It's not just the British
Climate researchers have discovered that NASA researchers improperly manipulated data in order to claim 2005 as "THE WARMEST YEAR ON RECORD." KUSI-TV meteorologist, Weather Channel founder, and iconic weatherman John Coleman will present these findings in a one-hour special airing on KUSI-TV on Jan.14 at 9 p.m. A related report will be made available on the Internet at 6 p.m. EST on January 14th at www.kusi.com.
In a new report, computer expert E. Michael Smith and Certified Consulting Meteorologist Joseph D'Aleo discovered extensive manipulation of the temperature data by the U.S. Government's two primary climate centers: the National Climate Data Center (NCDC) in Ashville, North Carolina and the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) at Columbia University in New York City. Smith and D'Aleo accuse these centers of manipulating temperature data to give the appearance of warmer temperatures than actually occurred by trimming the number and location of weather observation stations. The report is available online here
The report reveals that there were no actual temperatures left in the computer database when NASA/NCDC proclaimed 2005 as "THE WARMEST YEAR ON RECORD." The NCDC deleted actual temperatures at thousands of locations throughout the world as it changed to a system of global grid points, each of which is determined by averaging the temperatures of two or more adjacent weather observation stations. So the NCDC grid map contains only averaged, not real temperatures, giving rise to significant doubt that the result is a valid representation of Earth temperatures.
The number of actual weather observation points used as a starting point for world average temperatures was reduced from about 6,000 in the 1970s to about 1,000 now. "That leaves much of the world unaccounted for," says D'Aleo.
The NCDC data are regularly used by the National Weather Service to declare a given month or year as setting a record for warmth. Such pronouncements are typically made in support of the global warming alarmism agenda. Researchers who support the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) also regularly use the NASA/NCDC data, including researchers associated with the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia that is now at the center of the "Climategate" controversy.
This problem is only the tip of the iceberg with NCDC data. "For one thing, it is clear that comparing data from previous years, when the final figure was produced by averaging a large number of temperatures, with those of later years, produced from a small temperature base and the grid method, is like comparing apples and oranges," says Smith. "When the differences between the warmest year in history and the tenth warmest year is less than three quarters of a degree, it becomes silly to rely on such comparisons," added D'Aleo who asserts that the data manipulation is "scientific travesty" that was committed by activist scientists to advance the global warming agenda.
Smith and D'Aleo are both interviewed as part of a report on this study on the television special, "Global Warming: The Other Side" seen at 9 PM on January 14th on KUSI-TV, channel 9/51, San Diego, California. That program can now be viewed via computer at the website here. The detailed report is available here.
Hungarian Physicist Dr. Ferenc Miskolczi proves CO2 emissions irrelevant in Earth’s Climate
For years now, we have been told that science is dedicatedly attempting to find out how the Earth’s Climate works. With all possible seriousness, the most publically vocal of these scientists, those working for the UN’s IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), have for the last several years blamed the warming they “found” on Carbon Dioxide. With the release of the CRU (Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia) email database, it is very clearly apparent that the scientists involved with the IPCC were doctoring data to give a specific result. That result was designed to look as if CO2was causing climate change, warming the earth due to Human activities. It can be reported now that this theory has been solidly disproven by Dr. Ferenc Miskolczi and Dr. Miskolczi’s work will make history.
To give context to this discovery, a short lesson in science is needed. The term “Constant” is very well known in science. Simply put it is a part of an equation (An equation is merely a mathematical sentence, the Variables are the words) that does not change; they are specific and represent solid concepts. You may have heard of Bohr’s Constant, Hubble ’s Constant, Avogadro’s Constant, there are many of them. There is a new Constant; one that has not been named, but if history is any guide it will be called the Miskolczi Constant, named for the physicist who discovered it.
A Constant we are all familiar with is the speed of light. Before Einstein and his famous theory of Relativity E=MC2, it was widely believed there was no limit on speed, just throw a rock from a speeding train and the speed will continue to add up. Einstein and his theory of Special Relativity put a specific limit on speed - the speed of light, beyond which nothing could go. There is a strict energetic limit, and we have recognized that for decades now. Before Miskolczi, it was generally thought that the greenhouse effect could be increased infinitely by adding more and more CO2 molecules into the air. Under the conditions prevailing on Earth, Miskolczi has proved that there is a limit to the greenhouse temperature that cannot be raised. Why is that? The IPCC has been telling us the exact opposite for years. Simple, because just as with Einstein’s E=MC2, there is a strict energetic limit as the Miskolczi Law proves.
Dr. Miskolczi’s Constant was discovered with a program that is the result of a project started 25 years ago in Hungary. It was then he began the process of writing a high-resolution radiative transfer program which would describe the Earth’s climate using the TIGR Global radiosonde archive of the Laboratoire de Meteorologie Dynamique, Paris database. With this information he was able to accurately describe mathematically how the atmosphere absorbs and releases heat using a long standing Equation called the Schwarzschild-Milne transfer equation to accurately calculate the Earths infrared optical depth. That is what Global climate is; the process by which Earth either holds onto or releases heat. The IPCC and the CRU scientists would have us believe that CO2 increases the heat the atmosphere holds on an infinite unlimited basis. That conclusion is absolutely false, and the CRU and the IPCC have had to falsify and invent data to make it appear that it does.
In reality water is so overwhelming abundant on Earth, it dominatingly, completely, and overwhelmingly governs the climate equilibrium of the Earth. It is 71% of the total surface area of the planet, 333 Million cubic miles (a cubic mile is an imaginary cube measuring one mile on each side) of water exist here, by far outweighing all other greenhouse gasses.
Can our climate undergo changes due to the addition of greenhouse gasses? Yes, but only under circumstances great enough to overwhelm the presence of 333 million Cubic miles of water, such as the impact of a large Asteroid and the tremendous heat it would add instantly. Carbon Dioxide is very far inside the greenhouse effect’s self-regulatory barriers. Amounts even double our current emissions, cannot overwhelm this equilibrium. Only the Sun has that immense amount of power, and only water exists in quantities large enough to effect such a change. As long as the sun’s activity is the “business-as-usual” fluctuations and there is water on Earth, CO2 cannot cause or increase global warming.
In order to correctly understand why this is, it is necessary to recognize that what is important here is the equilibrium between the incoming energy from the sun (heating) and the outgoing longwave (infra red) energy (cooling). The 40% of the planet that is not cloud covered at any given time allows for solar radiation to be absorbed at the surface. The most effective form of cooling is the evaporation of water, which takes heat energy from the surface and puts it into the air. Clouds form which do three things: 1) create more cloud cover reflecting solar radiation away from the planet which also 2) releases heat into the very high upper atmosphere where it too is radiated out into space as the clouds condense into precipitation, and 3) drops much cooler water back down to the surface cooling things even further. This is an oversimplification for the sake of brevity and clarity, the interactions here are very complex as is the equation which describes it (the detailed mathematics can be found below in "The Saturated Greenhouse Effect Theory of Ferenc Miskolczi"). However, this does not change the simple fact that our planetary climate system is at equilibrium, and the Miskolczi Constant allows science to completely describe that equilibrium. For the first time, we can do so accurately with raw data, and match observed data with the results. No “hide the decline” needed when simply describing reality.
Climate scientist and fellow Hungarian, Dr. Miklos Zagoni in his paper “CO2 Cannot Cause any more “Global Warming”” dated December 2009 describes this discovery and its meaning. Dr. Zagoni beautifully sums it up all up:
“Since the Earth’s atmosphere is not lacking in greenhouse gases [water vapor], if the system could have increased its surface temperature it would have done so long before our emissions. It need not have waited for us to add CO2: another greenhouse gas, H2O, was already to hand in practically unlimited reservoirs in the oceans.”
Dr. Zagoni explains:
“Earth type planetary atmospheres, having partial cloud cover and sufficient reservoir of water; maintain an energetically uniquely determined, constant, maximized greenhouse effect that cannot be increased further by emissions. The greenhouse temperature must fluctuate around this theoretical equilibrium constant; [change] is possible only if the incoming available energy changes.”
More HERE (See the original for links, graphics etc.)
Economic Stimulus Funds Went to Climategate Scientist
In the face of rising unemployment and record-breaking deficits, policy experts at the National Center for Public Policy Research are criticizing the Obama Administration for awarding a half million dollar grant from the economic stimulus package to Penn State Professor Michael Mann, a key figure in the Climategate controversy.
"It's outrageous that economic stimulus money is being used to support research conducted by Michael Mann at the very time he's under investigation by Penn State and is one of the key figures in the international Climategate scandal. Penn State should immediately return these funds to the U.S. Treasury," said Tom Borelli, Ph.D., director of the National Center's Free Enterprise Project.
Professor Mann is currently under investigation by Penn State University because of activities related to a closed circle of climate scientists who appear to have been engaged in agenda-driven science. Emails and documents mysteriously released from the previously-prestigious Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in the United Kingdom revealed discussions of manipulation and destruction of research data, as well as efforts to interfere with the peer review process to stifle opposing views. The motivation underlying these efforts appears to be a coordinated strategy to support the belief that mankind's activities are causing global warming.
"It's no wonder that Obama's stimulus plan is failing to produce jobs. Taxpayer dollars aren't being used in the ways most likely to spur job creation. The stimulus was not sold to the public as a way to reward a loyalist in the climate change debate. Nor was the stimulus sold as a way to promote the Obama Administration's position on the global warming theory. This misuse of stimulus money illustrates why tax cuts are a better way to stimulate the economy than letting the government decide where to spend taxpayer dollars. As is often the case, political considerations corrupt the distribution of government funds," said Deneen Borelli, a fellow with the National Center's Project 21 black leadership network.
"Mann's credentials as a climate change alarmist seems to fit the political criteria for stimulus funds sometimes known as 'Obama money'," added Deneen Borelli.
Mann is a central and controversial figure in climate change research. Mann's so-called "hockey stick" graph depicting temperature changes over a 1000 year period was used as evidence in the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2001 report to conclude carbon dioxide from industrial activity is causing global warming. Mimicking the shape of a hockey stick, the graph showed a long period of stable temperatures (the shaft) followed by a rapid rise in temperatures (the blade) during the last hundred years.
Critics of the hockey stick claim Mann manipulated data to eliminate the medieval warming period and the little ice age to eradicate the visual impact of natural global temperature variation. The emails from Climategate reveal that the inner circle of climate scientists were troubled by the methods Mann used to produce the graph.
"It's shocking that taxpayer money is being used to support a researcher who seemingly showed little regard to the basic tenet of science - a dispassionate search for the truth," said Tom Borelli.
The $541,184 grant is for three years and was initiated in June 2009.
Penn State Protects Michael “Climategate” Mann
Circle the wagons, Penn State. That’s the take from today’s article at Onward State regarding the Penn State University investigation of Michael Mann. And we have to agree.
As regular readers know, last week an ex-CIA agent went after Mann by telling his associates they could receive millions of dollars in Whistleblower rewards if they have anything on him. While it’s reported he’s not exactly a likable fellow around campus, still, the university must protect their own. As Onward State tells it:
What makes the investigation more interesting is that, according to University Policy the outcome of the committee’s deliberations may be kept confidential. Like many Universities around the country, probes into faculty misconduct are protected, “to the maximum extent possible.” Additionally, many people are outraged that no one from outside Penn State is being asked to review the situation. Since this is the case, is it conceivable that Penn State is trying to save face to ensure that research dollars keep rolling in?
And who is on the committee? The committee, which will be investigating the situation for 120 days, includes Henry Foley (Vice President for Research), William Brune (Mann’s boss in the Meteorology Department) and Candice Yekel (Director of the Office of Research Protections). If found guilty, Mann will have 14 days to respond.
Oh, and there are five other “tenured professors” that will be called upon. Nice. Hardball! I wonder if any of these eight are either a) liberals and b) believe in man made global warming… Just sayin’.
Cap-and-trade will INCREASE CO2 emissions
The big sales point of cap-and-trade is that it will reduce CO2 emissions, and thereby save the world from self-destruction. Blah, blah, blah, we’re all going to die, we know.
Just like progressive taxation–in the minds’ of liberals–does not increase government revenues and instead simply punishes those who work hardest in society, cap-and-trade will not reduce CO2 emissions and instead simply punish the producers of goods in developed nations. In fact, you really think about it, cap-and-trade will increase carbon emissions.
You see, liberals make projections based upon “static” behavior. They assume that new legislation causes no behavioral changes. Again, looking at progressive taxation, high earners work less, restructure their income, stash money in tax-free bonds, move businesses (and even themselves) out of state or out of country, and a number of other things. In the case of cap-and-trade, businesses in developed nations will outsource business to undeveloped nations that get a free ride in cap-and-trade (actually, a profitable ride), or will simply not be able to compete due to the higher costs of running a business in a developed nation. In other words, developed nations (who ironically have the best emissions control) will pollute less because they will produce less, and undeveloped nations will pollute more, a lot more, as they pick up the slack and produce in very high polluting manners.
But emissions control is not really the goal of cap-and-trade, and any thinking person can see this. It’s about control and punishment, not to mention money in the pockets of politicians, academia and all the various middlemen who take their share along the way.
Leading climate scientist James Hansen has some thoughts on this subject. Here’s a taste, click on through to read the whole article.
The problem is that the emissions just go someplace else. That’s what happened after Kyoto, and that’s what would happen again, if—as long as fossil fuels are the cheapest energy, they will be burned someplace. You know, the Europeans thought they actually reduced their emissions after Kyoto, but what happened was the products that had been made in their countries began to be made in other countries, which were burning the cheapest form of fossil fuel, so the total emissions actually increased.
Something fishy in whaling debate
Ecoterrorists are actually likely to prolong Japanese whaling, says Australian anthropologist Adrian Peace. Pearce has an excellent coverage of the Japanese viewpoint but rather inexplicably overlooks something very basic about all East-Asian socities: Face. If the Japanese yielded to the ecoterrorists, it would be a huge loss of face -- and as such would be strenuously resisted. So as long as the ecoterrorists keep up their publicity-hungry antics, the Japanese will continue whaling
IF the profits were high and it required a substantial labour force, it would be possible to understand why the Japanese run the gamut of international condemnation at this time of year. But whaling nowadays entails minimal economic return and directly employs only a few hundred workers. A number of social scientists, Japanese and non-Japanese, have tried to explain why this intensely capitalist country persists in this seemingly irrational economic behaviour. The main points they make are worth thinking about.
The first explanation lies in the realm of Japanese culture and national identity.
When the International Whaling Commission holds its annual meetings, the intensity of the media gaze provokes pro-whaling claims about the Japanese being involved in this maritime industry for several centuries. But it is not necessary to go that far back. In the early 20th century, canned whale meat became a staple food for the Japanese military, while in post-war years the entire population acquired almost half of its animal protein from whale meat.
Older Japanese believe whale meat has saved them from famine. Subsequently, it became a regular item in lunch boxes (obentos), while for many people today whale meat in the form of sushi and other dishes is a special treat.
So the notion of an exceptional and distinctive whale eating culture (gyoshoku bunka) is a significant one which Japanese discourse (nihinjin roh) incorporates into a sense of national identity, for a unique population. As the anti-whaling movement has become the dominant international discourse, the consumption of whale meat has become a significant counter symbol of belonging to an inimitable Japanese tribe. As one anthropologist puts it: "The whaling issue serves to strengthen much-cherished Japanese myths about their identity, which itself helps fuel one form of Japanese nationalism."
The second explanation is that the Japanese do not think about whales in a manner similar to Western societies. Japanese categorise whales as fish, rather than as mammals, and this is indexed by the fact that the character (kanji) for the whale (kujira) has two parts, the first being the sign for a fish (uo-hen).
The Japanese do not raise strident objections to other societies' routine ways of eating. So on what grounds do Australians so vehemently object to the situation in Japan? The typical Japanese response is that cattle, pigs and chickens are often reared under horrendous conditions throughout their brief, caged lives, while whales live long ones in complete freedom. In this light, it is difficult to see why it is morally questionable to kill a whale rather than to slaughter a pig for much the same purpose; but easy to specify which population makes its food source suffer most. This explanation specifies the political hypocrisy of the West.
At another level, the Japanese do not see whales as having intrinsic value. Consequently, they look upon current conflicts in the Southern Ocean as little more than a political sideshow, and express minimal interest in non-government organisations such as Greenpeace that claim otherwise.
The third explanation directs attention to more rudimentary questions of the organisation of the Japanese state. Since whales fall in the category of fish, they are under the aegis of Japan's Fisheries Agency. Not only is this a notoriously conservative part of the Japanese state, it is also dominated by the ideology of science which it practices to the exclusion of all other ways of thinking about the world.
The Fisheries Agency and its ministry strive to ensure that their scientific understanding of whale stocks, and thus the continuation of whaling, is not somehow watered down by the politically responsive and ideologically liberal Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Its position is also informed by the threat of a domino effect on other fish supplies: if the whaling industry is curtailed by external pressure, then dolphin, tuna, salmon and the rest will quickly come under threat too. Since the organisation of whaling in the Southern Ocean is directed by the Fisheries Agency, it is hardly surprising that the hunt proceeds, whatever the level of international outcry.
The fourth explanation is the most radical. It is argued that an alliance of senior politicians and public servants, a prominent media agency and other media figures mobilised the government and popular opinion behind whaling to maintain the status quo. This is not to say that whale meat was not part of Japanese cuisine. It is claimed, however, that those considerations most likely to sustain governmental and popular support behind whaling were strategically packaged for popular consumption to realise maximum political effect in society.
This strategic management of meaning began in the aftermath of the 1982 moratorium over commercial whaling. Industry representatives, concerned politicians and powerful figures in the Fisheries Agency and its ministry set about persuading, cajoling and seducing influential media representatives into adopting and then broadcasting select perspectives on whaling and the consumption of whale meat.
Once again, the relative autonomy of major institutions within the modern state was integral to the success of this calculated approach. What was critical was the distinctive political arrangement known as the kisha kurabu system in which editors, journalists and the like are incorporated into select political circles, with all the material and other perks this entails, to ensure they report faithfully what their political and industrial masters tell them.
This political arrangement thrives, according to this line of argument, because scientific specialists in particular are accorded a high level of infallibility. Their findings are broadcast without qualification or critique. As it worked to promote and privilege a particular set of understandings about Japan's whale eating culture and the threat to it from abroad, the kisha kurabu exercise especially exploited this unqualified deference towards scientists in the Fisheries Agency.
The twist to this fourth explanation is that, while at the outset the goal was to end the 1982 moratorium on commercial whale fishing, current arrangements have come to serve national interests. The Japanese can kill a substantial number of whales each year; there is little serious opposition inside the broader society; and the many government subsidies that have become available since 1982 to prop up an industry that is commercially non-viable continue to flow unabated.
There is some truth to all of these explanations. Militant action by the Australian government is most likely to reinforce a broadly nationalist response from the Japanese people and a narrowly bureaucratic one from those who effectively determine the country's whaling policy. This is not to suggest militancy is a poor option, only that it is more likely to draw out the conflict instead of forshortening it.
For more postings from me, see DISSECTING LEFTISM, TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH, SOCIALIZED MEDICINE, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, 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 blogger.com is playing up, there are mirrors of this site here and here