Monday, August 30, 2010

Ability of 3rd world countries to get billions of UN global warming funds (ie broke US taxpayer funds) hinges on proving CO2 caused their problems

  • Which is not possible, but the money is transferred anyway.
8/25/10, "Consider this discussion from the New Scientist (emphasis added):

[NCAR's Kevin] Trenberth agrees. "It comes to the question: given that there is a global warming component to an event, is there any way in which you can sue somebody for it? Who do you sue?" He points out, though, that it will always be difficult to rule out natural variation in climate. "It's going to be messy."

It already is. In 2005, victims of hurricane Katrina filed a lawsuit against a group of oil companies, claiming that they had created the environmental conditions in the Gulf of Mexico that strengthened Katrina. The case was dismissed in 2007, after it was ruled that the victims had no standing to sue because the harm could not be traced to individual defendants.
That decision was reversed in 2009.

But in June
this year the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit again dismissed the case, this time because it did not have enough judges to form a quorum. In the process, the judges that were present ruled once more that the plaintiffs had no standing to sue.

There is another reason for finding out how much climate change is to blame for various events.

"Hundreds of billions of dollars are potentially available [in a UN fund] to help developing countries adapt to climate change," says [Oxford' Myles] Allen.
Who gets what share of the funds depends on being able to say which regions have suffered most as a result of climate change. For now, at least, that remains an open question.
Read that last paragraph again. The ability of developing countries to access UN funds for adaptation depends upon their ability to attribute specific events to human-caused climate change from greenhouse gas emissions.
  • this makes the entire policy basis of the fund flawed.
Just imagine the absurd notion of well-meaning UN officials coming to Africa explaining that they have the resources to help, say, malaria victims who have the disease as a result of human-caused climate change, but not any of the other victims of the disease."...
  • via Climate Depot


Saturday, August 21, 2010

Even NOAA adamant Russian fires were 'natural,' cannot be blamed on man

8/13/10 report, NOAA isn't giving up on global warming yet- they'd be out of jobs for starters-but they are adamant that the
  • Russian fires were due to natural causes.
(This part near end of piece):"Despite this strong evidence for a warming planet,
  • greenhouse gas forcing
The natural process of atmospheric blocking, and the climate impacts induced by such blocking,
It is not known whether, or to what extent, greenhouse gas emissions may affect the frequency or intensity of blocking during summer. It is important to note that observations reveal no trend in a daily frequency of July blocking over the period since 1948, nor is there an appreciable trend in the absolute values of upper tropospheric summertime heights over western Russia for the period since 1900."...
  • via Climate Depot
Imaginary global warming casts middle class Americans as climate criminals responsible for sinking islands, for which they must pay billions in reparations immediately and yearly--on a fixed date not open to negotiation--in perpetuity. That they themselves are innocent and broke is of no consequence.


Sunday, August 15, 2010

SatelliteGate, NOAA satellites can be wrong and no one may know it

Recently, a NOAA satellite reported abnormally high temperatures for Lake Michigan which they've now admitted were false. A satellite involved in reporting these numbers may have been scheduled for the scrap heap in 2007 or earlier but was still being used for official data. NOAA made changes to their website as a result of this chain of events over the past several weeks. But no NY Times headline saying NOAA's data is all in doubt and call for an open investigation of all weather satellites.
8/15/10: "WELL DONE to all involved in this SATELLITEGATE expose!
  • It helps explain puzzles many have had including...smoothed world temperatures (both land and reported satellite) over recent years especially this year/last decade (?) seemed 'too high'.
This revelation further confirms something I and Tom Harris said on Russia Today TV Feb (5th) 2010 namely that WE JUST DO NOT reliably KNOW what world temperatures are and have been doing over the last decade or century. See Laura Emmet's superb ClimateGate report here (Video)
  • We do know local things of course like it has been and is very hot in Russia and has been astoundingly cold in parts of South America and Australia compared with normal, but
  • these monstrous data blunders
  • will obscure rational discussion and temperature reportage.
The climate hype industry will do everything in its power to put a lid on this one. Imagine if it were found the satellite data had been reading minus 200F in Michigan etc and that had been used in input for world averages,
coupled with public sackings of the scientists involved and the most dire 'end of the world' warnings possible
  • and redoubled calls for carbon supertaxes.
The key questions are:-
  • Why are ALL the errors and tricks in data collection and processing found since Climategate broke of the sort which make temperatures too high?
  • How bad is this error and how long has it been going on for?
  • What parts of the globe does it mainly concern?
  • WHEN and HOW will we get a reliable world temperature data set; and just WHAT is the best (most reliable) data set around?
  • Could it be that the world temp peak (believed) of around 1998 - 2003 was no higher than that around 1935-1940?
  • Are we actually heading for the next ice age as lake Michagan boils according to [satellite] measurements?!
  • Corbyn also comments on the recent Russian heatwave here. Excerpt:
"The present and recent superheat in Russia, superfloods in Pakistan and supercold in much of South America (Odd we haven't heard much about that bit of 'Climate Change') might be new to them but they are nothing new to the world and are part of essentially PREDICTABLE natural solar-magnetic lunar cycles."
  • via Tom Nelson
8/16 Update, "Top Climate Scientists speak out on the SatelliteGate Scandal," by John O'Sullivan, Canada Free Press, via ClimateDepot
  • ***Update: Another satellite/computer snafu:
8/21/10, BBC, "Computer blow to Europe's Goce Gravity Satellite," by J. Amos
"A senior investigation board at Esa is looking into the root causes of the
  • computer failures,
to understand the implications for other satellite missions....This data will have many applications,
  • especially in the area of climate studies
by bringing new insights into how gravity influences the way ocean waters move and so
  • redistribute heat around the planet."...

Labels: ,

Wednesday, August 11, 2010

Global warming (which includes global cooling) causes heart attacks-BBC

  • Either way, the US middle class is guilty of climate crimes and must pay billions immediately to UN grifters, their relatives, and hedge fund billionaires. ed.
8/10/10, BBC: "Climate change 'will increase heart deaths'" M. Roberts, Health reporter

Climate extremes of hot and cold will become more common and this will puts strain on people's hearts, doctors say.

  • A study in the British Medical Journal found that each 1C temperature drop on a single day in the UK is linked to 200 extra heart attacks.

Heatwaves, meanwhile, increase heart deaths from other causes, as shown by the events in Paris during summer 2003."...


Monday, August 02, 2010

An embarrassing Washington Post global warming editorial. Shady NOAA daily fodder should have been checked...

Yes, we will check and double check the claims that predict our doom. As it happens, we paid for most of the 'research,' too. So we will check it again. No offense. (Paraphrasing Marc Sheppard).
Climatologist Roger Pielke Sr. notes words of Nobel Prize winner Phil Jones opposing those of the Washington Post. By now it is widely known that there is no evidence of use of independent sets of raw land surface temperature data accepted and used by NOAA, the UN, the UK, or the EPA. They have all used the same government generated raw data (reference report at end of this post by Marc Sheppard of American Thinker.** Or, "American Stinker" as a ClimateGate emailer refers to it (10/5/09). And the data was obtained from increasingly fewer station sites and subject to adjustments made by government employees.
  • (In the case Mr. Pielke cites, it's not a matter of understanding science. It's promoting sensational material issued on a day to day basis without researching it a little):
"There is an editorial today in the Washington Post titled “The truth about global warming” which illustrates the failure of the author of this editorial to properly investigate claims in the NOAA report regarding the climate system.
The article writes

If the land surface records were systematically flawed

  • then it would be almost impossible to explain the concurrent changes in this
  • wide range of indicators produced

With respect to the land surface temperature record [which is the primary metric used to diagnose global warming by NOAA],

We have reported on this in peer-reviewed papers (e.g. see) and on this weblog (e.g. see and see).

As Phil Jones himself has reported (see Section 7)

The raw surface temperature data from which all of the different global surface temperature trend analyses are derived

  • are essentially the same.
  • The best estimate that has been reported is that 90–95% of the raw data in each of the analyses
  • is the same (P. Jones, personal communication, 2003).”

It is widely agreed that there has been warming of the climate system, as is more appropriately monitored by the changes in upper ocean heat content (see, see and see).

  • However, the quantitative value of this warming as measured by the global and land surface temperature trends from different groups
  • are NOT independent from each other.

Indeed, there is peer reviewed research that indicates an overstatement of the magnitude of the warming as a result of a

Klotzbach, P.J., R.A. Pielke Sr., R.A. Pielke Jr., J.R. Christy, and R.T. McNider, 2009: An alternative explanation for differential temperature trends at the surface and in the lower troposphere. J. Geophys. Res., 114, D21102, doi:10.1029/2009JD011841.

Klotzbach, P.J., R.A. Pielke Sr., R.A. Pielke Jr., J.R. Christy, and R.T. McNider, 2010: Correction to: “An alternative explanation for differential temperature trends at the surface and in the lower troposphere. J. Geophys. Res., 114, D21102, doi:10.1029/2009JD011841″, J. Geophys. Res., 115, D1, doi:10.1029/2009JD013655

The NOAA report is in error in their claim and the Washington Post

  • without a proper investigation of its validity.

I will have a post on the other claims in the NOAA report in an upcoming post." ****

  • My notes on the Washington Post's endless entanglement with profits and politics of so-called global warming:

Married to the mob, the Washington Post's 'environmental' "reporter" Juliet Eilperin is married to

whose work at CAP's Global Climate Network is patronized by UN climate boss/lobbyist/steamy romance novelist, Rajendra Pachauri.

"Scientists must promote their ideas to politicians and the public in order to create a world that is "ecologically sound, economically feasible and socially just," she (Pew fellow Lubchenco*) argued." (italics mine, ed.)
  • *Jane Lubchenco promoted by Obama to head of NOAA:
12/18/08, "Lubchenco will helm National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration," Washington Post, Juliet Eilperin 7/13/10, "Lawyer cites ethics issues with NOAA Counsel funds," Gloucester Times, Richard Gainesfrom Marc Sheppard, American Thinker, 1/22/10:
  • "NOAA – Data In / Garbage Out

"Although satellite temperature measurements have been available since 1978, most global temperature analyses still rely on data captured from land-based thermometers, scattered more or less about the planet. It is that data which NOAA receives and disseminates – although not before performing some sleight-of-hand on it.

  • Smith has done much of the heavy lifting involved in analyzing the NOAA/GISS data and software, and he chronicles his often frustrating experiences at his fascinating website. There, detail-seekers will find plenty to satisfy, divided into easily-navigated sections — some designed specifically for us “geeks,” but most readily approachable to readers of all technical strata.

Perhaps the key point discovered by Smith was that by 1990, NOAA had deleted from its datasets all but 1,500 of the 6,000 thermometers in service around the globe.
Now, 75% represents quite a drop in sampling population, particularly considering that these stations provide the readings used to compile both the Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN) and United States Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) datasets. These are the same datasets, incidentally, which serve as primary sources of temperature data not only for climate researchers and universities worldwide, but also for the many international agencies using the data to create analytical temperature anomaly maps and charts.

  • Yet as disturbing as the number of dropped stations was, it is the nature of NOAA’s “selection bias” that Smith found infinitely more troubling.

It seems that stations placed in historically cooler, rural areas of higher latitude and elevation were scrapped from the data series in favor of more urban locales at lower latitudes and elevations. Consequently, post-1990 readings have been biased to the warm side not only by selective geographic location, but also by the anthropogenic heating influence of a phenomenon known as the Urban Heat Island Effect (UHI).

  • For example, Canada’s reporting stations dropped from 496 in 1989 to 44 in 1991, with the percentage of stations at lower elevations tripling while the numbers of those at higher elevations dropped to one. That’s right: As Smith wrote in his blog, they left “one thermometer for everything north of LAT 65.” And that one resides in a place called Eureka, which has been described as “The Garden Spot of the Arctic” due to its unusually moderate summers.

Smith also discovered that in California, only four stations remain – one in San Francisco and three in Southern L.A. near the beach – and he rightly observed that

It is certainly impossible to compare it with the past record that had thermometers in the snowy mountains. So we can have no idea if California is warming or cooling by looking at the USHCN data set or the GHCN data set.

That’s because the baseline temperatures to which current readings are compared were a true averaging of both warmer and cooler locations. And comparing these historic true averages to contemporary false averages – which have had the lower end of their numbers intentionally stripped out –
  • will always yield a warming trend, even when temperatures have actually dropped.
Overall, U.S. online stations have dropped from a peak of 1,850 in 1963 to a low of 136 as of 2007. In his blog, Smith wittily observed that “the Thermometer Langoliers have eaten 9/10 of the thermometers in the USA[,] including all the cold ones in California.” But he was deadly serious after comparing current to previous versions of USHCN data and discovering that this
  • “selection bias” creates a +0.6°C warming in U.S. temperature history.
And no wonder — imagine the accuracy of campaign tracking polls were Gallup to include only the replies of Democrats in their statistics. But it gets worse.

adjust for time of day heat variance, and “homogenize” stations with their neighbors in order to compensate for discontinuities. This last one, they state, is accomplished by essentially adjusting each to jive closely with the mean of its five closest “neighbors.”

  • But given the plummeting number of stations, and the likely disregard for the latitude, elevation, or UHI of such neighbors,

it’s no surprise that such “homogenizing” seems to always result in warmer readings."...

We would be nuts "to surrender our freedoms, our economic growth, and even our simplest comforts to duplicitous zealots before checking and
  • via ClimateDepot