Tuesday, July 08, 2008

Falsification of data by NASA's James Hansen?

NASA's GISS is constantly issuing climate data in a form "edited" by James Hansen and his alarmist cohorts. The "before and after" graphs below would appear to show how remarkably the editing transforms the raw data. The two graphs seem to be for exactly the same temperature recording station in Vermont.

Temperature that is initially all over the place has been magically tranformed into a detectable rise.

The first graph was downloaded from GISS in February, 2008 and the second was downloaded a few days ago.

A correspondent comments:

"So when are we going to get the 2007 data point; you know, that recent year that had the highest temperature on record according to the model predictions beforehand; let alone a look at what continues to happen in 2008.

It is interesting that if you look at the bulk of that red graph data, instead of focussing your eyes on the peak excursions; if there is any trrend, at all, it is downward. Yes the peaks and the excursions may seem to be getting larger; but the supposed driving "Forcing" namely the CO2 concentration, keeps on going steadily upwards.

Of course this is just one station; maybe they don't drive a lot of SUVs in Vermont. I assume that in Vermont they measure temperature in pyramid inches, or some such non standard scale; at least it is classified information what scale they use".

Imagine there's no warming

It seems clear that the world's political and cultural and financial elite are determined to do whatever is necessary in their minds to lower the temperature of the planet. When you cut through all the climate-change hysteria, that's what is being proposed.

Taxes will be raised, carbon-dioxide production will be punished, income will be redistributed, people will be told what they can do with their lives and what they cannot do, live-saving and life-enhancing development will be curtailed. And all of this coercion will be directed by those who know best - a global elite who collectively know less about science than the average American high school student in the 1950s.

I suspect most of them don't even believe their dire predictions about global warming. I'm quite certain they understand the riff-raff simply need a rationalization for how they are about to be exploited in ways that would have been shocking during the days of feudalism. But put all that aside for a moment. Let's pretend there really is irreversible global warming taking place because of man's activity on the planet. Let's further pretend the advocates of these radical policies to remake the world in their own image actually could reduce the world's temperatures.

Would it be worth it?

Would it be the right thing to do?

Would it benefit mankind in any way?

Would the result be worth trading off the last vestiges of freedom throughout the world?

Surprisingly, I haven't seen anyone else ask these fundamental questions. And that illustrates the utter absurdity of the global warming frenzy. These international oligarchs are selling the world's population a make-believe crisis to justify their globalist power grab without the slightest ability to have any impact on the planet's weather patterns and temperatures.

But, again, let's imagine they could effectively regulate the weather. Would that be good? Would you trust these people to control the temperature of the world? Would you trust anyone other than God to do that? Yet that is precisely more of the hot air the global warming chorus is trying to sell us. It would place something as sacred as the world's climate in the hands of men - if indeed they could.

What surprises me, a little, is that so many normal, average Americans would be willing to hand over that power to a clique of politicians and their shadowy, unaccountable, unelected puppeteers. Think about this. Would you really want your weather controlled or regulated - even in part - by men with whom you have little or no influence?

The question is so preposterous I can't imagine anyone would answer it affirmatively. But that is one of the monstrous, totalitarian, Big Brother ideas you have to accept to jump on the climate-change bandwagon.

There's more to think about, too, in this hypothetical scenario. If indeed men really could change the weather and control temperatures, why do we assume those changes and those controls would be positive? Lowering temperatures might be attractive if you live in the tropics. But I can't understand why so many Canadians, for instance, would think a colder climate would be beneficial.

Again, if the high priests of global warming could actually make an impact on the weather through their draconian plans to steal our freedom and our prosperity, their goal of lowering temperatures would be, at best, a net plus for some and a net negative for others. It would almost certainly result in less food production, for example. Consider that as we begin to see food shortages and rationing around the globe due to much less significant central planning efforts already under way.

To review and summarize, then, what we're left with, when it comes to the global warming agenda, is a fraudulent crisis cooked up to control and enslave the world's population under the guide of benevolent global socialism and an equally fraudulent solution to that crisis - one that would be a bad idea even if it could work, which it can't! Do I have this about right?


Alarmists use weather to promote global warming hoax

By Dr. Tim Ball

Claims that recent severe weather and flooding in the US are proof of human CO2 impacts on global climate are scientific nonsense. They are part of a pattern of keeping weather and climate issues in the public mind.

My grandmother admonished me with, “Your sins will find you out.” It is a maxim that should now befall proponents of the false theory that human CO2 is causing global warming or climate change. Exposure rarely emerges from the original event, but as Watergate showed the coverup bares the truth.

Governments and large segments of society accepted the theory. Most bullied by use of fear but also their lack of knowledge and understanding was also exploited.

Now a combination of events are driving them to raise the threat level and make increasingly false claims. forcing a coverup. The world is cooling while CO2 levels continue to rise. In every record for any period in history temperature increases before CO2 not as assumed. Plans to implement carbon taxes to offset warming exacerbate soaring fuel prices. Effects of policies implemented to replace fossil fuels with biofuels are driving food and total living costs rapidly higher.  People increasingly question the threats as a recent UK poll showed; “The majority of the British public is still not convinced that climate change is caused by humans - and many others believe scientists are exaggerating the problem, according to an exclusive poll for The Observer.” Proponents of the theory that humans are causing global warming or climate change have used fear to push their false belief. Now they’re experiencing fear as evidence shows they’re wrong and the public perceive a deception.

Robert Frost said, “There’s nothing I am afraid of like scared people.” Those who perpetrated possibly the greatest deception in human history that CO2 is causing global warming/climate change are scared. Events are driving them to extreme, unsubstantiated and even ridiculous claims and threats.

One of these was that sea level would rise, but it foundered when the two Nobel Peace Prize winners, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and Al Gore were in serious disagreement. Another was Arctic sea ice except it returned to long term normal levels last winter and NASA announced the one year anomaly was due to changes in wind patterns.

So they return to their central theme of convincing you that normal weather events are abnormal. An increase in severe weather is a persistent theme, especially in North America. Recently the U.S. Climate Change Science Program and the Subcommittee on Global Change Research issued a report with projected changes in weather and climate extremes in North America and U.S. territories.

Report co-chair Tom Karl, Ph.D., director of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C said, “This report addresses one of the most frequently asked questions about global warming: what will happen to weather and climate extremes? This synthesis and assessment product examines this question across North America and concludes that we are now witnessing and will increasingly experience more extreme weather and climate events.”

Karl has a vested interest in this being true. It is the position of the IPCC and he cites the IPCC as the authoritative body. Internationally, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), under the auspices of the United Nations (UN), World Meteorological Organization (WMO), and the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), is the most senior and authoritative body providing scientific advice to global policy makers. Well he was a lead author for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Reports for 1990, 1992, 1995, a Coordinating Lead author and panel member of the 2001 Report and a Review Editor for Chapter 3 of the 2007 Report.
Source: ncdc.noaa.gov

There are three major problems with what is being said. 1. The severe weather of this spring across the Northern Hemisphere was caused by cooler weather not warmer. 2. The IPCC and the NOAA positions that severe weather will increase with global warming is scientifically wrong. 3. The records show current weather extremes are well within long term natural variability.

Almost all global severe weather occurs in the middle latitudes between approximately 30° and 65° of latitude. Cyclonic storms, blizzards, severe thunderstorms and tornadoes are created where warm and cold air meets and that is most dramatic along what is generally known as the Polar Front. This world map of tornado zones illustrates the point. 

Source: ncdc.noaa.gov

Here is a simplified diagram of the division between the cold polar air and the warm tropical air.

Source:  Source: Fundamentals of Physical Geography, Briggs, Smithson, Ball et al..

Temperature contrast across the Polar Front is the greatest in a short distance in each hemisphere. This creates the strongest winds as illustrated by the location of the Jet Stream (more correctly called the Circumpolar Vortex) above the surface. It also means the formation of swirling low pressure systems or cyclones that in winter are blizzards.  As the cold air advances it pushes up unstable bubbles of warm air to create heavy rain from large clouds. With enough force these can develop in to severe thunderstorms (cumulonimbus) and under certain conditions trigger tornadoes. These conditions occur most frequently across the central US in what is colloquially known as Tornado Alley.

Source: severewx.atmos.uiuc.edu

1. Frequency and intensity of most severe weather is a direct function of the temperature contrast across the Polar Front. This spring the cold air stayed further south with the colder temperatures with the resulting severe weather and flooding across the central US.

2. IPCC Reports claim increased CO2 levels will make the Polar air warm more than the tropical air. If true, this will decrease the temperature contrast across the Front resulting in fewer storms and less severe weather.

Source: ncdc.noaa.gov

3. The graph from the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) shows that severe tornadoes were higher in the period from 1950 to 1975.  Global temperatures were falling during that time. Since then frequency has decreased as the world warmed to 2000. Since then the world has cooled slightly and the pattern shows a slight increase in severe tornadoes. 

This trend of severe weather is most likely to increase as the Earth continues to cool. Proponents of human caused climate change will claim it proves them right. They will continue their practice of claiming natural events as unnatural. Unless people understand the basic science they will continue the fraud and pressure politicians into even more damaging energy and environmental policies. 


Companies 'could face fines or even criminal charges' for failure to account for carbon emissions

Here's something new to worry about: If you can't figure out how much carbon your company is pumping into the atmosphere, you could face fines or even criminal charges someday.

Far-fetched? Many companies, from Alcoa to Chiquita Brands to Google don't think so. Regardless of who wins the presidential election this fall, new legislation targeting carbon emissions in one way or another seems practically inevitable. And that means corporate directors and executives are starting to worry about being sued under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act for bungling the job.

They're calling it Carbox, and it's inspired a green streak in corporate culture--and spawned a cottage industry to deal with the problem. As most people now painfully know, Sarbanes-Oxley, or Sarbox, requires companies to disclose any business risks facing the company to investors in public filings.

Corporate directors and executives can be sued and even face criminal liability if the company fails to properly disclose business risks--including, many now worry, the cost of emissions.

"Sarbanes is a lens through which management and boards should view climate risk," said Bob O'Connor, a partner with Palo Alto, Calif.-based law firm Wilson Sonsini and member of the firm's Carbon Counseling Practice. "In viewing climate risk, management and boards must be governed by the standards that Sarbanes establishes with respect to transparency and accountability."

Sarbanes, he explains, requires companies to maintain internal procedures that enable them to meet their SEC disclosure obligations, and further require management to certify that those procedures are in fact effective.

So, if you are a public-company chief executive, Sarbanes requires you to ask yourself: "Do we have the systems in place to meet our disclosure obligations with respect to the risks presented by global climate change and greenhouse gas regulation?' "In this way," O'Connor says, "We see Sarbanes as a key driver for corporations taking action to address climate-related risks."

Tall order. Chiquita Brands hired Edgar Blanco of MIT's Center for Transportation and Logistics to gauge the carbon footprint of the supply chain that transports bananas by truck and ship from Central America to the United States. Blanco plans to turn the case study into a Web-based tool to help other companies calculate and potentially reduce the energy consumption of products moved over long distances by multiple means of transport.

Blanco's experience illustrates the challenge of measuring a multinational company's carbon footprint. For example, bananas are grown on different types of farms of varying sizes, using growing methods that range from organic to traditional. The amount of fertilizer used and fuel consumed and several other variables will differ for many of the bananas. And that complexity only increases as they migrate from farm to fork.

"Companies need to decide which elements to include when assessing their carbon footprint," said Blanco. "Energy, transportation, waste, water use, travel? Most companies are realizing that they need to look at all of these things even if they don't own them. Even within one well defined operation, the number of elements you need to measure is very complex in terms of data and interactions with suppliers."

The bananas travel in refrigerated containers from rural farms to urban sea ports in Central America, where they are shipped to the United States. Retail chains like Wal-Mart often transport the bananas with their own trucks once the bananas arrive in the U.S.

Otherwise, Chiquita sends bananas to several distribution centers, where they are stored in "ripening rooms" designed to reactivate the ripening process. This allows Chiquita to deliver bananas with the colors requested by the customers, which falls anywhere on a nine-point scale ranging from green to deep yellow. The energy consumed to realize those colors varies from color to color.

The carbon footprint doesn't necessarily end when the bananas reach grocery store shelves. For instance, there's packaging. Bananas usually travel in plastic wrapping or cardboard boxes, depending on their ultimate destination; this extends the bananas' carbon footprint far beyond the fruits' short life.

Despite these complications, carbon emissions created in supply chains are more straightforward than those generated elsewhere. In particular, the enormous and growing infrastructure needed to support the Internet poses especially complicated challenges for measuring carbon emissions.

"Data centers are hugely consumptive forces," said Kevin Klustner, chief executive of Verdiem, a Seattle-based start-up that has developed energy-efficiency software for computer systems.

"Companies like Google are adding hundreds if not thousands of servers a month to keep up with demand from all these Web 2.0 sites where you store your photos or music. Those are all powered by servers in data centers. The growth of those things is just incredible." Expect the fees for consultants and lawyers to follow the same path.


'Absolutely no evidence of warming for all of Antarctica'

Tell us the truth - do the two pictures below really hit home with you? Do they make you want to walk to work, put up solar panels this weekend, and eat lower on the food chain the rest of your life? The images, and literally dozens like them available on the internet, drive home the obvious point that Antarctica is melting, global warming is the cause, and we in the United States are responsible for the demise of the penguins thanks to our appetite for fossil fuels. This type of presentation is very typical of the global warming alarmists - feel free to visit nearly 500,000 web sites dealing with global warming and Antarctica. If you have visited our site before, you would know that the professional scientific literature is full of articles questioning the simplistic statements regarding global warming, Antarctica, and the poor penguins.

And in today's news, there is another tear-jerker about penguins. A new soon-to-be-published study by University of Washington's P. Dee Boersma reports that the world's penguin species are generally in decline (remember, bad things happen to good species and good things happen to bad ones) and the press eats it up. AP science writer Seth Borenstein describes their plight like this:
The decline overall isn’t caused by one factor, but several.
For the ice-loving Adelie penguins, global warming in the western Antarctica peninsula is a problem, making it harder for them to find food, said Phil Trathan, head of conservation biology at the British Antarctic Survey, a top penguin scientist who had no role in the new report.

For penguins that live on the Galapagos island, El Nino weather patterns are a problem because the warmer water makes penguins travel farther for food, at times abandoning their chicks, Boersma said. At the end of the 1998 record El Nino, female penguins were only 80 percent of their normal body weight. Scientists have tied climate change to stronger El Ninos.
Oil spills regularly taint the water where penguins live off Uruguay, Argentina and Brazil and have contributed to the Punta Tumbo declines, Boersma said.

Hmmm, the "several” factors the Borenstein comes up with are "global warming," "climate change," and our thirst for oil. If he is trying to be subtle, he doesn't succeed.

And, of course, what is bad for some species is surely going to bad for others, so let's all climb aboard the band wagon:
And this isn’t just about the fate of penguins.
“What happens to penguins, a few years down the road can happen to a lot of other species and possibly humans,” said longtime penguin expert Susie Ellis, now executive director of the International Rhino Foundation.

There you have it, just as Al Gore told you.we are all going to die because of global warming.

But, just in case your own survival doesn't interest you, please consider the plight of the poor penguins. Penguins are certainly cute, they seem so helpless, and they make great poster subjects for the global warming crusade. Of course, if you investigated no further than the Policymakers Summary of the 2007 report (pdf available here) of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), one would find statements like "Antarctic sea ice extent continues to show inter-annual variability and localized changes but no statistically significant average trends, consistent with the lack of warming reflected in atmospheric temperatures averaged across the region" or "Current global model studies project that the Antarctic ice sheet will remain too cold for widespread surface melting and is expected to gain in mass due to increased snowfall." People screaming that the ice caps are melting apparently need to scream louder, for the IPCC doesn't seem have received the message.

The latest news from Antarctica comes in a recent article in Remote Sensing of Environment by Vesa Laine of the Finnish Meteorological Institute in Helsinki; the work was funded by the Academy of Finland and the Finnish Funding Agency for Technology and Innovation. We have no evidence that either of these agencies or the people involved with the research have any links to fossil fuel companies.

Laine appears to be an expert in satellite measurements from polar regions and notes for this study that "The Advanced Very High Resolution (AVHRR) Polar Pathfinder (APP) data provide long-time series (1981-2000) of calibrated surface albedo and surface temperature data for the polar regions." Terrific - satellites fly over the polar areas and provide us real-world data on what is really happening in regions like Antarctica in terms of surface albedo (reflectivity), sea ice extent, ice sheet extent, and surface temperatures. We at World Climate Report always enjoy bringing you real-world data which are so often not consistent with the claims of the global warming advocates.

The graphic below (Figure 1) shows the seasonal temperatures for three Antarctic stations and the estimates of temperature for those stations based on the satellite measurements, and as seen in the plots, the correlations are very good. OK - is there anything else interesting about the thermometer-based and satellite-based seasonal temperatures? How about NO WARMING! Despite the known build up of greenhouse gases and all the whoop-la about warming and melting in Antarctica, and satellites and thermometers see absolutely no warming whatsoever. If you look closely, there even appears to be a slight cooling at the three stations - very curious?

Figure 1. Comparison of surface temperature monthly means observed in November, December and January at three Antarctic stations (Marble Point, Vostok and South Pole) with those derived from the satellite-based data. The trends are calculated from spring-summer means (from Laine, 2008).

Figure 2 shows time series of snow and ice albedo (reflectivity) and surface temperature for total ice, ice sheet , and sea ice areas of all of Antarctica. Laine reports that "The Antarctic region as a whole and all the sectors separately show slightly positive spring-summer albedo trends. However, most of these trends are not statistically significant" and "All the regions show negative spring-summer surface temperature trends for the study period." Laine finds no evidence of darkening of the ice (that could lead to warming) and absolutely no evidence of warming for all of Antarctica! Laine is not making friends with the so-called environmentalists who are so quick to insist that the penguins are in trouble because of anthropogenic climate change.

Figure 2. Plot of albedo (reflectivity) and surface temperatures across the whole of Antarctica (from Laine, 2008)

And finally, have a look at Figure 3 that shows temperature trends in Antarctica and the statistical significance of those trends (or lack thereof). The maps show that over almost the entire continent, temperature trends are not statistically significant. In most places where the trends are statistically significant, they are often areas of cooling. Laine simply states "Over the entire Antarctic ice region, as well as in every longitudinal sector, the albedo, the surface temperature, the sea ice concentration and the sea ice extent all show substantial annual variability. Increasing spring-summer albedo trends and decreasing temperature trends are generally to be seen." Furthermore, "The sea ice concentration shows slight increasing trends in most sectors, whereas the sea ice extent trends seem to be near zero."

Figure 3. (a) 20-year change in the spring-summer ice surface temperature. (b) Statistical confidence levels of the spring-summer temperature trends. The green and red areas indicate 95% and 98% confidence levels respectively (from Laine, 2008)

There is no reason to cry over the "The Last Penguin" or the "Homeless" penguins illustrated above. The truth is that Antarctica is just fine and will likely remain that way for many decades to come. Claims to the contrary and that anthropogenic “global warming” is leading to the penguins demise are simply not consistent with climate observations.


Greenies Hiding Truth About Oil And Food Prices, Starving The Poor

Supply and demand - the immutable law of economics. When supplies are larger than demand, consumers benefit. When supplies are less than demand - corporations and governments benefit (through taxes and the opportunity to control sectors of the economy). If you don't trust mega-corps or government bureaucrats, not only are you sane you should be wary when the two combine forces to effect supply and demand.

Two things are elemental to humankind - eating and energy consumption (travel especially). And up until recently there economic ties between food and energy have been limited. But the move to use food products for fuel needs created a pressure on the supplies of food that would not be there if we kept food for eating and other energy sources for energy. By pushing the two largest `hungers' of humanity onto a single resource, we allowed government and corporations to effect the supply by shifting the demand - thus creating price spikes and calls to take over the food and energy sectors of our economy. Now we learn some are hiding the truth of these failed liberal policies (easily supported by corporations who will make huge profits from them) from we the people:
Biofuels have forced global food prices up by 75% - far more than previously estimated - according to a confidential World Bank report obtained by the Guardian.

The damning unpublished assessment is based on the most detailed analysis of the crisis so far, carried out by an internationally-respected economist at global financial body.

The figure emphatically contradicts the US government's claims that plant-derived fuels contribute less than 3% to food-price rises. It will add to pressure on governments in Washington and across Europe, which have turned to plant-derived fuels to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and reduce their dependence on imported oil.

In the face of 20 years of global cooling (not warming) why are we forcing starvation on the poorest of humankind? Has the pressure on our food supply lowered energy prices? Of course not - they have tripled since the Democrats took over Congress not even 2 short years ago.

The only ones to benefit from this debacle are those associated with biofuels, who are making a killing - but who also may be killing the most vulnerable among us. Personally, I don't care how damning the data is to the fools who royally screwed up. Get the data out, figure out where we went wrong and undo the damage before it gets worse. My guess is this data is like the real Global temperature data we have experienced since the IPCC started screaming fire - it totally destroys their theories and credibility.

Again, why should people suffer starvation just to cover up the mistakes of egotists who had no business making the exaggerated claims they made on biofuels and global warming? Their egos are not more valuable than poor starving people in need of food.



For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH, SOCIALIZED MEDICINE, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, DISSECTING LEFTISM, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL and EYE ON BRITAIN. My Home Pages are here or here or here. Email me (John Ray) here. For times when blogger.com is playing up, there are mirrors of this site here and here.


No comments: