The right strategy wins the war Gifts, gadgets, weather stations, software and here!\
The Blogosphere
Sunday, July 06, 2008
Sea Ice - the Stretch Run

By Steve McIntyre, Climate Audit

For anyone who’s betting that 2008 meltback will exceed 2007 meltback, I think that you’ll be able to pretty much know where you stand by the end of this week and your chances are not looking good right now based on this week’s exit polls. Another Climate Audit first.

The plot below shows the daily meltback for the last 5 years. 2007 is in red, 2008 in black. Notice the surge in 2007 at the end of June and beginning of July. We’re at julian day 182 today - July 2, 2008.

Daily melt (in million sq km). Negative numbers represent ice growth. See larger graph here

The most intense melt occurred last year between day 179 (June 29) and day 184 (July 4) with 160,000 sq km meltback on day 182 (July 2) and over 200,000 sq km on day 183 (July 3). This year is a leap year, so that July 2 is already day 182 and was only 90,000 sq km. As of yesterday, 2008 was about 510,000 sq km behind 2007 and it looks like it is losing ground day by day in the first week of July - a big melt week where it has to make time. Read more here.

Icecap Note: Steve promises more updates on Climate Audit this important week. See the side by side ice coverage from the University of Illinois Cryosphere site last year and this year (a leap year so a day earlier) here. And see the daily anomaly plot here.

See the NSIDC plot here as we fall behind 2007.
See larger graph here

Note last summer was characterized by an anomalous warm blocking high pressure on the Siberian coast. This year, there has been a cold polar trough migrating around the Arctic basin. Notice the difference in surface temperatures. Some of this offshore difference of course is due to open water last year that is still frozen this year.

Arctic surface temperature anomalies Mid-June to July 2, 2007 vs 2008). See larger graphic here

Posted on 07/06 at 01:26 AM
(931) TrackbacksPermalink

Friday, July 04, 2008
There is No Evidence Man-Made CO2 Causes Climate Change

By Dr. Kelvin Kemm, Engineering News

During 2008, have we seen many stories in the newspapers about 2007 being particularly warm as a result of global warming? During 2006, the doomsters were predicting that 2007 would be the hottest year on record, so why have we seen no reports about this? The answer is simple - 2007 turned out to be the coolest year for 30 years. It is also the case that there has been no global warming since 1998. In fact, since 1998, there has been steady cooling. Even more dramatic is the fact that the most recent computer model predictions indicate that there will be no more global warming for the next ten years. But the doomsters say that, after this ten-year period, global warming will come back with a vengeance. Why? Certainly, mankind’s production of carbon dioxide (CO2) has continued to increase since 1998 and will continue to increase, particularly since countries such as China and India say that their economic growth comes first, so they do not intend worrying too much about CO2 production. I have repeatedly pointed out that there is little or no link between CO2 production by mankind and a rise in global temperature. In fact, indications are that it is the opposite - an increased temperature causes more CO2 to be ejected into the atmosphere.

In the time of the Viking settlements on Greenland, about 1 000 years ago, there was a period of warming. That is why the Viking settlements flourished and they could grow grapes and maize, which puzzled the archaeologists. Then it cooled, and the last Viking supply ship arrived at the settlements in 1410, after which it all froze up. The world then experienced the Little Ice Age, during the time of Shakespeare and Jan van Riebeeck. The Thames froze over, and there was a period of economic decline, in comparison to the economic boom during the Medieval period of global warming. There was also an earlier warming period, known as the Roman Warming, during the period of Roman economic prosperity. All of this warming and cooling happened without any contribution from any man-made CO2.

See larger image courtesy Bob Carter 2007 here.

Indications in our modern times are that the warming observed up to the end of 2006 has been due to a natural cycle in the intensity of the sun. This was, by all indications, the same source of warming of the Medieval and Roman Warming periods. But now South Africa wants to impose a carbon tax aimed at cutting South Africa’s emission of greenhouse gases. I think this is wrong. The tax, I am told, is to incentivise the use of renewable sources of power, such as wind, solar and hydro. This is crazy too. I am all in favour of wind and solar, but only if such sources can stand on their own two feet in economic competition to our coal-fired power. To fake the economics is to do damage to our exports, and to the lifestyle of every citizen. There is little or no indication that man-made CO2 is causing any climate change. There has been no global warming since 1998. The warming that did happen during the twentieth century happened mainly between 1920 and 1940. The year 2007 was the coolest year for 30 years.For us to go with the flow, or dive into a panic mode, is crazy. Let us look after the health and welfare of our people first. This does not mean being irresponsible about any sources of pollution from industrial operations or any other activities. It means using genuine science, and not the scare tactics of world political manipulators, to come to really sensible conclusions Read more here.

Dr. Kelvin Kemm, formerly a scientist at South Africa’s Atomic Energy Corporation

Posted on 07/04 at 02:49 PM
(777) TrackbacksPermalink

Harsh Winters Force Mongolian Horsemen to Abandon Nomadic Life

By Hazel Southam, UK Telegraph

Mongolia is one of the toughest places on earth to live and can boast the coldest capital - Ulaanbaatar - on the planet. Temperatures drop to at least -30C in winter. The country is frozen from November to March. But four climactic disasters, known as ‘dzuds’, since 1999 have made life almost impossible for even the toughest of Mongolia’s nomadic people who roam over a country three times the size of France. Three particularly harsh winters since 2000 have killed a third of the nation’s livestock.

In 2001, the temperature dropped to a record-breaking -57C. Some 15,000 herders lost all of their animals through starvation and cold, and with them, their money and food. More than a quarter of the 2.6m population has left the vast rural areas, where herdsmen have lived since before Ghengis Khan’s empire was established in the 13th century, and have fled in desperation to the cities.

Among them is Byambaa Nurdev (22) a former herder in the Gobi Desert. She and her husband Tumenbayar (31) had some 600-700 sheep and goats, making them relatively wealthy. But between 2002-2005 they lost every single animal. Mongolia’s image as a land of nomadic herdsmen may be about to change for good as harsh weather conditions threaten their traditional way of life and bring more herdsmen off the land into an uncertain urban future. Read more here.

Larger image here

We may just face a planetary emergency after all—Global COOLING!

By Hazel Southam, UK Telegraph

Mongolia is one of the toughest places on earth to live and can boast the coldest capital - Ulaanbaatar - on the planet. Temperatures drop to at least -30C in winter. The country is frozen from November to March. But four climactic disasters, known as ‘dzuds’, since 1999 have made life almost impossible for even the toughest of Mongolia’s nomadic people who roam over a country three times the size of France. Three particularly harsh winters since 2000 have killed a third of the nation’s livestock.

In 2001, the temperature dropped to a record-breaking -57C. Some 15,000 herders lost all of their animals through starvation and cold, and with them, their money and food. More than a quarter of the 2.6m population has left the vast rural areas, where herdsmen have lived since before Ghengis Khan’s empire was established in the 13th century, and have fled in desperation to the cities.

Among them is Byambaa Nurdev (22) a former herder in the Gobi Desert. She and her husband Tumenbayar (31) had some 600-700 sheep and goats, making them relatively wealthy. But between 2002-2005 they lost every single animal. Mongolia’s image as a land of nomadic herdsmen may be about to change for good as harsh weather conditions threaten their traditional way of life and bring more herdsmen off the land into an uncertain urban future. Read more here.

Larger image here

We may just face a planetary emergency after all—Global COOLING!

Posted on 07/04 at 02:06 AM
(627) TrackbacksPermalink

Tuesday, July 01, 2008
When Prophecy Fails

By Chris Horner, Planet Gore

The Bret Stephens piece that Ed Craig excerpts below also brings to mind the work of Leon Festinger, whose pioneering work on cognitive dissonance theory is so applicable to a movement whose noisiest champions often lead the most incompatible lifestyles imaginable.  Festinger co-wrote (with Henry W. Riecken and Stanley Schachter) the 1956 book When Prophecy Fails, which chronicled a fairly typical cult following: a housewife claimed to be receiving doomsday messages from aliens, who nonetheless offered hope for those who listened to their counsel. (Quick, someone check James Hansen’s immigration status, and bone up on the Alien Tort Claims Act climate litigation.)

Festinger et al. detailed how the failure of a prophecy to come about can often yield the opposite effect of what the rational person would expect: the cult following gets stronger and its adherents ever more convinced of their truth. One reading of Festinger, as to why the rational response should not follow in that situation, is that such prophesying is not rational, or the act of rational beings. We should not have been surprised with the current mantra, of “Cooling? Why, that’s just another sign of warming.” It is the logical next step of a movement neatly captured by Greenpeace’s Steven Guilbeault’s incantation, “Global warming can mean colder; it can mean drier; it can mean wetter; that’s what we’re dealing with.”

Beam me up.

Festinger deliciously penned the following assessment about this phenomenon: A man with a conviction is a hard man to change. Tell him you disagree and he turns away. Show him facts or figures and he questions your sources. Appeal to logic and he fails to see your point. We have all experienced the futility of trying to change a strong conviction, especially if the convinced person has some investment in his belief. We are familiar with the variety of ingenious defenses with which people protect their convictions, managing to keep them unscathed through the most devastating attacks. But man’s resourcefulness goes beyond simply protecting a belief. Suppose an individual believes something with his whole heart; suppose further that he has a commitment to this belief, that he has taken irrevocable actions because of it; finally, suppose that he is presented with evidence, unequivocal and undeniable evidence, that his belief is wrong: what will happen? The individual will frequently emerge, not only unshaken, but even more convinced of the truth of his beliefs than ever before. Indeed, he may even show a new fervor about convincing and converting other people to his view.

As a meteorologist colleague commented to me last night about a recent manifestation of precisely this, “these people are no different than the guys sitting around waiting for the spaceship.”

Chris Horner is author of “The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming and Environmentalism”

See Chris’s blog here. See Wall Street Journal editorial ”Global Warming as Mass Neurosis” by Bret Stephens. See earlier Icecap Post On “Why Bringing Sanity Back on Climate Change Won’t Be Easy” here

Posted on 07/01 at 06:12 PM
(1) TrackbacksPermalink

Questioning Science

Mainstream Media Surprise: Australian Ch. 9 TV hosts global warming debate!

The theory of anthropogenic, or man-made, global warming has become an unchallengeable fact, a piece of black letter law almost unique in the world of science. Proponents of the theory say the time for scientific debate is over. It would irresponsible to fund any further research into counter views on the relationship between elevated levels of carbon dioxide and a rise in temperatures since the mid-1970s. It’s regarded as career suicide for scientists to advocate any counter view of the causes of global warming, let alone deny the orthodox consensus view as adopted by the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

However, there is a school of thought that our knowledge of climate systems is as yet insufficient to be so conclusive on the causes of global warming. Today Sunday examines the political consensus building that has portrayed global warming as the most urgent crisis humankind has ever faced. Skeptics point to the gaps in the knowledge base and the flaws in the measurement of vital climate and weather data upon which the consensus is based. Social researchers also highlight the dangers of conducting science as a form of religion, divided into believers and deniers.

They warn that as governments prepare to make expensive policy decisions, such as carbon emissions trading schemes, this consensus may not reflect the best science. See this story here.

See part 1 video here. See part 2 video here. See also Andrew Bolt’s ”Warming Priests Defrocked on Sunday”.

Posted on 07/01 at 05:52 PM
(0) TrackbacksPermalink

Sunday, June 29, 2008
Hansen Unhinged

By Patrick J. Michaels

This week marks 20 years since NASA’s James E. Hansen testified before a joint Congressional hearing that there was a strong “cause and effect” relationship between “current” climate conditions and emissions of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Current conditions in 1988 were a big heat wave and drought in the eastern U.S. The public bit. Two days later, 70 percent of the respondents to a CNN poll agreed with the proposition that 1988’s misery was caused by global warming. Yet in fact, no climate scientist can ever blame an individual weather event, like a heat wave or drought, on global warming.

Hansen’s testimony that year included a graph of annual temperatures, with a dramatic spike on the last point, the January-May temperatures. He knew, as does any scientist, that a sample of monthly data will vary much more than year-to-year temperatures, and that monthly data could give a false impression of extremely hot (or cold) conditions, compared to annual temperatures. Hansen has long employed stagecraft for political gain. On June 23, 1988, he delivered his testimony in an unusually toasty hearing room. Why was it so warm? As then-Sen. Tim Wirth (D., Colo.), told ABC’s Frontline: “We went in the night before and opened all the windows, I will admit, right, so that the air conditioning wasn’t working inside the room . . . it was really hot.”

Every climate scientist knows there’s been no - zero - net change in surface temperatures in the last ten years, as shown in the climate history of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. None of Hansen’s valid 1988 models predict what’s actually happened. He simply predicted too much warming, especially for the last ten years. Why should we believe what he forecasts for the rest of the 21st century?

Hansen’s 1988 predictions were flatly wrong about the extent of global warming. Yet on the 20th anniversary of his original testimony, Hansen said that people “should be tried for high crimes against humanity and nature” for spreading doubts about the promised global warming holocaust. He named names, too: the CEOs of ExxonMobil and Peabody Energy. Excuse me, Inquisitor Hansen, but what exactly are their crimes against humanity? Being demonstrably wrong about climate science?

Speaking of crimes, what about the Hatch Act, which prohibits federal employees from electioneering? In the hotly contested state of Iowa, on October 26, 2004, Hansen gave a public speech in which he stated that “John Kerry has a far better grasp than President Bush on the important issues that we face.” Kerry lost Iowa by a mere 10,000 votes. Yet Hansen persists. He recently said “the 2008 election is critical for the planet. If Americans turn out to pasture the most brontosaurian congressmen,” maybe we’ll be able to save the planet from the doom he envisions this century. Hansen also wants to tax fossil fuels, making them much more expensive than they are already.  So even though he predicted too much global warming, and his numbers couldn’t explain the ten-year hiatus we’ve experienced, Hansen keeps trying to sway presidential and congressional contests. And he wants to incarcerate any CEO (or scientist, probably) who casts doubt on his vision in public.

The fact of the matter is: Hansen is out of control. NASA employees aren’t supposed to call for tax hikes, endorse candidates, or attack businessmen. Any other federal employee would be warned for doing so, and if he continued, fired (or worse). You have to hand it to him, though: he’s a single, scientific outlier, terrorizing the American people. Read more here.

Patrick J. Michaels is senior fellow in Environmental Studies at the Cato Institute.

Posted on 06/29 at 06:15 PM
(0) TrackbacksPermalink

Tuesday, June 24, 2008
James Hansen: Abusing the Public Trust

By Brian Sussman, The American Thinker

Monday, James Hansen, Director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), addressed Congress and brought a new twist to his tired global warming song and dance routine.  Hansen now seems to be calling for the chief executives of Big Oil to be tried for high crimes against humanity.  Their crime?  Spreading doubt about global warming. 

Actually, it is Hansen who is guilty. Guilty of abusing the public trust. Examine the largess culled by Hansen.

In 2001, the Heinz Foundation “awarded” James Hansen with a payment of $250,000 for his work on global warming.  According to the foundation: “It was Dr. Hansen who, in the sweltering, drought-scorched summer of 1988, went where few scientists were willing to go-before Congress, to explain just how serious the potential for global warming truly was.” The Heinz Foundation, directed by the wife of U.S. Senator and former presidential candidate, John Kerry, is widely known for its support of liberal causes. Is it any surprise that James Hansen also endorsed John Kerry for President in 2004?  The quarter of a million was just a tease of additional monies to come. 

In 2007, Hansen split a $1 million prize from the Dan David prize category of “Future Quest for Energy” (layman’s translation:  a world without oil).  In addition he also reported to have acted as a consultant to Gore’s global whining slide show, which was the impetus to the Prince of Peace’s film, “An Inconvenient Truth.” In fact, in 2006 Hansen had the gall to appear on a New York City stage with Mr. Gore to promote the then upcoming film-though he did reportedly inform the audience, “I’m not speaking as a government employee.”

Topping it all, Hansen has allegedly received hundreds of thousands of additional dollars to further politicize the issue of global warming.  According to Investors Business Daily, “How many people, for instance, know that James Hansen, a man billed as a lonely ‘NASA whistleblower’ standing up to the mighty U.S. government, was really funded by [George] Soros’ Open Society Institute (OSI), which gave him ‘legal and media advice’?  That’s right, Hansen was packaged for the media by Soros’ flagship ‘philanthropy’ by as much as $720,000, most likely under the OSI’s ‘politicization of science’ program.” Hansen denied any relationship with OSI, but Investor’s Business Daily refused to back off on their story, “claiming the funding first passed through the Government Accountability Project, which then used it to package Hansen for the media.”

With that kind of cash allegedly lining his pockets, do you think that Hansen will ever allow the data that he is charged with maintaining to point to anything but disaster? In talk-radio such conflicting activities would be deemed “payola” with the guilty party booted out the door.  For the sake of truth, and the proper use of the taxpayer’s dollar, James Hansen needs to be relieved of his NASA duties.  Show Mr. Hansen the door—for the sake of humanity. Read much more here.

Posted on 06/24 at 08:38 PM
(0) TrackbacksPermalink

Monday, June 23, 2008
Hansen’s Anniversary Testimony

By Joseph D’Aleo, CCM, AMS Fellow

On June 23, 1988 James Hansen, Astronomer by degree but climatologist by self appointment testified in front of congress. It was an orchestrated testimony coordinated by Senator Al Gore and a Senator from Colorado, Tim Wirth (now running Ted Turner’s UN Foundation) who admitted they picked the day after calling the National Weather Service to ensure it was a hot day. He admitted proudly later they opened all the windows the night before, making air conditioning ineffective and making sure all involved including Hansen would be seen mopping their brow for maximum effect. Hansen testified “Number one, the earth is warmer in 1988 than at any time in the history of instrumental measurements. Number two, the global warming is now large enough that we can ascribe, with a high degree of confidence, a cause-and-effect relationship to the greenhouse effect.”

See in the story below how hard Hansen has worked to try and make his prognostication verify by manipulating data. By his own comments to the UK Guardian “When you are in that kind of position, as the CEO of one the primary players who have been putting out misinformation even via organisations that affect what gets into school textbooks, then I think that’s a crime.” Well the disinformation that comprises the GISS data then by his own words is a crime, and in his own words he “should be put on trial for high crimes against humanity and nature”.

Here is the plot of actual NASA global satellite monthly temperatures since June 1988. Note the anomaly in May 2008 was lower than in June 1988 by nearly 0.3C. Of course, we don’t have June 2008 numbers yet. Please note I am not saying that cooling began in 1988. Satellites show clearly that since 1979 there was a moderate warming which peaked in 1998. A cooling has taken place the last 6 to 7 years. Global station and ocean data with all its warts shows the warming from the early 1900s to the 1930s, cooling from the 1940s to the 1970s then warming again peaking in 1998. I am just making an observation that it is ironic that 20 years after his first testimony about global warming, it is half a degree F oooler globally, not supporting the drastic measure he advocates. Also we can explain not only the trends but each spike or dip with some natural phenomena as we have shown in recent posts.

See larger image here

His testimony will no doubt include reference to upcoming or ongoing dangerous rises in sea level and ignore the data. His radio interview today on the Diane Rehm show this AM on WAMU in Washington DC, (audio links here) provides a preview of what he will tell congress.

See larger image here

He will also no doubt repeat his claim he is being muzzled. He confuses a muzzle with a megaphone as shown by this table of actual Hansen media references by year (thanks to Roger Pielke Jr. on Prometheus).

See larger image here.

Today unlike in June 1988, temperatures will be near normal in DC with temperatures in the 70s and 80s with thunderstorms. The last two weeks have averaged 2 degrees below normal. See much more on Hansen and history with this movement here.

Posted on 06/23 at 06:04 PM
(2631) TrackbacksPermalink

Correct the Corrections: The GISS Urban Adjustment

By Ken Gregory of Friends of Science

NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS) publishes a global temperature index. The temperature record is contaminated by the effects of urban development and land use changes. NASA applies an “urbanization adjustment” to adjust the temperature histories to eliminate these effects. The resulting GISS temperature index is supposed to represent what the temperatures would have been in the absence of urbanization and land use changes. Most scientists assume that these adjustments are done correctly. The index is used to show that CO2 emissions are causing climate change.

An audit by researcher Steve McIntyre reveals that NASA has made urban adjustments of temperature data in its GISS temperature record in the wrong direction. The temperatures in urban areas are generally warmer than in rural areas. McIntyre classified the 7364 weather stations in the GISS world-wide network into various categories depending on the direction of the urban adjustment. NASA has applied a “negative urban adjustment” to 45% of the urban station measurements (where adjustments are made), meaning that the adjustments makes the warming trends steeper. The table below shows the number of negative and positive adjustments made to the station temperature trends.

See full size image here

The urban adjustment is supposed to remove the effects of urbanization, but the NASA negative adjustments increases the urbanization effects. The result is that the surface temperature trend utilized by the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is exaggerated.

See full size image here

Satellite data is free of urbanization effects and provide truly global coverage continually. Previous problems with satellite drift affecting temperature calculations have been corrected. Newer satellites have station keeping capability and do not drift. The satellite data is much superior to land measurement. The satellite global temperature trend from 2002 to May 2008 is a decline of 0.25 Celsius per decade, significant global cooling for over 6 years. Read Ken’s full report here. See this informative post by Steve McIntyre here on the NASA urban fiasco. Also other reasons why GISS is warmest here.

Posted on 06/23 at 04:36 PM
(5) TrackbacksPermalink

Sunday, June 22, 2008
“Saturated Greenhouse Effect” Wrecks Climate models

By Ken Gregory of Friends of Science

The paper, Greenhouse Effect in Semi-Transparent Planetary Atmospheres by Ferenc M. Miskolczi shows that the current greenhouse effect equations are incomplete because they do not include the correct boundary conditions. The new theory presented in this paper shows that the atmosphere maintains a “saturated” greenhouse effect, controlled by water vapor content. There is no physics, no equations in the models that determines the strength of the greenhouse effect. Parameters are just set to obtain the observed temperature. The greenhouse effect is dominated by water vapour, so how it changes with increasing CO2 is critical. All the General Circulation Models (GCM) or more commonly called Global Climate Models just set: Relative humidity = constant (or various parameters to achieve the same effect.)

There is no physics in support of this assumption, and no way to calculate its value from first principles. This assumption means that if temperatures increase for any reason, the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere increases. But water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas, so the greenhouse effect becomes stronger and temperatures increase more. The current theory does not determine this - it is only an assumption. 

Here is a graph of global average annual relative humidity at various elevations in the atmosphere expressed in milli-bars (mb) from 300 mb to 700 mb for the period 1948 to 2007. The data is from the NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory here.

See larger graph here

Indeed a NASA-funded study here found some climate models might be overestimating the amount of water vapor entering the atmosphere as the Earth warms. They found the increases in water vapor were not as high as many climate-forecasting computer models have assumed. In most computer models relative humidity tends to remain fixed at current levels. “The increases in water vapor with warmer temperatures are not large enough to maintain a constant relative humidity,” Minschwaner said.

Dr. Roy Spencer’s article Global Warming and Nature’s Thermostat here, describes the role of precipitation systems in controlling the greenhouse effect. It is an extension of extension of Richard Lindzen’s “Infrared Iris” hypothesis. Dr. Spencer says we don’t know why the greenhouse effect is limited to its current value. The new Miskolczi theory of the greenhouse effect provides the detailed explanation of why the greenhouse effect is limited to its current value for a constant external Sun forcing. Adding CO2 to the atmosphere just replaces an equivalent amount of water vapour to maintain a constant greenhouse effect.

Read much more of this detailed review here.

Posted on 06/22 at 05:13 AM
(0) TrackbacksPermalink

Saturday, June 21, 2008
Days Turn the Corner Toward Darkness

By Beth Bragg, Anchorage Daily News

After solstice today, it’s all downhill to winter. At 3:59 this afternoon, the sun will reach its northernmost point above the celestial equator and we’ll mark the official summer solstice. Many calendars note the solstice by calling it the first day of summer, but Alaskans know better. Today at 3:59 p.m., Alaska will make a U-turn and head straight toward winter as days start getting shorter.

Which is a shame, seeing how summer so far has been Missing in Action.

We are deep in June and, as of Thursday, the temperature has yet to hit 70 degrees at the National Weather Service’s observation point near the airport, where daily highs and lows are recorded. It hit 67 on Tuesday near the airport, the highest official. We haven’t had to wait this long for a 70-degree day since 1993, when the mercury hit the 70s for the first time on June 19th. Welcome to a record-breaker. Rah.

Beth Schlabaugh, president of the Alaska Master Gardeners Association’s Anchorage chapter, said lots of green things are off kilter because of summer’s delay."Definitely we’re seeing a much later season this year,” she said. “Everyone has talked to me about things being two to three weeks behind schedule.” Roses have been late to break dormancy, she said. Irises and lilacs are only now showing up, and not everywhere. Seeds are slow to germinate.

The cool weather will be a blessing to runners who will spend Saturday morning running 26.2 miles in the Mayor’s Midnight Sun Marathon. “Probably the best weather is somewhere between 40 and 60 degrees,” said Will Kimball, a two-time winner of the marathon. “You want cool.” Kimball is calling this “the summer of the cold breeze.” “Often it looks pleasant,” he said, “but that breeze has got a cold nip to it.”

See full time image here.

Posted on 06/21 at 01:11 AM
(0) TrackbacksPermalink

Friday, June 20, 2008
The ‘Idle’ Oil Field Fallacy

By Red Cavaney, Wall Street Journal

A bill introduced in Congress this week would “compel” oil and natural gas companies to produce from federal lands they are leasing. If only it were that easy to find and produce oil. Imagine, an act of Congress that could do what geology could not. These lawmakers ask why oil and gas companies want more access to federal lands to drill if they aren’t using all of the 68 million acres they already have? Anyone with even the most basic understanding of how oil and natural gas are produced - and this should include many members of Congress - knows that claims of “idle” leases are a diversionary feint.

Our companies have made tremendous strides in developing cutting-edge exploration technology. But they are not magicians. They cannot produce oil or natural gas where it does not exist. A significant percentage of federal leases simply may not contain oil and natural gas, especially in commercial quantities. As I’ve often said, the first step in our business is called “exploration” for a reason. Exploration is time consuming, very costly and involves a great deal of risk. And it happens in the minds of those who use the undeveloped-lease argument as a smokescreen to mask their intent to keep America’s vast energy resources locked up underground, despite increasingly strong consumer demand for oil and natural gas. For exploration to take place, our companies need access to the areas - offshore and onshore - that we know have the potential to produce the oil and natural gas consumers will need, if ours is to remain a viable economy in an increasingly competitive global marketplace.

Today’s short-term need was yesterday’s long-term opportunity. If Congress had acted on that opportunity years ago, America would not be in the energy bind it finds itself in today. Working with industry, Congress now has the opportunity to help secure America’s energy future. It should not miss the chance again. Read more here.

Mr. Cavaney is president and CEO of the American Petroleum Institute, the trade association that represents America’s oil and natural gas industry.

Posted on 06/20 at 08:56 PM
(0) TrackbacksPermalink

Thursday, June 19, 2008
May Global Data All In - NASA GISS Biggest Outlier Again

By Joseph D’Aleo, CCM, AMS Fellow

All the data sources have now reported for global May temperatures with Hadley coming in today. University of Alabama MSU was the coldest with a -0.18C. RSS MSS was a close second with -0.083C. Hadley had a +0.278C and NASA GISS came in at +0.36C.

UAH and RSS MSU satellite data uses a base period (period over which monthly climatological averages are computed for the purposes of then determining departures from normal for any given month) of 1979-1998.  NASA GISS uses the coldest period of the last century 1951 to 1980. Hadley uses 1961 to 1990 as a base period (with two cold decades and one increasingly warm). NCDC in their USHCN uses the entire period of record (back to 1895), in my mind probably the most reasonable since it includes two cold and two warm periods. Your local NWS uses the latest three complete decades (1971 to 2000) for it averages and to compute departures from normal. That is the long established standard for the local offices. You see there are no agreed to standards for the longer term records, so at least for anomalies, we are always comparing apples with oranges with pears with plums.

Obviously satellite provides the best coverage of the all but the polar land and oceans. The other data bases in addition to their differences in base periods, are at the mercy of the country governments data collection and have huge holes in the data over land and very spotty imperfect ocean temperature measurements, especially in the Southern Hemisphere.

There are other major issues with the global data bases. 2/3rds pf the world’s station dropped out after 1990 and the number of missing months in places like Asia and Africa increased tenfold. Siting has been shown so well by Anthony Watts at to ba an issue with more than 2/3rds of the United States stations poorly sited. The importance of urbanization is underestimated thanks to the flawed research of Peterson and Parker in all the global surface data bases. Numerous peer-reviewed studies have shown that surface data bases may overestimate warming by up to 50%. And then there is the issue of the oceans which each of the data centers treat differently and now will likely change the data to better reflect a more gradual changeover from buckets to ship intakes. See more on that issue in Steve McIntyre’s Lost at Sea here.

See larger image here

All four plotted data sets, yes even GISS, shows a decline since 2002. GISS has the largest positive anomaly because it uses the coldest base period. Satellites, the coldest since, their base period (by chance) was in the warmest decades (of the positive PDO with most El Ninos).  Note how well the temperature variations have tied to the variations of ENSO (El Nino) in just the last decade, in this case using the Mulitvariate ENSO Index (MEI) of CDC’s Wolter. ENSO and the longer term PDO are the real drivers for decadal climate change, used to support the greenhouse gang from 1979 to around 2002 but now has them on the defensive. If the cooling continues as we believe it will, they will have to resort to even more creative data manipulation to keep the hoax alive. But this will become increasingly apparent because they have no control over the satellite measurements.

See larger image here

Posted on 06/19 at 03:15 AM
(0) TrackbacksPermalink

Wednesday, June 18, 2008
NASA Mission Poised to Help Us Gauge Our Rising Seas

NASA Mission Seas

Icecap Note: You will note the Hansen influence on this story. Instead of just reporting the facts, they have to repeat the talking points of the alarmist agenda. We support NASA’s and NOAA’s technology attempts and the work of Willis et al. We hope the data from the new satellites is not subject to the so called “quality assurance” adjustments GISS and NCDC are so famous for with their outlier GISS/GHCN data bases.  Let the data speak for itself.

Global sea level has risen 20 centimeters (eight inches) in the past 100 years, and the rate of rise is predicted to accelerate as Earth warms. Melting ice from Greenland and Antarctica could raise sea level more than one meter (three feet) over the next century. One obvious threat is inundation, or loss of land to rising water. Other consequences are more complex, but equally problematic--a warmer ocean can fuel more intense storms; environmental changes can adversely affect ocean life, such as coral reefs and fisheries; and alterations in ocean currents can trigger radical changes in Earth’s climate.

The best hope for anticipating the future is to understand the past and present. For global sea level, the first step has been to measure it accurately, a challenge in itself. Records of global sea level in the past come from averaging tide gauge readings from many locations. But since the launch of Topex/Poseidon in 1992, followed by Jason-1 in 2001, scientists have had a precise measurement of the height of the global ocean every 10 days. Now the Ocean Surface Topography Mission/Jason-2, scheduled to launch June 20 from California’s Vandenberg Air Force Base, will continue this critical task.

For a closer look at ocean heat, scientists turn to temperature and other measurements made by the thousands of Argo floats. “The Argo profilers give us a good representation of the upper 1,000 meters (3,281 feet) of the ocean,” Chambers said. “And since altimeters and Grace measure the total ocean, using what we know about the upper ocean from Argo gives us an idea about what’s going on below in the deep ocean, about which we have little data.”

“We know the basics of sea level rise very well,” said JPL oceanographer and climate scientist Josh Willis. But several critical elements still need to be resolved, he stressed. “Everything doesn’t quite add up yet.” For example, in a recent study, Willis, Chambers and their colleague Steven Nerem of the Colorado Center for Astrodynamics Research in Boulder, compared the amount of ocean warming during 2003 to 2007 observed by the Argo buoys with the amount of warming calculated by combining Grace and Jason-1 altimeter data. While the two measurements closely matched with regard to seasonal ups and downs, they didn’t agree at all on the total amount of warming. In fact, the Argo data showed no warming at all, while the combined Jason and Grace data did.

See NASA graph. Notice downturn in last year. See larger image here

See larger image here

Again this may be the result of the ocean cooling the last year from the flip of the PDO and La Nina which causes compression and/or growth of the Antarctic and maybe even Greenland ice sheets. 

Posted on 06/18 at 01:23 AM
(0) TrackbacksPermalink

Sunday, June 15, 2008
Global Warming and the Price of a Gallon of Gas

By John Coleman - As Presented to the San Diego Chamber of Commerce

You may want to give credit where credit is due to Al Gore and his global warming campaign the next time you fill your car with gasoline, because there is a direct connection between Global Warming and four dollar a gallon gas.  It is shocking, but true, to learn that the entire Global Warming frenzy is based on the environmentalist’s attack on fossil fuels, particularly gasoline.  All this big time science, international meetings, thick research papers, dire threats for the future; all of it, comes down to their claim that the carbon dioxide in the exhaust from your car and in the smoke stacks from our power plants is destroying the climate of planet Earth.  What an amazing fraud; what a scam.

The future of our civilization lies in the balance. That’s the battle cry of the High Priest of Global Warming Al Gore and his fellow, agenda driven disciples as they predict a calamitous outcome from anthropogenic global warming.  According to Mr. Gore the polar ice caps will collapse and melt and sea levels will rise 20 feet inundating the coastal cities making 100 million of us refugees.  Vice President Gore tells us numerous Pacific islands will be totally submerged and uninhabitable.  He tells us global warming will disrupt the circulation of the ocean waters, dramatically changing climates, throwing the world food supply into chaos. He tells us global warming will turn hurricanes into super storms, produce droughts, wipe out the polar bears and result in bleaching of coral reefs. He tells us tropical diseases will spread to mid latitudes and heat waves will kill tens of thousands.  He preaches to us that we must change our lives and eliminate fossil fuels or face the dire consequences.  The future of our civilization is in the balance. With a preacher’s zeal, Mr. Gore sets out to strike terror into us and our children and make us feel we are all complicit in the potential demise of the planet. Mr. Gore and his crowd would have us believe that the activities of man have overwhelmed nature during this interglacial period and are producing an unprecedented, out of control warming.

Here is my rebuttal. There is no significant man made global warming.  There has not been any in the past, there is none now and there is no reason to fear any in the future. The climate of Earth is changing. It has always changed.  But mankind’s activities have not overwhelmed or significantly modified the natural forces. 

It is simply not happening.  Worldwide there was a significant natural warming trend in the 1980’s and 1990’s as a Solar cycle peaked with lots of sunspots and solar flares.  That ended in 1998 and now the Sun has gone quiet with fewer and fewer Sun spots, and the global temperatures have gone into decline.  Earth has cooled for almost ten straight years.  So, I ask Al Gore, where’s the global warming? If Al Gore and his global warming scare dictates the future policy of our governments, the current economic downturn could indeed become a recession, drift into a depression and our modern civilization could fall into an abyss. And it would largely be a direct result of the global warming frenzy.

My mission, in what is left of a long and exciting lifetime, is to stamp out this Global Warming silliness and let all of us get on with enjoying our lives and loving our planet, Earth. Read John’s full speech here. Update: See this video on Red Eye interviewing John Coleman here.
John Coleman was the original founder of cable TV’s The Weather Channel and has been a television meteorologist in Chicago, New York and now San Diego.


Posted on 06/15 at 05:07 PM
(0) TrackbacksPermalink

Page 73 of 90 pages « First  <  71 72 73 74 75 >  Last »

Climate Science: Roger Pielke Sr. Research Group Weblog

Blue Hill Observatory, Milton MA

Bob Carter’s Wesbite

Science Bits

Earth Changes

The Weather Wiz

Hall of Record

Marshall Institute Climate Change

Dr. Dewpoint on Intellicast

Wisconsin Energy Cooperative


Warwick Hughes

Weatherbell Analytics

World Climate Report

Climate Debate Daily

John Daly’s What the Stations Say

Climate Depot

Carbonated Climate

Science and Public Policy Institute

Climate Audit

APPINYS Global Warming

Ross McKitrick Google Home Page

Climate Police

COAPS Climate Study US

Tom Nelson Blogroll

Craig James’ Blog

CO2 Science

Climate Debate Daily

Digging in the Clay

Climate Cycle Changes

Watts Up with That?

Blue Crab Boulevard

The Week That Was by Fred Singer

The Reference Frame - Lubos Motl’s weblog

The Heartland Institute

Global Warming Scare

Climate Change Fraud

Climate Debate Daily

Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT)

Art Horn’s “The Art of Weather”

Accuweather Global Warming

Dr. Roy Spencer

Right Side News

Warmal Globing, The Niyogi Lab at Purdue


Global Warming Hoax

Where is Global Warming (Bruce Hall Collection)

Junk Science

CO2 Sceptics

Analysis Online

Middlebury Community Network on The Great Global Warming Hoax

Intellicast Dr. Dewpoint

Bill Meck’s Blog

Science and Environmental Policy Project

Raptor Education Foundation


Global Warming Hoax

Demand Debate

I Love My Carbon Dioxide

Web Commentary


The New Zealand Climate Science Coalition

AMSU Global Daily Temps

Gary Sharp’s It’s All About Time

Anthony Watts Surface Station Photographs

Climate Research News

Redneck USA

Musings of the Chiefio

Cornwall Alliance

Dr. Roy Spencer

Ice Age Now

Gore Lied

TWTW Newsletters

Energy Tribune


Bald-Faced Truth

Climate Resistance

Reid Bryson’s Archaeoclimatology

Vaclav Klaus, Czech Republic President

Carbon Folly

John McLean’s Global Warming Issues

Scientific Alliance

Finland Lustia Dendrochronology Project

Joanne Nova- The Skeptic’s Handbook

Greenie Watch

Climate Skeptic

Roy Spencer’s Nature’s Thermostat

Tropical Cyclone Blog of Ryan Maue COAPS

MPU Blog

Tom Skilling’s Blog

James Spann’s Blog

Metsul’s Meteorologia

The Cornwall Alliance

Raptor Education Foundation

Global Warming Skeptics

The Climate Scam

The Resilient Earth

The Inhofe EPW Press Blog

John Coleman’s Corner