Sunday, February 28, 2010

What a laugh--January 2010 hottest January ever!

The comical farce of 'climate science' continues its merry way with its band of actors never varying from the lines they were given by the IPCC. Thursday, with a straight face,Professor Neville Nicholls of Monash University in Melbourne, Australia proclaimed January 2010 as the hottest January on record! source

Yes ladies and gentlemen, one must admire the dedication of climatological science to march on in robotic sync even if they have to do it through 26 inches of snow dump over the past couple of days on New York City.

Well, much of Britain, North America, Russia and China have been blanketed with snow in the harshest winter in decades. I have a ranch in southeast Texas and since mid-August, it has had north winds every weekend except two. That is very unusual. And while my ponds froze to about 3/4 of an inch this year, the first time they have frozen since 1986, and that one cold January day I arrived to find hoar-frost on everything, I am, amazingly, informed by the climatological community that I wasn't feeling cold, I was really experiencing warming with those cold temperatures. Usually when it is warm, one doesn't have to break ice to allow the cattle to drink.

But, of course, that is anecdotal, and will be dismissed by members of the Church of Global Warming. So, what does the global analysis made by the NOAA say? It says January 2010 was the 4th hottest on record--Do you believe that? I don't. I can read the newspapers. But here is what NOAA says--don't snigger as you read it.

"The combined global land and ocean average surface temperature for January 2010 was 0.60°C (1.08°F) above the 20th century average of 12.0°C (53.6°F). This is the fourth warmest January on record." source

What? It sure felt cold. Let's look at where NOAA says it was very warm in January. Below is a picture of the January 2010 temperature anomalies as published by NOAA and the site linked immediately above.



Do you all in New England think you have experienced winter temperatures 3 to 5 deg C higher than normal? For those of us who are Fahrenheit-ophiles, that is about 4.8 to 8.5 deg F warmer than normal. I bet you guys up in Yankee-land didn't even break out your sweaters this January. At least that is what NOAA wants you to believe.

But look at what the Boston media says about January:

"
< Back to front page Text size – + Record-breaking cold temperature reached in Maine
E-mail|Link|Comments (24) Posted by Bina Venkataraman February 10, 2009 03:02 PM
The coldest temperature ever recorded in Maine, a frigid 50 degrees below zero, was reached when a blast of Arctic air hit New England last month. The record is tied with a thermometer reading from 1933 in Bloomfield, Vermont for the coldest recorded temperature in New England history.

“. . .

January was a colder month than usual in many parts of Maine and New England. The record-breaking temperature was recorded the morning of January 16, after a mass of Arctic air plunged into Alaska and northern Canada, and traveled eastward into New England."
source

Yep, I expect that you hardy northerners can handle minus 50 in your T-shirts.

But look at the discrepancy: NOAA puts a 3 deg C warmer dot for January over New England, yet, Boston was colder than normal.

"The average temperature was 28.9 degrees, .7 degrees below normal." source

No doubt this discrepancy is because only NOAA thermometers sited next to heat sources are allowed into the climatological calculations. Seriously, how in the H can NOAA put out this stuff with a straight face?? I think this shows how political the science of climatology has become. Even when it is cool, NOAA and other climate robots claim it is warm.

I can also say that the 1 deg C colder dot they have in Texas over my Ranch can't possibly be true. January was brutally cold for these latitudes. I think NOAA is merely making it up because they beleive that the world must warm, therefore, they produce maps showing warming. Trust can be destroyed by things like this.

From a google search:

From Tennessee:
The Tennessean - Feb 3, 2010
"The average temperature at Nashville airport in January was 33 degrees, which is 3.8 degrees below normal. It was the 18th coldest January on record..."

From Ireland:
"LAST MONTH was the coldest January for more than 45 years in Dublin and for at least 25 years across the State, Met Éireann’s monthly weather report has revealed."source

From New Zealand:
"Overall, January 2010 was an unsettled month, being wet, slightly cool, and extremely cloudy." source


From Germany:

German business confidence hit by cold weather
Finance Markets (blog) - Kay Murchie - ‎Feb 23, 2010‎
Germany experienced its coldest January since 1987, which slowed construction and consumption
.source


From China--the Yellow river froze over--a rare occurrence:

"The cold snap has strained coal and gas supplies in most parts of north China as the worst snowstorms in decades disrupted traffic and boosted demand."
. . .
"The cold weather also has left more than 1,000 km of the 5,464-km-long Yellow River, China's second largest, frozen, with ice of up to 50 cm thick."
source

Beijing was unusually cold having the coldest January temperature, minus 15.6 C, since 1951 when the temperature was minus 20.1 deg C. source

"It’s bitter cold this week, even for January. Beijing had its coldest morning in almost 40 years and its biggest snowfall since 1951. Britain is suffering through its longest cold snap since 1981 [AP]." source

The Atlanta Journal Constitution looking at that risable statement by Prof. Nicholls said,

"The National Weather Service in Peachtree City reported that Atlanta's average temperature in January of 38.5 degrees was 4.2 degrees below normal."
source

From Mongolia:
There is a picture of piled up goats outside a Mongolian house. The picture is dated Jan 23, 2010, and the article says that this winter's unusual cold 2.7 million head of livestock. That is a disaster--of course freezing your livestock is one of the things I always think about when I think of global warming. Don't you?
source

From Korea:
"On January 4, 2010, 11 inches of snow fell on Seoul, the capital of South Korea; the most in a single day since meteorological records began being kept in 1937." source

Northern Sweden is having near record low temperatures--near 50 C below.
source

From India:
"New Delhi – At least 17 people died as towns and cities in India’s northern states were hit by cold weather, officials said on Friday." source

From Kazakhstan, where temperatures fell to minus 45 C:
"January 19, 2010
ASTANA -- Public transportation was suspended today in the Kazakh capital, Astana, and four northern regions due to extreme cold, RFE/RL's Kazakh Service reports."
source


From Turkey:
"In January 2010, despite difficult conditions for cargo handling due to unusually cold winter, Klaipėda port handled 2,53 million tons of cargo." source


Jan 28, Turkey:
"TURKEY FREEZES
Siberian cold has gripped Turkey. Communications with hundreds of villages were lost.
Eastern and central Anatolia resembled the poles. The temperature in Erzurum has dropped to -34 degrees Celsius while temperature in Kars was -19. Engines of cars did not work because of the cold weather and fountains froze. Mogan and Eymir lakes in Ankara also froze."
source

From Peru, for the 4th year in a row the cold has come early and continues into January.
source

Of the southern hemisphere it is reported:
"Looking over the data for January in the southern hemisphere, Dr Methven says only South Africa comes out looking unusually hot." source

It seems difficult to understand how the world could be at record warmth while the temperatures have been so cold over such a large area. Maybe, we shouldn't listen to the climatologists, who can't seem to look out their windows to see what is really happening in the REAL world, as opposed to the computer worlds they live in.

Thursday, February 25, 2010

Worldwide Inability to measure temperature




I had a friend, who is a follower of this blog, who dismissed my examples of strong temperature differences between towns merely 20 miles apart as a US anomaly. He made the dismissive comment that the US constitutes a tiny percentage of the world's surface area. I had shown him data like that shown above from the US. While his assessment of the area of the US is absolutely true, he, an AGW advocate (whose confidence is being shaken a bit), didn't actually go look at any data from other countries. He assumed that I had no more studies than those done in the US. Below are temperature comparisions between nearby towns in China and in the UK. Note that the problems I have presented for US cities is also present in other areas of the world.

In the China examples, I either have both stations plotted together or I have subtracted one from the other. Notice that some of the ANNUAL AVERAGE temperature differences are as much as 10 deg Centigrade.








Temperatures for the UK show the same problem as for the US and China.









The problems of measuring temperature are the same around the world.

Sunday, February 21, 2010

IPCC Authors Now Say Ocean's Rise Not Certain

In spite of repeatedly being told that the world is going to end by the Holocene denying climatologists and being repeatedly told that it is settled science that the ocean levels are going to rise and drown those Bangladeshi's, (whom it seems, are incapable of moving out of the way of the rising waters), it is now uncertain if or how much the oceans will rise.

The authors of a Nature Geoscience paper, have now retracted the paper whose abstract said








It is difficult to project sea-level rise in response to warming climates by the end of the century, especially because the response of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets to warming is not well understood1. However, sea-level fluctuations in response to changing climate have been reconstructed for the past 22,000 years from fossil data, a period that covers the transition from the Last Glacial Maximum to the warm Holocene interglacial period. Here we present a simple model of the integrated sea-level response to temperature change that implicitly includes contributions from the thermal expansion and the reduction of continental ice. Our model explains much of the centennial-scale variability observed over the past 22,000 years, and estimates 4–24 cm of sea-level rise during the twentieth century, in agreement with the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change1 (IPCC). In response to the minimum (1.1 °C) and maximum (6.4 °C) warming projected for AD 2100 by the IPCC models, our model predicts 7 and 82 cm of sea-level rise by the end of the twenty-first century, respectively. The range of sea-level rise is slightly larger than the estimates from the IPCC models of 18–76 cm, but is sufficiently similar to increase confidence in the projections. Mark Siddall1, Thomas F. Stocker & Peter U. Clark, "Constraints on future sea-level rise from past sea-level change," Nature Geoscience 2, 571 - 575 (2009) Source

Now, the authors have retracted the paper. It seems that after scaring everyone about death by drowning, they have made serious mistakes.

In a statement the authors of the paper said: "Since publication of our paper we have become aware of two mistakes which impact the detailed estimation of future sea level rise. This means that we can no longer draw firm conclusions regarding 21st century sea level rise from this study without further work.

"One mistake was a miscalculation; the other was not to allow fully for temperature change over the past 2,000 years. Because of these issues we have retracted the paper and will now invest in the further work needed to correct these mistakes."
Source

It seems that the mistakes now being found in this "settled science" are legion. Can we trust anything these guys did?

Monday, February 15, 2010

Another IPCC mistake--Bias with residence time

Table 1 of the IPCC TAR WG1 report says that the time CO2 stays in the atmosphere before being removed is somewhere between 5 and 200 years. They give NO scientific reference for that 200 year residence time. source. But first, a definition of residence time.

When one puts a gas or dust or anything into the atmosphere or ocean natural chemical processes will tend to remove individual atoms and molecules and lock them away in another form. In the case of CO2, trees, algae and chemical weathering remove CO2 from the atmosphere. The residence time, is the time it takes for half of the molecules to be removed from the atmosphere. In the case of CO2 the residence time can be calculated from the nuclear bomb C14.

In the 1950s and 1960s many nuclear bombs were tested in the atmosphere. That caused a spike in atmospheric C14 all of which ended up eventually in carbon dioxide. In 1963 the atmospheric test ban went into effect and the carbon dioxide containing Carbon 14 was at a maximum. Since that time the bomb created carbon dioxide has been continuously removed from the atmosphere and the half-life is less than 12 years.



This has huge implications for claims by global warming hysteriacs. The atmosphere contains 750 billion tonnes of CO2.

"Anthropogenic CO2 emissions are
only about 3% of the natural carbon cycle and less than 1% of
the atmospheric reservoir of carbon of 750 Gt. The vast majority
of CO2 fluxes are natural.
Source: C. R. DE FREITAS
Are observed changes in the concentration of carbon dioxide
in the atmosphere really dangerous? BULLETIN OF CANADIAN PETROLEUM GEOLOGY
VOL. 50, NO. 2 (JUNE, 2002), P. 297-327, p. 301

Given the half-life (residence time) for CO2, it means that each year 750/12 or 62.5 Gigatonnes of CO2 are removed from the atmosphere each year. Most estimates say that the residence time is 5-7 years, so this bomb related argument is not the most stringent one could use.

So, how much CO2 do humans emit each year? The answer is an amazing 1/10th of the amount removed each year.





"Each year, human activity — primarily the use of coal, oil,
natural gas and production of cement — emits about 6.5 Gt of
carbon into the atmosphere. Despite this, the annual rate of
increase of CO2 in the atmosphere is highly variable, falling
close to zero in some years (for example, in 1992) and declining
in others (for example, in 1998). In general, data show that
human-caused CO2 is levelling off, despite increased emissions
(Figs. 2, 3). This is believed to be the result of natural stabilizing
feedbacks. Carbon dioxide is food for plants. The more
there is, the more they use."


Source: C. R. DE FREITAS Are observed changes in the concentration of carbon dioxide
in the atmosphere really dangerous? BULLETIN OF CANADIAN PETROLEUM GEOLOGY
VOL. 50, NO. 2 (JUNE, 2002), P. 297-327, p. 300


We put out 6.5 gigatonnes of carbon and the natural systems put out 9 times+ what we do. Given this, it is very unlikely that humans are the main cause of the rise in CO2, natural processes are responsible in large measure. Segalstad writes:


"Both radioactive and stable carbon isotopes show that the real atmospheric CO2
residence time (lifetime) is only about 5 years, and that the amount of fossil-fuel CO2 in the atmosphere is maximum 4%. Any CO2 level rise beyond this can only come from a much larger, but natural, carbon reservoir with much higher 13-C/12-C isotope ratio than that of the fossil fuel pool, namely from the ocean, and/or the lithosphere, and/or the Earth's interior."
Source: Tom V. Segalstad, "Carbon cycle modelling and the residence time of natural and anthropogenic atmospheric CO2:
on the construction of the "Greenhouse Effect Global Warming" dogma." source

The data doesn't support the IPCC contention that carbon dioxide has a residence time of 200 years. If that were true, we should have far more C14-based carbon dioxide in the atmosphere than we do. Its short residence time shows that the IPCC is simply making this up as they go along.

Sunday, February 14, 2010

Back peddling by Phil Jones

Phil Jones, the former head of the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia University, and the guy responsible for most of the exaggerated claims about global warming, and the leader of a wolf-pack of scientists who went through the scientific review process attacking anyone who would let a critical paper through to publication, is engaging in some back-peddaling.

An interview with the BBC has some interesting tidbits.

But he agreed that two periods in recent times had experienced similar warming. And he agreed that the debate had not been settled over whether the Medieval Warm Period was warmer than the current period.

These statements are likely to be welcomed by people sceptical of man-made climate change who have felt insulted to be labelled by government ministers as flat-earthers and deniers.
source

Darn tootin' it is nice not to be considered a kook; and it only took a monumental hacking job to get the data out on the table for one and all to see how abysmally poor were the claims of those who said everything was settled.

He also says that there has been no statistical warming since 1996. Many of the sheeple-thinking global warming beleivers have denied the recent cooling, yet here is the main scientist saying what critics have been saying for years. How sweet.

The political fallout is occurring rapidly, with the mistakes and quotations of non-scientific opinions in the IPCC reports being dug up daily. New Scientist has an interesting editorial which finally allows that critics should be listened to in the climate debate. After pointing out that the job of a scientist is to "test theories to destruction", they go on to finally say:

"So let the IPCC embrace such debates, rather than retreat from them in the name of spurious consensus. Climate scientists have felt under siege from critics, as leaked emails last year amply demonstrated. But that is no reason to dismiss all criticism as necessarily unwarranted, uninformed or politically motivated."

"Some argue that the views of an untutored blogger, or even a scientist from another discipline, should never carry the same weight as those of someone with a lifetime's expertise in a relevant field. But if occasionally the emperors of the lab have no clothes, someone has to say so. The wider review of science made possible by the blogosphere can improve science and foster public confidence in its methods. Scientists should welcome the outside world in to check them out. Their science is useless if no one trusts it."
"Let the sunlight in on climate change," New scientist, Jan 30, 2010, p. 5

Finally some sense on the pages of a scientific journal. This is an implicit admission that critics were suppressed and that outsiders do have a role to play in scientific criticism. It is truly amazing.

We are now winning the battle for free expression and open researh--something needed very badly by governmentally funded science.

The world isn't warming--data is no good

I apologize for being absent for the past 3 weeks or so. I have had many things I have had to do.

A friend just sent me an article to the Times (UK) which basically verifies what this blog has been saying for quite a while, that the temperature record is not reliable. I have shown that the temperatures measured at two closely spaced towns are terribly inconsistent due to heat sources.

The article cites research by Christy and other research by McKittrick.


"Christy has published research papers looking at these effects in three different regions: east Africa, and the American states of California and Alabama.

“The story is the same for each one,” he said. “The popular data sets show a lot of warming but the apparent temperature rise was actually caused by local factors affecting the weather stations, such as land development.”

The IPCC faces similar criticisms from Ross McKitrick, professor of economics at the University of Guelph, Canada, who was invited by the panel to review its last report.

The experience turned him into a strong critic and he has since published a research paper questioning its methods.

“We concluded, with overwhelming statistical significance, that the IPCC’s climate data are contaminated with surface effects from industrialisation and data quality problems. These add up to a large warming bias,” he said."

source

To refresh everyone's memory of how bad and inconsistent the temperature record is, look at the temperature difference between Stillwater, Oklahoma and Perry, Oklahoma, towns merely 16 miles apart. I subtracted Perry's daily temperature from Stillwater's and then averaged each year. Notice how these YEARLY averages vary over such a small difference, sometimes favoring Stillwater, and sometimes favoring Perry.

Think also in terms of wind direction. We know that wind blows from the hot regions to the cold regions. The predominant winds in Oklahoma are from the west and southwest. Temperature differences like those seen below should impact the average wind direction--of course nothing is observed along those lines so the temperatures probably aren't real.