The Migrant Mind

Global warming linked to earthquake

2011-03-11T17:05:00.001-08:00

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.

Comparisons of closely spaced corrections

2011-03-06T11:56:00.000-08:00

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.

You wee people don't really need electricity

2011-03-05T11:21:00.001-08:00

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

More weird corrections

2011-02-21T17:39:00.000-08:00

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?

Really Weird Final minus Raw

2011-02-20T18:08:00.000-08:00

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.

Urban Heat Island in Pictures part 5

2011-02-15T19:24:00.000-08:00

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.

Urban Heat Island in Pictures part 4

2011-02-09T18:34:00.000-08:00

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.

Urban Heat Island in Pictures part 3

2011-02-08T19:14:00.001-08:00

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

2011-02-08T03:55:00.000-08:00

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.

Urban Heat Island in Pictures

2011-02-07T18:54:00.000-08:00

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.

Failed Predictions of the Alarmists

2011-02-05T15:36:00.000-08:00

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, 2009source

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.

War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Warming is Cooling

2011-02-04T09:44:00.001-08:00

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.

Data interpreted both ways.

2011-01-23T09:17:00.001-08:00

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.

Where is the rejoicing?

2011-01-20T19:10:00.001-08:00

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

The Beat of Water Vapor

2011-01-17T20:17:00.000-08:00

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.

Blank sun, cosmic rays, clouds and cooling

2010-04-29T03:32:00.000-07:00

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.

What a heat source can do to temperature--Geneva and Fairmont Nebraska

2010-04-27T03:51:00.000-07:00

In this blog I have done a lot of looking at two nearby towns on the Great Plains. The reason for doing this is that such temperatures should be somewhat similar. They should not have strong bias's over short distances like 15 miles. Today's example is of Geneva, Nebraska and Fairmont, Nebraska, two towns merely 15 miles apart. These two towns are especially intersting as Fairmont has an elevation of 1641 feet and Geneva 1644 feet. No one can claim that there is a lapse rate of any importance between these two towns.

The thermometers are, however in a particularly good place to test out the urban heating of a house. Geneva's MMTS is located 12 feet from a house, in a neighborhood. Below is the picture.

Fairmont Nebraska's Stevenson Screen is sited at least 100 meters away from a house. It's station is shown below. Pictures of both stations are from Anthony Watts' surfacestations.org site.

Geneva should be subject to heat being emitted from the house during the winter and thus should be warmer during the winter than Fairmont. This is precisely what we see. Every winter, Geneva, Nebraska is warmer than Fairmont by about a degree. This can't be due to CO2 because CO2 doesn't go up in the winter at Geneva and down at Fairmont. This can only be due to heat affecting the validity of the Geneva measurements.

Why in the world the global warming hysteriacs can act as if they are collecting data of sufficient scientific quality is far beyond me. As a physicist, I learned that the first thing one must do is ensure that the measurements are free of bias--and this is something that the climatologists are not doing.

I would point readers to my previous blog calculating how much heat is added to the radiation field of a city, even a small one, by our modern lifestyle. how energy use warms the earth

Albedo made me warm and cool.

2010-04-24T14:03:00.000-07:00

While doing some research on the earth's albedo, I ran across a Cal Tech press release, which basically says that the experiment has been run--the experiment being a doubling of CO2. And guess what, we survived. The fear among the climate hysteriacs is that we will heat the earth. It isn't CO2 per se, but the heating effect of CO2 that is the worry. The heating is what they fear. So, have we had heating this century equivalent to doubling the CO2 content of the atmosphere? Yes.

By using a combination of earthshine observations and satellite data on cloud cover, the earthshine team has determined the following:

= Earth's average albedo is not constant from one year to the next; it also changes over decadal timescales. The computer models currently used to study the climate system do not show such large decadal-scale variability of the albedo.

= The annual average albedo declined very gradually from 1985 to 1995, and then declined sharply in 1995 and 1996. These observed declines are broadly consistent with previously known satellite measures of cloud amount.

= The low albedo during 1997-2001 increased solar heating of the globe at a rate more than twice that expected from a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide. This "dimming" of Earth, as it would be seen from space, is perhaps connected with the recent accelerated increase in mean global surface temperatures.

= 2001-2003 saw a reversal of the albedo to pre-1995 values; this "brightening" of the Earth is most likely attributable to the effect of increased cloud cover and thickness.

source

Now,greenhouse gases can be treated as if they are additional heat input to the earth. This is merely treating the greenhouse as if it was extra solar output.

The radiative forcings have been calculated for all the greenhouse gases as a function of their abundance. These calculations are done by computing the way the radiation at each wavelength is absorbed and reradiated at different layers in the atmosphere, until it escapes to space. The present radiative forcings of each greenhouse gas (compared to their greenhouse effects in pre-industrial times) are:
• Carbon dioxide: 1.5 Watts per square meter.
• Methane: 0.5 Watts per square meter.
• Nitrous oxide: 0.2 Watts per square meter.
• Halocarbons: 0.2 Watts per square meter.
• Total from all greenhouse gases: 2.4 Watts per square meter.
Hence, at present carbon dioxide is responsible for 60% of the anthropogenic greenhouse effect, methane is responsible for 20%, nitrous oxide for 10%, and halocarbons for 10%. The total radiative forcing of 2.4 Watts per square meter is equivalent to 1% of all the energy absorbed from sunlight in the surface and atmosphere of the Earth, at present, and it will increase as greenhouse gas abundances increase in the future. source

Below is a picture from the Palle et al article showing the changes in the Earth's albedo. I modified it to show what periods would be warming and cooling and the approximate warming due to greenhouse gas content of the atmosphere.

A one per cent change in the earth's albedo is a change of 13.6 watts per meter squared. From the chart one can see that the earth's albedo has changed by more than a percent just over the past 30 years. Yet the greenhouse gases will only change the radiative forcing by 2.4 watts per meter squared. This means that we have experienced more warming that the hysteriacs fear CO2 will bring us.

The problem with the global warming alarmists is that they focus on a single cause for the warming and proclaim (wrongly) that nothing else can affect the global climate. Data from satellites show that the earth's albedo is a bigger driver of warming than are the greenhouse gases.

An Odd Solar Cycle

2010-04-21T18:44:00.000-07:00

One of the things that is clear from most climatical research--when sunspots are rare, the earth cools. I know, I know some hysteriacs try to say the sun has little impact on the earth's climate. History simply doesn't support them. The period called the Little Ice Age, which was the last time glaciers advanc ed and actually over ran towns which had been inhabited from the beginning of history, was a period of time also known as the Maunder Minimum-- a period when there were almost no sunspots.

The mother of all spotless runs was of course the Maunder Minimum. This was a period from October 15, 1661 to August 2, 1671.
It totaled 3579 consecutive spotless days. That puts our current run at 17.5% of that of the Maunder Minimum.

By the standard of spotless days, the ongoing solar minimum is the deepest in a century: NASA report. In 2008, no sunspots were observed on 266 of the year’s 366 days (73%). To find a year with more blank suns, you have to go all the way back to 1913, which had 311 spotless days (85%):
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/05/27/the-baby-grand-has-arrived/

It was about the Little Ice Age/Maunder Minimum that this was said:

"Villages built in what had been considered safe places were overwhelmed by glaciers in the early 17th century. Several of these villages are still ice-covered today."~G. H. Denton and S. C. Porter, "Neoglaciation", Scientific American, June 1970, p. 102

Anyone who has looked out side over the past couple of years, should know that the weather has been cooler than the global warming hysteriacs would have us believe. I believe that it is because we have had few sunspots over the past few years. During each solar minimum the sun often has no sunspots. Plots of the spotless days show that this solar minimum has been exceptionally low in solar activity. Below is a chart showing a comparision of the number of spotless days per month for the last few solar cycles. Each curve starts the month before the first spotless day. The blue curve, which is the current cycle, is clearly anomalous among the previous few sunspot cycles.

An uncertain history

2010-04-18T11:31:00.000-07:00

One of the jokes in the old Soviet Union was that the Soviet Union was the only country with an uncertain past. The Soviets had a way with altering previously published photographs to remove people who had formerly been there. The above two photos are among the most famous of these history-altering attempts. Grigory Grigoryevich Nelyuboff, simply wasn't there in May 1961, no matter what your lying eyes told you if you saw the original May 1961 publication.

Sadly, much of the climatological corrections have the same effect.Below are two graphs, one showing the original observed temperature profile for Seligman, Arizona. the other the 'adjusted' history. The data was taken from here

Notice that on the original unaltered temperature record, 1960 is warmer than the present time (makes one think about the tree-ring temperature proxy decline that was discussed in the famous 'hide the decline' email of climategate). But in the altered, and final dataset, 1960 is suddenly a full degree cooler than the present day temperature, or alternatively, editing alone has added a full degree of temperature difference to Seligman.

One will notice also that the raw data was hotter by half a degree, with 1960 and 2000 being close to 13 deg C. The adjusted data is down to 12.5 deg for 2000 but about 11.6 deg for 1960. This adjustment changes the trend, and the anomaly which is what most global warming advocates show. They show the trend in the anomalies, and the editing has changed the trend of Seligman.

Here is a graph with both adjusted and unadjusted data on the same graph.

Notice that history has been changed. History is variable.

Let's look next door at Fort Valley, AZ, a town at a much lower elevation. We see the same tendency to make the present hotter. First the raw data and then the 'adjusted' data.

If you look closely the entire history at Fort Valley has been changed to cool all temperatures prior to 1990. Look at 1910. On the unadjusted the peak was about 7.25 deg C. After adjustment, the temperature has been cooled to about 6.25 deg. The 1964 cold spell was cooled even further going from about 5 deg C on the unadjusted to about 4.65 on the 'adjusted'.

Here are both adjusted and unadjusted on the same graph. You can see how the 'correction' systematically cools the past in relation to the present, thus making the temperature TREND, which is what the climatologists scare us with, appear worse than it actually is.

To paraphrase a line from The Lord of the Rings movie, Be afraid, be very afraid, not of the temperature but of climatological corrections.

Warmer Arctic Temperature brings more Arctic Ice

2010-04-17T19:19:00.000-07:00

I swear that some of the lunacies that the global warming hysteriacs want us to believe are entirely illogical. Goddard Institute has proclaimed March 2010 as the warmest March in history. (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/?report=global&year=2010&month=2&submitted=Get+Report
)

Here is a picture of the warm Arctic regions, also from Goddard Institute.

NOte that all around the Arctic Ocean is warm, up to 5 deg C warmer than normal. The strong red all along the coasts of the Arctic ocean should indicate that the Arctic Ocean's ice should be melting. But it isn't.

If this is true, then the climatologists at Goddard need to explain how it is that the arctic ice cover and thickness INCREASED in March. Below is a graph of the ice cover in the Arctic. The light blue curve is the area of the Arctic covered by ice at the end of March.

The area of ice cover in the Arctic Ocean continued to increase throughout March, which was up to 5 deg C warmer surrounding the Arctic. Surely ice cover wouldn't increase as much as it does if the Arctic was as warm as Goddard most assuredly mistakenly claims it is.

This discrepancy shows that the thermometer record is not to be trusted. It is a sham.

Polar Bears have seen warmth before.

2010-04-16T14:57:00.001-07:00

That is the conclusion of a study reported in Science News.

"The discovery of this jawbone confirms that the polar bear was already a distinct species at least 110 kya, and as such any findings from genetic research based on this specimen could contribute to answering key questions on the evolutionary history of this species." source p. 5054

Analysis of the mitochondrial DNA show that polar bears split from Alaskan bears 150,000 years ago.

“Within this clade, we estimated the mean age of the split between the ABC bears and the polar bears to be 152 ky, and the mean age for all polar bears as 134 ky, near the beginning of the Eemian interglacial period and completely in line with the stratigraphically determined age of the Poolepynten subfossil.” Charlotte Lindqvist et al, “Complete mitochondrial genome of a Pleistocene
jawbone unveils the origin of polar bear, Proc. Natl. Acad. Science, USA, 107(2010):11, p. 5054

The picture below shows the temperature (black curve) from a Greenland Ice core back to 100,000 years ago. Notice the warmth.

This next picture shows the temperature of the Vostok core from Antarctica. Notice that the world was warmer than at present about 100,000 years ago in that core as well. That means that the polar bears survived the warm periods. The hysteria about their future is misplaced.

This, of course, means that polar bears lived through the last interglacial period when it was warmer than it is today. And we are supposed to worry about us killing the polar bears. What a laugh. The bears can take care of themselves.

Global Warming = More Snow Cover?

2010-03-30T18:28:00.000-07:00

Yessirreeee, step right up. You too can believe that pigs can fly and shat don't stink. Global warming, if it continues unabated, will cover our planet with snow in the winters. Beleive that because the government tells you it is so. Those thousands of scientists who tell us about the dangers of global warming also tell us that northern hemisphere snow cover has been increasing over the past few years.

Below is the claimed rise in global temperature since 1880. Looking at this searingly hot chart, which shows an incredible amount of warming this century, one would expect that snow cover would be declining. Such is not the case.

Below is the October snow cover anomaly from 1967 to 2009. the snow cover increases from 1987 to the present, yet the temperature rises. Do the climatologists expect us mere peasants not to notice this little fact?

But what about October's temperature anomaly from 1967 on. Does it correlate with the snow cover? No.

It is really interesting that when global warming was supposed to be accelerating, starting in 1980, that the snow cover was in general, consistent with the belief that the world was warming. Snow cover anomalies were below the previous period. But then, after 1994, in general, each October has seen above normal snow cover, all the while that the globe is supposedly rising to hotter and hotter temperatures and the CO2 levels (gasp) were rising as well. Clearly the only logical conclusion is that snow has a different melting point today than it did in the past because that is the only rational way to explain how the globe can get hotter and yet be covered by more snow. A friend suggested I call it HOT SNOW.

November's history shows no real trend in snow cover from 1967-2009.

And November's global temperature anomaly? it is inconsistent with what you see above in the snow cover.

One thing to note. Post-1990 the November snow cover has generally been above the average line, and that is inconsistent with the temperature graph shown above. Given the excessive heat the climatologists claim for the earth, it is surprising that snow cover has increased from 1980 to the present.

Now in December, the trend for more snow cover as the world warms continues after that brief November interlude.

Here is how the climatologists say December has warmed. Note how different this curve is.

Amazingly as the climatologists have proclaimed that the world is warming as evidenced by the NASA graph above, the December snow cover has been above normal for all but 4 years since 1989! That is a lot of snow given such an extremely warm world they claim.

What about January? Well, once again the climate hysteriacs would want us not to pay attention to the data. They want you to believe them, not the data. January shows a strong increase in snow cover over the past few years.

And January's global temperature anomaly

A glance again at the temperature curve above would not lead one to expect such an increase in snow cover from the hot world we live in. Yet the climatologists think we are too stupid to notice this issue.

What about February? Below are the two relevant charts, snowcover then temperature.

Clearly one would not expect the snow cover to rise over the years just as the snow cover also rises. Clearly something is wrong with what the global warming hysteriacs are telling us.

And of course, there is today comes a report that the Arctic ice cover is back to normal levels--even though there is more CO2 in the atmosphere today than in 2001 when we were at this level of ice cover the last time. Ice and snow don't seem to recognize that the world is getting warmer.

The snow cover pictures can be found on the respective pages for the requisite month at source

The monthly temperature anomalies are retrived from source

Solar output as the cause of the warming

2010-03-28T13:40:00.000-07:00

In a little noticed paper, Charles Perry and renown geologist, Kenneth Hsu study the proxies for solar output and created a solar output model based upon that information. They use solar cycle harmonics to create their model, which matches the proxy data quite well.

The abstract:

Although the processes of climate change are not completely understood, an important causal candidate is variation in total solar output. Reported cycles in various climate-proxy data show a tendency to emulate a fundamental harmonic sequence of a basic solar-cycle length (11 years) multiplied by 2N (where N equals a positive or negative integer). A simple additive model for total solar-output variations was developed by superimposing a progression of fundamental harmonic cycles with slightly increasing amplitudes. The timeline of the model was calibrated to the Pleistocene/Holocene boundary at 9,000 years before present. The calibrated model was compared with geophysical, archaeological, and historical evidence of warm or cold climates during the Holocene. The evidence of periods of several centuries of cooler climates worldwide called “little ice ages,” similar to the period anno Domini (A.D.) 1280–1860 and reoccurring approximately every 1,300 years, corresponds well with fluctuations in modeled solar output. A more detailed examination of the climate sensitive history of the last 1,000 years further supports the model. Extrapolation of the model into the future suggests a gradual cooling during the next few centuries with intermittent minor warmups and a return to near little-ice-age conditions within the next 500 years. This cool period then may be followed approximately 1,500 years from now by a return to altithermal conditions similar to the previous Holocene Maximum. source

They note that the warming seen this century doesn't match that which occurred in the Medieval Optimum. In other words, it was warmer a thousand years ago than it is now.

"However, geophysical, archaeological, and historical evidence is consistent with
warming and cooling periods during the Holocene as indicated by the solar-output model. The current warm period is thought to have not reached the level of warmth of the previous warm period (A.D. 800-1200), when the Vikings raised wheat and livestock in Greenland. Therefore, the magnitude of the modern temperature increase being caused solely by an increase in CO2 concentrations appears questionable. The contribution of solar output variations to climate change may be significant.” Charles A. Perry and Kenneth J. Hsu, “Geophysical, archaeological, and historical evidence support a solar-output model for climate change, PNAS, 97(2001):23, p. 12436

An interesting comparison of their model with the C14 production, which is related to the strength of the sun's output, shows that their model fits the known variations.

Their comment that the observed warming can't be due to CO2 alone is spot on. CO2 hysteriacs rarely seem to look at the source of all our heat--the sun.

Rates of Sea Level Rise

2010-03-28T07:33:00.000-07:00

One of the claims by the Holocene denying climate alarmists is that the sea levels are rising faster now, due to man, than at anytime in geologic history.

An abstract in Nature Geoscience says:

Nature Geoscience
Published online: 14 June 2009 | doi:10.1038/ngeo544
Identifying the causes of sea-level change
Glenn A. Milne1, W. Roland Gehrels2, Chris W. Hughes3 & Mark E. Tamisiea3

Abstract
Global mean sea-level change has increased from a few centimetres per century over recent millennia to a few tens of centimetres per century in recent decades. This tenfold increase in the rate of rise can be attributed to climate change through the melting of land ice and the thermal expansion of ocean water. As the present warming trend is expected to continue, global mean sea level will continue to rise. Here we review recent insights into past sea-level changes on decadal to millennial timescales and how they may help constrain future changes. We find that most studies constrain global mean sea-level rise to less than one metre over the twenty-first century, but departures from this global mean could reach several decimetres in many areas. We conclude that improving estimates of the spatial variability in future sea-level change is an important research target in coming years.

But such rates as mentioned in that article are not unusual, nor are they outside of the rate of natural variation. A recent study in Science studied the cave deposits in Mallorca and showed that the rates of sea level rise were as great as 20 m/1000 years, or 2 meters per century. And this was over 80,000 years ago when no automobile or coal-fired electrical plant existed.

"Specifically at Mallorca, speleothem
encrustations record a MIS 5b sea-level height of
~ –20 m at 85.4 +/- 0.9 ka and a MIS 5a height of
~ +1 m by 84.2 +/- 1.0 ka (10). The sea-level
drop after the MIS 5a highstand was very rapid
as well, because speleothem encrustations
record a height of ~ –15 m by ~78.6 +/- 0.8 ka
(10). These rates of sea-level change nominally
approach 20 m per thousand years..." Dorale, et al, “Sea-Level Highstand 81,000 Years Ago in Mallorca”, Science, Feb 12, 2010, p. 861

That huge variation occurred without any human interference, yet the IPCC wants us to claim credit for raising the oceans at a rate of 3.1 millimeters per year (.3 m/century) when history shows that the oceans have naturally varied at 6 times the rate that the IPCC says should be blamed on us.

"Global average sea level rose at an average rate of 1.8
[1.3 to 2.3] mm per year over 1961 to 2003. The rate
was faster over 1993 to 2003: about 3.1 [2.4 to 3.8]
mm per year. Whether the faster rate for 1993 to 2003
refl ects decadal variability or an increase in the longerterm
trend is unclear."source IPCC AR4 WG1p. 5

The Holocene denying, anti-geological hysteriacs should look to see what the history of the earth really shows.

Snow in South Texas on 1st Day of Spring

2010-03-21T12:40:00.000-07:00

I have mentioned several places that since Aug 15, 2009, I have had north winds on my ranch every weekend save two. This is highly unusual for a ranch this far south. This weekend was no exception.

Due to family circumstances I was unable to go to my ranch this weekend until today. I needed to mow. I got up early and drove the couple of hours to the ranch. Just as I was pulling into Crockett, I noticed something in my headlights. It looked like snow. By the time I had gone another 7 miles to the ranch, the snow was heavy, the roof tops were white and covered. It snowed all morning with some cover on the ground. I found myself mowing while it was snowing. I guess all in all we had about 1/3" of global warming up there today.

Yes, this is weather and not climate, but to have such weather for more than 7 months now, where the winds blow from the north, you lakes freeze for the first time since 1986, and a record low temperature for the area was set, it is clear that this isn't a normal winter.

Water vapor accounts for 30% of the Warming

2010-03-20T07:38:00.001-07:00

I noticed the following statement in a recent Science article.

More limited data suggest that stratospheric water vapor probably increased between 1980 and 2000, which would have enhanced the decadal rate of surface warming during the 1990s by about 30% as compared to estimates neglecting this change. These findings show that stratospheric water vapor is an important driver of decadal glboal surface temperatures. Susan Solomon et al, "Contributions of stratospheric Water Vapor to decadal Changes in the Rate of Global Warming," Science 327, March 5, 2010, p. 1219

Note in the picture below that the world started warming at an accelerated rate in the 1980s. Gee, do you think that water vapor might be more of a cause of the scary warming they have been claiming is due solely to CO2?

Why Climatologists are not to be trusted

2010-03-14T12:19:00.000-07:00

A friend questioned my continued distrust of the IPCC and the scientists therein. He said that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Because I am involved in a startup company, it has taken me a while to get to this issue. The dishonesty in climatology has been a long time practice and it is documentable.

In 1996 the IPCC published the Second Assessment Report (SAR). Of that SAR report, Frederick Seitz, former president of Rockefeller University and former president of the U. S. National Academy of Sciences, wrote about the corruption of the process that led to the un-peer-reviewed changes in Chapter 8 which covered the scientific evidence. What had happened was that the scientists had approved a final version, which was supposed to go to press. But after the final approval and before the typesetting, changes were made to the text which removed any comments about doubts that climatologists might have. Seiter notes:

"Few of these changes were merely cosmetic; nearly all worked to remove hints of the skepticism with which many scientists regard claims that human activities are having a major impact on climate in general and on global warming in particular.
“The following passages are examples of those included in the approved report but deleted from the supposedly peer-reviewed published version:

• "None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed [climate] changes to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gases."

• "No study to date has positively attributed all or part [of the climate change observed to date] to anthropogenic [man-made] causes."

• "Any claims of positive detection of significant climate change are likely to remain controversial until uncertainties in the total natural variability of the climate system are reduced."

The reviewing scientists used this original language to keep themselves and the IPCC honest. I am in no position to know who made the major changes in Chapter 8; but the report's lead author, Benjamin D. Santer, must presumably take the major responsibility.”Frederick Seiter, A Major Deception on Global Warming Wall Street Journal, June 12, 1996 source

Clearly whoever did that editing didn’t want the public to see that there was doubt among the climatologicical community. Seitz further noted,

“This IPCC report, like all others, is held in such high regard largely because it has been peer-reviewed. That is, it has been read, discussed, modified and approved by an international body of experts. These scientists have laid their reputations on the line. But this report is not what it appears to be--it is not the version that was approved by the contributing scientists listed on the title page. In my more than 60 years as a member of the American scientific community, including service as president of both the National Academy of Sciences and the American Physical Society, I have never witnessed a more disturbing corruption of the peer-review process than the events that led to this IPCC report.” Frederick Seiter, A Major Deception on Global Warming Wall Street Journal, June 12, 1996 source

Elimination of Boreholes.

For over 100 years, it has been scientific knowledge that the Medieval period was warmer than today. That was the standard belief in climatological circles. But if that was true, then today’s warming is nothing very spectactular, unusual or unprecedented. H. H. Lamb, the founder of the Climate Research Unit gathered much evidence for the Medieval Warm period.

"In central Norway the area of settlement, forest clearance and cultivation, which appears to have been more or less static since early iron age times, spread rather rapidly 100-200 m farther up the valleys and hillsides in the course of about two centuries from around A. D. 800; it retreated as decisively in the 14th century - partly owing to the Black Death, though the higher level farms were left unoccupied for hundreds of years thereafter, and in some areas further farms were abandoned before the advancing glaciers as late as 1743."~H. H. Lamb, "The Early Medieval Warm Epoch and its Sequel", Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, 1, 1965, p. 16

"The Arctic pack ice was so much less extensive than in recent times that appearances of drift ice near Iceland and Greenland south of 70[deg] N, were apparently rare in the 10th century and unknown between 1020 and 1194, when a rapid increase of frequency caused a permanent change of shipping routes. Brooks suggested that the Arctic Ocean became ice-free in the summers of this epoch, as in the Climatic Optimum; but it seems more probable that there was some 'permanent' ice, limited to areas north of 80[deg] N."~H. H. Lamb, "The Medieval Warm Epoch and its Sequel", Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, 1:1965, p. 15-16

And it wasn't just a European affair:

"In the period from about AD 500 to 1800, nine minima are
recorded in the d18O curve. Three minima of d18O at about ad
1550, 1650 and 1750 correspond with the most severe cold climate,
which occurred between ad 1550 and 1700 (Lamb, 1966).
There is an obvious warm period represented by the high d18O
from around ad 1100 to 1200 which may correspond to the Medieval
Warm Epoch of Europe (Lamb, 1966). At that time, the
northern boundary of the cultivation of citrus tree (Citrus reticulata
Blanco) and Boehmeria nivea (a perennial herb), both subtropical
and thermophilous plants, moved gradually into the northern
part of China, and it has been estimated that the annual mean
temperature was 0.9–1.0[deg] C higher than at present (Zhang, 1994)."
Y. T. Hong, et al, "Response of climate to solar forcing recorded in a 6000-year 18O time-series of Chinese peat cellulose," The Holocene, Vol. 10, No. 1, 1-7 (2000), p. 4

The existence of this warm period was a thorn in the side of the climatological alarmists. It screamed that today's warming is nothing new. The medieval warm period became the enemy.

In 1995, Dr. David Deming, a geophysicist at the University of Oklahoma published a paper in Science, “Climate Warming in North America: Analysis of Borehole Temperatures,” Science, 268(1995), pp 1576-1577. That article addressed only the past 100-150 years of history and showed that the globe had warmed. That got Deming into the ‘club’ and in discussions of the climate history which in turn led to an amazingly honest email by a climate alarmist as to what must be done to advance their cause.

John Overpeck of the University of Arizona, and a lead author of the IPCC wrote to Deming, “We have to get rid of the Mediaeval Warm Period.” (source and David Deming (2005) “Global Warming, the Politicization of Science, and Michael Crichton's State of Fear.” Forthcoming, Journal of Scientific Exploration, v.19, no.2.

Science should not have the purpose of getting rid of something. It should be in the business of going with the evidence. Getting rid of the Medieval Warm period was going to take a lot of work. Two years after Deming’s work, Shapoeng Huang, Henry Pollack, and Po Yu Shen, published “Late Quaternary Temperature Changes Seen in Worldwide Continental Heat Flow Measurements, Geophysical Research Letters, 24(1997), p 1947-1950. The article analyzed 6000 borehole temperature records from around the world for the past 20,000 years. It was an amazing piece of work and confirmed the existence of the Medieval warm period. Below is the graph of temperature from that paper. Note that the Medieval period was warmer than the present and that means that we are not having any unprecedented warming.

But that was the wrong conclusion. Huang, Pollack and Shen got the message and they cherry-picked only 358 of the 6000 borehole measurements and cherry-picked the time frame (only 500 years rather than 20,000 years. From this drastically reduced data set they published an article proclaiming the modern warming was ‘unusual’. This from about 5% of the data and 2.5% of the time interval, all carefully chosen. They wrote in 1998.

“Analyses of underground temperature measurements from 358 boreholes in eastern North America, central Europe, southern Africa, and Australia indicate that, in the 20th century, the average surface temperature of Earth has increased by about 0.5°C and that the 20th century has been the warmest of the past five centuries. The subsurface temperatures also indicate that Earth's mean surface temperature has increased by about 1.0°C over the past five centuries. The geothermal data offer an independent confirmation of the unusual character of 20th-century climate that has emerged from recent multiproxy studies." Henry N. Pollack, * Shaopeng Huang, Po-Yu Shen, "Climate Change Record in Subsurface Temperatures: A Global Perspective," Science 9 October 1998: Vol. 282. no. 5387, pp. 279 - 281 source

This was their new graph, created to support global warming.

They ignored the Medieval Warm epoch to advance their cause, even though they had to have known about their previous paper showing how NORMAL the current warming was--after all, THEY WROTE IT!!!. Note how different was their conclusion just a year earlier when they noted that there was nothing unusual about the 20th century.

“Analysis of more than six thousand continental heat flow measurements as a function of depth has yielded a reconstruction of a global average ground surface temperature history over the last 20,000 years. The early to mid-Holocene appears as a relatively long warm interval some 0.2–0.6 K above present-day temperatures, the culmination of the warming that followed the end of the last glaciation. Temperatures were also warmer than present 500–1,000 years ago, but then cooled to a minimum some 0.2–0.7 K below present about 200 years ago. Although temperature variations in this type of reconstruction are highly smoothed, the results clearly resemble the broad outlines of late Quaternary climate changes suggested by proxies.” Huang, S., H. N. Pollack, and P. Y. Shen (1997), Late Quaternary temperature changes seen in world-wide continental heat flow measurements, Geophys. Res. Lett., 24(15), 1947–1950.

After the second, cherry-picked article was published, Pollack became the science advisor for Al Gore and worked on Gore’s movie. It seems that one must toe the line in order to advance in climatological circles. source

More changes to the text after review.

Richard Lindzen, a lead IPCC author gave testimony in 2001 to the Senate Commerce Committee. He said

“The preparation of the report, itself, was subject to pressure. There were usually several people working on every few pages. Naturally there were disagreements, but these were usually hammered out in a civilized manner. However, throughout the drafting sessions, IPCC ‘coordinators’ would go around insisting that criticism of models be toned down, and that ‘motherhood’ statements be inserted to the effect that models might still be correct despite the cited faults. Refusals were occasionally met with ad hominem attacks. I personally witnessed coauthors forced to assert their ‘green’ credentials in defense of their statements.

! The full text can be modified long after the authors have signed off.” http://www.lavoisier.com.au/articles/climate-policy/science-and-policy/Lindzen_McCain.pdf()

Now, in researching this issue, trying to find the above testimony, I learned another reason not to trust global warming advocates. I did a google search ( on March 14, 2010) on Lindzen and Senate Commerce Committee. I came up with the following list of links, notice the first one from Wikipedia.

When I clicked on the first link, I got the following evidence of suppression of dissent from global warming advocates.

These hysteriacs who claim to be on the side of science are really interested only in suppressing free research and freedom of expression. I got to the info I wanted by going to the cached pages. It seems that these AGW folk simply can’t stand to be criticized. They settle the science by not allowing any dissent.

Selection of the most alarming data.

In 2001, Stephen Schneider, a lead author of the IPCC noted that the predictions of climate rise were arbitrarily raised, not by the scientists.

"In the third assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the climate modellers of working group 1 (see Box 1 for glossary) dramatically revised upwards the top-range limit of their predictions of global warming from the previous value of 1–3.5 [deg ] C to 1.4–5.8 [deg] C between now and 2100 (refs 1, 2). This sweeping revision depends on two factors that were not the handiwork of the modellers: smaller projected emissions of climate-cooling aerosols; and a few predictions containing particularly large CO2 emissions.” source

He went on to note that the IPCC rejected his advice that temperature rises be given probability distributions. Unfortunately the press loves to report the largest number; it sells more papers and the climatological bosses at IPC love it so they can get more funding.

The Hockey Stick

When Michael Mann published his now infamous no-hockey-stick graph of world climate history (above), Steven McIntyre and Ross McKitrick began to look at the work. After much work, they obtained Michael Mann’s methodology. Using it they found

“…the real problem lay with the ‘principal component analysis’ itself. It turned out that an algorithm had been programmed into Mann’s computer model which ‘mined’ for hockey stick shapes whatever data was fed into it.” Christopher Booker, “The Real Global Warming Disaster, (New York: Continuum, 2009), p. 103

In the above source, McKitrick is quoted as noting that if the IPCC really had a strong internal review process they would have found the error before Mann’s work was published and publicized. Such behavior shows that the climatological community is not to be trusted.

And then there is this:

“When McIntyre and McKitrick then submitted a letter to Nature, pointing out some of the technical flaws in the study which Nature itself had published in 1998, the journal sat on their letter for eight months, before saying that it wouldn’t appear. By a Catch 22 trick, Nature explained that they could only be allowed 500 words to make their point. But since in the editor’s view, this would not be enough to explain their point properly, he did not propose to print anything.” Christopher Booker, “The Real Global Warming Disaster, (New York: Continuum, 2009), p. 105

Nice! Science is such an open and honest profession, willing to accept criticism.
Antarctica’s ice and...

Censorship in Moscow

There is a bizarre case of Professor David King, the science advisor to Tony Blair. Booker relates:

“Supporting Blair’s initiative, with an interview headed “Why Antarctica will soon be the only place to live’, Professor King claimed that the earth’s temperatures had risen to their highest level for ’60 million years’. At that time he said, repeating the point he had made earlier to the MPs, CO2 levels had soared to 10,000 parts per million, causing a massive reduction of life. ‘No ice was left on Earth. Antarctica was the best place for mammals to live, and the rest of the world would not sustain human life, he went on warming that, if humanity did not curb its burning of fossil fuels, ‘we will reach that level by 2100.” Christopher Booker, “The Real Gobal Warming Disaster, (New York: Continuum, 2009), p.112

King is not a climatologist but a surface chemist. His knowledge of geologic history is that of a kindergartener. A meteor killed the dinosaurs, The CO2 levels were above 1000 ppm but that was ten million years after the dinosaurs died off during the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal maximum and during that time mammals lived all over the world, not just on Antarctica. Yet his was the voice of climate science for the UK government.

At a 2003 Russian Academy of Science conference on Kyoto, Dr. King attempted to suppress alternative viewpoints.

“He gave an ultimatum that two-thirds of the scientific contributors invited by the Academy were ‘undesirable’ and should not be allowed to speak. He appealed to Tony Blair’s office and the British Foreign Secretary jack Straw, who happened to be in Moscow, for pressure to be put on the Russian government and the conference organizers to insist that his demands were met.” Christopher Booker, “The Real Gobal Warming Disaster, (New York: Continuum, 2009), p. 114

Here is what Andrey Illarionov said:

“The British participants insisted on introducing censorship during the holding of this seminar. The chief science adviser to the British government, Mr. King, demanded in the form of an ultimatum at the beginning of yesterday that the program of the seminar be changed and he presented an ultimatum demanding that about two-third of the participants not be given the floor.

"The participants in the seminar who had been invited by the Russian Academy of Sciences, they have been invited by the president of the Academy of Sciences Yuri Sergeyevich Osipov. Mr. King spoke about "undesirable" scientists and undesirable participants in the seminar. He declared that if the old program is preserved, he would not take part in the seminar and walk out taking along with him all the other British participants.” source

Sea-level misconduct

Dr. Nils-Axel Morner a tide guage and sea-level expert has been a thorn in the side of the climate hysteriacs for quite some time. Morner was appointed lead IPCC author for sea level changes for the 2001 report. It is reported that he was amazed that only one of the 22 contributors to that area under his direction were actually expert in sea level (Booker, op cit, p. 115

He notes how tide gauges are selectively picked to show what is required:

“Another way of looking at what is going on is the tide gauge. Tide gauging is very complicated, because it gives different answers for wherever you are in the world. But we have to rely on geology when we interpret it. So, for example, those people in the IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change], choose Hong Kong, which has six tide gauges, and they choose the record of one, which gives 2.3 mm per year rise of sea level. Every geologist knows that that is a subsiding area. It’s the compaction of sediment; it is the only record which you shouldn’t use. And if that figure is correct, then Holland would not be subsiding, it would be uplifting. And that is just ridiculous. Not even ignorance could be responsible for a thing like that. So tide gauges, you have to treat very, very carefully. Now, back to satellite altimetry, which shows the water, not just the coasts, but in the whole of the ocean. And you measure it by satellite. From 1992 to 2002, [the graph of the sea level] was a straight line, variability along a straight line, but absolutely no trend whatsoever. We could see those spikes: a very rapid rise, but then in half a year, they fall back again. But absolutely no trend, and to have a sea-level rise, you need a trend. Then, in 2003, the same data set, which in their [IPCC’s] publications, in their website, was a straight line—suddenly it changed, and showed a very strong line of uplift, 2.3 mm per year, the same as from the tide gauge. And that didn’t look so nice. It looked as though they had recorded something; but they hadn’t recorded anything. It was the original one which they had suddenly twisted up, because they entered a “correction factor,” which they took from the tide gauge." " Interview: Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner: Claim That Sea Level Is Rising Is a Total Fraud" Economics, June 22, 2007, p. 34

Just because someone can produce a graph doesn’t mean that the graph is true. But this is also true of other data.

Urban Heat Island Shenanagans

In 1990 Phil Jones et al, published a study of the urban heat island effect (Nature 347, 169-172). The Chinese stations used were claimed to have been stable and not undergone any station location moves. Anyone familiar with the Wen Hua Ge Ming (Cultural Revolution) and prior events in China knows that nothing in China in the Maoist era was constant. The station data was acquired by a contact of Wei-Chyung, one of Jone’s co-authors. The station locations were unknown. Yet that data was used to convince the world that urbanization doesn’t cause a heat problem. The locations of the stations was challenged in 2007. Nature quotes Jones:

“I thought it was the right way to get the data,’ Jones says, but he now acknowledges that ‘the stations probably did move’ and that not having a detailed history of stations’ locations was sloppy. ‘It’s not acceptable,’ he says.’ [It’s] not best practice.’” Olive Hefferman, “’Climategate’ Scientist Speaks Out,” Nature, 463(2010), p. 860

Yeah, it isn’t best practice. But then, when in 2001, Jones learned that some of those stations had gone through several location moves, he failed to withdraw the influential 1990 paper. In a very hard hitting critique of Wei-Chyung’s research, Douglas Keenan writes:

"How much did Jones know about Wang’s fabrications? As discussed in my Report on Wang’s claims, it appears very likely that Jones knew nothing at the time (1990). In 2001, however, Jones co-authored a study, by Yan et al., which considered two meteorological stations in China (at Beijing and at Shanghai). This study correctly describes how the stations had undergone relocations, and it concludes that those relocations substantially affected the measured temperatures—in direct contradiction to the claims of Wang. Thus, by 2001, Jones must have known that the claims of Wang were not wholly true."

"On 19 June 2007, I e-mailed Jones about this, saying “this proves that you knew there were serious problems with Wang’s claims back in 2001; yet some of your work since then has continued to rely on those claims, most notably in the latest report from the IPCC”. I politely requested an explanation. I have not received a reply. Douglas J. Keenan, THE FRAUD ALLEGATION AGAINST SOME CLIMATIC RESEARCH OF WEI-CHYUNG WANG, Energy and the Environment, 18 :7&8 :987 source

And the game continues.

There is the Himalayan glaciers are gone by 2035 mistake, where they used a non-peer reviewed World Wildlife Federation info paper to scare the world into thinking that there are dire consequences. source

The IPCC can’t even get right the part of the Netherlands that is below sea level.

“Dutch environment ministry spokesman Trimo Vallaart has asked the U.N.'s climate change panel to rethink its assertion that more than half of the Netherlands is below seal level. Dutch authorities explain that, in fact, only 26 percent of the country is below sea level.” source

Even Science magazine is now cognizant of the problems that climatology has presented to the scientific community. They write:

“E-mails uncovered late last year revealed instances of scientists on the panel discussing withholding data dn documents from those with opposing view, conspiring to keep contradictory papers out of influential reports, and encouraging colleagues to delete e-mails.” Eli Kintisch, “Scientists Grapple with “Completely out of hand Attacks on Climate Science,” Science, 327(2010), p. 1070

Note the title of that Science article. While Gerald North of Texas A&M said that the situation is completely out of control and Sheila Jasanoff said:

“The community allowed ‘the situation to get out of control,’ said Sheila Jasanoff of Harvard University. She said in general scientists had to connect better to the public. ‘There is a kind of arrogance—we are scientists and we know best,’ Jasanoff said. ‘That needs to change.” Eli Kintisch, “Scientists Grapple with “Completely out of hand Attacks on Climate Science,” Science, 327(2010), p. 1070

Science magazine shows its bias by claiming that it is the ‘attacks on climate science’ which are out of hand. In reality it was the scientists. New Scientist put it thusly, while reporting on a enquiry into climategate.

“However, written evidence submitted by the Institute of Physics in London claimed the hacked emails have revealed ‘evidence of determined and coordinated refusals to comply with honourable scientific traditions’ through ‘manipulation of the publication and peer-review system’ and ‘intolerance to challenge.’” Anonymous, “Jones Explans,” New Scientist, March 6, 2010, p. 4

Climatologists are not to be trusted and that is sad because science should be about truth not about political agendas. Yet in the hands of the climatologists, science got a very big black eye by their atrocious behavior.

What a laugh--January 2010 hottest January ever!

2010-02-28T07:34:00.000-08:00

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.

Worldwide Inability to measure temperature

2010-02-25T19:03:00.001-08:00

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.

IPCC Authors Now Say Ocean's Rise Not Certain

2010-02-21T16:23:00.000-08:00

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?

Another IPCC mistake--Bias with residence time

2010-02-15T03:42:00.000-08:00

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.

Back peddling by Phil Jones

2010-02-14T15:03:00.000-08:00

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

2010-02-14T09:37:00.000-08:00

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.

IPCC Was Wrong--They Won't Change Opinion

2010-01-21T03:10:00.001-08:00

I was bemused by a recent report that Dr. Pachuri, the head of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has admitted that they might be wrong to say that the Himalayan glaciers would be melted by 2035.

"Theoretically, let's say we slipped upon one number, I don't think it takes anything away from the overwhelming scientific evidence of what's happening with the climate of this earth," he said. "We continue to disagree with the 2035 date and that will be part of the response we are working on."

In spite of this, they don't change their views.

"Despite the controversy, the IPCC said that it stood by its overall conclusions about glacier loss this century in big mountain ranges including the Himalayas. "

It seems that data has nothing to do with the IPCC conclusions.

How energy use warms the earth

2010-01-18T19:08:00.000-08:00

One of the things that is very little appreciated is the amount of warmth caused by our energy use. the average American citizen uses 10,380 watts of energy. A watt of energy is a joule/second.

Temperature is a measure of radiation per square meter. The Stefan-Boltzman law relates the electromagnetic radiation to the fourth power of temperature. If you are equationophobic, skip this.

Watts/meter^2 = σT^4

The thing that should interest us is how much does the energy use of the average American warm a small city. The global warming advocates claim that rural areas are not affected by urban heat and they too have warmed. By this the claim is made that the globe's warming is not due to urban heat effect but to CO2.

We are going to test that. Riverton, Wyoming is a tiny town of about 11,000 people in central Wyoming. I lived there for a month in 1973, working on a seismic crew when my career started. Looking on the internet, I find that there are 367 people per square kilometer in Riverton. At 10,380 W per person, divided by the million, that works out, using the above law, to an additional .65 deg C added to the ambient, and natural, temperature. This is exactly what the global warming advocates say the earth has warmed by over the past century. It truly is interesting that the energy use in a small town causes the same warming that CO2 is said to have caused.

Let's look at Dallas, Texas. There are 1427 people per square kilometer, which, at 10380 watts per person, adds 2.5 deg C of unatural warming.

The interesting thing is that GISS and NOAA make all sorts of corrections for the errors in the temperature measurments, but none of them corrcct for the energy use density expected from the high energy lifestyle of modern cities.

Below is a chart showing that energy use affects the temperatures of the cities. The base level is 295 deg K. As population density rises, the heat generated in the city rises as well. And it doesn't take much of a city to cause this heat, as is seen with the 10,000 population of Riverton, Wyoming.

Warming made to order. Look at the maps.

2010-01-12T19:21:00.000-08:00

I ran into a wonderful site from Nasa. The maps from this site don't jive with the maps from NOAA's State of the Climate. Nor do they jive with the pronouncements of the Goddard Institute of Space Science.

Indeed, the two sets of maps are so incongruous that we must have separate climatic histories. The NASA site may have started March 2009 as they have no data earlier than that. Let's look at the temperature on land in March 2009--according to NASA

At the bottom of the March 2009 picture I put the quotation of the GISS State of the Climate proclaiming March as a really hot month. It is the 10th warmest, yet the NASA anomaly map shows more blue than read. Seems odd that such a cool month is the 10th warmest. But the map upon which GISS bases that claim is different than the above NASA map. Here is the GISS map.

Africa, nearly blue in the NASA map is turned hot in the GISS map. What a wonderful thing editing is in the hands of James Hansen's group at Goddard. The cool areas around the Himalayas and southern Russia are turned into raging heat by Goddard. Yes, be afraid, very afraid, the Goddard climatologists are going to steal your tax dollars.

Ok, one month. Let's look at April.

This map is probably about even steven between red and blue. But, in the hands of GISS it is proclaimed as the fifth hottest April and the map produced by Goddard looks like:

The broad blue area of cooling from Alaska to Florida is turned into a much smaller area on the Goddard map. The cooling in eastern Brazil, in the Nasa map is almost gone in the Hansen run Goddard map, as is the cooling in eastern Siberia, which is now all warming. Nasa shows cooling in eastern Australia, but Goddard shows warming. Of course, warming is the consensus view so shouldn't everything be warming?

Well, that is only 2 months. What about May? Below are the two maps

Once again, the cooling in Africa on the NASA map is turned into a total raging heatwave on the Goddard map. Hmmmm. Whom should we beleive??? Or is this a case where the uncertainties in the thermometer system make it impossible to know what has happened?

Greenland is not very hot in the NASA map, slightly warm, but the Goddard map makes it look like a beach in Algeria. There is almost no cooling in South America in Goddard, but significant areas of cooling on the NASA map and the location of the coolings in Australia is different on the two different maps.

Well, all of the above is anecdotal. Only 3 months. What about June?

NASA's June map shows slightly more blue than red. But look at how little blue there is on GISS's June map. One gets thirsty from the heat just looking at it.

Africa seems to be the favorite whipping boy of the GISS climatologists. If the data shows cooling there, Goddard always seems to turn it into a raging fever. Greenland turns from NASA's cooling into GISS warming. South America is mostly cool on the NASA map but mostly hot on Goddard's map. What gives with these differences?

Ok, only 4 months. July???

July was very cold across the Northern Hemisphere. In the US, 3000+ low temperature records were broken. But what do the heaters at Goddard say happened in July?

Well, once again, all hints of cooling were removed from Africa--you guys down there must be burning up by now. Goddard also removes all cooling from Australia. The coolng shown on NASA across northern Europe was removed for the most part--we don't want the Europeans to actually think critically about global warming, so Goddard helps them by always making Europe appear to warm. Keep them tax dollars flowing into the coffers of the climatologists.

August?

NASA's map shows more warming than cooling, slightly. But the difference between the two sources for temperature information continue to plague us.

Nasa's August Map.

Goddard's August Map

The broad swaths of cooling across southern Asia seen in the Nasa map are constricted and shrunken almost to the point of nonexistence in the Goddard map. Why?

Once again, cooling in southern Africa is turned into warming by Goddard. Goddard, what do you have against the people of Africa. They deserve not to be burned up. In the NASA map all of Alaska is cooling but, Goddard makes most of it warm. Good job Goddard! You don't want people to notice how you are playing with the data.

September?

In Nasa's map, most of Asia cools, most of eastern North America cools, but in Goddard's Sept. map, they turn most of it into warming. Look at the scorching heat up in Canada, yet Nasa doesn't really see scorching heat. Brazil which cools on NASA's map warms on Goddard's. And Argentina which warms on NASA's map cools on Goddards. Boy, aren't we certain what happened last September?

October.
Nasa:

Goddard:

Poor Africa. Goddard is determined to burn you up. NASA will let your weather cool down every now and then, but not Goddard. Goddard allows no cooling in Asia, while NASA says parts cooled off. No cooling in Brazil is seen on the Goddard map even though it is quite clear on the NASA map. The world has a very uncertain climatic history.

November?

Most of the eastern hemisphere is cooling in the NASA map but warming on the Goddard map. Africa again--they want you African's to burn in hell. Brazil's NASA cooling is warming on Goddard. And while western Australia is cooling on NASA it is warming in Goddard.

December a very cold month.

Note that the northern hemisphere is really cold. Some parts of Siberia are 12 deg C colder than normal. Large areas of the southern hemisphere are cooling as well.

Here it is on a northern circumpolar map.

Goddard isn't finished with causing global warming yet so I can't show you their December map.

Does Solar Magnetism Low Mean Cold Weather?

2010-01-09T17:26:00.000-08:00

Over the past few years a theory linking cosmic ray flux on earth with cold and cool temperatures on earth has been advanced by Svenmark. To explain this one needs to know that when the earth is warm, biological activity becomes maximum. Biological activity discriminates agains carbon 13 because it is heavier. Life likes carbon 12. so when the oceans have high concentrations of C13 biological activity is high. Knowing this, Svenmark reasoned that long periods of warmth would have little seasonality and that means that the standard deviation of C13 measurements should be low. So, using this, he created a curve of C13 content of the oceans over the past four billion years. He then compared it with the cosmic ray flux as seen in geologic record of the atomic products cosmic rays produce as they collide with nucleii high in the atmosphere. Svenmark found that these two curves correlate with a .92 correlation coefficient--a really good correlation. Svenmark's chart can be seen below.

This theory has been given some support by the work of Shaviv and Veizer. They say

“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

If this theory is correct, then as the sun's protective magnetic field around the earth goes down, we should see more clouds, a rise in the earth's albedo (reflected light) and cooler temperatures. So, what is the sun's magnetic field doing? It is declining to unprecedented low levels.

This site contains the records of the Suns magnetic field. The AP index, is the planetary average of the changs in the earth's geomagnetic field caused by the sun. When the index is low, the sun's magnetic field is weak and cosmic rays can bombard the earth with ease causing clouds. Here is a plot of the AP Index since 1991

The sun is very very quiet magnetially, even with the recent splurge of sunspots. If the cosmic ray/cloud connection is true, we should get even colder if the solar magnetism stays at these levels.

I posted earlier in this blog the work of Livingston and Penn who predicted that sunspots would disappear by 2015 because the sun's magnetic field is dropping and by then, it will be so weak that it will be unable to hold up the walls of a sunspot. Here is the solar magnetism measured by Livington and Penn. Note that if the solar magnetism/cosmic ray flux/cloud connection is real it would explain the cooling over the past 10 years.

One can find that at least up until 2007 the earth's albedo was increasing, according to Palle et al, meaning it is refecting more light and thus should be experiencing cooler temperatures.

And now we see the decline in the Ap index. If it increases the cloud cover, then better stoke up the furnace.

What are the implications of this? Well one thing that comes to mind right now is that since the sun is behaving weirdly right now, we must question whether or not our usual rules apply. On Dec. 21, 2006, Nasa put up a web site predicting:

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

Source

Apart from being utterly wrong about the future of the solar cycle which turned out to be unusually small, an interesting thought comes up when perusing this prediction of 4 years ago in light of the recent flurry of sunspots on the sun over the past month--not a lot, but a flurry compared to most of 2009. What if we are NOW in solar maximum, and we are still having spotless days--something that doesn't happen in normal solar maximums? If that is the case, then we can expect even fewer sunspots as we go into the normal decline, taking us up to 2015 when the magnetic fields might be too small to support sunspots.

If this happens, you better buy a good winter coat.

One Heck of a Cold Snap

2010-01-09T16:26:00.001-08:00

I have a ranch in South Texas. I just got back from it, feeling the need to go and see what, if any, damage the current frigid temperatures might have done to the house. The hoar-frost was beautiful--unfortunately, my wife had my camera so I have no pictures. The interestig thing to me was that my chicken yard water pond was frozen over, almost to the point where it could support my weight. I walked down to the big ponds on the place. The 3/4 acre pond was frozen solid as was the 2 acre lake. I told my neighbors that I was surprised that the lakes were frozen. Their's were as well. They told me that this was the first time the lakes have frozen since 1986. The temperature last night was 20 deg F--in South Texas.

Just for comparison, in 1986 there was 344 parts per million CO2 in the atmosphere compared with 370 today. I wish CO2 would start working and move the record low temperature occurraes upwards so we won't have any more such cold days. After 4 hours in the cold at the ranch, I decided to call it a short day and come back to Houston.

2009 annual report before Dec 2009 report done

2010-01-06T19:30:00.000-08:00

For those who look quickly you will see that NOAA has put out the ANNUAL 2009 report on the state of the climate before they did the December 2009 report.

They say:
"NOAA scientists project 2009 will be one of the 10 warmest years of the global surface temperature record, and likely finish as the fourth, fifth or sixth warmest year on record. " http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/?report=global&year=2009&month=13&submitted=Get+Report

This is like the Queen in Alice who said, "Verdict first; trial later." Given the above quotation, one has to wonder if the climatologists look outside to see that the world is freezing. We had 3000 US low temperature records broken in July. New England barely had a summer this year. We had the 3rd coldest October on record. December is said to be among the coldest in many places in the world, yet, amazingly, 2009 is going to again be up in the hottest on record. How stupid do they think we are?

The picture above shows the drop down list showing that December isn't there yet and the page I am showing and quoting from is the Annual 2009 page. How nice of the climatologists to have prescient abilities, to be able to see into the future without having to actually look at the data.

Water Vapor is Causing Most of the Warming

2010-01-03T19:42:00.000-08:00

Many of the global warming hysterics claim that CO2 is the only cause of warming. It is man's fault they say. And when people point out that water vapor is the strongest greenhouse gas and it might be causing warming, they all shake their collective, consensus driven, sheeple heads and cluck their tongues about how denialists simply don't know what they are talking about.

But even the IPCC acknoweldges that water vapor is a bigger part of the greenhouse effect than CO2.

"Water vapour is the most important greenhouse gas, and carbon dioxide (CO2) is the second-most important one."
"Frequently Asked Question 1.3 What is the Greenhouse Effect?" source

Kenneth Trenbirth, a global warming advocate who is most famous for his comments in the hacked emails which said this:

"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

also said this:

"As atmospheric temperatures increase, the water-holding capacity of the atmosphere also increases, at a rate of about 4% per degree F. This is observed to be happening over the oceans, where surface water is not limited, and also to a slightly lower degree over land. Water vapor itself is a powerful greenhouse gas and roughly doubles the heating. The result is that global warming is “unequivocal” to quote the IPCC and is manifested not only in temperature increases throughout the atmosphere and ocean, but also through melting glaciers and ice sheets, rising sea level, melting Arctic sea ice, and changes in storms and hurricanes." Kevin E. Trenberth "Impact of Anthropogenic Carbon Dioxide and Other Greenhouse Gases on Climate since 1940, Including Water Vapor Feedback" Adapted from oral presentation at AAPG Annual Convention, Denver, Colorado, June 7-10, 2009 source

Basically, as the world warms, the atmosphere can hold more water vapor, which heats the earth further so it can hold more water vapor. If that happens, then the earth would warm because of WATER VAPOR, not CO2.

So, what is the history of water vapor in the atmosphere? The American Meteorological Society puts out a book each year, accessible from NOAA, which describes the state of the climate. The 2009 book, talking about 2008, had a really interesting chart of water vapor anomalies showing that over the past 20 years, up until 2007, the water vapor content of the atmosphere was increasing. Here it is from page S24 of the August 2009 supplement.

Clearly water vapor is increasing. In an article designed to shame the 'deniers' Slate author Brendan I. Koerner wrote:

"By mass and volume, water vapor is the most prevalent greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. According to both the International Panel on Climate Change and many global climate models, water vapor accounts for somewhere between 60 percent and 70 percent of the greenhouse effect. (The 98-percent figure, much beloved by global-warming skeptics, seems to have been first used in a 1991 article by Richard Lindzen. He cites a 1990 IPCC report as his source, but the report doesn't appear to contain that number.)
Brendan I. KoernerPosted "Is Global Warming Caused by Water Vapor?How to think about the No. 1 greenhouse gas." Tuesday, Jan. 22, 2008, at 11:16 AM ET Source

Ok, lets grant him 60%. Given that Wikipedia, a site carefully garded by global warming fanatics, claims that the average water content of the atmosphere is 25 mm source, the half a millimeter of additional water in the atmosphere represents a 3% rise in water vapor. By my calculations, that means that water vapor is accounting for more than half of the 'warming'.

Look at the world map of water vapor.

You can see that in 2008 the air was dry. There are no 'black' regions, but there are corresponding dark brown regions. That means that more long wave radiation can escape, which means that the earth will appear warmer to the satellites, but the earth will get cooler. Both things have happened. Last year was a cooler year, and I expect that when the August 2010 issue of BAMS comes out, 2009 will be even dryer.

Does Algae Reduce the Ice Core CO2?

2010-01-01T15:32:00.000-08:00

Above is Beck's compilation of historical atmospheric CO2 measurement. A friend said to look at Realclimate.org to see their objections. That is always a good idea to find the objections. After looking over the criticisms of Beck's atmospheric CO2 measurements at Realclimate.org,(Beck's short paper and RC and my previous post on Beck's work) and listening to their defense of the CO2 in the glacial ice. I decided to ask some questions about glacial ice and CO2.

Could there be anything that eats the CO2 lowering it in the glacial ice and making the 'pre-industrial level' not be read correctly? There is a reason for asking this. Many of Beck's sources were German chemists and in the late part of the 19th century continuing into the 20th century, they were, in general, the best chemists on earth at that time. So why the discrepancy between Beck's literature search and the ice cores?

The IPCC relies on Etheridge et al. 1996 in which paper Etheridge et al ignorantly say:

"A record of atmospheric CO2 mixing ratios from 1006 A.D. to 1978 A.D. has been produced by analysing the air enclosed in three ice cores from Law Dome, Antarctica. The enclosed air has unparalleled age resolution and extends into recent decades, because of the high rate of snow accumulation at the ice core sites. The CO2 data overlap with the record from direct atmospheric measurements for up to 20 years."Etheridge, D., L. Steele, R. Langenfelds, R. Francey, J.‐M. Barnola, and V. Morgan (1996), Natural and anthropogenic changes in atmospheric CO2 over the last 1000 years from air in Antarctic ice and firn, J. Geophys. Res., 101(D2), 4115-4128

1978 minus 20 is 1958. These guys are acting like Keeling, whose curve starts in 1958, was the very first person on earth to measure atmospheric CO2 content. Clearly this is wrong. And just as clearly, their derived CO2 profile differs markedly from that of the historical atmospheric measurements turned up by Beck. Look at how the ice core measurements above have no correlation with the historical atmospheric measurements. This strongly implies that something is happening down in the ice cores to change the CO2 content. So, let's look at this issue.

I first looked at inorganic processes that might lower the CO2 in the cores but there appears to be nothing in inorganic chemistry which can do it. But…there is always algae and other microbial life.

When I was in Antarctica there were some pinkish/brownish areas of the snow which was caused by algae living just below the frozen surface. These algae live down to -10 deg C. But I was near the coast. See below.

Did they live at Vostok where the cores were taken? Yes, they did.

"Finally, in terms of understanding microbes within the lake, the overlying Vostok ice core contains a diverse range of microbes including algae, diatoms, bacteria, fungi, yeasts and actiomycetes (Ellis-Evans and Wynn-Williams, 1996). These organisms have been demonstrated to be viable to depths as deep as 2400 m (Abyzov, 1993). " Robin E. Bell " Lake Vostok: Background Information" in Robin E. Bell, David M. Karl," LAKE VOSTOK WORKSHOP" National Science Foundation, Washington D.C. November 7 & 8, 1998, p. 11 source

While deep down, photosynthesis can't happen, up shallow it can. But Vostok surface temperatures never get above -25 deg C. That presented a problem for seeing in them a way to photosynthesize the CO2, except in the veins between ice crystals (see below). Would that be enough? I don't know, but there are other mechanisms for giving the algae a proper habitat.

Looking into issues of the past history of temperatures on the mainland of Antarctica, I ran into a 2009 Ph. D. dissertation on UV absorption in the Antarctic ice cap. Kai Rasmus measured albedos and absorptions of UV light. He was trying to see what the increased UV because of the ozone hole might do to the Antarctic Ice shelf. What he found was that the ice could melt because of the increased UV radiation absorbed by the glacial ice and the slow thermal conductivity of the ice. It would melt small areas of the subsurface ice. He says:

"The melt water pool was 1 m thick after a 50-year integration. This increased to 1.5m when the trend in air temperature was applied. For a typical atmospheric warming scenario of 1.5°C in 50 years subsurface changes were found. It seems that these subsurface changes may be unnoticed at the surface, which remains frozen and largely unchanged during the 50 year integration. The ice did not disintegrate even after a 50-year integration." Kai Rasmus " OPTICAL STUDIES OF THE ANTARCTIC GLACIO-OCEANIC SYSTEM " REPORT SERIES IN GEOPHYSICS No 62 (2009) UNIVERSITY OF HELSINKI DEPARTMENT OF PHYSICS p.58

If parts of the ice melted, then the algae would live, and would photosynthesize what they could in the dim light. That would reduce the CO2 content of the bubbles inside the ice. It would also mean that the impermeable lock-in zone would move shallower (that is the depth at which no air can diffuse further below). So, we have a mechanism to melt subterranean ice in Antarctica caused by the present ozone hole, caused by man's past CFC production. But of course that can’t affect past CO2 levels. The ozone hole is a present problem, right? Wrong.

In 1859 the most massive solar flare ever seen, hit the earth. Scientists believe that it cut the ozone hole by over 30%.

1859 solar flare, ozone depletion studied
March 22, 2007
U.S. scientists believe an 1859 solar flare destroyed more of the Earth's ozone than did a 1989 solar flare -- the strongest ever monitored by satellite.
Researchers led by Brian Charles Thomas of Washburn University used data on nitrate enhancements from Greenland ice cores to determine the September 1859 solar proton event released 6.5 times more energy than did the 1989 event.

Models using that energy release showed 3.5 times more ozone was destroyed during the 1859 episode than in 1989. And since ozone regulates the amount of harmful ultraviolet radiation reaching Earth, the researchers said understanding intense solar proton events will be important in predicting potential damage to the biosphere.

The study by Thomas, Charles Jackbon of the Goddard Space Flight Center, and Adrian Melott of the University of Kansas appears in the current issue of the journal Geophysical Research Letters.
http://www.physorg.com/news93781896.html

For comparison with the CFC depletion consider this:

"CHLORINE-catalysed depletion of the stratospheric ozone layer has commanded considerable attention since 1985, when Farman et al. 1 observed a decrease of 50% in the total column ozone over Antarctica in the austral spring. Here we examine the depletion of stratospheric ozone caused by the reaction of ozone with nitric oxide generated by energetic solar protons, associated with solar flares. During large solar flares in March 1989, satellite observations indicated that total column ozone was depleted by ˜9% over ˜20% of the total area between the South Pole and latitude 70° S. Chlorine-catalysed ozone depletion takes place over a much larger area, but our results indicate that the influence of solar protons on atmospheric ozone concentrations should not be ignored." JUDY A. E. STEPHENSON & MALCOLM W. J. SCOURFIELD Importance of energetic solar protons in ozone depletion Nature 352, 137 - 139 (11 July 1991);

Apparently this means that the 1859 event did about over 30% damage—almost what CFCs did. If such natural events happen every couple of hundred years (our current observation period), then every couple of hundred years, we could get pockets of meltwater below the Antarctican surface, which would revive the algae, which would then easily reduce the CO2 in the recovered ice cores. And if this is a possibility, then the IPCC may be using cores depleted in CO2.

Some may say that the melting of the ice occurs above the lock in depth, where ice impermeabilty prevents diffusion with the present atmosphere and thus Rasmus' work is irrelevant. If that is so, then there is even a worse problem for the IPCC who uses ice cores for the past 200 years as a measure of CO2 levels in the atmosphere. Studies at Vostok suggest that the age of the lock-in is 6000 years ago, yet IPCC is using ice core data for the past 200 years. That seems flimsy to say the least, especially when they ignore 150 years of atmospheric measurements.

"One reason for this uncertainty is that the relative timing of temperature and CO2 changes is not accurately known.The temporal relation between these two quantities is difficult to discern because air is trapped in ice at the base of the firn layer (7), where, at low accumulation sites such as Vostok, ice may be 6000 years old." Nicolas Caillon, et al " Timing of Atmospheric CO2 and Antarctic Temperature Changes Across Termination III" Science 299(2003), p. 1728

So, the IPCC and AGW supporters are presented with a problem. If they say that Rasmus's melt mechanism doesn't count because it is shallow before the ice permeability locks in the atmospheric content, then they can't claim that using 200 year old ice cores can possibly give a correct value. If they say that 200 year old ice can represent the atmospheric composition correctly, then they have to explain why algae can't lower the CO2 content of the air in shallow ice cores making their values lower than the historical CO2 measurements, and thus irrelevant to the CO2 content of the world for the past 200 years. The horns of a dilemma are tough.

I would also point people to the picture I took in Antarctica a year ago. In the foreground you can see a tilted layer of snow and ice that have dark blue horizontal streaks just below the surface. The dark blue is solid ice--meaning it is an impermeable layer. Notice how close to the surface it is. That layer may be one of the melt layers spoken of by Rasmus. Such layers would lock in and separate the air from above from the air from below. Here is observational data that supports Rasmus's view.

But beyond all this, shallow metabolism is not the end of microbial life. Price describes a habitat for psychrophiles (beings that love cold) in the water that exists between the ice grains. Ice, when it freezes expels most impurities, so some water exists in the form of either highly salty or acidic waters in the veins in between the grains. Microbes can live in such circumstances.

"In the accretion ice, with an age of a few 10^4 years and a temperature a few degrees below freezing, the carbon and energy sources in the veins can maintain significant numbers of cells per cubic centimeter that are metabolizing but not multiplying. In the 4 x 10^5-year-old colder glacial ice, at least 1 cell per cm^3 in acid veins can be maintained. With fluorescence microscopy tuned to detect NADH in live organisms, motile bacteria could be detected by direct scanning of the veins in ice samples. P. Buford Price, " A habitat for psychrophiles in deep Antarctic ice" PNAS, 97(2000), p. 1247

When melted the viable Vostok microbes engaged in more acetate metabolism than anything else.

"Acetate was respired 800 times more rapidly than was glucose." D. M. Karl et al, "Microorganisms in the Accreted Ice of Lake Vostok, Antarctica" Science 286(1999):2145

This was anaerobic metabolism. The big question is are they metabolizing down below? That is something that is unknown at the present time. Price says they might be.

What do we know about that kind of metabolism from similar microbes living in oxygen free places?

"Acetate was metabolized primarily to methane in the sediments and water immediately above the sediment. Sulfide inhibition studies and temperature activity profiles demonstrated that acetate metabolism was performed by several microbial populations. Sulfide additions (less than 5 μg/ml) to water from 21.5 m stimulated methanogenesis from acetate, but inhibited CO2 production."M. R. Winfrey and J. G. Zeikus "Microbial Methanogenesis and Acetate Metabolism in a Meromictic Lake" Appl Environ Microbiol. 1979 February; 37(2): 213–221.

And there are sulfides in ice cores that could inhibit CO2 formation

"The average COS mixing ratio of the SPRESSO data set is (331±18) ppt (parts per trillion in mol/mol, ±1[sigma], n=100), excluding 6 outliers. These data confirm earlier firn air and ice core measurements indicating that the late 20th century COS levels of 500 ppt are greatly increased over preindustrial levels and represent the highest atmospheric levels over the past 2000 years. The data also provide evidence of climate-related variability on centennial time-scales, with relative maxima at the peaks of Medieval Climate Anomaly and Little Ice Age. There is evidence
for a long-term increasing trend in COS of 1.8 ppt per 100 years. Further ice core studies will be needed to determine whether this trend reflects secular variability in atmospheric COS, or a slow post-depositional chemical loss of COS in the ice core." M. Aydin et al, " Carbonyl sulfide in air extracted from a South Pole ice core: a 2000 year record" Atmos. Chem. Phys., 8, 7533–7542, 2008

The fact that the sulfide increases with time may be indicative that microbes are using it up which would mess up the air chemistry derived from ice cores.

All of these issues are poorly understood yet the IPCC chooses to ignore the historical measurments of CO2 in the atmosphere in favor of what might be more of a chemical brew below in the ice cores than they want to beleive.

And if this is the case, then Beck's measurements may be the better of the two, meaning that the atmospheric levels of CO2 may have been as high as 450 ppm within the past 200 years and all the scare-mongering may not be anything but, well, scare-mongering for political purposes.

I think it is time for the climate scare mongers to explain why they rely solely on ice core CO2 when there is clearly the possibility that UV radiation melted small pools allowing the algae to reduce the ice core CO2. Again, at the top of this post is the chart of the historic atmospheric measurements of CO2 put together by Beck and ignored by the IPCC.

How Synthetic is the Keeling curve?

2010-01-01T07:36:00.000-08:00

While tooling around the internet, I ran into a report about an upcoming article in Geophysical Research Letters.

“To assess whether the airborne fraction is indeed increasing, Wolfgang Knorr of the Department of Earth Sciences at the University of Bristol reanalyzed available atmospheric carbon dioxide and emissions data since 1850 and considers the uncertainties in the data.

In contradiction to some recent studies, he finds that the airborne fraction of carbon dioxide has not increased either during the past 150 years or during the most recent five decades.

The research is published in Geophysical Research Letters.
“http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091230184221.htm

I was surprised to learn that someone thought that CO2 hadn't gone up. After all we have the famous Keeling Curve.

It has wonderful geometric beauty, and that implies a certitude about the CO2 levels.

Now, while I won't necessarily support Knorr's conclusions or methods, he did spur me to look again at the measurements of CO2 in the atmosphere. It spurred me to ask a question: Why is the Keeling Curve so geometrical?

Let's start by looking at the CO2 measurements at the South Pole. There is nothing geometrical about it.

How about Baring Head, NZ?

Clearly the Keeling curve looks artificial compared to the other stations on earth. One could say that maybe the other researchers are simply incompetent, but that seems harsh. Why is the Keeling curve so regular, especially since it is sitting on a volcano that occasionally spews out additional CO2? In 40 years has not one single measurment been taken when the volcano was blowing additional CO2 towards the station? That seems highly unlikely.

Below are all the Pacific stations plotted together. Note the scatter. After subtracting the trend of all these temporally aligned measurments, the standard deviation is 6 ppm. Yet the Keeling curve claims, implicitly, accuracy less than 1 ppm.

But these stations all start in the 1950s. What gives? Were there no measurements of atmospheric CO2 prior to that time? Sadly, the IPCC and Keeling, simply ignore the vast literature on previous CO2 measurements.

Ernst-Georg Beck published a paper analysing the 90,000 measurments of atmospheric CO2 from 1812 to the present. It is at Beck, Ernst-Georg, "180 years of atmospheric CO2 gas analysis by chemical methods" Energy and Environment 18,(2007):2, pp. 259-282

The story his analysis tells is a big blow to the climate hysteriacs, who seem never to access or mention CO2 measurments made by chemical analysis over this span. The IPCC uses the ice cores, which, in light of 90,000 atmospheric measurments of CO2 over the past 200 years gives the appearance of cherry-picking. A short version of a peer reviewed paper is found here

Let's first look at Beck's chart showing the historical measurments. One immediately sees that CO2 was higher than the 'consensus' IPCC scientists would allow. They use the ice core data and ignore actual atmospheric measurements.

Now lest someone say that this kind of high CO2 levels were unusual, look at the bi-weekly data from Giessen, Germany for the years 1939-1941.

The IPCC graphs don't mention or show the variations in CO2 turned up by Beck here and see the picture below. The IPCC is clearly cherry-picking the data. Look at the insert below.

At the very least, the IPCC should explain specifically why it is rejecting all these historical measurments of CO2. As it is, they act as if these measurements don't exist.

Are the oceans actually cooling?

2009-12-30T18:02:00.000-08:00

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 .
.here

So much for the hysteria

An Old Failed Prediction of Global Warming

2009-12-24T13:49:00.000-08:00

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.

Earth is the only planet with an uncertain history

2009-12-21T13:32:00.001-08:00

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
medium.

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

Will the REAL temperature please stand up?

2009-12-20T07:08:00.000-08:00

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 appinsys.com. 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 appinsys.com, 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?

Siberia's made up warming

2009-12-18T16:42:00.000-08:00

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

Siberia isn't warming

2009-12-16T18:34:00.000-08:00

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."http://en.rian.ru/papers/20091216/157260660.html

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

Climatological Hot Air and Hypocrisy

2009-12-13T16:30:00.000-08:00

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?

2009-12-13T08:10:00.001-08:00

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.

A Hundred Years of October Cooling

2009-12-06T05:00:00.000-08:00

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/calibrate_nhrecon.pro 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)
;
perst=1881.
peren=1960.

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.

Nebraska:

Iowa:

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

Montana:

Mississippi:

Minnesota:

Michigan:

Massachusetts:

Maryland:

Maine:

Louisiana:

Kentucky:

Kansas:

Indiana:

Illinois:

Idaho:

Georgia:

Florida:

Delaware:

Connecticutt:

Colorado:

California:

Arizona:

Alabama:

Wyoming:

Wisconsin:

West Virginia:

Washington:

Virginia:

Vermont:

Utah:

Texas:

Tennessee:

South Dakota:

South Carolina:

Rhode Island:

Pennsylvania:

Oregon:

Ohio:

North Dakota:

North Carolina:

New York:

New Mexico:

New Jersey:

New Hampshire:

Nevada:

Does global warming predict early snows?

2009-12-05T10:57:00.000-08:00

I love it when observational data disagrees with a good theory. It always means you are going to learn something. Unfortunately for many, learning isn't a goal.

We are, we are told, in the midst of a carbon-dioxide induced global warming period. This warming is going to relentlessly melt everything. Springs come earlier and Falls later, we are told--all from anectodal evidence of butterfly sightings etc.

So, we have been warming for a century; we have 38% more CO2 in the atmosphere than we had a century ago causing the world to warm by almost a degree centigrade, yet we find that ancient cold records are being broken by the bucket load in this year without many sunspots (75% spotless days as of the present time).

Yesterday, as is my usual behavior, I drove to my ranch to work for the day. My son called me about 10:30 to say it was snowing very heavily in Houston and that the roads were predicted to freeze over. I had a dilemma. I needed to work but I also had to be back in Houston by nightfall. I did a few more things and then decided to leave. As I was leaving the ranch, the first flakes of snow were falling. It snowed all the way back from Crockett Texas to Houston. It was the earliest snowfall in Houston's history. This is what it looked like at my house yesterday afternoon. The pine tree in the background is about 150 feet away--almost obscured by the driving snow in this warming word.

Yep, global warming causes early snowfalls. That is the only conclusion one can draw from the rock solid assumption on the part of global warming advocates that the world is most certainly warming. If we can't doubt that global warming is happening, then we must incorporate early snowfalls into the theoretical superstructure and proclaim that warming leads to cooling and early snows.

My son and daughter-in-law sent me pictures from south Houston--about 45 minutes south of where I live. The weather was worse down there.

While the news media avoids any mention of Climate-gate source, they also seem to not be looking out the window this year when 3000 record lows were set in July this summersource., while October was the 3rd coldest on record source and while so few 100+ degree days were felt in the far north of the country.

Now, let's all sit in a circle, hold hands, and chant the Orwellian slogan, "Warming means cooling"

Trees Can't Hide the Decline

2009-12-01T03:42:00.001-08:00

Twisting data to fit one's preconceptions is a bad thing in science. It is considered fraudulent to do that. Unfortunately, scientists are not always pure in motive or with the data. Such appears to be the case with the Climate Research Unit. While others have commented on the comments found in computer code among the hacked data from the Climate Research Unit of East Anglia University, I want to show what data they were trying to hide. The trees of the world appear to say that the world cooled after 1960. First some of the comments in the code.

I looked in one directory and found several comments indicating that they were stopping the tree ring data at 1960 in order to avoid the decline presumably in temperature. Here are examples.

From the file /Documents/harris-tree/recon-esper.pro

;
; Computes regressions on full, high and low pass Esper et al. (2002) series,
; anomalies against full NH temperatures and other series.
; CALIBRATES IT AGAINST THE LAND-ONLY TEMPERATURES NORTH OF 20 N
;
; Specify period over which to compute the regressions (stop in 1960 to avoid
; the decline;
perst=1881.
peren=1960.

Now, I would note that the data is read (according to period start (perst) from 1881 to 1960, (peren). the question is, is there data past 1960? The answer would seem to be yes. Esper's tree data was first published in Jan Esper, et al, "Low-Frequency Signals in Long Tree-Ring Chronologies for Reconstructing Past Temperature Variability" Science 22 MARCH 2002 VOL 295, pp 2250-2253 and it contains data up to the year 2000. So that makes the question really interesting why they stop reading the tree ring data in 1960?

Below is a picture of the decline they were talking about.It is an enlargement of figure 2 of the above article.

A comparison of Figure 2 and 3 of Esper et al, show that there is a simple linear scaling of the temperature with the peak of 1950 being about zero C and the low seen on the left side of this enlargement above being about -1 deg C. See below

I mention this only to show that if the proportionality continues past 1960, there would be a decline in global temperature. This is what the climatologists didn't want you to see, which is why Phil Jones said. in an email dated Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:31:15 +0000

I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps
to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from
1961 for Keith's to hide the decline.

Now lets look at other files in this directory. One of the most interesting is the one I have not seen on the web but found while perusing. It is from documents/harris-tree/calibrate_nhrecon.pro

;
; 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)
;
perst=1881.
peren=1960.

From documents/harris-tree/recon1.pro

;
; Computes regressions on full, high and low pass MEAN timeseries of MXD
; anomalies against full NH temperatures.
; THIS IS FOR THE AGE-BANDED (ALL BANDS) STUFF OF HARRY'S
;
; Specify period over which to compute the regressions (stop in 1940 to avoid
; the decline;
perst=1881.
peren=1960.

Apparently at one point someone stopped the tree rings at 1940 but this copy of the code clearly shows that they read it up to 1960

But the same thing is going on, they are hiding contradictory information. I will merely mention that documents/harris-tree/recon2.pro, documents/harris-tree/recon-jones.pro and documents/harris-tree/recon-overpeck.pro have the same lines of code at its top as well.

The file documents/harris-tree/mann-recon.pro has a little bit different code, but because of who Michale Mann is, it is interesting to see that in his reconstruction he too has the stop at 1940 but he reads the data up to 1960.

;
; Computes regressions on full, high and low pass MEAN timeseries of MXD
; anomalies against full NH temperatures.
; THIS IS FOR THE Mann et al. reconstruction
; CALIBRATES IT AGAINST THE LAND-ONLY TEMPERATURES NORTH OF 20 N
; IN FACT, I NOW HAVE AN ANNUAL LAND-ONLY NORTH OF 20N VERSION OF MANN,
; SO I CAN CALIBRATE THIS TOO - WHICH MEANS I'm ONLY ALTERING THE SEASON
;
doland=1 ; 0=use Mann NH 1=use Mann land north of 20N
;
; Specify period over which to compute the regressions (stop in 1940 to avoid
; the decline;
perst=1881.
peren=1960.

It is clear that everyone running these reconstructions knew of the scheme to hide the decline and they all participated in it. This is truly and ugly and sad time for science, which depends upon trust.

The truly interesting question is, if the climatologists believe the trees as a proxy for temperature for 1000 years, why disbelieve them in the last 40 years? Answer because the last 40 years have to have warmed or global warming didn't happen. Because it was inconceivable to those folk that global warming didn't happen, they had to get rid of the data that contradicted their world view. But who do we believe, trees or the lying thermometers, like the one below from Titusville, Florida from Anthony Watts site.

Unemployment--the low carbon footprint life

2009-11-28T07:38:00.000-08:00

The United States has finally started lowering its carbon foot print. The use of oil and coal is down in the past two years. This should make the global warming advocates happy. We are using 11% less oil than we were 3 years ago. That should be cause for great celebration. We are using 5% less electricity, most of which is generated from that carbon-spewing coal. Yes, the planet is being saved. The US is in the process of turning into a veritable Eden.

What's that? Huh? Unemployment? You mean low energy use equals people being thrown out of work? Let's look at the numbers.

Here is the chart showing U.S. oil consumption per day. The units are 1000's of barrels per day. The US uses around 20 million barrels of oil a day, or we did a couple of years ago. Now we are down to about 18 million per day. But look at what has hapened to the number of unemployed--which rises when we don't use energy.

We would like to take this opportunity, on behalf of the environmentalists, to personally thank the sacrifice of the unemployed in the cause of saving the planet. Yes, they are leading the way to the new world of environmental purity. Thank you all from the depths of our hearts for saving our planet from that evil carbon-spewing energy. We will soon follow your lead.

Let's look at US industrial electrical demand. You know the demand your factory has for electricity to run whatever machines are in your factory. Since electricity is made from burning coal and spewing CO2 into the air, the fact that we are using less electricity is a good thing, right?

There is really a very good correlation here, a negative correlation, between industrial electrical demand and jobs. When industry uses less energy, more people are unemployed. In the eyes of the enviro-wackos, this is a good thing. We should not be using coal. So, once again we must thank the unemployed for their leadership. They are showing us what our future low-carbon world will be.

Now, I can hear the objections. "We aren't talking about not having energy," the environmentalists say. "We want wind and solar". But they have no clue that you can't have wind and solar without oil, coal and natural gas. The wind tubines are made with resins that are petroleum based. No oil. No wind turbine. As for solar, to make a solar cell requires ovens with between 500 and 1400 deg C. That takes oil, coal or natural gas. As we march into that new low carbon footprint world of no jobs, we should know that wind and solar won't happen without carbon.

One final thing. The lack of use of oil has led to a surplus of oil in the storage tanks. Below are the international and US storage numbers. I think in the near term oil prices will fall (but so may everything else). You can see that they are high. So, why is the oil price going up? Because inflation has already begun. The US government is destroying jobs but printing money like crazy and this makes it appear that the price of oil is going up. But if denominated in gold ounces, oil hasn't risen very much.

Freezing earlier in a warming world

2009-11-27T15:28:00.001-08:00

A friend jabbed me with a comment that in spite of the early cold elsewhere in the country, Dallas had not yet had a freeze (this was on Nov 22, I don't know when this blog will be published). I downloaded the data for a small town just west of Dallas/Fort Worth, Weatherford Texas and calculated the first day of each Fall in which the minimum temperature fell below zero. Since people aren't generally running air conditioners on days that freeze, the thermometers will not be affected in the same way as the high temperatures, which happen in summers.

So, what does Weatherford look like? Look for yourself.

Over the past century, Weatherford, Texas has had its first Fall freeze earlier and earlier (smaller Julian Day number which is simply the number of day in the year this day is) This is not what one expects in a warming world.

Another friend, after telling him about this, said that I should look at the last freeze in the springtime. That is the picture below. You can clearly see that over the past century the last freeze of the year has come later and later (higher Julian day number), meaning that the time between the first and last freeze has been growing.

So, lets put both curves together. I added the days from the first freeze of the winter until the end of the year to the Julian day of the last freeze. If the trend is getting bigger, then wintertime is growing. If it is getting smaller, then wintertime is shrinking.

Since I wrote the above (but before I published this), my friend who started this look at the data sent me a link to some Dallas-Fort Worth winter temperature data at the National Weather Servicehere. I plotted the number of freezing days each winter in Dallas and then calculated the trend. The trend is flat (technically slightly more freezing days now than 100 years ago, but that isn't what one expects in a warming world that is about to all die from the heat.

Clearly winters are getting longer. Do you expect this in a warming world???? I don't.

Because I was surprised at this, I looked at Riverton, Wyoming, a place I began my geophysical career in, working on a seismic crew up there. One would expect that Riverton would warm and that would push back the day of first freeze. If I use all the data with the first freeze past Mid July, the data looks like this:

Riverton is just barely warming, not quite what I expect given that we have 1/3 more CO2 in the atmosphere than we had in 1907. But look at that one day in 1912. That was an early August freeze, Aug 7. 1912.

What is the significance of that day? Well, two months earlier the 20th century's most powerful volcanic eruption had occurred at Katmai, Alaska, on June 6, 1912 (source). Volcanoes, it is known, drop the planetary temperature rather quickly. I would guess that that single freeze is probably related to it. But even if it isn't, lets see what removing that day does to the trend of first freezes. That is below.

Without that one day, Riverton is actually cooling, with the first freeze coming slightly earlier each year over the past century. Clearly this isn't what one would expect listening to all the hysteriacs baying at the moon.

Climatologists and Swiss Bank Accounts

2009-11-25T19:52:00.001-08:00

I ran into the following email from the CRU hacked emails which seems to violate the spirit of Russian tax collection. In an email allegedly from Stepan Shiyatov written on Tatiana M. Dedkova's email account to K. Briffa, money was sought for funding the Yamal tree ring project. But interestingly Stepan was asking that the money be put into his personal account. That sounds very Bernie Madoffish. It seems odd to me that Stepan was writing on Tatiana's email account asking for money to be put into personal accounts. If this was done, does this constitute malfeaseance?

Also, it is important for us if you can transfer the ADVANCE money on the personal accounts which we gave you earlier and the sum for one occasion transfer (for example, during one day) will not be more than 10,000 USD. Only in this case we can avoid big taxes and use money for our work as much as possible. Please, inform us what kind of documents and financial reports we must
represent you and your administration for these money.
source

Was the money sent? I don't know. Two years later was an email which has an email allegedly from K. Briffa to an evag@ address saying that he had said that Stepan was getting $5000 to a Swiss account. Interesting that a Russian climatologist should be getting money sent to a Swiss bank account.

From: Keith Briffa
To: evag@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: transfer
Date: Wed Nov 18 11:04:42 1998
Cc: stepan@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

Eugene
I am told that the money transfer ( 5000 u.s. dollars) should have gone to the bank account you stated. Please let me know if this is received by you. I now also have the contract signed by INTAS and we must organise future work and I will talk to Fritz about us visiting Ekaterinburg next year. In the meantime I wish you and Stepan to organise major review papers of the Yamal and Taimyr long chronology staus for inclusion in the Holocene ADVANCE-10K Special Issue. These need to be completed by June at the latest . They will each be 10-12 pages of print. I can suggest content, do some analyses and help with editing these . I am also sending Stepan's 5000 dollars to Switzerland now to be carried back by his colleague. I have yet to sort out how claims on the INTAS money will be handled. Have you received the details of the final contract?
best wishes
Keithhere

Edited to add 8 hours after I posted the above: I decided to change the title from "Climatologists avoid taxation" to "Climatologists and Swiss Bank Accounts". I figure that will get a bit more notice. I am appalled by the lack of fiscal checks and balances seen in the above. I once managed a $24 million dollar seismic purchasing budget. Not one single dime of money saw the inside of someone's personal bank account nor did a single dime go to a Swiss bank account for carring back to some other country by a third party.

Once money goes inside a personal bank account the audit trail stops. How much of that money actually was used for the research? How much went to the carrier? All these questions must now be asked. I don't know if there are laws broken here but it sure sounds like bad fiscal control.

Antarctica was 6 degrees warmer than now

2009-11-25T11:52:00.000-08:00

In spite of all the Holocene denying, hysterical wailing about how we are going to melt Antarctica, the science says, not so. My last week's Nature arrived yesterday (yeah the post office is slow). In it was an article L. C. Sime et al, "Evidence for warmer interglacials in East Antarctic ice corese," Nature 462 (2009), p. 342

The article makes the amazing claim that 3 times over the past 340,000 years, Antarctica has been as much as 6 degrees centigrade hotter than it is today. And looking at the widths of the deuterium data he used, it was that hot for at least 1000-1500 years EACH TIME!.

The abstract says

Here we analyse the three available 340 kyr East Antarctic ice core records alongside input from GCM modelling. We show that for warmer interglacial periods the relationship between temperature and the isotopic signature varies among ice core sites, and that therefore the conversions must be nonlinear for at least some sites. Model results indicate that the isotopic composition of East Antarctic ice is less sensitive to temperature changes during warmer climates. We conclude that previous temperature estimates from interglacial climates are likely to be too low. The available evidence is consistent with a peak Antarctic interglacial temperature that was at least 6 K higher than that of the present day —approximately double the widely quoted 3+/-1.5 K

Yes, Antarctica has, in the past been 6 deg C hotter than at present for as long as 1000-1500 years and it didn't slide into the sea.

Happy Thanksgiving

CO2 only works in the Northern Hemisphere

2009-11-24T19:44:00.001-08:00

All the global warming hysteriacs claim that CO2 is the cause of global warming. I think I can disprove that. CO2 is spread evenly throughout the atmosphere. It blocks outgoing radiation everywhere equally because the physics is simple: X quantity of CO2 will increase the optical depth of the atmosphere by amount Y. Optical depth in simple terms is the opacity of the atmosphere to a given frequency. CO2 absorbs infrared, and so to certain infrared wavelengths, the atmosphere doesn't look clear and it has a hard time escaping. That is the theory.

Now look at the picture below.

You can go to the website, the NOAA website, and make this map. It is a trend map. It shows not the temperature but the rate the temperature is rising. A positive trend means the location is warming (reddish colors); a negative trend meand the location is cooling. Note that from 1971 to 2009, only the northern hemisphere is warming. Antarctica is cooling. Isn't that interesting. CO2 doesn't work in Antarctica!!!

The real answer is that CO2 isn't the cause of the warming or the cooling. It is hyper-illogical to think that CO2 causes warming in the northern hemisphere and cooling south of 60 deg S latitude, that is, in Antarctica.

Then there is another issue. Think of all the caterwalling that we have heard about how global warming is going to melt Antarctica, raise the sea levels and drown all those Bangladeshi's who are too stupid to move out of the way of the rising waters. Given that we know that Antarctica was below freezing in 1971, and we know from the trend map that it has been getting colder over the past 40 years or so, the global warming hyper-illogical hysteriac is asking us to believe that Antarctica is going to melt while it is getting colder by the year!

Only global warming makes people believe such nonsense.

Climatologists Suppress Dissent But Deny It

2009-11-24T03:59:00.000-08:00

Found deep in a computer code hacked from the Climate Research Unit was a comment on how to handle the tree ring temperature proxy after 1960. It seesm that the thermometer record was continuing to rise but the pesky tree rings were not showing that increase in temperature. So a programmer writing code wrote this:

;Plots 24 yearly maps of calibrated (PCR-infilled or not) MXD reconstructions
; of growing season temperatures. Uses “corrected” MXD – but shouldn’t usually
; plot past 1960 because these will be artificially adjusted to look closer to
; the real temperatures.

Simply put, the global warming folk ignored the tree ring data and changed it to make it look like what they wanted it to look like. How very very very scientific of them. <- that was sarcasm

Well, the Wall Street Journal this morning has some more on these 'open-minded truth-seeking scientists. It says:

"For the record, when we've asked Mr. Mann in the past about the charge that he and his colleagues suppress opposing views, he has said he 'won't dignify that question with a response,"[/SIZE=3] Regarding our most recent queries about the hacked emails, he says he 'did not manipulate any data in any conceivable way,' but otherwise refuses to answer specific questions." Global Warming with the Lid Off, Wall Street Journal, Novf 24 2009, p. A22

How very very untruthful of the man if one is to believe what is found in the email allegedly written by him.

From: "Michael E. Mann"
To: Phil Jones ,rbradley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, mhughes@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,srutherford@xx...@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Re: Fwd: Soon & Baliunas
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 08:14:49 -0500
Cc: k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,jto@u.arizona...@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, keith.alverson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,mmaccra...@u.arizona.edu, mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

Thanks Phil,
(Tom: Congrats again!)
The Soon & Baliunas paper couldn't have cleared a 'legitimate' peer review process anywhere. That leaves only one possibility--that the peer-review process at Climate Research has been hijacked by a few skeptics on the editorial board. And it isn't just De Frietas, unfortunately I think this group also includes a member of my own department... The skeptics appear to have staged a 'coup' at "Climate Research" (it was a mediocre journal to begin with, but now its a mediocre journal with a definite 'purpose').
Folks might want to check out the editors and review editors:

[1]http://www.int-res.com/journals/cr/crEditors.html

In fact, Mike McCracken first pointed out this article to me, and he and I have discussed this a bit. I've cc'd Mike in on this as well, and I've included Peck too. I told Mike that I believed our only choice was to ignore this paper. They've already achieved what they wanted--the claim of a peer-reviewed paper. There is nothing we can do about that now, but the last thing we want to do is bring attention to this paper, which will be ignored by the community on the whole...
It is pretty clear that thee skeptics here have staged a bit of a coup, even in the presence of a number of reasonable folks on the editorial board (Whetton, Goodess, ...). My guess is that Von Storch is actually with them (frankly, he's an odd individual, and I'm not sure he isn't himself somewhat of a skeptic himself), and without Von Storch on their side, they would have a very forceful personality promoting their new vision. There have been several papers by Pat Michaels, as well as the Soon & Baliunas paper, that couldn't get published in a reputable journal.

This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the "peer-reviewed literature". Obviously, they found a solution to that--take over a journal! So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering "Climate Research" as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board...What do others think?
mike

Truth seekers shouldn't care if a paper is brought to the attention of others, but these guys only wanted to suppress dissenting and critical views. What a sad sham this is.

The above was a response to an email allegedly from Phil Jones

I think the skeptics will use this paper to their own ends and it will set paleo back a number of years if it goes unchallenged. I will be emailing the journal to tell them I'm having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor. A CRU person is on the editorial board, but papers get dealt with by the editor assigned by Hans von Storch.
Cheers
Phil

Yes, if this isn't a case of suppressing opposing views I don't know what one is. And of course, after denying their critics opportunities to publish, these guys then claim that the work is no good because it can't be published.