Global Warming

[WarrenJ]

Inconvenient Truth for Gore as Arctic Ice Claims Don't Add Up

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2009/12/15/inconvenient-truth-gore-claims-dont-add/

"Gore, speaking at the Copenhagen climate change summit, stated the latest research showed that the Arctic could be completely ice-free in five years.

In his speech, Gore told the conference: "These figures are fresh. Some of the models suggest to Dr. [Wieslav] Maslowski that there is a 75 percent chance that the entire north polar ice cap, during the summer months, could be completely ice-free within five to seven years."

However, the climatologist whose work Gore was relying upon dropped the former vice president in the water with an icy blast.

"It's unclear to me how this figure was arrived at," Dr. Maslowski said. "I would never try to estimate likelihood at anything as exact as this."

Gore's office later admitted that the 75 percent figure was one used by Dr. Maslowski as a "ballpark figure" several years ago in a conversation with Gore. [Edit: I wonder if the good Doctor's office confirmed this? --Warren].

The embarrassing error cast another shadow over the conference after the controversy over the hacked e-mails from the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit, which appeared to suggest that scientists had manipulated data to strengthen their argument that human activities were causing global warming."

While I remain agnostic towards GW and equally so towards AGW, it still tickles me to see the pompous "religious" warmers twisting slowly in the wind.

Perhaps the current scandal will result in the return of true science (absent the corruption of grant money and politics). I'll not be holding my breath.

Regards,

Warren

[WarrenJ]

On January 13, 1920 the N.Y. Times editorialized about Dr. Robert Goddard, the giant of rocket science, being a fool for thinking rocket travel in the vacuum of space was possible. 49 years later, three days before men landed on the moon, the N.Y. Times published a retraction. Took 'em long enough!

Should AGW prove to be a fraud, your grandchildren can expect to read about it in the N.Y. Times. Assuming, of course, the N.Y. Times will exist in their lives.

Regards,

Warren

[BodybyFisher]

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/0...ps_melting.html

January 02, 2010

Polar Ice Caps Melting!

Larrey Anderson

The Watts Up With That website has a scary story about our melting polar ice caps. John Lockwood from Washington D.C. found an interesting article from the Washington Post. Here are some excerpts:

The Arctic seems to be warming up. Reports ... all point to a radical change in climatic conditions, and hitherto unheard of high temperatures in that part of the earth's surface.

Ice conditions were exceptional. In fact, so little ice has never before been noted. Dr. Hoel reports that he made a section of the Gulf Stream at 81 degrees north latitude and took soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters. These show the Gulf Stream very warm, and it could be traced as a surface current till beyond the 81st parallel.

Where formerly great masses of ice were found, there are now often moraines, accumulations of earth and stone. At many points where glaciers formerly extended far into the sea they have entirely disappeared.

Oh, I almost forgot to add: The article was written in 1922. See the whole story here.

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com...y_wx_review.png

By the way, this is a terrific site to visit

http://wattsupwiththat.com/

[BodybyFisher]

Well it appears that my original post regarding sun spot activity has some merit

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/30/14673/

[BodybyFisher]

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

[Cadillac Jim]

Hilarious Fox News interview with maker of famous "Frozen Gore" sculpture:"

http://video.foxnews.com/v/3962936/frozen-gore-protests-former-vp/?playlist_id=87285

Article on "Frozen Gore" sculpture:

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/01/06/frozen-gore-sculpture-alaska-fuels-warming-debate/

The "Frozen Gore" sculpture has it's own URL, which is an alias for the winter gear shop in Alaska that makes the ice sculptures:

http://www.frozengore.com

[BodybyFisher]

Gotta love this, ah ha!, the SUN SPOT CYCLE and SUN ACTIVITY!!!

January 14, 2010

Climategate: How to Hide the Sun

By Dexter Wright

The Climategate crowd successfully worked to obscure the connection between solar activity and climate. The leaked CRU e-mails reveal how.

In 2003, two Harvard-Smithsonian Professors, Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas, published a peer-reviewed paper in the scientific journal Climate Research which identified solar activity as a major influence on Earth's climate. This paper also concluded that the twentieth century was not the warmest, nor was it the century with the most extreme weather over the past thousand years. These two scientists reviewed more than two hundred sources of data. The paper specifically examined climate variations observed to coincide with solar variations. One of the more notable correlations cited in this paper is the well-documented coincidence of the Little Ice Age and a solar quiet period, known as the Maunder Minimum, from A.D. 1300 to A.D. 1900. Soon and Baliunas asserted that the lack of solar activity resulted in cooler temperatures across the globe. The evidence they compiled also indicated that as the sun became more active global temperatures began to rise and the Little Ice Age ended.

In the past, the issue of the solar connection has always fallen down on one question; what is it about sunspots that cause a change in the climate? Soon and Baliunas identified the physical connection as solar wind, which varies on an eleven-year cycle similar to sunspots'. The solar wind is made up of high-energy particulate radiation and when strong enough, it has a visible effect upon the atmosphere in the form of auroral displays in the polar regions (e.g., the Northern Lights). Some instances of solar wind were so powerful that the aurora was seen even in lower latitude, as happened during the Battle of Fredericksburg, Virginia during the War Between the States (Civil War). Both armies were so distracted by the intensity of the display that the battle actually paused as the soldiers, North and South, watched in awe.

With such convincing evidence, the Soon and Baliunas paper became the target of a great deal of criticism from the gang led by the now-discredited Dr. Jones of the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at East Anglia University in Britain. The recently uncovered e-mails from him and his collaborators show an orchestrated effort to discredit the work of these two scholars.

What is also notable is that Soon's and Baliunas's references were the very same data that the Jones Gang had reviewed and suppressed. The data in question is known as proxy data. Proxy data is data compiled from tree rings, sediments, and ice cores, as well as other indirectly measured estimates of temperature. Correlating an accurate timeline for these data sets across the globe is supremely difficult, but these proxy data sources were beginning to indicate a cycle or signal which might expedite the process. This signal was thought by some in the Jones Gang to be a solar cycle.

The discussion of solar influences is brought up in an e-mail from Dr. Daly, dated 9 August 1996. Dr. Daly uncovered an eleven-year signal in the temperature data set from the island of Tasmania. He found this signal by using a mathematical signal analysis formula known as a Fourier Transform. It is clear from the tone of his e-mail that he knows this is not welcome news, but he goes on to state the following concerning the temperature data set compiled by the Jones Gang:

(I tried the same run [Fourier Transform] on the CRU global temperature set. Even though CRU must be highly smoothed by the time all the averages are worked out, the 11-year pulse is still there, albeit about half the size of Sydneys).

The eleven-year cycle corresponds exactly with the one observed on the sun. This fact was kept secret by the Jones Gang.

Correlating the timeline of these proxy data was identified as problematic by Dr. Wigley, another member of the Jones Gang, in an e-mail dated 12 Aug 1996. In his effort to correlate the data, Dr. Wigley concludes that the solar signal is strong enough to convince him that solar forcing is a major factor in climate change:

(4) Causes. Here, ice cores are more valuable (CO2, CH4 and volcanic aerosol changes). But the main external candidate is solar, and more work is required to improve the "paleo" solar forcing record and to understand how the climate system responds both globally and regionally to solar forcing.

What is significant about this paragraph is that it identifies the main cause of climate change as "solar forcing," not carbon dioxide (CO2). This fact was also kept secret.

Remarkably, this was exactly what Soon and Baliunas published in their Climate Research paper. The solar correlation became a lightning rod. More than a dozen e-mails from the Jones Gang discuss how to discredit Soon and Baliunas. Ultimately, the gang decide to compile a new paper to counter the conclusion made by Soon and Baliunas, as detailed in an e-mail from Dr. Scott Rutherford dated the 12 March 2003. Dr. Rutherford does not go head-to-head with the data presented in the Climate Research paper, but he seemingly wishes to "cook" other data to counter the honest work of Soon and Baliunas, as stated by the following:

First, I'd be willing to handle the data and the plotting/mapping. Second, regarding Mike's suggestions, if we use different reference periods for the reconstructions and the models we need to be extremely careful about the differences. Not having seen what this will look like, I suggest that we start with the same instrumental reference period for both (1xxx xxxx xxxx). If you are willing to send me your series please send the raw (i.e. unfiltered) series. That way I can treat them all the same. We can then decide how we want to display the results.

Dr. Rutherford goes on to suggest that Soon and Baliunas should be dealt with severely:

... there is nothing we can do about them aside from continuing to publish quality work in quality journals (or calling in a Mafia hit).

It seems clear that the Jones Gang felt threatened by the Climate Research paper. By all appearances, they saw the threat as significant enough to consider the scientific equivalent of evidence-tampering in order to hide the sun. Is this the kind of reaction we would expect from scientists interested in the truth? Or is it what we would expect from the infamous Mafioso John Gotti?

Perhaps William Shakespeare said it best in his famous play of conspiracy and intrigue, Hamlet: "The lady doth protest too much, methinks."

6 Comments on "Climategate: How to Hide the Sun"

Reference: http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/01/cli...ide_the_su.html

[BodybyFisher]

Here is a current view of the sun (Dec 2009), very few sun spots

[BodybyFisher]

January 18, 2010

Climategate: The Truth Hurts When It Hits You in the Head

By Dexter Wright

The joke on the internet these days is "What do Tiger Woods and Phil Jones of East Anglia University in Britain have in common? They both got hit in the head by a model."

In 2007, Professors David Douglass, John Christy, Benjamin Pearson, and Fred Singer wrote a scientific paper in the International Journal of Climatology, which compared Global Climate Models (GCMs) with real observed data. GCMs were theoretically designed to forecast how greenhouse gases (GHGs) are warming the planet.

There are certain rules that must be followed in scientific investigations in order to ensure that the results and conclusions are not erroneous. Basically, the process requires an investigator to operate under multiple hypotheses so that he is not blinded to facts that might contradict one of his hypotheses and leave him with a dead end. An investigator should start by working from the known to the unknown, from the simple to the complex, and always bend the theory to fit the facts -- not the other way around. This is exactly how the four scholars led by Professor Douglass conducted their investigation into the accuracy of the GCMs.

The GCMs were touted by the now-discredited Dr. Jones as accurate predictions of how the planet is responding to GHGs, but no serious published work had been done to compare these GCMs with real observations to find out if the theoretical models agreed with the established facts. The results of these comparisons done by Prof. Douglass and his team were found to be significantly divergent. The paper states the following:

Model results and observed temperature trends are in disagreement in most of the tropical troposphere, being separated by more than twice the uncertainty of the model mean.

In English, that says that the models could not be trusted. This news publicly enraged the gang led by Dr. Jones. They fired off more than 29 e-mails concerning this one paper. But the real story is that these findings did not surprise them. In one of the recently uncovered Climategate e-mails from Dr. Fred Pearce to Dr. Keith Briffa, dated the 13th of October, 1996, Dr. Pearce delivers the bad news that the data does not agree with the models.

The models' error was not, perhaps, too surprising. As Barnett points out, they do not include vital "forcing" mechanisms that alter temperature, such as solar cycles and volcanic eruptions. Nor can they yet mimic the strength of the largest year-on-year variability in the natural system, the El Nino oscillation in the Pacific Ocean, which has a global impact on climate.

This statement means that as far back as 1996, the Jones Gang knew that the GCMs were producing significant errors and problems. This resulted an inability to reconcile the forecasts with reality. They seemingly knew that specifically excluding solar and El Niño influences would cause the forecast to be untrustworthy. But apparently they wished to keep these problems a secret. So to accomplish this, they chose to deal with the problem in a surprising way, as the e-mail further states:

Of course we don't have to believe the proxy data.

So now are they suggesting that they alter or ignore the data rather than bend their theory to fit the facts? In other words, are they completely disregarding the scientific method?

When trying to come up with a response to Prof. Douglass's International Journal of Climatology paper, Dr. Ben Santer wrote to Dr. Jones and admitted that the basic premise of the work done by Prof. Douglass and his collaborators was correct. They had run head-first in to the cold, hard truth (ouch), as revealed in Sater's e-mail, dated the 12th of December, 2007, when he stated the following:

It is difficult to identify a subset of models that consistently does well in many different regions and over a range of different timescales.

What Dr. Santer is saying here is that clearly, the GCMs are broken, but that even a broken clock is right twice a day. As any forecaster at the National Hurricane Center will tell you, the only forecast models that they trust are models that consistently perform well. When lives are on the line, you don't take chances by using an unreliable forecast model.

So in response to their dilemma of having to deal with the truth, the Jones Gang seems to abandon all scientific methods and decides to proceed down the rabbit hole and embrace the tactics of attorneys. In law school, they teach the students that if the law is on your side, argue the law; if the facts are on your side, argue the facts; but if neither the law nor the facts are on your side, then you have no choice but to try to discredit the witness.

The difference between scientists like Prof. Douglas and lawyers like Al Gore is that scientists seek the truth, while lawyers find the truth to be a simple matter of convenient choice to be used or obscured as needed.

The choice that the Jones Gang appears to make is to impugn the reputation of these scholars by referring to them as charlatans and pondering how to get them fired, as is detailed in this e-mail Dr. Tom Wigley sent on the 10th of December, 2007, to Dr. Santer:

... what Douglass has done would cause him to lose his job.

It is true that five hundred years ago, when a scientist challenged the prevailing accepted view of things, he would lose his job (and even get locked up like Galileo), but this is the twenty-first century! The inquisition is over...or is it?

The apparent plotting seems to take shape as this cabal begins to scheme and set traps for Prof. Douglass's collaborators, as is suggested in this e-mail from Dr. Wigley, dated the 29th of December, 2007:

Dear all,

I was recently at a meeting in Rome where Fred Singer was a participant. He was not on the speaker list, but, in advance of the meeting, I had thought he might raise the issue of the Douglass et al. paper. I therefore prepared the attached power point -- modified slightly since returning from Rome. As it happened, Singer did not raise the Douglass et al. issue, so I did not use the ppt. Still, it may be useful for members of this group so I am sending it to you all.

Please keep this in confidence. I do not want it to get back to Singer or any of the Douglass et al. co-authors.

If this were some floor fight in Congress, where the "honorable" members are duking it out over some piece of legislation, this kind of language could be expected, but these are supposedly scientists. Men of science are supposed to be ethical and motivated only by the pursuit of truth. These e-mails seem to paint a very different picture of the Jones Gang.

Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/01/cli...h_hurts_wh.html at January 18, 2010 - 09:11:21 AM CST

[BodybyFisher]

Someone here, I think Marika said, follow the money, where here is an article that I think illustrates that regarding Climate Change/Global Warming/Carbon Trading. I thought the comments after the story were interesting also.

The article is titled Here Comes the Next Bubble - Carbon Trading

Make sure you click on the link to Mark Shapiro's article in Harpers. Tech Bubble, Real Estate Bubble, what's next

http://blogs.telegra...carbon-trading/

[Cadillac Jim]

Markia might have said "follow the money" but I know that I mentioned that at one point." You have that much money behind something and the pressure grows on Big Science, i.e. large funded institutions, which are actually business at the end of the day.

Nice article. I didn't know that the "trade" in cap-and-trade was already in place and big bucks in the Kyoto signatory countries, but it stands to reason that the thrust behind global warming would migrate out of the USA and be in a signatory country where lots of money changes hands over the Kyoto protocols.

Note the world map of signatories as of June 2009:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol

Note that the USA has 27% of the world's economy, and thus every other country would have something to gain at the expense of the USA.

[BodybyFisher]

I am encouraged by some of the waking up by Americans that I see in this country and recent victories. Its amazing how far we have let this get out of hand. Here is some maddening information, see link:

The first line reads > The phrase "global warming" refers to the scientific fact that our climate is getting warmer

The Conclusion

The Future of the Kyoto Protocol:

The Kyoto Protocol became legally effective after obtaining support from countries representing 55% of worldwide greenhouse gas pollution. The agreement expires in 2012. It's likely that a new agreement will be proposed in 2012. However, if the US doesn't sign on, and instead chooses to pander to profits and business lobbyists, then the agreement will likely fall apart. China and other large nations would probably follow suit

http://usliberals.ab...otoProtocol.htm

I would think that China would reject this, but if they didn't it will get rolled into the price of products and passed on to consumers. At the same time, I would hope that their labor force starts to stand up and demand better pay, which I think is going on now. There are massive shifts taking place

[WarrenJ]

Here's a little piece of insanity for you...

"A seven-month old baby in Argentina reportedly survived for three days with a bullet wound in her chest.

Francisco Lotero, 56, and Miriam Coletti, 23, shot their baby daughter and toddler son before killing each other in a global-warming inspired suicide pact, the U.K. Daily Mail reports."

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/2010/03/01/13068976-qmi.html

[BodybyFisher]

Insanity, the first thing that caught my eye was 56 and 23, how does that happen? I am 56, I have a son turning 24 in two weeks, marrying a 23 yo does not compute. Oh I know, its a cultural thing, they are in Love, etc... BS, its weird

The fear mongers are winning, with the mentally challenged sheep

[MAC]

Danger lurks as ships freed from Baltic ice

The worst ice in the Baltic since 1996.

Worst ice jam since 1984 clogs St. Clair River

Will this global warming every end?!

[WarrenJ]

Here are two videos of Lord Monckton's recent presentation in Melbourne. If you like sarcasm, you'll enjoy these all the more.

http://www.kingworldnews.com/kingworldnews/KWN_DailyWeb/Entries/2010/2/27_King_World_News__Special_Pre-Release_Interview.html

[CarlaValentine]

Insanity, the first thing that caught my eye was 56 and 23, how does that happen? I am 56, I have a son turning 24 in two weeks, marrying a 23 yo does not compute. Oh I know, its a cultural thing, they are in Love, etc... BS, its weird

The fear mongers are winning, with the mentally challenged sheep

Not to contradict what you said, but I am 24 and my boyfriend is 37, and we are both mature and responsible adults with 5 children between the two of us. 56 and 23 seems a bit too weird to me too, but I honestly think that it's the maturity of the two people involved that makes the difference, not their age. (this excludes age differences in cases of pedophiles and such, cuz that's just wrong). That couple that shot their children could just as easily have been both in their 50's or both in their 20's. Regardless of age, there is no justification for what they did. They both were obviously in need of mental help.

[BodybyFisher]

I am not saying that is was due to their age difference, as you note crazyness is not dependent on age.

What I was saying that their age difference was weird, regardless of how mature the 23 year old is.