention. But it doesn't. Ideology prevents people from looking at the data every bit as much as my former YEC ideology prevented me from looking at the data.

Tuesday, August 25, 2009

We have already had global warming


Back in the Eocene the world warmed tremendously. The Arctic Ocean had no ice in it. Below is a picture which shows what the annual average temperature was during this time frame. Note the extremely warm tempeatures above 60 deg latitude, both North and South.

Thursday, August 20, 2009

The Church of the Warm World

The Preacher cleared his throat and looked out on the crowd. He felt excited. This was his opportunity to convert some of the lost souls. The audience shifted in their seats in anticipation of the sermon. Some were there willingly, others had been dragged there by relatives and friends. The audience was uncomfortable with the silence as the Pastor looked at them from behind the lecturn.

"We have sinned," he started with a whisper, forcing the audience to lean forward in their seats to catch the sound that would be whipped by them at the speed of sound, leaving only an instant for their ears to capture and process the waves.
"We have sinned," he said again, a little louder. "We have blood on our hands. The blood of Gaia, the blood of species now extinct. The blood of species extinct in the future. It is our fault. It is our fault that the flood will deluge the earth. The hellish heat is our just desert."

The audience grew eager to learn what this sin was. The rising volume of the staccato sentences added to the suspence.

"We have been beguiled by energy, cheap, easy energy. We wanted easy lives, not lives as we were meant to live in harmony with nature." The pastor looked around.
"YOU!" he shouted, pointing a bony finger at one of the congregants, "drive your car too often releasing the evil upon the world."

"YOU!"he shouted, pointing at a young woman who started shaking beneath the point, "wash your clothing too often, washing poisons down the drain. Poisons, which go into the seas, poison the fish and cause them to rot and release the evil upon the world."

"What is this evil?" the preacher asked looking around again and punctuating the sentence with silence. "SEEE OHHHHH TOOO," he intoned.

"Yes, CO2, the master poison. We will pay for our sins", the preacher once again looked around at the audience. A few cleared their throats in nervousness.
"A flood is coming on the earth. It is because of our sins that Nature will wipe us off the earth with a flood. Seas will rise and cover the land. Build your boat, ladies and gentlemen. The flood is coming. That is the beginning of wisdom, Nature will bring a flood upon the land because we have let evil out of our tail pipes."
"Amen!" someone shouted.

"Because of our sin, the world will be destroyed in a blaze of heat. Hellish temperatures will pay us back for our sins. No, it isn't the God of Abraham who will send you to Hell, it is Nature who will burn the earth and turn it into hell for you."

A woman in a red high-cut dress gasped and slumped against her husband, who looked a bit disturbed not at the sin but at his wife's behavior. The rest of the crowd was warming up to the salvation message. Yes it was like Brother Loves traveling salvation show.

"Hell fire is reserved for sinners who release the evil gas upon the world." The preacher crowed on.

"Don't be fooled by the unbelievers! They are infidels.. They are liars. Shun those who doubt the Truth of our Gospel. Only by eliminating the evil gas can we be saved, Halleluiah Amen!" he crescendoed.

"Unbelievers are numerous. Call them names. Call them Global Warming Deniers! They are worse than dogs. They are to be scorned, not pitied. The world will not be safe until all unbelievers are either eliminated or silenced. If a friend at work denies global warming, it is your duty to isolate him. Make him a pariah. Encourage others to ignore him; to ridicule him. The Gospel of the Warm World requires this righteous act towards the infidels. Indeed, if you don't silence those who doubt, those who lack faith in the Warm World, then you too are in danger of experiencing Hell-fire yourself. Indeed, the worst parts of the warm world will be reserved for those who do not do their duty in silencing the skeptics, shutting up the deniers of the warm world. A judgement is coming upon the earth. Floods and hell fire. Believe. Don't doubt and you will be saved."

The crowd was on its feet, cheering. In the back of the auditorium one man pulled out a chart showing a thermometer next to an air conditioner. His name was Watts. Those who saw this abomination, stomped him to death. They all felt holy and clean, even if a wee bit red from the splatters. The surrounding crowd who were unable to stomp on the Watts cheered loudly.

"Just remember, all of this is science. " the preacher concluded. "All hail to the Holy Consensus! Consensus on the coming Flood. Consensus on the coming hellish heat. Consensus on the treatment of unbelievers. May you be forgiven your emissions and escape the coming end of the world. Data doesn't matter, only consensus; only faith in the warm earth. Don't be left behind as the flood covers the earth. All know that the flood is coming. It is consensus."

Someone again shouted "Amen!"

"Here cometh Hellish Heat!"

"Amen. Amen." others cried. "Yes Gaia" said a person in the middle part of the auditorium who then began speaking in tongues.

"Let us pray. Our Gaia, which art on earth. Sacred is your air. Thy stability come, thy temperature be one on earth as it is in the air. Give us this day, our daily coolness. Forgive us our emissions as we forgive those who don't doubt. Lead us not into energy temptation; but deliver us from CO2. For doubters should be scorned and left forlorn. Amen.

Sunday, August 16, 2009

Are the Climatologists being honest?

Science works on trust. When that trust is lost, science can't work well. The trust we give to fellow scientists is that they will be honest with the data and that they will also be transparent in telling people what they did, how they did it and allowing for others to inspect the data and logic surrounding the conclusions. In my business, making geological maps, people can come in and look at my data, re-do the maps, inspect all the lines of logic that led me to the conclusions I came to. It can be a bit painful sometimes when someone points out that you are wrong on some issue, but it is a necessary aspect of science.

There is an interesting issue now in climatology in which Phil Jones, the professor in charge of the UK's Climate Research Unit which produces the Hadcrut temperature data set has refused to give the raw data to anyone who might be critical of it. Jones rather infamously once told an Australian researcher:

"Even if WMO agrees, I will still not pass on the data. We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it." Andrew Orlowski, "Global Warming ate my data," The Register, Aug 13, 2009 here

But isn't that the point of science--to double check claims made by a scientist to be sure that it is correct? It seems that Dr. Jones has a particularly thin skin. But now there are reports that Jones has lost the raw data upon which the climate models are based.here

One of the roles of a good manager is to be sure that data is properly stored. Jones has failed in this if the above report is true. Nature magazine notes that Jones has lost further data.

"Jones says he can't fulfil the requests because of confidentiality agreements signed in the 1990s with some nations, including Spain, Germany, Bahrain and Norway, that restrict the data to academic use. In some cases, says Jones, the agreements were made verbally, and in others the written records were mislaid during a move." Olive Heffernan, "Climate data spat intensifies" Nature 460, 787 (2009).

It seems that this guy can't properly manage records and thus should be replaced with the job being given to someone who can keep proper records.

I am of the mind that what Jones doesn't want anyone to see is the absolutely attrocious state of the raw data. If a statistician, like Steve McIntyre, who has been seeking the raw data can see how bad it is, then doubt will be cast upon the global warming. Below are two stations just 24 miles apart which show how incredibly awful the raw data is.

Coldwater Kansas and Ashland Kansas show a huge difference in temperature in the raw data. Such a difference can not be corrected because it is a variable bias. I think this is what Jones doesn't want anyone to see and why he continually refuses to allow other researchers (other than his friends) to actually see the raw data. I get my raw data for the US from .here


Below, I averaged the temperature for each year from 1949 to 2005. It is immediately obvious that something happened in 1967 to separate the two curves. I don't know what it is but any bias applied after 1967 can't be the same as that applied before 1967. But clearly there is something deeply wrong with the raw data.



A plot of the daily difference between the two cities can also be seen to be highly erratic but also shifted towards a warmer Coldwater.



Lets put a 365-day running average on this erratic mess to see if we can make some sense out of it. That is the next picture.



I just checked the forecasts for these two cities. They are 1 deg F different for each day, Coldwater is predicted to be cooler. But the reality is, over the past 60 years, Coldwater is as much as 10 deg F hotter than Ashland. The ability of the climatologists to use data like this to predict the global temperature is absolutely lacking. The data is crap.

Friday, August 14, 2009

What is happening to the sun?

Every morning I check the sunspot activity before I go to work. This morning I noticed for the first time that the solar flux has been dropping over the past couple of months. This is the energy output of the sun.

Below are two pictures from here



I have watched this indices for several years and it is normally around 70 over the last couple of years but goes up when there are sunspots. But this stretch of sunspots (34 days) seems to be bringing even lower solar output. Below is what it was like back in the 45 day spotless streak of April and May.

Wednesday, August 12, 2009

Can we trust them to tell us what to do?

I ran into an interesting an article in Science News this weekend.

"Biofuels are liquid energ Version 2.0. Unlike their fossil fuel counterparts--the cadaverous remains of plants that died hundreds of millions of years ago--biofuels come from vegetation grown in the here and now. So they should offer a carbon-neutral energy source: Plants that become biofuels ideally consume more carbon dioxide during photosynthesis than they emit when processed and burned for power. Biofules make fossil fuels seem so last century, so quaintly carboniferous."

"And these new liquid fuels plromise more than just carbon correctness. They offer a renewable, home-grown energy source, reducing the need for foreign oil. They present ways to heal an agricultural landscape hobbled by intensive fertilizer use. Biofuels could even help clean waterways, reduce air pollution, enhance wildlife habitats and increase biodiversity."
Rachael Ehrenberg, The Biofuel Future," Science News, August 1, 2009, p. 25


Then I ran across the following note in New Scientist:
"Manipulating the Earth's climate to stop global warming has been given a stamp of scientific approval. In a carefully worded position paper seen by New Scientist, the American Meteorological Society endorses research into this approach. it is the first major scientific body to do so." "Re-engineering Earth," New Scientist July 25, 2009, p. 7

Well, now we are going to play God with the climate. As I turned the page in New Scientist, I was thinking about the biofuels and playing God when my eye spotted an article about biofuels killing off the orangutans. It seems that in order to make biofuels, millions of acres in Indonesia have been cleared to do the green thing of making biofuels and have been thus, pushing the Orang species into its heavenly reward. This unintended consequence struck me as interesting in light of the fact that we are about to engage the world in geoengineering by somehow reflecting sunlight off the earth in order to cool it. These green, arrogant nannies think that they know what the world needs, that we need biofuels to "heal an agricultural landscape", so what happens? We make more agricultural landscape in need of healing and we endanger the orangutan at the orders of the Greens who can't seem to think in terms of "if this; then that", meaning "If we go biofuels, we will need to chop down huge areas of forests to grow the energy". The Greens are so utterly illogical as to be unable and incapable of seeing merely one step ahead. And now they want to play God on the earth--God save us from their help.

Then, I saw another item in another New Scientist.

". . .last week the Chinese firm ZTE Agribusiness announced plans to create a 1-million-hectare plantation in the country that could yield 5 million tonnes of oil, mostely for biofuel. The move comes amid concerns over the detrimental environmental effects of plantations, particularly the loss of wildlife habitat." "Palm Oil Bonanza," New Scientist July 18, 2009, p6-7

After threatening the Orangutans in Borneo, the Greens are now busy trying to kill off the Chimpanzees, yet they always claim to be a friend of both the orang and the chimps. Once again, God save us from friends like these.

Now, why do I worry so much about the geoengineering? The Greens are still not thinking interms of "If this, then that". Two articles in the past 3 years have captured a big danger. When the sun ceases making sunspots, it gives off less energy making the earth cool down. We are now 3 years late for the start of sunspot cycle 24. As I write this we are 32 days without a sunspot and the past 4 years have seen more than 600 spotless days. July 2009 was 0.8 degrees colder than the 20th century average temperature. 3000 record low temperatures were made in the US in July. here

But this isn't just limited to the US. I have looked at the Antarctican Peninsular temperatures and they are below average. And New Zealand is having a cold winter



here

As well as other areas.


But, of course, the AGW true beleivers will continue to believe that the world is warming, even as it cools. And if these control freaks actually do geoengineer the world to cool down just as the world goes into a natural cooling cycle, they will freeze us all and make our crops fail.

Sunday, August 9, 2009

Hot Times in Okemah, Oklahoma

I just love comparing the temperature records of two cities a few miles apart. It shows what a shambles the US Historical Climate Network is in. This is the network that the climatologists use to tell what has happened over the past 100 years. It is the network that they use to scare us all (after suitable editing of the data). The data is crapola as the hot times in Okemah show us.

Okemah is 867 ft above sea level; Okmulgee is 720 ft above sea level. That should mean that Okmulgee would be a wee bit hotter than Okemah. But, Okemah has hot times, almost all the time.

Below is the 365 day running average of Okemah's temperature minus Okmulgee's temperature. As you can see most of the time Okemah was hotter than Okmulgee (contrary to adiabatic cooling) through most of the 1950s, 60's and 70's. Then in the mid 1980s, Okemah got very very very hot.



For some reason (probably bad temperature measurments, or placement of the thermometer) Okemah became a hot place in the mid 1980s. Anthony Watts' surfacestations.org sitehere shows that the thermometer is about 3 feet from a hot driveway and is also a school bus staging area. If one wanted to get a worse measurement of the temperature one could hardly do better than what the US weather service has done here.



Let's look at a close up of the temperature from 1986 to 2002. It shows that Okemah was as much as 10 degrees hotter than Okmulgee, just 23 miles away.



The 365-day running average gets as much as 5 degrees hotter for Okemah than for Okmulgee. Government accuracy at its best (and we want to give our health care over to the idiots who can't measure the temperature properly).

Let's zoom in further to see May 1997 to October 1997. One can clearly see that Okemah is almost always hotter than Okmulgee. And the amount of difference is so large that no one can beleive it--or at least no one SHOULD believe it.



This governmental incompetence is not exclusive to the US government. It is found all over the world. And then we believe these guys who then tell us that the world is warming--yeah right. They can't measure the temperature correctly and they want to tell us that we must all stop driving. When they measure the temperature correctly, I might listen.

Saturday, August 8, 2009

The Hypocrisy of the Global Warmers

The global warming hysteriacs think we should stop the carbon emissions caused by modern society. They are not only hysteriacs; they are hypocrites. Most of them use the world-wide web and PCs to spread their nonsense around the world. So, why do I say that they are hypocrites? Because of what I read this weekend in New Scientist.

"This time the danger is to the whole planet. Gadgets like phones, and PCs are already using 15 per cent of household power and rising (New Scientist, 23 May, p 17); the web is using 5 percent of the world's entire power and rising." Susan Blackmore, "The Third Replicator," New Scientist, August 1, 2009, p. 39

Amazingly, these hypocrites in Global Warming clothing want all of us to stop driving, to stop having power, and to stop polluting the world. But they hypocritically are also engaged in using 5% of the world's energy.

So, I would suggest to any of you global warming hysteriacs who might read this piece on the web, if you really want to help, sell your PC and get off the web. Don't talk to me about saving the world until you sacrifice yourself. If you read this, and are a global warming scare-monger, and don't do what I say, you are an utter hypocrite. Coal with its huge quantity of CO2 when it is burned, manufactures 42% of world wide electricity. You, my global warming nutter, are contributing to the 'destruction' of the planet merely by reading this.

I might start a slogan to address this: Save the planet: GET OFF THE WEB!

Tuesday, August 4, 2009

When did the warming start in Alaska

I just came back from Alaska, which is why I had pre-written many of the last few posts. As we drove from an area south of Mount Denali (McKinley) to the north edge of Denali Park, we passed the Alaskan continental divide. South of this line water flows south. North of it, water flows north. The divide is just below the 2700 ft treeline, being at 2400 ft. I noticed few trees, but some of them were tall. This gave a way to estimate when this site became warm enough to grow trees.

The reader should know that as the world warmed, coming out of the Little Ice Age (LIA), the treeline (the elevation at which trees can no longer grow) rose in height, meaning that areas which could previously not sustain tree growth could after the earth warmed as it left the LIA behind. The question is, when did this warming begin?

At the Alaskan continental divide on the road from Anchorage to Fairbanks, elevation 2409 ft, we saw few trees, but some of them were approximately 30 ft high. This raised the possibility of knowing how long ago this area became capable of supporting trees if one could know the growth rate.

As it happens, the son of my next door neighbor is a prof a the University of Alaska. While he was visiting his parents a year ago, he told me that the growth rate of trees was quite small, being of the order of inches per year. Since I don't want to drag him into this fight as an authority on tree growth, I will present my own evidence for the age of these trees. Below are two pictures of this year or last year's growth on White Sprice trees at this elevation. One can see that the annual growth for segments of the tree are between 1.5 and 2 inches.








Given that growth rate information what are the heights of the trees at the continental divide? The tallest, is about 30 ft tall, or about 360 inches. Dividing this by 1.5 inches per year and 2 inches per year respectively, it means that this area became capable for the growth of trees 240 years ago---long long long before the CO2 began to rise. This means that warming started BEFORE the CO2 rose, giving the lie to the widely propagated idea that CO2 is causing the current warming.



Those who claim that modern society with its CO2 emissions is the sole cause of warming are ignoring much data that could show that they are entirely wrong.