DVD Talk Forum

DVD Talk Forum (https://forum.dvdtalk.com/)
-   Religion, Politics and World Events (https://forum.dvdtalk.com/religion-politics-world-events-47/)
-   -   The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 9 (-gates unlimited edition) (https://forum.dvdtalk.com/religion-politics-world-events/569534-one-only-global-warming-thread-part-9-gates-unlimited-edition.html)

movielib 02-15-10 01:55 AM

The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 9 (-gates unlimited edition)
Time again for a new Global Warming Thread. Part 7 lasted 5 months, Part 8 was filled in 2½.

Time flies when you have scandals galore.

Brack helped too early on.

Part 8 Here.

Mods, please close Part 8.

movielib 02-15-10 09:50 AM

Re: The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 9 (-gates unlimited edition)
I don't want this to get lost in the thread change.

Please, if you agree, sign this petition to rescind Al Gore's and the IPCC's 2007 Nobel Peace Prize and award it to the person who should have gotten it, the now deceased Irena Sendler who saved 2500 Jewish children and others from the Nazis. No, it won't accomplish anything but you'll feel better.


movielib 02-15-10 10:07 AM

Re: The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 9 (-gates unlimited edition)
A concise -gate guide:


What to say to a 'warmer'

It has been tough to keep up with all the bad news for global warming alarmists. We're on the edge of our chair, waiting for the next shoe to drop. This has been an Imelda Marcos kind of season for shoe-dropping about global warming.

At your next dinner party, here are some of the latest talking points to bring up when someone reminds you that Al Gore and the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change won Nobel prizes for their work on global warming.

ClimateGate – This scandal began the latest round of revelations when thousands of leaked documents from Britain's East Anglia Climate Research Unit showed systematic suppression and discrediting of climate skeptics' views and discarding of temperature data, suggesting a bias for making the case for warming. Why do such a thing if, as global warming defenders contend, the "science is settled?"

FOIGate – The British government has since determined someone at East Anglia committed a crime by refusing to release global warming documents sought in 95 Freedom of Information Act requests. The CRU is one of three international agencies compiling global temperature data. If their stuff's so solid, why the secrecy?

ChinaGate – An investigation by the U.K.'s left-leaning Guardian newspaper found evidence that Chinese weather station measurements not only were seriously flawed, but couldn't be located. "Where exactly are 42 weather monitoring stations in remote parts of rural China?" the paper asked. The paper's investigation also couldn't find corroboration of what Chinese scientists turned over to American scientists, leaving unanswered, "how much of the warming seen in recent decades is due to the local effects of spreading cities, rather than global warming?" The Guardian contends that researchers covered up the missing data for years.

HimalayaGate – An Indian climate official admitted in January that, as lead author of the IPCC's Asian report, he intentionally exaggerated when claiming Himalayan glaciers would melt away by 2035 in order to prod governments into action. This fraudulent claim was not based on scientific research or peer-reviewed. Instead it was originally advanced by a researcher, since hired by a global warming research organization, who later admitted it was "speculation" lifted from a popular magazine. This political, not scientific, motivation at least got some researcher funded.

PachauriGate – Rajendra Pachauri, the IPCC chairman who accepted with Al Gore the Nobel Prize for scaring people witless, at first defended the Himalaya melting scenario. Critics, he said, practiced "voodoo science." After the melting-scam perpetrator 'fessed up, Pachauri admitted to making a mistake. But, he insisted, we still should trust him.

PachauriGate II – Pachauri also claimed he didn't know before the 192-nation climate summit meeting in Copenhagen in December that the bogus Himalayan glacier claim was sheer speculation. But the London Times reported that a prominent science journalist said he had pointed out those errors in several e-mails and discussions to Pachauri, who "decided to overlook it." Stonewalling? Cover up? Pachauri says he was "preoccupied." Well, no sense spoiling the Copenhagen party, where countries like Pachauri's India hoped to wrench billions from countries like the United States to combat global warming's melting glaciers. Now there are calls for Pachauri's resignation.

SternGate – One excuse for imposing worldwide climate crackdown has been the U.K.'s 2006 Stern Report, an economic doomsday prediction commissioned by the government. Now the U.K. Telegraph reports that quietly after publication "some of these predictions had been watered down because the scientific evidence on which they were based could not be verified." Among original claims now deleted were that northwest Australia has had stronger typhoons in recent decades, and that southern Australia lost rainfall because of rising ocean temperatures. Exaggerated claims get headlines. Later, news reporters disclose the truth. Why is that?

SternGate II – A researcher now claims the Stern Report misquoted his work to suggest a firm link between global warming and more-frequent and severe floods and hurricanes. Robert Muir-Wood said his original research showed no such link. He accused Stern of "going far beyond what was an acceptable extrapolation of the evidence." We're shocked.

AmazonGate – The London Times exposed another shocker: the IPCC claim that global warming will wipe out rain forests was fraudulent, yet advanced as "peer-reveiwed" science. The Times said the assertion actually "was based on an unsubstantiated claim by green campaigners who had little scientific expertise," "authored by two green activists" and lifted from a report from the World Wildlife Fund, an environmental pressure group. The "research" was based on a popular science magazine report that didn't bother to assess rainfall. Instead, it looked at the impact of logging and burning. The original report suggested "up to 40 percent" of Brazilian rain forest was extremely sensitive to small reductions in the amount of rainfall, but the IPCC expanded that to cover the entire Amazon, the Times reported.

PeerReviewGate – The U.K. Sunday Telegraph has documented at least 16 nonpeer-reviewed reports (so far) from the advocacy group World Wildlife Fund that were used in the IPCC's climate change bible, which calls for capping manmade greenhouse gases.

RussiaGate – Even when global warming alarmists base claims on scientific measurements, they've often had their finger on the scale. Russian think tank investigators evaluated thousands of documents and e-mails leaked from the East Anglia research center and concluded readings from the coldest regions of their nation had been omitted, driving average temperatures up about half a degree.

Russia-Gate II – Speaking of Russia, a presentation last October to the Geological Society of America showed how tree-ring data from Russia indicated cooling after 1961, but was deceptively truncated and only artfully discussed in IPCC publications. Well, at least the tree-ring data made it into the IPCC report, albeit disguised and misrepresented.

U.S.Gate – If Brits can't be trusted, are Yanks more reliable? The U.S. National Climate Data Center has been manipulating weather data too, say computer expert E. Michael Smith and meteorologist Joesph D'Aleo. Forty years ago there were 6,000 surface-temperature measuring stations, but only 1,500 by 1990, which coincides with what global warming alarmists say was a record temperature increase. Most of the deleted stations were in colder regions, just as in the Russian case, resulting in misleading higher average temperatures.

IceGate – Hardly a continent has escaped global warming skewing. The IPCC based its findings of reductions in mountain ice in the Andes, Alps and in Africa on a feature story of climbers' anecdotes in a popular mountaineering magazine, and a dissertation by a Switzerland university student, quoting mountain guides. Peer-reviewed? Hype? Worse?

ResearchGate – The global warming camp is reeling so much lately it must have seemed like a major victory when a Penn State University inquiry into climate scientist Michael Mann found no misconduct regarding three accusations of climate research impropriety. But the university did find "further investigation is warranted" to determine whether Mann engaged in actions that "seriously deviated from accepted practices for proposing, conducting or reporting research or other scholarly activities." Being investigated for only one fraud is a global warming victory these days.

ReefGate – Let's not forget the alleged link between climate change and coral reef degradation. The IPCC cited not peer-reviewed literature, but advocacy articles by Greenpeace, the publicity-hungry advocacy group, as its sole source for this claim.

AfricaGate – The IPCC claim that rising temperatures could cut in half agricultural yields in African countries turns out to have come from a 2003 paper published by a Canadian environmental think tank – not a peer-reviewed scientific journal.

DutchGate – The IPCC also claimed rising sea levels endanger the 55 percent of the Netherlands it says is below sea level. The portion of the Netherlands below sea level actually is 20 percent. The Dutch environment minister said she will no longer tolerate climate researchers' errors.

AlaskaGate – Geologists for Space Studies in Geophysics and Oceanography and their U.S. and Canadian colleagues say previous studies largely overestimated by 40 percent Alaskan glacier loss for 40 years. This flawed data are fed into those computers to predict future warming.

Fold this column up and lay it next to your napkin the next time you have Al Gore or his ilk to dine. It should make interesting after-dinner conversation.
On Researchgate I'd add that the investigation itself is a -gate (Investi-gate?) because of the whitewash nature of it wherein only two witnesses were contacted, both of them Mann sycophants.

More to come, I'm sure.

movielib 02-15-10 10:28 AM

Re: The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 9 (-gates unlimited edition)
The absurdity of the claim that more snow farther south is caused by warming.


The Snow Line is Moving South
15 02 2010
Guest post by Steven Goddard

As we have been discussing on WUWT, three of the last four months have seen top ten Northern Hemisphere snow extents and the decadal trend has been towards increasing (and above normal) snow extent during the autumn and winter. It appears that this month will achieve snow extent among the top two Februaries on record.

As you can see in the Rutgers University maps below for mid-February, the excess snow cover is necessarily found at lower latitudes. Snow cover radiates out from the pole, so the only place where snow extent can increase is towards the south.

The implication of the observed trend towards increasing snow extent is that the Northern Hemisphere autumn/winter snow line is moving southwards over the last ten to twenty years.

Daily Departure – February 13, 2010 (Day 44)
Source : Rutgers University Global Climate Lab

Daily Snow – February 13, 2010 (Day 44)
Source : Rutgers University Global Climate Lab

We see southern snow cover this year in places like Greece, Northern China, and Alabama that are not normally covered with snow in mid-February. The map below shows the “normal” snow extent measured since 1966.

Daily Climatology – February 13 (Day 44)
Source : Rutgers University Global Climate Lab

Some people have been claiming that the anomalous snow this winter is due to warming temperatures. The New York Times reports on the record snow:
Most climate scientists respond that the ferocious storms are consistent with forecasts that a heating planet will produce more frequent and more intense weather events.
It doesn’t make a lot of sense that warming temperatures would cause the snow line to move south. Lower latitudes normally receive rain rather than snow, because the air is already too warm for snow. Further warming would be expected to move the snow line north – not south – and that is exactly what the climate models predict. Indeed, Time Magazine claims that this has already happened: “large-scale cold-weather storm systems have gradually tracked to the north in the U.S. over the past 50 years.”

As far as snow depth goes, Washington D.C. recently broke their 1899 snow record of 54.4 inches and now has a new record of 54.9 inches. We are told that the new record is due to “extreme weather” caused by “global warming.” If so, what caused the nearly identical “extreme weather” over a century ago? Alarmists tell us that heavy snow used to be caused by cold, but now is caused by warmth. The 1899 record was set long before the hockey stick brought temperatures to “unprecedented levels.”

Now lets take their poor logic one step further. Ice ages occur when the snow line moves very far south. If “most climate scientists” are claiming that global warming is causing the snow line to move south, then the logical corollary is that ice ages are caused by further warming temperatures. Clearly that is not true.

Wikipedia map of the last ice age

Furthermore, Hansen correctly tells us that as the snow line moves south, the earth’s albedo increases causing further cooling.

The sensible theory is that the snow line moves south when the climate is cold, and north when the climate is warm. And the record snow we are seeing this winter is due to cold, not warm temperatures.

Today’s NBA All-Star game in Dallas is covered with snow. Last time I checked, Texas was in the South.

2010 NBA All-Star Game in Dallas, Texas.

nemein 02-15-10 02:06 PM

Re: The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 9 (-gates unlimited edition)
Anyone heard anything on this?


The rate at which the oceans are becoming more acidic is greater today than at any time in tens of millions of years, according to a new study.

Rapidly rising concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere mean that the rate of ocean acidification is the fastest since the age of the dinosaurs, which became extinct 65m years ago, scientists believe.

The oceans are likely to become so acidic in coming centuries that they will become uninhabitable for vast swathes of life, especially the little-studied organisms on the deep-sea floor which are a vital link in the marine food chain.

Scientists have concluded, in a study published today in the journal Nature Genetics, that the current rate of ocean acidification is up to 10 times faster than 55m years ago – the last time the deep oceans became so acidic.

This is because of the speed at which carbon-dioxide concentrations are rising in the atmosphere. This carbon dioxide dissolves in seawater at the sea surface to form carbonic acid. The increased acidity of the water affects the amount of dissolved carbonate minerals that are available for marine organisms to use in forming their shells and hard skeletons.

When the oceans became acidified in a similar way about 55m years ago, it resulted in a mass extinction of deep-sea marine organisms, especially those living in the sediments of the sea floor, which can be studied geologically through changes to rock formations, said Dr Andy Ridgwell of the University of Bristol.

"Unlike surface plankton dwelling in a variable habitat, organisms living deep down on the ocean floor are adapted to much more stable conditions. A rapid and severe geochemical change in their environment would make their survival precarious," he said.

Studies also suggest that temperatures of the surface ocean rose, and carbon-dioxide levels increased over a period of a few thousand years.

The latest study compared these changes with predicted changes to ocean acidity resulting from continuing increases in concentrations of man-made carbon dioxide expected this century.

OldDude 02-15-10 03:05 PM

Re: The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 9 (-gates unlimited edition)

Originally Posted by nemein (Post 10000083)

Lord, I hate to use Wikipedia as a source, as they are all CAGWers:

They make it sound terrible, but if you understand the pH scale, they are not actually saying the ocean is acidic (pH < 7), they are saying it is a tiny bit less alkaline, less than 0.1 pH unit.

pH is a logarithmic measure of the concentration of H+ ions in water. Even in pure water, some of the water molecules dissociate into H+ and OH- ions, specifically (at 25 °C) 10^-7 mol/L of each. pH is just minus the logarithm of this number, which is why 7 represents pure water, neither acidic nor alkaline. A pH of 8 (the ocean) represents an H+ concentration of 10^-8 mol/L and an OH- concentration of 10^-6 mol/L, that is 100:1 more OH- than H+. A 0.1 change around a pH of 8 is a small change in that ratio, but it is still predominately alkaline by a wide margin.

Second, it is not clear that CO2 is the dominant cause. SOx from power plants definitely produces acid rain that can acidify fresh water lakes. Finally as the temperature increases, at constant CO2 partial pressure, water can hold less CO2. (Google Henry's Law for the proportionality constant and the rate of change with temperature). If increased CO2 were causing warming, the very warming would (at least partially) offset the solubility of the CO2 in water. There is no proven amount of warming due to a given amount of CO2 (it is lost in other climate noise), so it is not possible to say whether the increased CO2 would be more or less than offset by the increased temperature.

However, if you believe in CAGW, the violent temperature increase caused by 2 or 3 molecules of CO2 should more than offset the solubility in water by changing the Henry's Law constant with temperature.

I don't know what degree of alkalinity is required for shell formation in ocean shellfish. Most fresh water lakes are very slightly acidic, not alkaline, and there are fresh water mussels, so as long as change is not too fast, I would expect species could adapt. I believe movielib has posted links on adaptability of coral.

Basically, I think it is another unsubstantiated parade of horribles.

grundle 02-15-10 03:20 PM

Re: The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 9 (-gates unlimited edition)

movielib 02-15-10 04:07 PM

Re: The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 9 (-gates unlimited edition)

Originally Posted by OldDude (Post 10000171)
Lord, I hate to use Wikipedia as a source, as they are all CAGWers:

They make it sound terrible, but if you understand the pH scale, they are not actually saying the ocean is acidic (pH < 7), they are saying it is a tiny bit less alkaline, less than 0.1 pH unit.

pH is a logarithmic measure of the concentration of H+ ions in water. Even in pure water, some of the water molecules dissociate into H+ and OH- ions, specifically (at 25 °C) 10^-7 mol/L of each. pH is just minus the logarithm of this number, which is why 7 represents pure water, neither acidic nor alkaline. A pH of 8 (the ocean) represents an H+ concentration of 10^-8 mol/L and an OH- concentration of 10^-6 mol/L, that is 100:1 more OH- than H+. A 0.1 change around a pH of 8 is a small change in that ratio, but it is still predominately alkaline by a wide margin.

Second, it is not clear that CO2 is the dominant cause. SOx from power plants definitely produces acid rain that can acidify fresh water lakes. Finally as the temperature increases, at constant CO2 partial pressure, water can hold less CO2. (Google Henry's Law for the proportionality constant and the rate of change with temperature). If increased CO2 were causing warming, the very warming would (at least partially) offset the solubility of the CO2 in water. There is no proven amount of warming due to a given amount of CO2 (it is lost in other climate noise), so it is not possible to say whether the increased CO2 would be more or less than offset by the increased temperature.

However, if you believe in CAGW, the violent temperature increase caused by 2 or 3 molecules of CO2 should more than offset the solubility in water by changing the Henry's Law constant with temperature.

I don't know what degree of alkalinity is required for shell formation in ocean shellfish. Most fresh water lakes are very slightly acidic, not alkaline, and there are fresh water mussels, so as long as change is not too fast, I would expect species could adapt. I believe movielib has posted links on adaptability of coral.

Basically, I think it is another unsubstantiated parade of horribles.

Yes, I have posted many times on this. It is one of the rotating topics the alarmists recycle when they are stuck. It's absolutely no big deal.

EDIT: And I guess we have the answer to the question asked in the last post of Thread #8. :lol:

grundle 02-15-10 05:28 PM

Re: The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 9 (-gates unlimited edition)

Did you watch the video?

movielib 02-15-10 05:40 PM

Re: The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 9 (-gates unlimited edition)

Originally Posted by grundle (Post 10000434)

Did you watch the video?

I was "working." But I watched it now. That's a good one. As I'm sure you know, there are quite a few.

movielib 02-15-10 05:53 PM

Re: The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 9 (-gates unlimited edition)

Climategate: Phil Jones Finally Proves Al Gore Right — The Debate Is Over
February 15, 2010
by Steve Milloy

CRU's Phil Jones just ended it via the BBC, but the world now owes credit where credit is due: to the long-suffering, abused global warming skeptics. (See also Roger Kimball: "It’s Not That I Like Saying 'I Told You So' About 'Global Warming,' but ... ")

Now that Climategate ringleader Phil Jones has admitted that there has been no global warming (man-made or otherwise) since at least 1995, and that the world was warmer in medieval times than now, I only have one question. Where do the so-called global warming skeptics go to get their reputations back?

As head of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia — their data underpins most of the claims of man-made global warming — Jones’ admission should be the final nail in the coffin of the anti-carbon dioxide crusade of Al Gore, the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), most green activist groups, industry lobbying groups like the U.S. Climate Action Partnership (USCAP), and President Obama.

Concepts and policies like cap and trade, carbon taxes, carbon footprints, and carbon offsets all should shortly be relegated to the same ash heap of history as eugenics, communism, Enron, and Bernie Madoff.

Secondary school students subjected to hysterical global warming propaganda — like Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth — should recover quickly, if they were even paying attention in the first place. Since global warming alarmism for America’s universities was all about the federal grant money to start with, they should have no problems switching gears as long as the money keeps flowing.

Goldman Sachs probably won’t get to profiteer from trading carbon credits. But not to worry — there’s always some new sort of financial fraud for modern Wall Streeters to engage in just around the corner. General Electric will be forced to return to Thomas Edison-like innovation rather than lobbying for revenues and profits, but that should be no problem after shareholders get rid of global-warming-loving CEO Jeff Immelt.

Yes, the world will inexorably move on from global warming to new crises, both real and imaginary. But before it does, the world should give credit where credit is due: to the global warming skeptics.

For the past 20 years, the skeptics have consistently, courageously — and most importantly, correctly — pointed out the fatal flaws in the hysterical hypothesis of man-made global warming. In the course of their efforts, they have been mocked, threatened (sometimes physically), abused, derided, cursed, characterized as loons, and likened to Holocaust deniers. One green writer for the prominent online publication Grist magazine even suggested Nuremberg-style war crimes trials for the denialists.

All this for the crime of being factually, though not politically, correct.

And I’m not referring to those skeptics-come-lately who, in the wake of Climategate, finally get it. I’m talking about those lone voices, especially during the Bush years. Few in number, they kept the flame of skepticism burning until the cavalry arrived in the form of Climategate, glaciergate, rainforestgate, and now Phil Jones’ anti-climactic climatic admission.

Had the skeptics not succeeded in preventing the U.S. from signing on to the Kyoto Protocol and to President Obama’s cap-and-trade crusade, we would all have been in for a world of hurt as misanthropic socialists — hiding behind their shields of “the environment” and “the children” — destroyed our liberties and ran our economy (further) into the ground.

Hug a skeptic. They saved your bacon.

Global warming is dead. Long live global warming — at least until it melts the 4-foot snow drifts outside my house.
And don't forget to thank the hacker/whistleblower/person who found the Climategate files on a server, whoever he/she/they was or were. We'd still be spinning our wheels.

grundle 02-15-10 06:04 PM

Re: The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 9 (-gates unlimited edition)

Originally Posted by movielib (Post 10000454)
I was "working." But I watched it now. That's a good one. As I'm sure you know, there are quite a few.

Yes, there are a lot.

"We can always go back to global cooling - it worked before. Find some unfunded scientists."

Heh heh heh.

grundle 02-15-10 06:08 PM

Re: The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 9 (-gates unlimited edition)
The wikipedia article on Climategate doesn't say anything about the glacier stuff, the amazon rain forest stuff, the Netherlands sea level stuff, or the African crop stuff.

Instead, all of those things are relegated to an article called, "Criticism of the IPCC AR4," which no one will ever search for. Also, the Climategate article didn't cite that article, until just now, when I added it so the "see also" section of the Climategate artricle. I hope no one removes it.



movielib 02-15-10 08:14 PM

Re: The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 9 (-gates unlimited edition)
We've had Hurricanegate (or Stormgate which I prefer) which had to do with alleged errors in IPCC AR4 which attributed increased destruction from storms to global warming but could not be supported and ignored peer reviewed studies that contradicted the claim. Now it looks like Hurricanegate II (or Stormgate II) is coming because the IPCC claim of increased frequency and strength of storms cannot be supported, failing statistical tests.


Now IPCC hurricane data is questioned

By Andrew Orlowski
15th February 2010 11:00 GMT

More trouble looms for the IPCC. The body may need to revise statements made in its Fourth Assessment Report on hurricanes and global warming. A statistical analysis of the raw data shows that the claims that global hurricane activity has increased cannot be supported.

Les Hatton once fixed weather models at the Met Office. Having studied Maths at Cambridge, he completed his PhD as metereologist: his PhD was the study of tornadoes and waterspouts. He's a fellow of the Royal Meterological Society, currently teaches at the University of Kingston, and is well known in the software engineering community - his studies include critical systems analysis.

Hatton has released what he describes as an 'A-level' statistical analysis, which tests six IPCC statements against raw data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric (NOAA) Administration. He's published all the raw data and invites criticism, but warns he is neither "a warmist nor a denialist", but a scientist.

Hatton performed a z-test statistical analysis of the period 1999-2009 against 1946-2009 to test the six conclusions. He also ran the data ending with what the IPCC had available in 2007. He found that North Atlantic hurricane activity increased significantly, but the increase was counterbalanced by diminished activity in the East Pacific, where hurricane-strength storms are 50 per cent more prevalent. The West Pacific showed no significant change. Overall, the declines balance the increases.

"When you average the number of storms and their strength, it almost exactly balances." This isn't indicative of an increase in atmospheric energy manifesting itself in storms.

Even the North Atlantic increase should be treated with caution, Hatton concludes, since the period contains one anomalous year of unusually high hurricane activity - 2005 - the year Al Gore used the Katrina tragedy to advance the case for the manmade global warming theory.

The IPCC does indeed conclude that "there is no clear trend in the annual numbers of tropical cyclones." If only the IPCC had stopped there. Yet it goes on to make more claims, and draw conclusions that the data doesn't support.

Claims and data

Thre IPCC's WG1 paper states: "There are also suggestions of increased intense tropical cyclone activity in some other regions where concerns over data quality are greater." Hatton points out the data quality is similar in each area.

The IPCC continues: "It is more likely than not (> 50%) that there has been some human contribution to the increases in hurricane intensity." But, as Hatton points out, that conclusion comes from computer climate models, not from the observational data, which show no increase.

"The IPCC goes on to make statements that would never pass peer review," Hatton told us. A more scientifically useful conclusion would have been to ask why there was a disparity. "This differential behaviour to me is very interesting. If it's due to increased warming in one place, and decreased warming in the other - then that's interesting to me."

Hatton has thirty years of experience of getting scientific papers published, but describes this one, available on his personal website, as "unpublishable".

"It's an open invitation to tell me I'm wrong," he says. He was prompted to look more closely by the Climategate emails, and by his years of experience with computer modelling. All code and data on which policy conclusions are made should be open and freely downloadable, he says - preferably with open tools.

You can download both the paper and the code and tools from here.


The IPCC's AR4 chapter lead was Kevin Trenberth, who features prominently in the Climategate emails. In 2005, the National Hurricane Center's chief scientist Chris Landsea resigned his post in protest at the treatment of the subject by Trenberth.

"I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound. As the IPCC leadership has seen no wrong in Dr. Trenberth’s actions and have retained him as a Lead Author for the AR4, I have decided to no longer participate in the IPCC AR4."

Critics point out that an increase in low-intensity storms being recorded is due to better instrumentation. Most are at sea, and thanks to radar and satellites, more are now observed.
Landsea just keeps getting vindicated over and over and his own studies have been rock solid. Despite this, the alarmists will not give up the increased storms meme. (Indeed, even if they are right about global warming, which they aren't, the poles would heat more than the tropics and since storms thrive on differences in temperature, this would result in fewer and weaker storms.) The storm/warming connection has never been there and has been debunked more times than Uri Geller. It's the least supported scare story the alarmists have (and that's saying a lot).

movielib 02-16-10 07:44 AM

Re: The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 9 (-gates unlimited edition)
The British Climategate "investigation" gets weirder. One member, the editor of Nature, resigned hours after the committee announcement because of his obvious bias. But another member, Geoffrey Boulton, just as biased and actually involved in the whole mess, won't resign and won't be forced to.


Author Bishop Hill
Boulton is staying

Sir Muir Russell and his team have rejected the concerns of those of those sceptics who have questioned his suitability as a panel member.

Sir Muir Russell said:
"This Review must determine if there is evidence of poor scientific practice, as well as investigate allegations around the manipulation and suppression of data.

"As others have pointed out, it would be impossible to find somebody with the qualifications and experience we need who has not formed an opinion on climate change.

"I am completely confident that each member of the Review team has the integrity, the expertise, and the experience to complete our work impartially."
Unfortunately it is not Sir Muir who needs to be confident of the integrity of the review team, it is the public who will be the consumers of his findings. Sir Muir said at the start of his review that he considered it important to carry the confidence of sceptics. It seems clear now that this is not an issue that is occupying his mind any longer.
It's probably true that it's difficult to find anyone truly 100% unbiased at this time. But if so, how about balancing the alarmists with some skeptics? Perhaps there could be majority and minority reports. It seems there is no chance of that.

But this set-up with all alarmists sends the "whitewash" message once again. These people are not going to fairly investigate what amounts to their own position and they are not going to fairly investigate their friends.

movielib 02-16-10 07:55 AM

Re: The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 9 (-gates unlimited edition)
The IPCC plays with Scandinavian temperatures.


Joanne Nove
February 15, 2010

Yet again, we have a situation where the data doesn’t match the full-gloss coloured graphs produced by the PR agency for global warming called the IPCC.

Frank Lansner and Nicolai Skjoldby have started a new blog Hide The Decline, and posted that Scandinavian data shows clearly that temperatures got markedly cooler from 1950-1970, before they began rising again, and even after the warming, they only appear to be back where they were. But, all the IPCC graphs minimize the cooling. It would be reasonable to conclude from the data that the temperature today in Scandinavia is roughly similar to that of the 1930’s. But, you’d never know this from looking at the IPCC graphs.

Scandinavian Temperatures: 25 data series combined from The Nordklim database (left), compared to the IPCC's temperature graph for the area.

The IPCC needs to come forward and explain why its graphs are so different.

There is no “hockey stick warming” here. There is no unprecedented heat, and there is no good correlation with the rise of carbon dioxide either. Sure, this is just one region, not the globe, but this is yet another example of how the IPCC has not presented an honest assessment of the information.

Corroborating this information, sea surface temperatures around Scandinavia don’t show any rise. Indeed, the water appears to be cooler than it was 60-80 years ago. Where could that heat be hiding?

Sea Surface Temperatures around Scandinavia (Data from SMHI)

There’s more info at the source.:

We have seen many examples of this phenomenon from around the world. IPCC (and other alarmist) "adjustments" of raw data always go only one way. It's like flipping a coin 100 times and getting 100 heads. It can't be honest.

And those pathetic IPCC graphs look very unprofessional, more like (bad) art than science. Did Pachauri's grandkid draw them or something?

movielib 02-16-10 08:04 AM

Re: The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 9 (-gates unlimited edition)


Posted by Jeff Id on February 10, 2010

Well it looks like the IPCC was at it again. Up is down in climate science, proxy’s flipped, data chopped, sanity ignored and in this case loss is gain. Just where did they get their numbers? Again, I want to make the point written so many times here. There are 3 working groups to the IPCC. Each of them MUST have a pre-determined conclusion in order for funding to flow in the organization. It’s so simple. The answers to the 3 groups are global warming is real and man made, global warming is dangerous, and global warming is difficult and expensive to fix. Without those answers the whole debacle crashes. This example was just the efforts of hard working bureaucrats making sure the problem was dangerous and expensive.

So it begs the question—Which gate would this be?

Guest post from Climatequotes. Click the title to link to his blog.

IPCC burned on claim of wildfires affecting Canadian tourism

In the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment report, section 14.2.7 Tourism and recreation of WGII, they make the following claim (emphasis mine):
“Climate variability affects many segments of this growing economic sector [Tourism]. For example, wildfires in Colorado (2002) and British Columbia (2003) caused tens of millions of dollars in tourism losses by reducing visitation and destroying infrastructure (Associated Press, 2002; Butler, 2002; BC Stats, 2003).”
Lets look at the references they cited. Associated Press, 2002 is referenced as:
Associated Press, 2002: Rough year for rafters. September 3, 2002.
Butler, 2002 is referenced as:
Butler, A., 2002: Tourism burned: visits to parks down drastically, even away from flames. Rocky Mountain News. July 15, 2002.
BC Stats, 2003 is referenced as:
BC Stats, 2003: Tourism Sector Monitor – November 2003, British Columbia Ministry of Management Services, Victoria, 11 pp. [Accessed 09.02.07: http://www.bcstats.gov.bc.ca/pubs/tour/tsm0311.pdf]
That’s two newspaper articles and one tourism statistics newsletter. I can’t find the first two articles, one is an old AP story and the other was in a newspaper that folded last year. If anyone can find them, let me know. I assume those both deal with the Colorado half of the claim. However, the link to the BC stats works.

The claim is that wildfires in Colorado and British Columbia caused tens of millions in tourism losses. The first two references are for Colorado, and both are news stories. I don’t know how valid they are. That means the sole source of the claim of lost British Columbian tourism is the BC stats reference. Let’s take a look. Keep in mind that the fires in British Columbia were at their peak (according to this source) during the months of July, August and September. Here are quotes from their source:
The month of August saw room revenues
increase strongly (+2.9%, seasonally adjusted)
for the second time in a row. This
rise, driven by a strong performance in
Mainland/Southwest (+4.4%) and Vancouver
Island/Coast (+3.7%), was the strongest
since December 2002. Despite the forest
fires raging in the Interior, revenues were
down or virtually unchanged in the affected
regions….The Increase in Room Revenues was the
Highest since December 2002
Despite the Wildfires
Hmm. Let’s read more.
It would appear that the summer 2003 forest fires only had a limited effect on the rebound that started in July.
Limited effect. Interesting.
Province wide, room revenues continued to increase July (+1.0%) and August (+2.9%) largely as a result of stronger growth elsewhere in the province. The current rebound in room revenues from the outbreak of SARS and the war in Iraq more than offset the adverse effect of forest fires in regions far from the fires. It is possible that the stronger performance of regions far from the first is due to travellers who changed their plans to visit these regions instead of those heavily affected by the forest fires.
Oh! So tourism isn’t really negatively affected, unless the entire province is on fire.
Tourism is a seasonal phenomenon. The wildfires unfortunately
burned mostly during July, August and September, the three
months of the year when most room revenues are typically generated.
More precisely, establishments generated 38% of their
annual room revenues in these three months between 1995 and
2001. Moreover, the forest fires were at their peak in August, also
the peak month for tourism. Despite this bad timing, the peak of
the 2003 season does not appear to be lower than the peak of previous
The Peak isn’t lower? Tens of millions in lost tourism doesn’t affect the peak? If the peak wasn’t lower, then tourism was the same (or higher) than last year.
It is difficult to isolate the effect of BC fires on room revenues since
the wildfires happened when the recovery from the SARS outbreak
and the Iraq War was underway. Despite this caveat, the
tourism sector did not suffer as much due to the wildfires as the
Iraq War, SARS or September 11th.
They then show a table which compares the wildfire’s affect on tourism to the effects of Sept 11′th and the SARS outbreak in Toronto. -10.8% for 9/11, -9.7 for SARS, +1.1% for July 03 (during the fires) and +2.9% for August 03 (during the fires). That’s right, positive numbers.

The only real lost costs they associate with the wildfire is in this passage:
Forest fires affected other industries besides the tourism sector.
Logging and forestry activities and manufacturing industries such
as wood and paper were shut down due to extreme fire hazard.
Fears of supply shortages and low inventories due to the forest
fires may have partially contributed to the jump in lumber prices
in August.

Government spending went up due to firefighting. By October 25,
the province had identified an estimated $550 million in total costs
related to wildfires. Government spending represents an offset to
the losses incurred in other industries in the BC economy. On the
bright side, the BC Government is currently studying the possibility
that wood affected by wildfires might be marketable timber for
China, which may increase BC exports in the future.
Government spending increased. The cost was to government, not to the tourism industry as the IPCC claimed. Tourism went up! Read it yourself. It does mention some negatives of the fires, but overall, tourism is up, and there is certainly no mention of “tens of millions of dollars in tourism losses“. If you can find something in their source that supports their claims, e-mail me or comment below.

Once again, I am not saying that their claim is wrong. I am only underlining that their sources don’t match their claims. This shows that the IPCC already had a point of view, and they simply wanted a source to back up their claims. They found this BC Stats, probably didn’t read it because they figured it must show that fires reduce tourism, and cited it as the source of their claim. The IPCC makes a conclusion, then looks for evidence that supports their claims, and cite it. Sometimes they even cite evidence that doesn’t support their claims. Since no one read it for 2 years, they almost got away with it. This isn’t how a reputable scientific organization works.
The IPCC doesn't care where its "information" comes from or whether it is accurate. All that matters is that it supports its alarmist agenda. Wait, they don't even care if it supports the agenda. They'll just claim it does even if it doesn't.

classicman2 02-16-10 09:11 AM

Re: The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 9 (-gates unlimited edition)
Question: If global warming is proved to be junk science will Al Gore have to return his Nobel Prize?

movielib 02-16-10 05:19 PM

Re: The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 9 (-gates unlimited edition)

A.) Global warming cause an increase in the temperature difference between the interior of California and the coast resulting in an increase in fog in San Francisco? -or-

B.) cause a decrease in the temperature difference between the interior of California and the coast resulting in a decrease in fog in San Francisco? -or-

C.) The impossible. Both of the above?

Never sell global waming short. It can do anything including the impossible.


Climate change causes an increase and a decrease in San Francisco fog
February 16, 2010
contributed by John O’Sullivan

A story in today’s Daily Telegraph proclaims, “Fog over San Francisco thins by a third due to climate change.”

It refers to research published in PNAS by Dr James Johnstone of the University of California, which claims that coastal fog DECREASED over the 20th century by a third due to the temperature difference between the interior and the coast declining.

A quick Google search found that another California prof, Robert Bornstein of San Jose University, published research only last year in the Journal of Climate, which claimed that global warming was heating the interior of California, but not the coast, leading to an INCREASE in the amount of coastal fog.

So there you have it: climate change is responsible for both an increase and a decrease in the amount of coastal fog in San Francisco!
And it's further proved because both studies are peer reviewed!

movielib 02-16-10 05:47 PM

Re: The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 9 (-gates unlimited edition)
I've talked about this before but this is a particularly good graphic and written presentation. The logarithmic nature of CO2's warming effect meand there is damn little more that it can do.


Carbon dioxide is already absorbing almost all it can.

Here’s why it’s possible that doubling CO2 won’t make much difference.

The carbon that’s already up in the atmosphere absorbs most of the light it can. CO2 only “soaks up” its favorite wavelengths of light and it’s close to its saturation point. It manages to grab a bit more light from wavelengths that are close to its favorite bands but it can’t do much more, because there are not many left-over photons at the right wavelengths.

Graph of Additional Absorbance of CO2 showing that extra CO2 makes less and less difference.

The natural greenhouse effect is real, and it does keep us warm, but it’s already reached its peak performance.

This graph shows the additional warming effect of each extra 20ppm of atmospheric CO2.

AGW says: The climate models are well aware of the logarithmic absorption curve and use it already.

Skeptics say: The models make brutal estimates and many assumptions (guesses). “Lab-warming” doesn’t necessarily translate to “planet-warming”: test tubes don’t have ocean currents, clouds, or rain. The “clouds and humidity” factor is bogglingly complex. For example, high clouds tend to warm the planet but at the same time, low clouds tend to cool it. So which effect rules? Models don’t know but they assume clouds are net-warming. This is not a minor point, the feedback from clouds and humidity accounts for more than half of carbon’s alleged ‘effect’. E’Gad.

AGW says: It’s not 100% saturated.

Skeptics say: True, but meaningless. Log curves never get to “100%”. (So even the air on Venus, which is almost pure CO2, does not absorb 100% of the infra red light). Every CO2 molecule will increase warming by a small amount ad infinitum, but it has less effect than the CO2 that’s already up there.

And the effect is already so small, it’s unmeasurable.

Conclusion: If adding more CO2 to the sky mattered, we would see it in ice cores and thermometers. We don’t. Ergo: Carbon’s effect is probably minor.

Notes about page 8 of The Skeptics Handbook:

When someone pointed out this basic chemistry to me, it resonated, and again I marvelled that something so basic had been carefully not mentioned in this debate. I realize log curves are not something you want to reach out to the public with in detail, but I felt everyone who has done chemistry at university would grasp this point quickly. It explains the paradox: it’s true that carbon has some warming effect, but it’s also true that extra carbon doesn’t have the same effect. Every time alarmists point out that the natural greenhouse effect causes “X degrees of warming” they usually omit to mention that the first 100pm does almost all of that, and no other 100ppm above that will ever do as much. It’s a lie by omission.

The graph in the first printed edition of The Skeptics Handbook is shown below and comes from David Archibald who was the first one to arrange the results in this powerful graphic format. It’s a good graph and he deserves credit for being the one to capture the increasing ineffectiveness of carbon very well. This was calculated (like the top graph) using Modtran, which is a model provided by Spectral Sciences and the US Air Force, and used by researchers around the world.

Graph of Additional Absorbance of CO2 showing that extra CO2 makes less and less difference.

Archibald based his figures on a climate sensitivity calculated by Craig Idso and published in peer reviewed literature (Idso 1998). The graph itself was not published in peer reviewed paper. The top graph above comes from Patrick Michaels and was also constructed on Modtran. It started with a climate sensitivity estimate from Richard Lindzen in his recent ERBE paper (Lindzen and Choi 2009). Useful discussions on the observational backing for a low climate sensitivity is at Friends of Science and also at Niche Modelling.

The two log curves here are not that different, (which is one of the things about a log curve… once you get past the initial slide, it’s all “small” or “smaller”). Overall, both graphs accomplish what I wanted, namely, to show people that the basic effect of carbon dioxide on it’s own dwindles to almost nothing. Sure each extra molecule of carbon makes a little difference, but it becomes less and less so, and there’s a point where it’s irrelevant and unmeasurable. We’re not at that point yet. Even if doubling carbon leads only to a 0.5 degree difference on a global scale, it’s arguably still “measurable” (well… at least theoretically).

My point with this page was not that we could use Modtran to calculate whether there is a crisis due to carbon. I was not so much interested in the exact numbers, as in the shape of the curve. From a science communicators point of view, this is basic science: that additional carbon has less effect. (Can anyone find a school climate education program with this basic chemistry?)

The exponential “hockey-stick” curves of the IPCC et al emphasize just how much difference extra carbon supposedly makes. Few people realize that the exponential rising curves come from feedback factors. (Which are the fatal flaw of the science behind the scare campaign.)

Attacks on this page

There have been plenty of people who claim the log graph is totally completely utterly all wrong. Desmog tried to claim that Earths atmosphere wasn’t even close to saturated, “look at Venus “. So I did and demolished their point in this reply. (Basically Venus’s atmosphere is 90 times denser than Earths. No wonder it’s hot. It wouldn’t matter what gas was in it’s atmosphere).

Then people come out with irrelevant things, like the Idso paper is “old”, (and so is the theory of gravity), they launch ad hominem attacks on Archibald, and claim the graph is not peer reviewed. The most inflated one is when they claim that the creator of modtran says Archibald misused it. Which really turns out to be merely that the guy who developed the web interface for the modtran model didn’t like the climate sensitivity that Archibald chose (and we are supposed to care?)
Of course, everyone would not agree with these graphs because they think climate sensitivity is higher. But they have no evidence; in fact, the evidence goes against them from what I can see. And all the evidence all seems to support increased CO2 causing negative rather than positive feedbacks, making the effect even less.

There is more warming effect in the very first 20ppm than there is from all the additional CO2 that has ever or will ever be added. It's just not significant or scary.

movielib 02-16-10 06:29 PM

Re: The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 9 (-gates unlimited edition)
American press still almost unanimously ignoring Climategate and everything associated with it.


February 16, 2010
Evidence of Climate Fraud Grows, Media Coverage Doesn't
Marc Sheppard

Newsbusters' Noel Sheppard lets the mainstream media have it for completely ignoring this weekend’s game-changing revelations from Climategate conspirator Phil Jones while jumping all over the ejection of director Kevin Smith from a Southwest Airlines plane for being too fat.

For those who may have taken the three-day weekend off from the blogosphere (and Fox News) -- the BBC released a Q&A and corresponding interview with the embattled erstwhile CRU chief on Friday. In each, the discredited Climategate conspirator revealed a number of surprising insights into his true climate beliefs, the most shocking of which was that 20th-century global warming may not have been unprecedented. As I pointed out in Sunday’s article, Climategate's Phil Jones Confesses to Climate Fraud, as the entire anthropogenic global warming (AGW) theory is predicated on correlation with rising CO2 levels, this first-such confession from an IPCC senior scientist is nothing short of earth-shattering.

Noel has dug up some statistics on the major news agencies’ coverage of this vital chapter in what history will likely deem its greatest case of scientific fraud ever:
· No mention by the New York Times
· No mention by the Washington Post
· No mention by USA Today
· No mention by ANY major U.S. newspaper EXCEPT the Washington Times
· No mention by the Associated Press
· No mention by Reuters
· No mention by UPI
· No mention by ABC News
· No mention by CBS News
· No mention by NBC News
· No mention by MSNBC
As well as their treatment of Clerks director Kevin Smith being thrown off an airplane for the alleged crime of donut overindulgence:
· The New York Times reported it
· The Washington Post reported it
· The Associated Press reported it
· UPI reported it
· ABC News reported it
· CBS News reported it
· CNN reported it -- 14 TIMES!
Noel points out that the same complicit media entities were similarly asleep-at-the-wheel when the Climategate scandal broke last November. Indeed, with the notable exceptions of Fox News and the Wall Street Journal, it was exclusively new media outlets such as this one reporting and analyzing the facts uncovered concerning the fraud-suggesting-emails, the data-manipulating computer source code, the funding hypocrisies, and exactly which “decline” the scoundrels were hiding.

Of course, I must add that the blackout didn’t end with Britain’s Climategate. The MSM have been equally silent about the complicit conspirators on this side of the Atlantic. As we reported last month, a report by three Americans (Joe D’Aleo, Anthony Watts and E.M Smith) has uncovered intentional global temperature misrepresentations by the two premiere U.S. climate agencies: the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS).

The ramifications of this doctoring of the temperature records used by policy-influencing agencies worldwide – including the green-guidelines-granddaddy of them all -- the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change -- to analyze temperature anomalies are staggering. And yet – where was the MSM?

And speaking of the Nobel Prize winning IPCC, the seemingly never-ending number of “facts” in their most recent Assessment Report found to be utterly false and/or of questionable origin -- See IPCC: International Pack of Climate Crooks -- should be front page news. After all, this is the green bible on which every crazy and economy destroying scheme from domestic cap-and-tax to EPA chief Lisa Jackson’s sinister carbon regulation plot to international “climate debt” reparations is based.

Yet – the complicit media continue to speak of fantasy “green jobs” and the failings of Copenhagen and big-oil-paid-for Republicans and the need to pass President Obama’s so-called climate bill rather than doing the job they signed on for and unequivocally owe the American public: Asking questions.

I think Noel’s choice of closing words and punctuation expresses it perfectly: Shame on them!!!
Of course, if most of the American MSM had reported Jones' interview they would have to first explain everything they haven't reported for the last almost three months or their readers wouldn't have any idea what they were talking about. Catching their readers up on three months of ignored news would be rather difficult (and embarrassing).

movielib 02-17-10 07:53 AM

Re: The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 9 (-gates unlimited edition)
NASA's Climategate begins.


Climategate 2.0 — The NASA Files: U.S. Climate Science as Corrupt as CRU (PJM Exclusive — Part One)

Chris Horner filed the FOIA request that NASA didn't comply with for two years. Now we know what took so long. (This is Part One of a four-part series.)

February 17, 2010
by Christopher Horner

In August 2007, I submitted two Freedom of Information Act requests to NASA and its Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), headed by long-time Gore advisor James Hansen and his right-hand man Gavin Schmidt (and RealClimate.org co-founder).

I did this because Canadian businessman Steve McIntyre — a man with professional experience investigating suspect statistical claims in the mining industry and elsewhere, including his exposure of the now-infamous “hockey stick” graph — noticed something unusual with NASA’s claims of an ever-warming first decade of this century. NASA appeared to have inflated its U.S. temperatures beginning in the year 2000. My FOIA request asked NASA about their internal discussions regarding whether and how to correct the temperature error caught by McIntyre.

NASA stonewalled my request for more than two years, until Climategate prompted me to offer notice of intent to sue if NASA did not comply immediately.

On New Year’s Eve, NASA finally provided the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) with the documents I requested in August 2007.

The emails show the hypocrisy, dishonesty, and suspect data management and integrity of NASA, wildly spinning in defense of their enterprise. The emails show NASA making off with enormous sums of taxpayer funding doing precisely what they claim only a “skeptic” would do. The emails show NASA attempting to scrub their website of their own documents, and indeed they quietly pulled down numerous press releases grounded in the proven-wrong data. The emails show NASA claiming that their own temperature errors (which they have been caught making and in uncorrected form aggressively promoting) are merely trivial, after years of hysterically trumpeting much smaller warming anomalies.

As you examine the email excerpts below, as well as those which I will discuss in the upcoming three parts of this series, bear in mind that the contents of these emails were intended to prop up the argument for the biggest regulatory intervention in history: the restricting of carbon emissions from all human activity. NASA’s activist scientists leave no doubt in their emails that this was indeed their objective. Also, please note that these documents were responsive to a specific FOIA request from two years ago. Recent developments — combined with admissions contained in these documents — beg further requests, which have both been already filed and with more forthcoming.

Furthermore, on January 29, 2010, CEI filed our appeal of NASA continuing to improperly withhold other documents responsive to our FOIA requests. In this appeal we informed NASA that if they do not comply by the twentieth day, as required by law, we shall exercise our appellate rights in court immediately.


Under Dr. James Hansen, director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), NASA shepherds a continuing public campaign claiming clear evidence of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) — climate change induced by human beings. The documents released via the FOIA request, however, contain admissions of data unreliability that are staggering, particularly in light of NASA’s claims to know temperatures and anomalies within hundredths of a degree, and the alarm they helped raise over a mere one degree of claimed warming over more than an entire century.

Dr. Reto Ruedy, a Hansen colleague at GISS, complains in his August 3, 2007, email to his co-worker at GISS and RealClimate blogger Gavin Schmidt:
[The United States Historical Climate Network] data are not routinely kept up-to-date (at this point the (sic) seem to end in 2002).
This lapse led to wild differences in data claimed to be from the same ground stations by USHCN and the Global Climate Network (GHCN). NASA later trumpeted the “adjustments” they made to this data (upward only, of course) in extremely minor amounts — adjustments they are now seen admitting are well within any uncertainty, a fact that received significantly less emphasis in their public media campaign claiming anomalous, man-made warming.

GISS’s Ruedy then wrote:
[NASA’s] assumption that the adjustments made the older data consistent with future data … may not have been correct. … Indeed, in 490 of the 1057 stations the USHCN data were up to 1C colder than the corresponding GHCN data, in 77 stations the data were the same, and in the remaining 490 stations the USHCN data were warmer than the GHCN data.
Ruedy claimed this introduced an estimated warming into the record of 0.1 deg C. Ruedy then described an alternate way of manipulating the temperature data, “a more careful method” they might consider using, instead.


Although in public he often used his high-profile perch for global warming cheerleading, former New York Times environmental reporter Andrew Revkin privately wrote that he was worried about the integrity of the ground stations. When still at the Times he wrote to Hansen on August 23, 2007:
i never, till today, visited http://www.surfacestations.org and found it quite amazing. if our stations are that shoddy, what’s it like in Mongolia?
Sadly, although Andy wrote many pieces touting as significant what we now know NASA admits as statistically meaningless temperature claims, he did not find time to write about data so “shoddy” as to reach the point of “amazing.” That is what advocacy often entails: providing only one side, and even a far less compelling side, of a story.


In an August 14, 2007, email from GISS’s Makiko Sato to Hansen, Sato wrote that his analysis of a one degree warming between 1934 and 1998 might in reality be half that amount:
I am sure I had 1998 warmer than 1934 at least once because on my own temperature web page (which most people never look at), I have [image/information not visible in document]. … I didn’t keep all the data, but some of them are (some data are then listed, with 1934 0.5 deg C warmer than 1998)
As AGW proponents only claim a one degree warming over the past century, the magnitude of a .5 degree Celsius problem in their calculations is tremendous.

Sato continues:
I am sorry, I should have kept more data, but I was not interested in US data after 2001 paper.
Sato is referencing the paper by Hansen, et al., in which Hansen’s colleagues remind him 1934 was indeed listed as being a full half-degree warmer than 1998 — which is shown in their emails as being what the data said as of July 1999 (their paper described 1934 as only “slightly” warmer than 1998, p. 8). Still, throughout these emails Hansen later insists 1934 and 1998 are in a statistical tie with just a 0.02 Celsius difference and even that their relationship has not changed. For example, Hansen claims in an email to a journalist with Bloomberg: “As you will see in our 2001 paper we found 1934 slightly warmer, by an insignificant hair over 1998. We still find that result.” The implication is that things had not changed when in fact NASA had gone from claiming a statistically significant if politically inconvenient warmer 1934 over 1998, to a tie.

Regarding U.S. temperatures, Ruedy confessed to Hansen on August 23, 2007 to say:
I got a copy from a journalist in Brazil, we don’t save the data.

The Ruedy relationship with a Brazilian journalist raises the matter of the incestuous relationship between NASA’s GISS and like-minded environmental reporters. One can’t help but recall how, recently, the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) claim of glacier shrinkage in the Himalayas was discredited when found to be the work of a single speculative journalist at a popular magazine, and not strict peer-reviewed scientific data. The emails we obtained include several instances of very close ties and sympathetic relationships with journalists covering them.

The same can be said of NASA’s relationship vis-a-vis the IPCC, whose alarmism NASA enabled. One NASA email implicitly if privately admits that IPCC claims of accelerating warming — such as those by IPCC chief Rajendra Pachauri or UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon — are specious. Yet NASA has never publicly challenged such alarmism. Instead, it sat by and benefited from it, with massive taxpayer funding of its rather odd if growing focus on “climate.”

In an August 15, 2007, email from Ruedy to Brazilian journalist Leticia Francisco Sorg, responding to Sorg’s request for Ruedy to say if warming is accelerating, Ruedy replied:
“To observe that the warming accelerates would take even longer observation times” than the past 25 years. In fact, it would take “another 50-100 years.”
This is a damning admission that NASA has been complicit in UN alarmism. This is not science. It is debunked advocacy. The impropriety of such policy advocacy, let alone allowing unsubstantial scientific claims to become part of a media campaign, is self-evident.
The Climategate files which hit the world on November 19, 2009 have changed the game completely, even if the US press is still oblivious. "Climate science" (the kind practiced by CRU, NASA, the IPCC et al.) is thoroughly corrupt and nothing is going to stop the tide of exposing it.

movielib 02-17-10 08:00 AM

Re: The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 9 (-gates unlimited edition)
Everyone is suing the EPA over endangerment finding.

See the many links in the following link about all the piling up lawsuits challenging the EPA finding:


Note: this is not a permalink and will be up only for today. After that it will be available in the junkscience archives.

movielib 02-17-10 08:23 AM

Re: The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 9 (-gates unlimited edition)
Yet another IPCC error. Antarctic sea ice increase underestimated by about 50%.


February 16, 2010
Another IPCC Error: Antarctic Sea Ice Increase Underestimated by 50%
[by Patrick Michaels]

Several errors have been recently uncovered in the 4th Assessment Report (AR4) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). These include problems with Himalayan glaciers, African agriculture, Amazon rainforests, Dutch geography, and attribution of damages from extreme weather events. More seem to turn up daily. Most of these errors stem from the IPCC’s reliance on non-peer reviewed sources.

The defenders of the IPCC have contended that most of these errors are minor in significance and are confined to the Working Group II Report (the one on impacts, adaptation and vulnerability) of the IPCC which was put together by representatives from various regional interests and that there was not as much hard science available to call upon as there was in the Working Group I report (“The Physical Science Basis”). The IPCC defenders argue that there have been no (or practically no) problems identified in the Working Group I (WGI) report on the science.

We humbly disagree.

In fact, the WGI report is built upon a process which, as revealed by the Climategate emails, is, by its very nature, designed not to produce an accurate view of the state of climate science, but instead to be an “assessment” of the state of climate science—an assessment largely driven by preconceived ideas of the IPCC design team and promulgated by various elite chapter authors. The end result of this “assessment” is to elevate evidence which supports the preconceived ideas and denigrate (or ignore) ideas that run counter to it.

These practices are clearly laid bare in several recent Petitions to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)—petitions asking the EPA to reconsider its “Endangerment Finding” that anthropogenic greenhouse gases endanger our public health and welfare. The basis of the various petitions is that the process is so flawed that the IPCC cannot be considered a reliable provider of the true state of climate science, something that the EPA heavily relies on the IPCC to be. The most thorough of these petitions contains over 200 pages of descriptions of IPCC problems and it a true eye-opener into how bad things had become.

There is no doubt that the 200+ pages would continue to swell further had the submission deadline not been so tight. New material is being revealed daily.

Just last week, the IPCC’s (and thus EPA’s) primary assertion that “Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic GHG [greenhouse gas] concentrations” was shown to be wrong. This argument isn’t included in the Petition.

This adds yet another problem to the growing list of errors in the IPCC WGI report, this one concerns Antarctic sea ice trends.

While all the press is about the observed declines in Arctic sea ice extent in recent decades, little attention at all is paid to the fact that the sea ice extent in the Antarctic has been on the increase. No doubt the dearth of press coverage stems from the IPCC treatment of this topic.

In the IPCC AR4 the situation is described like this in Chapter 4, “Observations: Changes in Snow, Ice, and Frozen Ground” (p. 351):
As an example, an updated version of the analysis done by Comiso (2003), spanning the period from November 1978 through December 2005, is shown in Figure 4.8. The annual mean ice extent anomalies are shown. There is a significant decreasing trend in arctic sea ice extent of –33 ± 7.4 × 103 km2 yr–1 (equivalent to –2.7 ± 0.6% per decade), whereas the Antarctic results show a small positive trend of 5.6 ± 9.2 × 103 km2 yr–1 (0.47 ± 0.8% per decade), which is not statistically significant. The uncertainties represent the 90% confidence interval around the trend estimate and the percentages are based on the 1978 to 2005 mean.
Notice that the IPCC states that the Antarctic increase in sea ice extent from November 1979-December 2005 is “not statistically significant” which seems to give them good reason to play it down. For instance, in the Chapter 4, Executive Summary (p. 339), the sea ice bullet reads:
Satellite data indicate a continuation of the 2.7 ± 0.6% per decade decline in annual mean arctic sea ice extent since 1978. The decline for summer extent is larger than for winter, with the summer minimum declining at a rate of 7.4 ± 2.4% per decade since 1979. Other data indicate that the summer decline began around 1970. Similar observations in the Antarctic reveal larger interannual variability but no consistent trends.
Which in the AR4 Summary For Policymakers becomes two separate items:
Satellite data since 1978 show that annual average arctic sea ice extent has shrunk by 2.7 [2.1 to 3.3]% per decade, with larger decreases in summer of 7.4 [5.0 to 9.8]% per decade. These values are consistent with those reported in the TAR. {4.4}
Antarctic sea ice extent continues to show interannual variability and localised changes but no statistically significant average trends, consistent with the lack of warming reflected in atmospheric temperatures averaged across the region. {3.2, 4.4}
“Continues to show…no statistically significant average trends”? Continues?

This is what the IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR), released in 2001, had to say about Antarctic sea ice trends (Chapter 3, p. 125):
Over the period 1979 to 1996, the Antarctic (Cavalieri et al., 1997; Parkinson et al., 1999) shows a weak increase of 1.3 ± 0.2%/decade.
By anyone’s reckoning, that is a statistically significant increase.

In the IPCC TAR Chapter 3 Executive Summary is this bullet point:
…Satellite data indicate that after a possible initial decrease in the mid-1970s, Antarctic sea-ice extent has stayed almost stable or even increased since 1978.
So, the IPCC AR4’s contention that sea ice trends in Antarctica “continues” to show “no statistically significant average trends” contrasts with what it had concluded in the TAR.

Interestingly, the AR4 did not include references to any previous study that showed that Antarctic sea ice trends were increasing in a statistically significant way. The AR4 did not include the TAR references of either Cavalieri et al., 1997, or Parkinson et al., 1999. Nor did the IPCC AR4 include a reference to Zwally et al., 2002, which found that:
The derived 20 year trend in sea ice extent from the monthly deviations is 11.18 ± 4.19 x 103 km2yr-1 or 0.98 ± 0.37% (decade)-1 for the entire Antarctic sea ice cover, which is significantly positive. [emphasis added]
and (also from Zwally et al. 2002),
Also, a recent analysis of Antarctic sea ice trends for 1978–1996 by Watkins and Simmonds [2000] found significant increases in both Antarctic sea ice extent and ice area, similar to the results in this paper. [emphasis added]
Watkins and Simmonds (2000) was also not cited by the AR4.

So just what did the IPCC AR4 authors cite in support of their “assessment” that Antarctic sea ice extent was not increasing in a statistically significant manner? The answer is “an updated version of the analysis done by Comiso (2003).” And just what is “Comiso (2003)”? A book chapter!
Comiso, J.C., 2003: Large scale characteristics and variability of the global sea ice cover. In: Sea Ice - An Introduction to its Physics, Biology, Chemistry, and Geology [Thomas, D. and G.S. Dieckmann (eds.)]. Blackwell Science, Oxford, UK, pp. 112–142.
And the IPCC didn’t actually even use what was in the book chapter, but instead “an updated version” of the “analysis” that was in the book chapter.

And from this “updated” analysis, the IPCC reported that the increase in Antarctic sea ice extent was an insignificant 5.6 ± 9.2 × 103 km2 yr–1 (0.47 ± 0.8% per decade)—a value that was only about one-half of the increase reported in the peer-reviewed literature.

There are a few more things worth considering.

1) Josefino Comiso (the author of the above mentioned book chapter) was a contributing author of the IPCC AR4 Chapter 4, so the coordinating lead authors probably just turned directly to Comiso to provide an unpeer-reviewed update. (how convenient)

and 2) Comiso published a subsequent paper (along with Fumihiko Nishio) in 2008 that added only one additional year to the IPCC analysis (i.e. through 2006 instead of 2005), and once again found a statistically significant increase in Antarctic sea ice extent, with a value very similar to the value reported in the old TAR, that is:
When updated to 2006, the trends in ice extent and area …in the Antarctic remains slight but positive at 0.9 ± 0.2 and 1.7 ± 0.3% per decade.
These trends are, again, by anyone’s reckoning, statistically significant.

Figure 1. Trend in Antarctic ice extent, November 1978 through December 2006 (source: Comiso and Nishio, 2008).

And just in case further evidence is needed, and recent 2009 paper by Turner et al. (on which Comiso was a co-author), concluded that:
Based on a new analysis of passive microwave satellite data, we demonstrate that the annual mean extent of Antarctic sea ice has increased at a statistically significant rate of 0.97% dec-1 since the late 1970s.
This rate of increase is nearly twice as great as the value given in the AR4 (from its non-peer-reviewed source).

So, the peer reviewed literature, both extant at the time of the AR4 as well as published since the release of the AR4, shows that there has been a significant increase in the extent of sea ice around Antarctica since the time of the first satellite observations observed in the late 1970s. And yet the AR4 somehow “assessed” the evidence and determined not only that the increase was only half the rate established in the peer-reviewed literature, but also that it was statistically insignificant as well. And thus, the increase in sea ice in the Antarctic was downplayed in preference to highlighting the observed decline in sea ice in the Arctic.

It is little wonder why, considering that the AR4 found that “Sea ice is projected to shrink in both the Arctic and Antarctic under all SRES scenarios.”
Again, a disgrace. Playing up the arctic reduction and playing down the antarctic increase although both probably have about the same degree of significance (since global sea ice has basically remained constant). As always, IPCC "adjustments" are a one way street.

wmansir 02-17-10 11:19 AM

Re: The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 9 (-gates unlimited edition)
I was encouraged to see reports of Obama supporting renewing the nuclear power industry until I saw he was offering a meager $8B carrot (and loans at that) to help pass his several trillion $ cap and trade energy bill.

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:03 PM.

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.