Archive for the ‘Climate Change’ Category

NASA Still Spreading Antarctic Worries

February 3, 2010

Watts Up With That
Wednesday, February 3, 2010

Steven Goddard looks at trends in Antarctica and compares to NASA’s recent article.

A January 12, 2010 Earth Observatory article warns that Antarctica

has been losing more than a hundred cubic kilometers (24 cubic miles) of ice each year since 2002” and that “if all of this ice melted, it would raise global sea level by about 60 meter (197 feet).

If sea level rose 60 meters, that would wipe out most of the world’s population – which would no doubt make some environmentalists happy.  Sadly for them though, Antarctica contains 30 × 10^6 km3 of ice which means that it will take 300,000 years for all the ice to melt at NASA’s claimed current rate of 100 km3 per year.  (Chances are that we will run out of fossil fuels long before then.)  The surface area of Antarctica is 14.2 million km2 which would indicate an average melt of less than 7 millimeters per year across the continent.  (Is NASA claiming that they can measure changes in Antarctic ice thickness within 7 millimeters?)  But even more problematic is that UAH satellite data shows no increase in temperatures in Antarctica, rather a small decline.

NASA themselves appear very confused about Antarctic temperature trends.  As you can see in the two images below, sometimes they think Antarctica is warming and other times they think it is cooling.

https://i2.wp.com/www.darkpolitricks.com/wp-content/plugins/wp-o-matic/cache/af8f8_antarctic_temps.AVH1982-2004.jpg

NASA shows Antarctica cooling

https://i0.wp.com/www.darkpolitricks.com/wp-content/plugins/wp-o-matic/cache/087ba_wilkins_avh_2007.jpg

NASA shows Antarctica warming

According to NSIDC, sea ice extent has been increasing over time around Antarctica – this is consistent with the idea that temperatures are cooling.

https://i2.wp.com/www.darkpolitricks.com/wp-content/plugins/wp-o-matic/cache/9b680_s_plot_hires.png

http://www.darkpolitricks.com/wp-content/plugins/wp-o-matic/cache/9b680_s_plot_hires.png

The University of Illinois Cryosphere Lab shows that Antarctic sea ice area has also been increasing over time.

https://i1.wp.com/www.darkpolitricks.com/wp-content/plugins/wp-o-matic/cache/2fdea_seaice.anomaly.antarctic.png

http://www.darkpolitricks.com/wp-content/plugins/wp-o-matic/cache/2fdea_seaice.anomaly.antarctic.png

One of the key features of Hansen’s global warming theory is that the polar regions are supposed to warm much faster than the rest of the planet.  The image below is from his classic 1984 paper, and shows that Antarctica is supposed to warm up 6C after a doubling of CO2.  If the cooling trend which UAH shows continues, it will take Antarctica a very long time to warm up six degrees.

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/effects/downloads/Challenge_chapter2.pdf

Hansen also predicted that sea ice would diminish around Antarctica and significantly decrease albedo.  Clearly that prediction was wrong as well.

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/effects/downloads/Challenge_chapter2.pdf

Some are quick to come to Hansen’s defense by saying that “climate science has improved since that paper was written, we now know that Antarctic shouldn’t warm as fast as the Arctic.”  That is indeed a fine explanation, but the problem is that most of Antarctica is not warming at all.

According to the University of Colorado Sea Level Lab, sea level is rising at about 32cm/century.  At that rate it will take 18,750 years for sea level to rise 60 meters (per the NASA article.)

https://i0.wp.com/www.darkpolitricks.com/wp-content/plugins/wp-o-matic/cache/23d7e_sl_noib_global_sm.jpg

http://www.darkpolitricks.com/wp-content/plugins/wp-o-matic/cache/23d7e_sl_noib_global_sm.jpg

Temperatures in Vostok, Antarctica average -85F in the winter, and warm all the way up to -25F in the summer.   If global warming raises the temperature there by a mere fifty-seven degrees, we may seem some melting occurring in the summer.

Difficult to see what NASA is worried about.

Advertisements

Penn State report on Mann: new investigation to convene

February 3, 2010

Watts Up With That
Wednesday, February 3, 2010

The report is out, and further investigation is forthcoming.

https://i2.wp.com/www.darkpolitricks.com/wp-content/plugins/wp-o-matic/cache/3c217_logo.jpghttps://i2.wp.com/www.darkpolitricks.com/wp-content/plugins/wp-o-matic/cache/3c217_normal_Mann_Michael.jpg

Excerpts from the report are below, where they considered 4 allegations. They say only one had merit. That will be the subject of the upcoming investigation.

Excerpts:

“It is clear to those who have followed the media and blogs over the last two months that there are two distinct and deeply polarized points of view that have emerged on this matter. One side views the emails as evidence of a clear cut violation of the public trust and seeks severe penalties for Dr. Mann and his colleagues. The other side sees these as nothing more than the private discussions of scientists engaged in a hotly debated topic of enormous social impact.

We are aware that some may seek to use the debate over Dr. Mann’s research conduct and that of his colleagues as a proxy for the larger and more substantive debate over the science of anthropogenic global warming and its societal (political and economic) ramifications. We have kept the two debates separate by only considering Dr. Mann’s conduct.”

“Decision 4. Given that information emerged in the form of the emails purloined from CRU in November 2009, which have raised questions in the public’s mind about Dr. Mann’s conduct of his research activity, given that this may be undermining confidence in his findings as a scientist, and given that it may be undermining public trust in science in general and climate science specifically, the inquiry committee believes an investigatory committee of faculty peers from diverse fields should be constituted under RA-10 to further consider this allegation.

In sum, the overriding sentiment of this committee, which is composed of University administrators, is that allegation #4 revolves around the question of accepted faculty conduct surrounding scientific discourse and thus merits a review by a committee of faculty scientists. Only with such a review will the academic community and other interested parties likely feel that Penn State has discharged it responsibility on this matter.

An investigatory committee of faculty members with impeccable credentials will consider this matter and present its findings and recommendations to Dr. Henry C. Foley within 120 days of being charged. The committee will consist of the following five faculty members:

1. Dr. Mary Jane Irwin, Evan Pugh Professor, Department of Computer Science and Electrical Engineering;
2. Dr. Alan Walker, Evan Pugh Professor, Department of Anthropology and Department of Biology;
3. Dr. A. Welford Castleman, Evan Pugh Professor, Department of Chemistry and Department of Physic;
4. Dr. Nina G. Jablonski, Head, Department of Anthropology; and
5. Dr. Sarah M. Assmann, Waller Professor, Department of Biology.

Ms. Candice Yekel, as Director of the Office for Research Protections and as the University’s Research Integrity Officer, will provide administrative support and assistance to the committee.

The investigatory committee’s charge will be to consider what are the bounds of accepted practice in this instance and whether or not Dr. Mann did indeed engage in, or participate in, directly or indirectly, any actions that seriously deviated from accepted practices within the academic community for proposing, conducting, or reporting research or other scholarly activities.

Read the report here (PDF)

International Bureaucrats Lie About Global Warming

February 2, 2010

By Doug Bandow

If what global warming scaremongers said was true, the planet would be in peril.  But if what they said was true was, in fact, true, they wouldn’t have to lie about the process.

Walter Russell Mead points out in American Interest:

After years in which global warming activists had lectured everyone about the overwhelming nature of the scientific evidence, it turned out that the most prestigious agencies in the global warming movement were breaking laws, hiding data, and making inflated, bogus claims resting on, in some cases, no scientific basis at all. This latest story in the London Times is yet another shocker; the IPCC’s claims that the rainforests were going to disappear as a result of global warming are as bogus and fraudulent as its claims that the Himalayan glaciers would melt by 2035.  It seems as if a scare story could grab a headline, the IPCC simply didn’t care about whether it was reality-based.Gore_Pachauri

With this in mind, ‘climategate’ – the scandal over hacked emails by prominent climate scientists – looks sinister rather than just unsavory.  The British government has concluded that University of East Anglia, home of the research institute that provides the global warming with much of its key data, had violated Britain’s Freedom of Information Act when scientists refused to hand over data so that critics could check their calculations and methods.  Breaking the law to hide key pieces of data isn’t just ‘science as usual,’ as the global warming movement’s embattled defenders gamely tried to argue.  A cover-up like that suggests that you indeed have something to conceal.

The urge to make the data better than it was didn’t just come out of nowhere.  The global warmists were trapped into the necessity of hyping the threat by their realization that the actual evidence they had – which, let me emphasize, all hype aside, is serious, troubling and establishes in my mind the need for intensive additional research and investigation, as well as some prudential steps that would reduce CO2 emissions by enhancing fuel use efficiency and promoting alternative energy sources – was not sufficient to get the world’s governments to do what they thought needed to be done. Hyping the threat increasingly doesn’t look like an accident: it looks like it was a conscious political strategy.

The political war over climate change is ending.  The alarmists have lost.  The campaign won’t disappear any time soon.  But unless the movement sheds its discredited leaders and brings its policy prescriptions into line with the evidence, the center and even the moderate left will begin running in the opposite direction.  After all, in today’s political climate, what politician wants to tell the American people that he or she intends to wreck the U.S. economy for a lie?

Doug Bandow, American Conservative Defense Alliance

View the original article at Campaign for Liberty

Leaked climate change emails scientist ‘hid’ data flaws

February 2, 2010

Fred Pearce
London Guardian
Tuesday, February 2nd, 2010

Phil Jones, the beleaguered British climate scientist at the centre of the leaked emails controversy, is facing fresh claims that he sought to hide problems in key temperature data on which some of his work was based.

A Guardian investigation of thousands of emails and documents apparently hacked from the University of East Anglia’s climatic research unit has found evidence that a series of measurements from Chinese weather stations were seriously flawed and that documents relating to them could not be produced.

Jones and a collaborator have been accused by a climate change sceptic and researcher of scientific fraud for attempting to suppress data that could cast doubt on a key 1990 study on the effect of cities on warming – a hotly contested issue.

Today the Guardian reveals how Jones withheld the information requested under freedom of information laws. Subsequently a senior colleague told him he feared that Jones’s collaborator, Wei-­Chyung Wang of the University at Albany, had “screwed up”.

Full article here


The Death of Global Warming

February 2, 2010
FROM-The American Interest
Walter Russel Mead
Tuesday, February 2nd, 2010

The global warming movement as we have known it is dead. Its health had been in steady decline during the last year as the once robust hopes for a strong and legally binding treaty to be agreed upon at the Copenhagen Summit faded away. By the time that summit opened, campaigners were reduced to hoping for a ‘politically binding’ agreement to be agreed that would set the stage for the rapid adoption of the legally binding treaty. After the failure of the summit to agree to even that much, the movement went into a rapid decline.

The movement died from two causes: bad science and bad politics.

After years in which global warming activists had lectured everyone about the overwhelming nature of the scientific evidence, it turned out that the most prestigious agencies in the global warming movement were breaking laws, hiding data, and making inflated, bogus claims resting on, in some cases, no scientific basis at all. This latest story in the London Times is yet another shocker; the IPCC’s claims that the rainforests were going to disappear as a result of global warming are as bogus and fraudulent as its claims that the Himalayan glaciers would melt by 2035. It seems as if a scare story could grab a headline, the IPCC simply didn’t care about whether it was reality-based.

With this in mind, ‘climategate’ — the scandal over hacked emails by prominent climate scientists — looks sinister rather than just unsavory. The British government has concluded that University of East Anglia, home of the research institute that provides the global warming with much of its key data, had violated Britain’s Freedom of Information Act when scientists refused to hand over data so that critics could check their calculations and methods. Breaking the law to hide key pieces of data isn’t just ’science as usual,’ as the global warming movement’s embattled defenders gamely tried to argue. A cover-up like that suggests that you indeed have something to conceal.

The urge to make the data better than it was didn’t just come out of nowhere. The global warmists were trapped into the necessity of hyping the threat by their realization that the actual evidence they had — which, let me emphasize, all hype aside, is serious, troubling and establishes in my mind the need for intensive additional research and investigation, as well as some prudential steps that would reduce CO2 emissions by enhancing fuel use efficiency and promoting alternative energy sources — was not sufficient to get the world’s governments to do what they thought needed to be done. Hyping the threat increasingly doesn’t look like an accident: it looks like it was a conscious political strategy.

Now it has failed. Not everything that has come out of the IPCC and the East Anglia Climate Unit is false, but enough of their product is sufficiently tainted that these institutions can best serve the cause of fighting climate change by stepping out of the picture. New leadership might help, but everything these two agencies have done will now have to be re-checked by independent and objective sources.

The global warming campaigners got into this mess because they had a deeply flawed political strategy. They were never able to develop a pragmatic approach that could reach its goals in the context of the existing international system. The global warming movement proposed a complex set of international agreements involving vast transfers of funds, intrusive regulations in national economies, and substantial changes to the domestic political economies of most countries on the planet. As it happened, the movement never got to the first step — it never got the world’s countries to agree to the necessary set of treaties, transfers and policies that would constitute, at least on paper, a program for achieving its key goals.

Even if that first step had been reached, the second and third would almost surely not have been. The United States Congress is unlikely to pass the kind of legislation these agreements would require before the midterm elections, much less ratify a treaty. (It takes 67 senate votes to ratify a treaty and only 60 to overcome a filibuster.) After the midterms, with the Democrats expected to lose seats in both houses, the chance of passage would be even more remote — especially as polls show that global warming ranks at or near the bottom of most voters’ priorities. American public opinion supports ‘doing something’ about global warming, but not very much; support for specific measures and sacrifices will erode rapidly as commentators from Fox News and other conservative outlets endlessly hammer away. Without a commitment from the United States to pay its share of the $100 billion plus per year that poor countries wanted as their price for compliance, and without US participation in other aspects of the proposed global approach, the intricate global deals fall apart.

The Death of Global Warming kokszifu8eyfluzjahrgdq Since the United States was never very likely to accept these agreements and ratify these treaties, and is even less prepared to do so in a recession with the Democrats in retreat, even “success” in Copenhagen would not have brought the global warming movement the kind of victory it sought — although it would have created a very sticky and painful political problem for the United States.

But even if somehow, miraculously, the United States and all the other countries involved not only accepted the agreements but ratified them and wrote domestic legislation to incorporate them into law, it is extremely unlikely that all this activity would achieve the desired result. Countries would cheat, either because they chose to do so or because their domestic systems are so weak, so corrupt or so boththat they simply wouldn’t be able to comply. Governments in countries like China and India aren’t going to stop pushing for all the economic growth they can get by any means that will work — and even if central governments decided to move on global warming, state and local authorities have agendas of their own. The examples of blatant cheating would inevitably affect compliance in other countries; it would also very likely erode what would in any case be an extremely fragile consensus in rich countries to keep forking over hundreds of billions of dollars to poor countries — many of whom would not be in anything like full compliance with their commitments.

For better or worse, the global political system isn’t capable of producing the kind of result the global warming activists want. It’s like asking a jellyfish to climb a flight of stairs; you can poke and prod all you want, you can cajole and you can threaten. But you are asking for something that you just can’t get — and at the end of the day, you won’t get it.

The grieving friends and relatives aren’t ready to pull the plug; in a typical, whistling-past-the-graveyard comment, the BBC first acknowledges that even if the current promises are kept, temperatures will rise above the target level of two degrees Celsius — but let’s not despair! The BBC quotes one of its own reporters: “BBC environment reporter Matt McGrath says the accord lacks teeth and does not include any clear targets on cutting emissions. But if most countries at least signal what they intend to do to cut their emissions, it will mark the first time that the UN has a comprehensive written collection of promised actions, he says.”

Gosh! A comprehensive written collection of promised actions! And it’s a first!! Any day now that jellyfish is going to start climbing stairs. Sure, it will be slow at first — but the momentum will build!

The death of global warming (the movement, not the phenomenon) has some important political and cultural consequences in the United States that I’ll be blogging on down the road. Basically, Sarah Palin 1, Al Gore zip. The global warming meltdown confirms all the populist suspicions out there about an arrogantly clueless establishment invoking faked ’science’ to impose cockamamie social mandates on the long-suffering American people, backed by a mainstream media that is totally in the tank. Don’t think this won’t have consequences; we’ll be exploring them together as the days go by.

Marc Morano on Alex Jones TV: NASA Scientist Demands End to Industrial Society

February 2, 2010

The Alex Jones Channel

Tuesday, February 2nd, 2010

Alex welcomes back to the show Marc Morano, the man behind the climate website ClimateDepot.com for the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow. Morano is a former journalist with Cybercast News Service. He has written articles critical of NASA global warming scientist James E. Hansen. Morano was also a producer and correspondent for the nationally syndicated television newsmagazine American Investigator.

View the original video at The Alex Jones Channel

Climategate: Is the British government conspiring not to prosecute?

February 1, 2010

James Delingpole
London Telegraph
Monday, February 1st, 2010

Ed Miliband, the weird blobby egg creature with dark hair on top currently doing untold damage as Britain’s Energy and Climate Secretary, has declared war on Climate Sceptics.

According to the Observer:

The danger of climate scepticism was that it would undermine public support for unpopular decisions needed to curb carbon emissions, including the likelihood of higher energy bills for households, and issues such as the visual impact of wind turbines, said Miliband.

If the UK did not invest in renewable, clean energy, it would lose jobs and investment to other countries, have less energy security because of the dependence on oil and gas imports and contribute to damaging temperature rises for future generations. “There are a whole variety of people who are sceptical, but who they are is less important than what they are saying, and what they are saying is profoundly dangerous,” he said. “Every­thing we know about life is that we should obey the precautionary principle; to take what the sceptics say seriously would be a profound risk.”

Could the New Labour government’s zeal to impose this eco-fascist vision on Britain at any cost have anything to do with the curious case of the Information Commissioner who barked but didn’t bite?

Christopher Booker points up the mystery in his latest column:

There is something very odd indeed about the statement by the Information Commission on its investigation into “Climategate”, the leak of emails from East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit. Gordon Smith, the deputy commissioner, confirms that the university’s refusal to answer legitimate inquiries made in 2007 and 2008 was an offence under S.77 of the Information Act. But he goes on to claim that the Commission is powerless to bring charges, thanks to a loophole in the law – “because the legislation requires action within six months of the offence taking place”.

Careful examination of the Act, however, shows that it says nothing whatever about a time limit. The Commission appears to be trying to confuse this with a provision of the Magistrates Act, that charges for an offence cannot be brought more than six months after it has been drawn to the authorities’ attention – not after it was committed. In this case, the Commission only became aware of the offence two months ago when the emails were leaked – showing that the small group of British and American scientists at the top of the IPCC were discussing with each other and with the university ways to break the law, not least by destroying evidence, an offence in itself.

Full article here

Pachauri fails to get UK support over ‘unsubstantiated’ climate report claims

February 1, 2010

Damian Carrington
London Guardian
Monday, February 1st, 2010

Rajendra Pachauri, who has faced criticism as chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change following allegations of inaccurate statements in panel reports, suffered a fresh blow last night when he failed to get the backing of the British government.

A senior government official reiterated Pachauri’s position but stopped short of expressing confidence in him. “The position is that he is the chair and he has indicated that mistakes were made,” the climate change official said. “There is no vacancy at this stage, so there is no issue at this stage.”

The IPCC is required by governments to assess the science and imapct of climate change and its thousands of scientists produce major reports and summaries for policymakers. Its last report in 2007 concluded that greenhouse gas emissions from human activities were 90% certain to be causing observed global warming and was accepted by all governments.

“It is clearly unfortunate that individual problems with individual papers have been found,” said the official. “But the scientific basis for climate change does not rest on a very small number of papers in which the [IPCC] review process has not been rigorous enough. It relies on thousands and thousands of papers that have been peer reviewed through scientific journals.”

Full article here


UN climate change panel based claims on student dissertation and magazine article

January 31, 2010

Richard Gray and Rebecca Lefort
London Telegraph
Sunday, January 31st, 2010

The United Nations’ expert panel on climate change based claims about ice disappearing from the world’s mountain tops on a student’s dissertation and an article in a mountaineering magazine.

The revelation will cause fresh embarrassment for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which had to issue a humiliating apology earlier this month over inaccurate statements about global warming.

The IPCC’s remit is to provide an authoritative assessment of scientific evidence on climate change.

In its most recent report, it stated that observed reductions in mountain ice in the Andes, Alps and Africa was being caused by global warming, citing two papers as the source of the information.

Full article here

Controversial climate change boss uses car AND driver to travel one mile to office… (but he says YOU should use public transport)

January 31, 2010

Simon Parry
UK Daily Mail
Sunday, January 31st, 2010

He is the climate change chief whose research body produced a report warning that the glaciers in the Himalayas might melt by 2035 and earned a Nobel Prize for his work – so you might expect Dr Rajendra Pachauri to be doing everything he can to reduce his own carbon footprint.

But as controversy continued to simmer last week over the bogus ‘Glaciergate’ claims in a report by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change – which he heads – Dr Pachauri showed no apparent inclination to cut global warming in his own back yard.

On Friday, for the one-mile journey from home to his Delhi office, Dr Pachauri could have walked, or cycled, or used the eco-friendly electric car provided for him, known in the UK as G-Wiz.

But instead, he had his personal chauffeur collect him from his £4.5million home – in a 1.8-litre Toyota Corolla.

Hours later, the chauffeur picked up Dr Pachauri from the office of the environmental charity where he is director-general – The Energy and Resources Institute – blatantly ignoring the institute’s own literature, which gives visitors tips on how to reduce pollution by using buses.

Full article here