Sunday, November 09, 2008

Claim: NWS Report finds 'unprecedented' temps in 50 U.S. cities

This was a drought region the last two years. This means higher summer temperatures. Also with La Nina and a cold PDO the southeast turns warmer. Again a sign of natural changes and nothing whatsoever to do with AGW

The heat is on in Georgia, Tennessee and Alabama. Temperatures in six Southeastern cities, including Chattanooga; Atlanta; Athens, Ga.; Augusta, Ga.; Huntsville, Ala.; and Birmingham, Ala., ranked in the top 50 of cities across the country showing above-normal average temperatures. "The climate has been warming. It's pretty unprecedented," said Stephen Konarik, a meteorologist with the National Weather Service in Peachtree City, Ga.

A new report, "Feeling the Heat: Global Warming and Rising Temperatures in the United States," analyzed National Weather Service data from 255 cities and called the increases "early" climate change. The report found that average 2007 temperatures rose 3 degrees or more above the 30-year averages in six Tennessee cities, including greater Chattanooga, where temperatures on average were 4.1 degrees warmer in 2007 than the 30-year average norms. The analysis found that Georgia's 2007 temperatures in Athens, Atlanta and Augusta were at least 21/2 degrees above the normal average.

Mr. Konarik said North Georgia weather data for the past 10 years supports the overall Southeastern United States and global temperature increases. Globally, 2007 tied with 2005 as the second-warmest year on record.

The Southeast's warming trend fits with what computer models have indicated would happen with man-made climate change, but Mr. Konarik and NewsChannel9 meteorologist David Glenn said it's too early to call the rising temperatures global warming. "Right now, it's impossible to really tell," Mr. Konarik said.

The drought and heat play on each other, weather experts said, with each increasing the likelihood of the other. Warm, drier air pushes moist weather systems away, and the lack of cooling cloud cover and rain keeps the temperatures up. "I sit right on the fence," Mr. Glenn said of global warming. "Time will tell us the answer."



Comment from Prof. John Christy:

This must be a joke. No one compares a single year's temps to the 1971-2000 year normals (a very cool period) as evidence for anything. Mr. Konarik needs to look at the period 1925-1954 - by far the warmest such 30-year summer period in Huntsville AL (see plot of the most rigorous, published time series of North Alabama). The draft CCSP synthesis did the same sort of funny business - comparing current temps to those in the coolest period of record (roughly 1960-2000) rather than the entire period of record.

The Sun Proves an Embarassment to Climate Orthodoxers and Carbon Hysterics

The climate orthodoxy of carbon hysteria has never understood the intricacies of causative interaction in Earth's climate. Led by fanatics such as James Hansen and Al Gore, the orthodoxy decided early on to assign responsibility for "climate change" to human generated CO2. Orthodoxers reduced the complex system of climate to a single parameter--CO2--to make their job easier. Unfortunately, the orthodoxy failed to recruit (bribe and cudgel) large numbers of mathematically and scientifically trained men and women who remain curious about the underlying complexity of climate. Curious enough to continue studying climate as a multi-causative system.

The distribution of sunlight, rather than the size of North American ice sheets, is the key variable in changes in the North Atlantic deep-water formation during the last four glacial cycles, according to the article. The new study goes back 425,000 years, according to Lorraine Lisiecki, first author and assistant professor in the Department of Earth Science at the University of California, Santa Barbara.

Lisiecki and her co-authors studied 24 separate locations in the Atlantic by analysing information from ocean sediment cores. By observing the properties of the shells of tiny marine organisms, called foraminifera, found in these cores, they were able to deduce information about the North Atlantic deep water formation. Scientists can discern historical ocean temperature and circulation patterns through the analysis of the chemical composition of these marine animals.

The orthodox position has depended upon the spectre of "melting ice sheets" to inject fear into the minds of the masses of common media consumers. As long as they could claim that ice sheets were "melting at unprecedented rates" and "approaching the tipping point", the proles could be stampeded into backing the right political candidates--the ones stupid enough to believe in the hysteria or corrupt enough to sell themselves to the orthodoxy.

Now that the ice sheets are showing some resiliency, global temperatures have stabilised or reversed, and oceans are cooling, the orthodoxy is reduced to outright lying and an accelerating rate of obfuscation and political threats. But even worse for the orthodoxers, the ice sheets themselves appear to have much less to do with climate than the hysterics have been claiming all along. The tried and true propaganda they have used all along lacks any support in truth.

Australians elected a carbon hysteric as leader. The Americans have done the same. Europe's leadership positions at both national and EU levels are infested by carbon hysterics. Does the science really matter, when the politicians all back the orthodoxy? We'll find out shortly.


Astrophysicist Dr. Soon smacks down UK Guardian for shoddy Polar Bear reporting

Your article (October 1) inaccurately implies that I wrote a paper demonstrating that none of the published studies on the imagined threat to polar bears from imagined "global warming" had followed the established scientific norms for population forecasting because I had received a grant from ExxonMobil.

Not so. The rules of the leading journals in which my research is published are clear: the sources of funding must be openly declared in the paper, so peer reviewers can take them into account when deciding whether the scientific analysis has sufficient merit to justify publication.

Since 2002 ExxonMobil has also supported 22 other studies on Arctic wildlife and ecosystems. Main authors of these papers included researchers who proposed the (pointless) listing of polar bears under the US Endangered Species Act. There is, therefore, no more basis for your implication that my results were tainted by ExxonMobil's funding than that other similarly funded results that better suited your editorial prejudice in favour of the alarmist "consensus" were tainted.

I do not write papers because ExxonMobil or Greenpeace pays me to, but because my academic researches demonstrate that the sun, not carbon dioxide, is the chief driver of Arctic temperatures, and that much of the "evidence" for the bears' imminent demise is speculative. Indeed the population has increased fivefold since the 1950s, mainly because of restricted hunting. Where the Arctic has cooled, bears dwindle: where it has warmed, they increase.

Polar bears evolved from brown bears 200,000 years ago and therefore must have survived the last interglacial period, when global temperatures were many degrees warmer than the present. More perspective and less prejudice, please.


When IPCC head has to lie about global temperatures, you know there's something seriously wrong

Personally, I find it incredible that anybody still believes a word the IPCC says. We always knew that it was a politically-motivated body whose sole aim was to find evidence to back up a conclusion already reached. Instead of acting like proper scientific investigators and saying, "well, the fact is that global temperatures are pretty steady or even declining, so let's use this opportunity to find out why so that we can better understand the mechanics of the climate," they lie and mislead in order to keep their preconceived ideas afloat.The IPCC has abandoned all pretence of impartiality and has become just another in the long line of alarmist organisations desperate to keep the AGW bandwagon rolling in order to achieve political objectives. As Michael Duffy says, shocking.


Science or Science Fiction? The Biotech Files

Remember when Prince Charles went loco a few months back and told the London Telegraph that genetically modified (GM) foods would bring about "the absolute destruction of everything"? The end of our global food supply. The biggest environmental disaster ever. An overall "unmentionable awfulness." (His awkward words, not ours.) Well, we knew Prince Charles was laying it on pretty thick. But we had no idea just how thick.

There's little doubt in our minds that the Telegraph interview was one of the Prince of Wales' finest exercises in anti-biotech scaremongering. But to support his mad ranting about food security and "gigantic corporations," Prince Charles did offer some empirical evidence to back up his story -- sort of. The Telegraph reported:

The Prince of Wales cited the widespread environmental damage in India caused by the rush to mass produce GM food. "Look at India's Green Revolution. It worked for a short time but now the price is being paid." India has become the linchpin of Prince Charles' argument against biotechnology research. Last month, he gave a speech on the subject in India, which has been characterized as "his fiercest attack yet":

Prince Charles expressed no doubts in his lecture, delivered at the invitation of Dr. Vandana Shiva, the founder of Navdanya, and one of the leading proponents of the technology's role in the deaths. He spoke of "the truly appalling and tragic rate of small farmer suicides in India, stemming in part from the failure of many GM crop varieties."

But is there anything to back up this India suicide story outside of Prince Charles' unusually paranoid mind? Nothing at all, according to a new International Food Policy Research Institute study:

[I]t is not only inaccurate but simply wrong to blame the use of [GM] Bt cotton as the primary cause of farmer suicides in India. In fact, our overview of the evidence suggests that Bt cotton has been quite successful in most states and years in India, contributing to an impressive leap in average cotton yields, as well as a decrease in pesticide use and an increase in farmer revenues.

Prince Charles' theory, it turns out, could hardly have been wilder. Not only did biotech cotton not cause farmer suicides, it actually led to massive increases in crop yields. We would expect this kind of apocalyptic anti-capitalist conspiracy theory from Greenpeace or Friends of the Earth, but not from a presumed future head of state.


"Y2K + 20" - Climate Change Theory in Peril

By William K. Graham

Al Gore gathered $300 million to share the `truth" of man-induced climate change. He now warns of irreversible damage to the earth if dramatic action isn't taken before 2020. These echo the overwrought Y2K panacea which cost billions, but vanished overnight.

NASA satellite temperature data confirms that atmospheric temperatures have dropped to the lowest values since 1979 when NASA started collecting data. While man-made models guarantee catastrophic global warming due to elevated CO2; recent satellite data show significant and rapid atmospheric cooling. NASA data also shows recent ocean cooling attributed to the Pacific Decadal Oscillation.*

Some scientists observe that atmospheric cooling correlates best with decreased solar activity and subsequent cooling of ocean temperatures. They suggest the sun heats the earth, heat is stored and released by the oceans, which moderate weather and atmospheric temperatures. An innocuous gas, which serves as a plant nutrient and occurs in trace amounts (0.04 weight %) so far has an immeasurable effect on anything but rhetoric of progressive politicians and radical environmentalists.

Mainstream media report little at odds with the theory. Millions of research dollars hinge on tacit acceptance of the theory. Skeptics with the temerity to question the theory may expect ad hominem attacks. But recent years have seen a sharp increase in the release of scientific facts and testimonies questioning the theory of man-induced climate change. It is at last clear that there is no `consensus' of scientists on climate change.

Fortunately, the internet has transformed and accelerated information sharing. Inquiring minds have a variety of sources that present new information, none of which documents warming effects due to increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Many web sites and blogs are interlinked. [i.e.,,].

The explosion of interest in the topic has spawned numerous seminars and books, many attacking the theory. For a theory to be scientific, it must be testable and falsifiable. The theory of global warming is being tested and data proves it is coming up short. Worldwide, thousands of scientists testify to its falsehood, both in theory and practice. [See Rich Trzupek's slide presentation at]

Troublesome Facts?

* A National Academy of Sciences panel in 2006 reported that the "hockey stick" graph is not proof that human activity is linked to global warming. It was fraudulently created; even warming proponents have dropped it.

* No data confirms the theory of causation between carbon dioxide concentration and temperature. Ice core data show global temperature rises precede rises in CO2. [Increased ocean temperatures do increase release of CO2 .]

* IPCC researchers reported [Nature 5/1/08] that after adjusting their climate model to reflect actual sea surface temperatures of the last 50 years, "global surface temperature may not increase over the next decade," since natural climate variation will drive global climate.

* Predictive models overestimate climate sensitivity by excluding some effects of cloud cover. Corrected models forecast minor to negligible temperature change.

* Surface station temperature data are compromised by urbanization and local factors and overestimate warming trends by up to 50%.

* Recent data and research confirm natural relationships among solar cycles, ocean temperatures and atmospheric temperatures.

* In May 2008, the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine released a petition signed by more than 31,000 U.S. scientists stating, "There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane or other greenhouse gases is causing, or will cause in the future, catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate..."

* The March, 2008 Manhattan Declaration and 1180 endorsers testify "That there is no convincing evidence that CO2 emissions from modern industrial activity has in the past, is now, or will in the future cause catastrophic climate change. That attempts by governments to inflict taxes and costly regulations on industry and individual citizens with the aim of reducing emissions of CO2 will pointlessly curtail the prosperity of the West and progress of developing nations without affecting climate."

* India's National Action Plan on Climate Change [6/08] states, "No firm link between the documented [climate] changes described below and warming due to anthropogenic climate change has yet been established."

* Global warming is the `Worst scientific scandal in history', according to Dr. Kiminori Itoh, a Top UN IPCC Japanese Scientist and award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.

Testifiers to the Truth

"Global warming is a false myth and every serious person and scientist says so. It is not fair to refer to the U.N. panel. IPCC is not a scientific institution: it's a political body, a sort of non-government organization of green flavor. It's neither a forum of neutral scientists nor a balanced group of scientists. These people are politicized scientists who arrive there with a one-sided opinion and a one-sided assignment" -- Vaclav Klaus, the President of the Czech Republic.2/08

"But since 1999 new evidence has seriously weakened the case that carbon emissions are the main cause of global warming, and by 2007 the evidence was pretty conclusive that carbon played only a minor role and was not the main cause of the recent global warming. As Lord Keynes famously said, `When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?'" -- 7/17/2008, Dr David Evans, Modeler for the Australian Greenhouse Office from 1999 to 2005.

"In conclusion, I am predicting today that the theory that mankind is mostly responsible for global warming will slowly fade away in the coming years, as will the warming itself, and I trust you would agree, Madam Chair, that such a result deserves to be greeted with relief" -- 7/22/2008, Dr. Roy Spencer, Climatologist, Univ Alabama-Huntsville, formerly NASA modeler, testimony to Sen. Boxer Committee on Climate Change Research. *

"Since there was global cooling from ~1940 to ~1979, this means there has been no net warming since ~1940, is spite of an ~800% increase in human emissions of carbon dioxide. This indicates that the recent warming trend was natural, and CO2 is an insignificant driver of global warming. Furthermore, the best fit polynomial shows a strong declining trend. Are we seeing the beginning of a natural cooling cycle? YES. Further cooling, with upward and downward variability, is expected because the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) has returned to its cool phase, as announced by NASA this year. Global warming and cooling have closely followed the phases of the PDO. The most significant pattern of PDO behavior is a shift between "warm" and "cool" phases that last 20 to 30 years. In 1905, the PDO shifted to its "warm" phase. In 1946, the PDO changed to its "cool" phase. In 1977, the PDO returned to its "warm" phase and produced the current warming. In 2007-8, the PDO turned cold again, so we can expect several decades of naturally-caused global cooling. Some scientists are predicting that this cooling will be severe, and is a greater threat to humanity than global warming ever was. Meanwhile, politicians are still obsessing about global warming." -- Allan MacRae, 9/17/2008

"AL GORE says, "I believe this is a moral issue." So it is. To "announce disasters" or "scary scenarios" or "over-represent factual presentations" in place of adherence to the scientific truth - that is a moral issue. To let politicians insert data into official scientific documents; to alter those documents so as to contradict scientific findings; to manipulate decimal points so as to engender false headlines by exaggerating tenfold - those are moral issues. "Above all, to inflict upon the nations of the world a policy of ever-grimmer energy starvation calculated not merely to inconvenience the prosperous but to condemn the very poorest to remain imprisoned in poverty forever, and to die in their tens of millions for want of the light and heat and power which we have long been fortunate enough to take for granted - that is a moral issue. ".each of us, however poor, is of unique and precious value; that therefore there is only one race, the human race; that the suffering children of Africa, of Asia and of south America, imploring us with their hopeless, hopeful eyes, are our people. They cannot look to their own. They look to us. We must get the science right or we shall get the policy wrong. We have failed them and failed them before. We must not fail them again!" -- Lord Christopher Monckton of Brenchley, Cambridge Union Society address, 10/8/2007


While the theory of man-induced global climate change may be a casualty here, the greater casualty is Science itself. The scientific community and media have taken the world for a costly ride. The environmental community may have said `the sky is falling' once too often. Trust, once lost, can take time to restore. I invite members of LM-AWMA to provide necessary leadership by abandoning prejudice, embracing the truth and speaking out.



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 readers in China or for times when is playing up, there is a mirror of this site here.


No comments: