Those of you who still believe that the ClimateGate scandal was just a bunch of emails in England should read this article. James Hansen of GISS appears to have systematically adjusted the historical temperature record to remove a cold patch in the ‘70s in order to exaggerate the rise since. The amount of change of 0.6 degrees is for one decade is close to the measured change for the whole century. This is vividly seen in these three snapshots of his data being modified (below, enlarged here):
Watch how the cooling trend of the 1960’s to 1970’s is steadily adjusted up so that 0.3 degrees cooler gradually becomes 0.03 warmer (notice the red and blue horizontal lines in the graphs above).
Mathews Graph 1976: 1955 - 1965 was around 0.3C warmer than 1970’s
Hansen/GISS 1980: 1955 - 1965 was around 0.1C warmer than 1970’s
Hansen/GISS 1987: 1955 - 1965 was around 0.05C warmer than 1970’s
Hansen/GISS 2007: 1955 - 1965 was around 0.03C cooler than 1970’s
Here is what we had thought was the historic temperature, back in the mid-1970s before the deception began. Note how much warmer the ‘30s and ‘40s looked then, and how in the charts above it shrinks in significance (below, enlarged here):
The article goes on to explain how weather balloon data created the prior temperature record, and is considered very accurate. It also matches very closely to satellite data, which started in 1979. Significantly, satellite data has diverged from the surface temperature data, showing less warming, pointing to the deception.
The whole AGW edifice is built on surface temperature from three sources: Hansen's GISS, the UK's HadCRUt and the NOAA. The GISS data is now seen to be manipulated; the HadCRUt data is suspect since it is from the main sources of the ClimateGate emails; and NOAA is even warmer than both of them, suggesting manipulation there too.
Much of the rest of climate science is built on data which is now suspect. What is now seen as Garbage In, Garbage Out had been Garbage In, Gospel Out. See post here.
See an excellent reconstruction of the changes made and also a comparison of the two nearly identical warming trends of the early and late 20th century, one of which is claimed to be easily explained by natural factors but the second of which can not and must be man made here.
No people on earth are more righteously Green than the Germans. They built the foundations and set the tone of the modern Green movement in, ahem, the 1930s. They invented the phrase Atomkraft Nein Danke. They were the first country to allow nasty, dangerous Sixties eco-radicals to reinvent themselves as respectable politicians. They were the first place to buy, wholesale, into the solar power con, which is why so many of their rooves - especially on churches - shimmer and glow like reflective-coated crusties at a mid-Nineties rave, while the German taxpayer is ruing the day his government ever chose to subsidise (Achtung Herr Cameron!) this fantastically pointless scheme.. (Hat tip: Robert Groezinger, et al)
So when the Germans say “Auf Wiedersehn AGW” it really is time for the rest of the world to sit up and take notice. And that’s exactly what they just have said. See for yourself in this tear-inducing glorious feature in one of their leading newspapers (enlarged here).
Der Spiegel has done a number on AGW - one of the best and most comprehensive I’ve read in any newspaper anywhere - and it could hardly be more damning.
Truly, the experience is akin to having honey (really good stuff, heather probably) licked off one’s body by nubile blonde Nibelungen.
On the recently vindicated Prof Phil Jones:
“I am 100 percent confident that the climate has warmed,” Jones says imploringly. “I did not manipulate or fabricate any data.”
His problem is that the public doesn’t trust him anymore. Since unknown hackers secretly copied 1,073 private emails between members of his research team and published them on the Internet, his credibility has been destroyed - and so has that of an entire profession that had based much of its work on his research until now.
On the politicisation of science:
Reinhard Huttl, head of the German Research Center for Geosciences in Potsdam near Berlin and the president of the German Academy of Science and Engineering, believes that basic values are now under threat. “Scientists should never be as wedded to their theories that they are no longer capable of refuting them in the light of new findings,” he says. Scientific research, Hüttl adds, is all about results, not beliefs. Unfortunately, he says, there are more and more scientists who want to be politicians.
On the Urban Heat Island Effect (complete with nice dig at the aforementioned “exonerated, give him his job back” Prof Jones)
Critics reproach Jones for not taking one factor, in particular, sufficiently into account: the growth of urban areas. Stations that used to be rural are now in cities. And because it is always warmer in cities than outside, the temperatures measured at these stations are bound to rise.
Environmental economist Ross McKitrick, one of McIntyre’s associates, examined all rapidly growing countries, in which this urban heat effect was to be expected, and found a correlation between economic growth and temperature rise. He submitted his study in time for the last IPCC report.
Jones did everything he could to suppress the publication, which was critical of him. It proved advantageous to him that he had been one of the two main authors of the temperature chapter. In one of the hacked emails, he openly admitted that he wanted to keep this interfering publication out of the IPCC report at all costs, “even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”
On the myth of monster storms:
The all-clear signal on the hurricane front is another setback for the IPCC. In keeping with lead author Kevin Trenberth’s predictions, the IPCC report warned that there would be more hurricanes in a greenhouse climate. One of the graphs in the IPCC report is particularly mysterious. Without specifying a source, the graph suggestively illustrates how damage caused by extreme weather increases with rising average temperatures.
When hurricane expert Roger Pielke, Jr. of the University of Colorado at Boulder saw the graph, he was appalled. “I would like to discover this sort of relationship myself,” he says, “but it simply isn’t supported by the facts at the moment.”
Pielke tried to find out where the graph had come from. He traced it to the chief scientist at a London firm that performs risk calculations for major insurance companies. The insurance scientist claims that the graph was never meant for publication. How the phantom graph found its way into the IPCC report is still a mystery.
Der Spiegel would never have got away with this article four years ago. But then, in 2006, according to a poll, 62 per cent of Germans surveyed answered “Yes” to the question “Are you personally afraid of climate change.” In 2010 that figure has dropped to 42 per cent, which for those of you who haven’t done the math means that the majority of Germans are now not personally afraid of climate change.
Way to go, Germans! Gott Mitt Uns and all that. Stimmt. Genau.
The meeting of Arctic states held in Chelsea, Que. earlier this week was billed as a way to spur international efforts concerning global warming and the Far North.
Instead, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton criticized Ottawa for failing to invite more foreign governments and other stakeholders, such as aboriginal groups, that are concerned with Arctic issues.
“We need all hands on deck because there is a huge amount to do, and not much time to do it,” Clinton said in a prepared statement. “What happens in the Arctic will have broad consequences for the Earth and its climate. The melting of sea ice, glaciers and permafrost will affect people and ecosystems around the world, and understanding how these changes fit together is a task that demands international co-operation.”
Yet when it comes to understanding how the climate of the Arctic will change in coming years, scientists say Canada is falling off the map.
Last week, a climate research centre at the University of Montreal, known by the acronym ESCER, warned that such groups are being forced to close across the country.
A lack of federal funds for climate and atmospheric science has “sounded the death knell for research groups working in this field in Canada,” Rene Laprise, ESCER’s director, wrote in a statement.
His centre has lost two staff, who found government jobs after learning that their salaries would not be guaranteed past September 2010, Laprise told CTV.ca by email. Five others are expected to leave “any time,” he wrote.
Climate scientists across the country say they’re in a similar situation—with dwindling funds and poor prospects to secure more money, they’re preparing to shut down major projects while their staff seeks jobs abroad.
Financial woes
Laprise and other scientists in his field are frustrated that the 2010 federal budget, made public last month, set aside no new money for the Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences, the main source of federal funding for climate-related research.
CFCAS was founded in 2000 and has doled out $116 million on 198 research grants at universities from Victoria to Halifax.
Canadian scientists who have contributed to international initiatives such as the World Climate Programme and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change rely on the foundation for a large part of their research money.
And while CFCAS’s mandate runs to March 31, 2012, it hasn’t received any new cash since 2003, and the money it has received was “fully committed” two years ago.
“There are no more funds to be distributed,” Kelly Crowe, a spokesperson for the foundation, told CTV.ca by email. “Our researchers are all looking at wrapping up their projects for good.”
A spokesperson for Environment Canada said that last year, the ministry received a funding request from CFCAS for $50 million to be spent over three years. But the request hasn’t been approved.
“The government will continue to consider this proposal, in the context of our current fiscal constraints,” Tracy Lacroix-Wilson wrote in an email. “We cannot speculate on any future funding at this time.”
Brain drain
Meanwhile, climate and atmospheric science researchers have begun to leave the country.
In December, Katrin Meissner quit a tenure-track position at the University of Victoria and moved her family to Sydney, Australia. She now studies climate change at the University of New South Wales, with two other researchers who also recently left Canadian universities.
“The possible closing of the CFCAS was certainly part of it,” Meissner said, referring to her decision to leave.
Theodore Shepherd, a veteran physicist at the University of Toronto who studies atmospheric dynamics, said people like Meissner are pulling up stakes because the international landscape for climate-change funding no longer favours Canada.
When CFCAS was created in 2000, Shepherd said Canadian universities began attracting climate scientists from Europe who would otherwise have gone to the U.S.
But economic stimulus programs introduced in the wake of the recession injected cash into climate-change research in the U.S. and in many European countries. That’s made them more attractive destinations for scientists in related fields.
The situation is changing “partly because they’ve got more money, partly because we’ve got no money,” Shepherd said.
He admits he has started to look for opportunities abroad, due to persistent funding problems in Canada.
“Not super actively,” he said. “But I’m realizing it’s going to be very hard to do what I want to here.”
Atmospheric research on the Arctic, an area that experts say will be hit particularly hard by climate change, is also being threatened by federal funding problems.
James Drummond is an Oxford-educated physicist at Dalhousie University, and the principal investigator for the Polar Environment Atmospheric Research Laboratory, located 1,100 kilometres from the North Pole.
He expects the lab will be forced to close unless Ottawa announces additional public money to pay for salaries and operational expenses.
“At the moment, we’re operating on the principle that something will turn up,” he said by phone from Halifax. “The reality is that the funding stream has been broken.”
In recent years it has become harder to get federal money in all areas of atmospheric science, Drummond said. And while many scientists in that field don’t expect to run out of funding until later this year or early 2011, he said they need new money now in order to map out their work next year.
“It’s not research that can be turned on and off like a tap,” Drummond said.
With no additional money, he added, the issue of brain drain has become “very real” in the world of Canadian atmospheric science.
“And once those people leave it will be very hard to get them back, because they’ll say ‘well, look what happened last time.’” Read story here.
Around 300 people - including children on a school bus - have been rescued from cars trapped in snow on the Glenshane Pass near Londonderry, as severe winter storms battered parts of Britain. Police, mountain rescue and coastguards were drafted in for the operation.
Stranded drivers had initially been taken to Dungiven Leisure Centre near Londonderry, but a blackout meant the site had to be switched to the Roe Leisure Centre in nearby Limavady. Snow closes hundreds of schools and causes chaos on roads. Blizzards, gale force winds and torrential rain have hit Scotland and Northern Ireland, knocking down power lines and wreaking transport havoc.
The Met Office has issued extreme weather warnings for the two regions, forecasting more severe blizzards and severe drifting snow up to 50cm (20in) deep in parts. During the distinctly un-spring-like conditions, temperatures will remain close to zero through the day. There could also be snow flurries across high areas of England and Wales, experts said.
Northern Ireland Electricity (NIE) said between 45,000 and 48,000 customers, mainly in the west and the north, have been cut off overnight after widespread damage to its network. At one point there were 600 individual faults reported, the firm said, with the biggest disruption was in Omagh, Enniskillen, Dungannon, Londonderry, Coleraine and Ballymena.
Poor visibility and strong winds were preventing workers from climbing poles, it added. A spokesman for NIE said 450 engineers and workers were out helping restore supplies as soon as possible - and blamed the disruption on “unprecedented” weather. “We have had unprecedented weather conditions, and are working to get people reconnected as soon as possible,” he said.
“Our crews are getting back out in the field again, we have 450 staff in the field.” Colin Brown, of the Roads Service, said they expected the weather to get worse throughout the day. ‘’We are getting geared up for difficult day of rain turning to snow as we progress through the day and into the afternoon and evening.’’
Scotland saw around 22,000 homes suffer power cuts on Tuesday, with people North Ayrshire the worst hit, but most properties were reconnected during the day. People living in north-east Scotland were suffering some of the country’s worst weather today, with gale force northerly blizzards whipping up snow drifts. Big cities Glasgow and Edinburgh will see wetter conditions. Snow ploughs and gritters were out yesterday across the country after cars and lorries became stranded in snow. Ten lorries were stranded for several hours on the M90 close to Bridge of Earn in Perthshire, and two trucks also got into difficulty on the M8 near Edinburgh creating large tailbacks.
Two men also had a lucky escape after a 50ft tree fell on a car in Edinburgh city centre. The men were treated for shock but were uninjured, police said. Among the roads closed today were the A68 at Soutra Hill in Lothian and Borders, and the A96 between Huntly and Colpy in Aberdeenshire.
Train services on the East Coast main line were also suspended north of Berwick after two landslips last night. Network Rail said it was working to re-open the line today, diverting some services via Newcastle and Carlisle and using replacement buses.
Elsewhere, heavy rain led to the River Esk bursting its banks in Musselburgh. Ferry firm Stena also said its sailings between Belfast and Stranraer were being delayed or cancelled.
Steve Ellison, a forecaster with MeteoGroup, the weather division of the Press Association, said the wintry weather would start to die away tonight and tomorrow, but it would remain unsettled in many parts. He said: ‘’There’s been quite a lot of snow falling over Scotland, especially over the higher ground. But places like Edinburgh can also expect a covering. ‘’It’s also going to be very windy again. ‘’A deep low pressure is moving across the UK at the moment, dragging in a lot of cold air from the north.’’ See video here. See story and more here.
By Kirk Myers, March 30, Seminole County Environmental News Examiner
From the 8:30 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. on Saturday, March 27, “climate change” alarmists around the world turned their lights out in a symbolic gesture of unanimity, proving once again they are in the dark about global warming.
Lights went out in the Eiffel Tower, the Sydney Opera House, Big Ben, Tower of Pisa, The Great Pyramids of Giza, the Petronas Twin Towers in Kuala Lumpur, and Independence Angel in Mexico City. In the United States, lights switched off on Mount Rushmore, the Golden Gate Bridge and the St. Louis Gateway Arch. The “Welcome to Fabulous Las Vegas” sign went dark.
North Korea, meanwhile, led the pack in the “turn out the lights” gesture, remaining in almost total darkness for the entire evening. Indeed, the North Koreans - offering a stark lesson in CO2 reduction - had years before discovered a way to keep the lights turned out and energy consumption at a near stand-still: simply strangle industry through a system of totalitarian regulations and controls.
The government of North Korea has been very successful in reducing CO2 and light emissions
It is a practice held in high esteem by the high priests and disciples of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (CAGW). In the deep recesses of their atavistic minds is the antediluvian belief that industrial growth (capitalism), with its reliance on the internal combustion engine and CO2-emitting coal-fired power plants, is harmful to Mother Earth. Better to live in bucolic bliss, shivering in the dark and cursing the latest brown-out, rather than firing up a few more power plants and - perhaps, maybe - warming the planet a few degrees over the next century.
In a sane world, such silly, misanthropic views would be laughed at and dismissed. But the CAGW True Believers are deadly serious. They wish to slow down, if not halt, industrial progress, returning us to the romantic “one with nature” era of pre-industrial agrarian peasantry. In their Al Gorian-inspired minds, Earth’s very survival is at stake, threatened by mankind and its unquenchable appetite for fossil-fuel-burning climate-warming electricity.
As Lorri Golstein of the Ottawa Sun writes: “Only in the affluent West do we naively romanticize a world without electricity as one of shepherds tending their flocks. Those without electricity know better . . . without electricity, life is nasty, brutal and short.”
At the core of the global warming doctrine is a hatred of man-the-destroyer, driven by a collectivist revulsion towards capitalism. Coal- and oil-fueled industrial progress is seen as the bane of Mother Earth, the despoiler of the environment. Seldom is any thought given to mankind’s epochal struggle to tame nature, to bring some measure of comfort to everyday existence.
Only a primitive mind takes pleasure in turning off the lights and turning back the clock of human advancement, observes Ross McKitrick, professor of economics at Canada’s University of Guelp.
“Abundant, cheap electricity has been the greatest source of human liberation in the 20th century. Every material social advance . . . depended on the proliferation of inexpensive and reliable electricity. . . I don’t want to go back to nature. Haiti just went back to nature. People who work to end poverty and disease are fighting against nature,” he writes.
Of course, the real goal of the environmental movement is not to mitigate the imagined consequences of global warming by turning out a few lights; it is to initiate the global redistribution of wealth using “climate change” as the catalyst of economic change. A big chunk of upfront money for this undertaking finds its way into the coffers of professional doom-and-gloom promoters who sucker gullible donors with tall tales of disappearing polar bears and submerged coastlines.
Among the biggest promoters and beneficiaries of the climate-change scare campaign are environmental organizations like the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) and Greenpeace. According to figures compiled by Climate Resistance.org, WWF raised a cetacean-size $3.1 billion in donations from 2003-2008, making it the world’s wealthiest environmental organization. Greenpeace hauled in the second-largest catch, netting $2.37 billion from 1998-2008.
Very few contributors to those and other “green” organizations realize they are funding a Marxist makeover of the American economy, replete with carbon taxes and cap-and-trade restrictions that will drive up taxes, reduce their standard of living, and lead inexorably to North Korea-style energy shortages and rationing.
As ClimateResistance.org reports, “Most of this money comes from people who think that they are giving to save the rhino, panda, or the whale, because that’s how Greenpeace and the WWF sell themselves . . . Yet these ‘organizations don’t simply save whales and rhinos; they use their not inconsiderable financial clout to influence the political agenda throughout the world, in a way that the [climate change] ‘deniers’ simply have not been able to. This obviously includes preparing ‘research’ that finds its way into IPCC [International Panel on Climate Change] Assessment Reports.”
“From early on, those at the top of the global warming - now “climate change” - food chain have had one primary objective: to relieve “the gullible rubes” of their hard-earned money while kicking down this country’s remaining constitutional barriers and dragging Americans into a global command-and-control economic system run by a cabal of oligarchs who will get spectacularly rich from carbon-offset trading.
The rest of us poor souls will have to content ourselves with sitting around dinner table, eating by candlelight and griping about the latest round of rotating black-outs announced by the Ministry of Energy.
This nightmarish scenario could become reality - all because a fraternity of unscrupulous, well-funded charlatan scientists decided to demonize CO2, a trace atmospheric gas and plant nutrient, elevating it to the status of a global warming Satan. Never mind the fact that the IPCC climate models their theory is based on have been thoroughly discredited, a rather important revelation that seems to have escaped the attention of the ever-somnambulant mainstream media.
As columnist Joanne Nova writes:
“Hundreds of thousands of radiosonde measurements failed to find the pattern of upper trophospheric heating the models predicted [by the IPCC], (and neither Santer 2008 with his expanding ‘uncertainties’ nor Sherwood 2008 with his wind gauges change that). Two other independent empirical observations indicate that the warming due to CO2 is halved by changes in the atmosphere, not amplified. [Spencer 2007, Lindzen 2009, see also Spencer 2008].”
Moreover, global mean temperatures reached a peak in 1998, began to level off, and have been declining since 2002, clearly falsifying all the IPPC models, which predicted steady warming. Dr. Phil Jones, the disgraced former director of the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at Britain’s University of East Anglia, admitted in a BBC interview this February that there has been no statistically significant global warming since 1995 and that recent temperatures have been cooling.
None of these facts makes any difference to the “science is settled” True Believers. They won’t be satisfied until the landscape is awash with ugly windmill farms from sea to shining sea, and the common folks are putt-putting around in electric cars and lighting their homes with new-fangled mercury-filled lamps that are too dangerous to throw in the kitchen trash.
Mankind must combat global warming now or risk defiling the planet for future generations, wail the high priests of global-warming theology. But what about wrecking the U.S. economy in a paranoid effort to prevent a conjured up catastrophe that tens of thousands of independent scientists say will never happen?
“How will we face our grandchildren and tell them we did nothing to stop catastrophic death counts caused by climate change, demands today’s smug warmist,” writes Golstein. “Better ask him how he will face his grandchildren and tell them he campaigned for consigning hundreds of millions to catastrophe by denouncing the very forms of energy by which we powered ourselves out of the Third World, into the First.”
