In the interview Jones stated that although there has been a modest warming trend since 1995, it is not statistically significant. Further, there is no statistically significant difference among the four warming trends of 1860-1880, 1910-40, 1975-1995, and 1975-2009. Thus, one can not use the global surface temperature record to statistically establish that the recent warming was different from past warming periods. Many “skeptics” have been vindicated – the global surface temperature datasets do not establish a statistically defensible link between carbon dioxide emissions and the recent warming.

Jones claims the agreement between the CRU and the NASA GISS, and NOAA datasets indicates nothing is wrong. However all three may be wrong. Reports by D’Aleo, Watts, the Russian Institute of Economic Analysis, etc. strongly suggest that the three global surface temperature datasets have been heavily compromised in recent years and likely contain strong warming biases.

These revelations contradict the findings of the IPCC and US EPA in its Endangerment Finding. Since, IPCC and EPA failed to offer strong physical evidence that the recent warming was caused by carbon dioxide emissions, their claims that CO2 was the cause are not scientifically defensible by statistics or physical science.
On New Year’s Eve, after years of requests under the Freedom of Information Act, NASA GISS released emails and data related to its reports on global surface temperatures. The NASA GISS dataset depends, in part, on NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center dataset but is calculated differently. It will take diligent work to understand the full impact of what is being revealed. But the January reports by D’Aleo, et al. on the disappearance of 565 of 600 Canadian weather stations from NASA and NOAA datasets are indications of what may come.

As a whole, the US media has been dismissive of the importance of Climategate and subsequent revelations. The non-scientific claims of the IPCC are considered by many commentators as insignificant. A reading of Chapter 9, “Transforming the Energy Sector and Addressing Climate Change,” in the recently released Economic Report of the President illustrates the significance of the scientifically unsupported claims by IPCC.

The chapter begins by citing claims that CO2 emissions will likely cause large temperature increases – all from IPCC models that have never been validated thus have no predictive power. It continues with claims of “increased mortality rates, reduced agricultural yields in many parts of the world, and rising sea levels that could inundate low-lying coastal areas.” 

“The planet has not experienced such a rapid warming on a global scale in many thousands of years, and never as a result of emissions from human activity.”

Elsewhere the President’s report cites EPA’s Endangerment Finding, calculates massive increases in property damage from increased severity of storms, justifies cap-and-trade, and promotes spending $60 Billion in cash and $30 Billion in tax credits for alternative energy. Of course tax credits benefit only those with high tax liabilities (high incomes).

The claims of increased mortality rates and reduced agriculture yields (found in IPCC reports) are directly contradicted by late 20th Century history, the period claimed to be one of unprecedented warming. During this time mortality rates generally went down, human longevity up, and agricultural yields increased dramatically. Ironically, after declaring agricultural yields will decline the President’s report embraced an increase in mandatory bio-fuel use in gasoline from 9 billion gallons in 2008 to 36 billion gallons by 2022. It does not calculate the farm acreage required for this effort.

The claimed massive increases in property damage are, no doubt, based on IPCC’s claim in which the actual study found no statistically significant link between warming and catastrophic property damage. Sea levels have increased about 400 feet in the last 18,000 years or about 27 inches per century. The report cites a 7 inch rise since 1900 as if it is alarming. The statement that the “planet has not experienced such a rapid warming” has no merit.

Perhaps most journalists consider spending $90 Billion on various schemes to “fight climate change” insignificant. But one would hope for better scientific justification.
Finally, on Tuesday, the last day, SEPP, CEI and NIPCC filed a supplement to their joint petition to EPA to reconsider its Endangerment Finding. Others filing petitions include the states of Texas and Virginia, Peabody Energy, and a consortium of cattle, mining, and energy companies. The petitions are part of the public record. No doubt some will accuse SEPP of being a front for special interests. And, in one way, it is. The interest is the public interest in having rigorous science, rather than faulty science, guide public policy. The petition and the supplement are attached for TWTW readers to decide.

Also on Tuesday, SEPP joined CEI and FreedomWorks in a joint petition to the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia to review the Endangerment Finding.
SEPP Correction: The headlines of an IBD article carried by TWTW last week implied that Arizona quit the Western Climate Initiative (WCI). SEPP was informed that this was incorrect and was sent a copy of the Governor’s Executive Order. The key issue appears to be in paragraph 3 of the order which states that Arizona will continue to be a member of WCI, however, “Arizona will not implement the GHG cap-and-trade proposal advanced by WCI”. (Emphasis added) [H/t Norman MacLeod]
*******************************************************
ARTICLES:  [For the numbered articles below please see the attached pdf.]

1. The end of the IPCC: One mistake too many! 
By S. Fred Singer
Hindustan Times, Feb 5, 2010
http://www.hindustantimes.com/The-end-is-not-near/H1-Article1-505317.aspx

2. A Most Important Interview,
The Clamour Of The Times, Feb 15, 2010 [H/t Mark Urbanski]
http://web.me.com/sinfonia1/Clamour_Of_The_Times/Clamour_Of_The_Times/Entries/2010/2/13_A_Most_Important_Interview.html

3. Climategate: So Jones Lost the Data? It Was Worthless, Anyway!
The “mean daily temperature’ CRU used is a statistically nonsensical calculation
By Vincent Gray, Pajamas Media, Feb 15, 2010 [H/t Francois Guillaumat]
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/climategate-so-jones-lost-the-data-it-was-worthless-anyway/

4. The Continuing Climate Meltdown
Wall Street Journal, Feb 16, 2010
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB20001424052748703630404575053781465774008.html

5. Collapse Continues
Investors Business Daily, Feb 17, 2010
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=521421

6. Drilling Ban To Cost Trillions
Investors Business Daily, Feb 16, 2010
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=521249

7. What to say to a global warming advocate
By Mark Landsbaum, 2-12-2010, Orange County Register
http://www.ocregister.com/common/printer/view.php?db=ocregister&id=234092
**********************************************
NEWS YOU CAN USE:

Question and Answer Interview with Phil Jones of the CRU
BBC News, Feb 13, 2010
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm

Phil Jones momentous Q & A with BBC reopens the “science is settled” issues.
By Indur Gorklany, Feb 14, 2010
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/14/phil-jones-momentous-qa-with-bbc-reopens-the-science-is-settled-issues/

Climategate 2.0 – The NASA Files: U.S. Climate Science as Corrupt as CRU
By Christopher Horner, Pajamas Media, Feb 17, 2010
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/climategate-2-0-%E2%80%94-the-nasa-files-u-s-climate-science-as-corrupt-as-cru-pjm-exclusive-%E2%80%94-part-one/?singlepage=true

After two years of stonewalling, NASA GISS FOIA files are now online
Watts Up With That? Feb 17, 2010
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/17/after-two-years-of-stonewalling-nasa-giss-foia-files-are-now-online/

U.N. climate panel admits Dutch sea level flaw
Reuters.com Feb 13, 2010
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE61C1V420100213

Another IPCC Error; Antarctic Sea Ice Increase Underestimated by 50%
World Climate Report, Feb 16, 2010
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2010/02/16/another-ipcc-error-antarctic-sea-ice-increase-underestimated-by-50/

IPCC burned on claim of wildfires affecting Canadian tourism
Climatequotes.com, Feb 10, 2010
http://climatequotes.com/2010/02/10/ipcc-burned-on-claim-of-wildfires-affecting-canadian-tourism/

Now IPCC hurricane data is questioned
By Andrew Orlowski, The Register, UK, Feb 15, 2010 [H/t ICECAP]
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/02/15/hatton_on_hurricanes/

Climategate: Seven Hard Questions from the Case Study of the Fall of Enron (will the AAAS panel consider them?)
By Robert Bradley, Jr., Master Resource, Feb 18 2010
http://www.masterresource.org/2010/02/climategate-7-hard-questions-from-enron/

The Snow Line is Moving South
By Steven Goddard, Watts Up With That, Feb 15, 2010
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/15/the-snow-line-is-moving-south/
A new ice age in the making? An alarmist would say so.

49 states with snow, 1180 new snowfall records set in the USA this past week – is February Headed for Record Snowfall?
Watts Up With That? Feb 13, 2010
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/13/49-states-covered-with-snow-1180-new-snowfall-records-set-in-the-usa-this-past-week-is-february-headed-for-record-snowfall/

Frozen Cattle Crisis In Harsh Mongolia Winter
Sky News, Feb 8, 2010, [H/t ICECAP]
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/5/20100208/twl-frozen-cattle-crisis-in-harsh-mongol-3fd0ae9.html
In the 1880’s great blizzards swept the US Great Plains killing humans and cattle as far south as Texas and prompting many, including Teddy Roosevelt, to question if the Plains were fit for human habitation. When we in developed nations face severe storms, we can thank use of fossil fuels and, to some extent, nuclear energy.

Many meteorologists break with science of global warming
By Rick Montgomery, Kansas City Star, Feb 13, 2010 [H/t Bill Watkins]
http://www.kansascity.com/105/story/1746746.html?story_link=email_msg
The dike is leaking and it is not from sea level rise.

Global doubting
Chicago Tribune Editorial, Feb 16, 2010
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/editorials/ct-edit-climate-20100216,0,1969729,full.story

The crackup of the climate ‘consensus’
By Steven Hayward, NY Post, Feb 19, 2010 [H/t Fred Holmes]
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/the_crackup_of_the_climate_consensus_T3eGnulTAq4Xm76qB0Mr7N

Global warming snow job – The scientific community has abandoned science
By Leonard Evans, The Washington Times, Feb 12, 2010
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/feb/12/has-global-warming-got-you-snowed-in/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter_must-read-stories-today

U.N. Housecleaning
Investors Business Daily, Feb 18, 2010
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=521567

Solar Dynamics Observatory.
Launched Feb 11, 2010, [H/t Tom Sheehan]
http://sdo.gsfc.nasa.gov/
The Observatory is designed to give high quality data on the changing sun and its influence on the earth, particularly changes in its magnetic fields. The experiments and data will be of interest to those following the solar flux-cosmic ray hypothesis of cloud formation.

Tisdale on the importance of El Nino’s little sister – recharging ocean heat content
By Bob Tisdale, Watts Up With That? Feb 13, 2010
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/13/tisdale-on-the-importance-of-el-ninos-little-sister/
Will this promote controversy?

Obama backs loans for new reactors
By Kara Rowland, Washington Times, Feb 17, 2010
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/feb/17/obama-announces-cash-to-build-nuke-reactors/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter_must-read-stories-today
A positive sign but the permitting process is a regulatory minefield. How many grass root advocates of closing down coal power plants will support new nuclear plants?

Small Reactors Generate Big Hopes
By Rebecca Smith, WSJ, Feb 18, 2010
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB20001424052748703444804575071402124482176.html#mod=todays_us_page_one
Perhaps some of our nuclear engineers would care to comment.

Shortage of Rare Earth Elements Could Thwart Innovation
By Jeremy Hsu, Live Science. Com, Feb 16, 2010
http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20100216/sc_livescience/shortageofrareearthelementscouldthwartinnovation
Some alternative energy sources depend upon rare earths – is China the key?
**************************************************
BELOW THE BOTTOM LINE:

Consistent with Being in a Deep Fog
Roger Pielke Jr’s Blog, Feb 16, 2010
http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2010/02/consistent-with-being-in-deep-fog.html

Ocean levels could rise by 12 meters in the next half century unless atmospheric temperatures are controlled! – 1957
Climate hysteria won’t last test of time
By Garth George, NZ Herald, Feb 18, 2010 [H/t Bob Kay]
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/climate-change/news/article.cfm?c_id=26&objectid=10626802&pnum=0
“Calculating the “Average New Zealand Temperature” is as meaningless as calculating the average telephone number  . . but the government thinks the country’s average temperature may have increased by 0.92C since 1853 . . . and they’re going to manage the “climate” (read Roaring Forties)?  How about fixing the earthquakes first?”  –  Bob Kay

Penny Wong signals doom for iconic beaches
By Lanai Vasek and Matthew Franklin, The Australian, Feb 19, 2010
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/penny-wong-signals-doom-for-iconic-beaches/story-e6frg6n6-1225831970915

With Stakes This High
New York Times, Feb 17, 2010
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/17/opinion/17wed2.html?th&emc=th
Once again declaring the consequences of global warming are so severe that self-flagellation is desirable. What if the globe is cooling?”

from Kenneth Haapala

www.sepp.org

Paper: UN climate chief Pachauri used ‘bogus’ climate claims ‘to win grants worth hundreds of thousands of pounds’
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6999975.ece

UN IPCC Exposed: ‘Dozens’ of instances where WWF reports have been cited as the sole authority for contentious claims, including one about coastal developments in Latin America’   
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2010/01/not-one-but-two-and-counting.html

Obama must call out the UN IPCC to keep his inaugural pledge to ‘restore science to its rightful place’
http://algorelied.com/?p=3593

Australian Herald Sun: ‘Could the Nobel Prize be withdrawn’ from UN IPCC?
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/investigate_pachauri_now#66070

‘Al Gore needs to be leading this charge (for Pachauri’s resignation) in the US. Where is he, and why is he silent?’  
http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2010/01/23/ipcc-head-in-glaciergate-crime/
 
Na na na hey hey hey goodbye! Pew Survey: Global warming ranks dead last as concern for Americans — 21 out of 21 – ‘Global warming ranks at the bottom of the public’s list of priorities; just 28% consider this a top priority, the lowest measure for any issue tested in the survey’
http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2010/01/new-pew-survey-global-warming-finishes.html

‘Pachauri must resign’
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/24/pachauri-must-resign-his-position-is-untenable/

Calls for Pachauri to resign: ‘His position is becoming more and more untenable by the day…UN IPCC ‘will continue to leach credibility while he remains in charge’  
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/geoffreylean/100023489/pachauri-must-quit-as-head-of-official-science-panel/

Flashback 2006: Morano Debates Pachauri at UN Conference in Kenya — Calls UN an ‘echo chamber’ where ‘dissent was being suppressed and demonized’
http://www.climatedepot.com/a/2860/Flashback-2006-Morano-Debates-IPCCs-Chairman-Pachauri-at-UN-Conference-in-Kenya

UN Climate Con is Ending! Shock Revelation: UN scientist admits fake data was used in IPCC report ‘purely to put political pressure on world leaders’ – UN IPCC Scientist: Phony glacier claim designed to ‘impact policy-makers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action’ – UK Mail – Jan. 24, 2009
http://www.climatedepot.com/a/5027/BREAKING-NEWS-UN-Climate-Con-is-Ending-Shock-Revelation-UN-scientist-admits-fake-data-was-used-in-IPCC-report-purely-to-put-political-pressure-on-world-leaders

UK Guardian: Global Warming Bubble Bursts: ‘Banks are pulling out of the carbon-offsetting market’
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jan/24/carbon-emissions-green-copenhagen-banks

Flashback: 2009: Paper: ‘Don’t let Climategate melt down your portfolio…don’t get stuck with investments tied to global warming’
http://www.centrulemin.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=734&catid=43&Itemid=103

Flashback 2009: Carbon Bubble Fears! Asian Development Bank warns failure to ‘reach climate deal could lead to a collapse of carbon market’
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE5BC14S20091213

‘And now for UN’s Amazongate’: ‘Made false predictions’ on Amazon rainforest, referenced non-peer-reviewed paper produced by WWF
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2010/01/and-now-for-amazongate.html

Paging George Orwell: Stern Review ‘mysteriously changed’ – Prof. Pielke, Jr.: ‘As much as 40% of the Stern Review projections for the global costs of unmitigated climate change derive from its misuse of (extreme weather paper)’
http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2010/01/what-tangled-web-we-weave.html

The IPCC scandal: the African data was sexed up, too
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/the_ipcc_scandal_the_african_data_was_sexed_up_too/

China surprises summit — Declares it has ‘open mind’ about global warming: ‘Alternative view that climate change is caused by cyclical trends in nature’
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7067505/China-has-open-mind-about-cause-of-climate-change.html

Global Warming ‘is rapidly morphing into the greatest scandal in the history of science since the belief in a flat earth’
http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2010/01/24/climategate-the-scandal-that-keeps-on-giving-even-here-in-austin/

For latest in the fastest ever collapse of any modern political movement, go to www.ClimateDepot.com

The week ended with real heat: Climategate hit the United States. On Thursday night January 14, 2010, in an hour-long special broadcast on KUSI-TV San Diego, John Coleman revealed new research by computer expert E. Michael Smith and Certified Consulting Meteorologist Joseph D’Aleo.

This new research demonstrates that the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) has been as intensely involved in manipulating global surface data as has the Climate Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, which is now under investigation in Great Britain. NCDC is a division of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

The manipulated data is also used by the third organization reporting global surface temperatures – the Goddard Institute of Space Studies, a division of the National Aeronautical and Space Administration (NASA GISS). Thus, all three organizations reporting global surface temperatures may be using similar manipulated data.

D’Aleo and Smith report that in the period of the 1960’s to the 1980’s the number of stations used for calculating global surface temperatures was about 6,000. But it dropped rapidly to about 1,500 by 1990. Further, large gaps began appearing in some of the reported data.

This loss of stations and its possible consequences have been well established. For example, it is discussed in the 2008 NIPCC report Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate. The stations lost appeared to be mostly in colder climates – which, if the data set is not adjusted, would lead to a false indication of warming. (D’Aleo was a contributor to the NIPCC report.)

In December, as Climategate was developing, TWTW referred to a Russian report stating the CRU was ignoring data from colder regions of Russia, even though these stations were still reporting data. Thus, the data loss was not due to just the closing of stations as earlier thought, but due to decisions by the CRU to ignore them.

Now D’Aleo and Smith report similar activities by the NCDC. Stations have been dropped, particularly in colder climates (higher elevations or closer to the Polar Regions), and now temperatures are projected for these colder stations from other stations, usually in warmer climates.

The reports of the IPCC and governmental agencies such as the EPA are based, in a large part, on these data. If the data are wrong, then the reports are wrong.

It is now clear that the global surface temperature data are unreliable and must be thoroughly investigated. If not, any government policies based upon these reports should be rigorously challenged.

Thanks to the diligent work of John Coleman, Joe D’Aleo, Michael Smith, as well as many others, the US main stream media has no excuse for ignoring Climategate as merely a problem in Britain or a problem of no significance.

For John Coleman’s complete broadcast (five segments) please see:
http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner/81583352.html

For Joe D’Aleo’s preliminary report please see: http://icecap.us/images/uploads/NOAAroleinclimategate.pdf

[A brief comment: It is an impossible task to arrive at one precise number for a global surface temperature. But, one is often reported. Whatever is reported can only be approximate. However, if standard procedures are rigorously followed and stations are rigorously monitored, then trends can be established. Based on the new reports, such standard procedures were deliberately altered.. By removing stations in colder climates from the data set in recent years without doing so in past years, the CRU and NCDC exaggerate warming trends and, perhaps, even created one where there was none. A similar effect can be produced by underreporting high temperatures in early years. According to researchers such as Pat Michaels, this is apparently what NASA GISS is doing.]
*********************************************

SEPP SCIENCE EDITORIAL #3-2010 (Jan 16, 2010)
By S. Fred Singer, President, Science and Environmental Policy Project
 [Note: This is the fifth of a series of mini-editorials on the “junk science” influencing the global warming issue. Other topics will include the UN Environmental Program, and some individuals heavily involved in these matters.]

Junk Science #5:  IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report [IPCC-AR4, 2007]
 
In line with its policy of ‘ramping up’ its case for Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) and escalating climate fears, IPCC-AR4 concludes: “Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic GHG concentrations” [my emphasis].  They helpfully explain that “very likely” means “90 to 99% certain.”  One wonders just how IPCC arrived at this rather precise estimate – since there is nothing in the report to back it up.
 
By now, the IPCC has mercifully abandoned some of the ‘evidence’ given in their earlier reports: They no longer feature the discredited ‘Hockeystick’ graph (that had done away with the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age).  They recognize that melting glaciers cannot illuminate the cause of warming and that shifting and often reversing CO2-temperature correlation does not support AGW.  Instead, the ‘evidence’ now advanced is essentially circumstantial.  The logic which gets the IPCC to this conclusion (as pointed out in Scientific Alliance Newsletter 160) is as follows:

1. There has been a general rise in averaged measured surface temperatures over the past century.
2. At the same time, atmospheric concentrations of so-called ‘greenhouse’ gases, particularly carbon dioxide, have been rising. All the evidence points to the net increase being caused largely by burning fossil fuels.
3. Computer models of the climate (General Circulation Models) cannot account for the temperature changes on the basis of known natural variability in climate.
4. Therefore, the additional ‘anthropogenic’ carbon dioxide must be the primary driver of this change.

Yet as Scientific Alliance states: “On this unproven argument, a whole climate change industry has been built; academic researchers, civil servants, carbon traders, environmental and development NGOs, taxpayer-subsidised renewable energy companies and, of course, UN agencies beaver away in the shared assumption that this logic is compelling and demands concerted action.”
 
Can you spot the ‘hole’ in the IPCC ‘logic’?  The key word is “known.”  But they totally ignore the most important natural forcing: changing solar activity that modulates the intensity of galactic cosmic radiation (GCR) incident on the Earth.  This fact seems known to everyone except the IPCC group dealing with the most important issue:  the cause of climate change in the 20th century.  See evidence in Fig 14 of NIPCC.
 
It gets worse:  IPCC-AR4 claims they can simulate past century’s Global Mean Surface Temp (GMST) with ‘known’ natural and anthropogenic forcings (as displayed in Fig 5 of NIPCC).  But the uncertainties shown there are huge, especially for the indirect effects of aerosols.  Of course, the major forcings from solar activity-GCR are not even considered; nor the effects of clouds that likely produce negative feedbacks rather than reinforcing the warming of GH gases.
 
The upshot is that the IPCC’s claim of matching the GMST is nothing else but an exercise in curve-fitting, with several suitably chosen parameters.  I would be impressed if IPCC could match mean zonal temp, not just GMST– or the atmospheric temp obtained from radiosondes and satellites – using the same chosen parameters.
*******************************************************
ARTICLES:  [For the numbered articles below please see the attached pdf.]

1. Interviews with Fred Singer
William Westmiller of the LA Public Policy Examiner did a series of three interviews with Fred Singer. The second one is below.
“Climate Change 101: Does Carbon Dioxide Cause Global Warming?”
http://www.examiner.com/x-33398-LA-Public-Policy-Examiner~y2009m12d29-Climate-Change-101-Is-the-globe-warming

2. BBC: forecast of mild winter ‘wasn’t actually wrong’. And they called climate skeptics ‘deniers.’
By Gerald Warner, Telegraph, UK, Jan 8, 2010 [H/t Gerald Malone]
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/geraldwarner/100021755/bbc-forecast-of-a-mild-winter-wasnt-actually-wrong-and-they-called-climate-sceptics-deniers/

3. Climate change: the true price of warmists’ folly is becoming clear: From the Met Office’s mistakes to Gordon Brown’s wind farms, the cost of ‘green’ policies is growing
By Christopher Booker, Telegraph, UK, Jan 9, 2010
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6958093/Climate-change-the-true-price-of-the-warmists-folly-is-becoming-clear.html

4. Climategate: How to Hide the Sun
By Dexter Wright, American Thinker, Jan 14, 2010
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/01/climategate_how_to_hide_the_su.html

5. The New Scientist for 12 December 2009 wrote an editorial comment supporting the Climategate emailers and saying they were not part of any kind of conspiracy.
Letter to the Editor of New Scientist
From Dr. Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, SIPPI Blog, [H/t Francois Guillaumat]
http://sppiblog.org/news/letter-to-the-editor-of-new-scientist

6. Phil Jones, head of the CRU, to Tom Wigley and Ben Santer commenting on the quality NASA GISS and NCDC data. [H/t Randy Randol]
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/index.php

7. Letter from Marlo Lewis of Competitive Enterprise Institute on EPA’s actions to regulate carbon dioxide. [No URL]

8. Post-Copenhagen: picking up the pieces
The Scientific Alliance, Jan. 8, 2010
http://www.gaia-technology.com/sa/newsletters/newsletters.cfm
*****************************************************
NEWS YOU CAN USE:

Fred Singer’s speech at the Institute of Economic Affairs in London is now available on YouTube. [H/t Richard Wellings]
Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DYI0OkbhkjY
Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JO6nVlzIXlM&feature=related

Brrr, the thinking on climate is frozen solid
By Dominic Lawson, Sunday Times Online, Jan 10, 2010
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/dominic_lawson/article6982310.ece

Efforts to blame China for the failure of Copenhagen continue. China should be thanked. China’s leading geophysicist and vice president of the Chinese Academy of Sciences is more impressed by the correlation between carbon dioxide emissions and prosperity (high) than by the correlation between carbon dioxide and temperatures (poor). To some western minds this is a strange way of thinking.
World Watch: China’s imprints all over Copenhagen talks fiasco
By John Tkacik, Jr. The Washington Times, Jan 14, 2010
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jan/14/china-imprints-all-over-copenhagen-talks-fiasco/

With Western Countries slowly finding that becoming the world leader in alternative energy is extremely expensive, let China lead the way. Note private firms are taking the lead.
China Tries a New Tack to Go Solar
By Keith Bradsher, NYT, Jan 8, 2010
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/09/business/energy-environment/09solar.html?ref=science

Interesting research on a different type of photovoltaics.
Glitter-sized solar photovoltaics produce competitive results: Adventures in microsolar supported by microelectronics and MEMS techniques
Sandia New Releases, Dec 21, 2009
http://www.sandia.gov/news/resources/news_releases/glitter-sized-solar-photovoltaics-produce-competitive-results/

A good comparison of wind power with nuclear power. Based on SEPP’s examination of actual output of areas such as the Columbia River George, the 31.8 percent effective capacity used in the article – mistakenly called reliability – is probably much too high. Production may virtually cease for days. Effective baseload capacity may be in the single digits.
The Green Con Job
By Dustin Chambers and Dan Ervin, The American, Jan 13, 2010 [H/t John Droz, Jr.]
http://american.com/archive/2010/january/the-green-con-job

The hidden fuel costs of wind generated electricity.
By K. de Groote & C. le Pair, Former Shell & STW, the Netherlands [H/t John Droz, Jr.]
http://www.clepair.net/windsecret.html
“Based on the German situation with 23 GW installed wind power we show that it becomes doubtful whether wind energy results in any fuel saving and CO2 emission reduction. What remains are the extra investments in wind energy.”

[SEPP Comment – Although CO2 emissions are increasing atmospheric CO2, the percentage of CO2 that remains in the atmosphere has been roughly constant. Please see Figure 23 of the 2008 NIPCC report.]
The CO2 Lie
Investors Business Daily, Jan 5, 20101
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=517128

EPA regulations based on “spurious science” have consequences. As fruit and vegetable growers suffered huge losses due to the deep freeze, it is useful to note the logic of the EPA in denying farmers an ingenious means to prevent their crops from freezing. A particular bacterium promotes ice formation on crops. If a certain gene is removed from the bacterium, it will no longer promote ice formation. Though shown effective in preventing ice formation, the EPA prevented general use of the technique by declaring the ice-promoting bacterium a pest, therefore the modified bacterium a “pesticide” to be regulated by the EPA.
Feds freeze frost antidote: Crop damage costs billons a year
By Henry Miller, The Washington Times, Jan 11, 2010
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jan/11/feds-freeze-frost-antidote/

Last week we referred to articles on the EPA’s announcement of new smog standards, their paucity of scientific standards, and the possible economic consequences. Below are two additional articles on the subject.
Politicizing Smog
By Rich Trzupek, Front Page, Jan 13, 2010
http://frontpagemag.com/2010/01/13/politicizing-smog-by-rich-trzupek/

Roguish EPA’s Junk Science Risks Recovery
By Steve Milloy, Investors Business Daily, Jan 11, 2010
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=517723
SEPP comment: “  Note that EPA ambient standards apply to outdoor air and not to indoor air.  Most urban people spend little time outside their home or office.  Further, anyone sensitive to pollution would avoid outdoor exercise during the occasional ‘bad-smog alert’ day.”

Previously, TWTW has referred to articles with scientists from the UN Environment Programme or the EPA making incredible predictions on the impact of warming in tropical countries. The following two articles, in part, address these claims.
Exaggerating the impact of climate change on the spread of malaria
By Chris Goodall, The Guardian. UK, Jan 13, 2010 [H/t Paul Reiter]
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jan/13/climate-change

“Socioeconomics Impacts of Global Warming are Systematically Overstated.
Part II: How Large Might be the Overestimation?”
By Indur M. Goklany, Watts Up With That blog, Jan 6, 2010
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/06/socioeconomic-impacts-of-global-warming-are-systematically-overestimated-part-ii-how-large-might-be-the-overestimation/#more-14872

And what about all the deaths reportedly caused by heat?
Winter kills: Excess Deaths in Winter Months: 108,500 Deaths in the US in 2008; 36,700 in England and Wales Last Winter; 5,600 in Canada (2006); 7,000 in Australia (1997-2006 Average); Thousands in Other Developed Countries
By Indur M. Goklany, Watts Up With That? Blog. Jan 6, 2010
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/06/winter-kills-excess-deaths-in-the-winter-months/#more-14962

And from “Down Under”
“Climate Madness and Electricity Realities.”
The Carbon Sense Coalition today accused the Australian alarmists of pursuing the same silly energy policies that are converting once-Great Britain into Poor Little England.
The Chairman of “Carbon Sense” Mr Viv Forbes said that people need to note conditions today in Britain.
“Ice laden wind turbines sit idle in the still air; solar panels are covered in snow; gas reserves are down to 8 days; pensioners are burning books to keep warm, and a bankrupt government chants global warming mantras.”
http://carbon-sense.com/2010/01/11/emissions-generation-lang/

Lord Monckton and Professor of Mining Geology Ian Pilmer, author of the best seller Heaven and Earth, will be touring Australia at the end of January and the beginning of February. Please see Jo Nova’s web site for dates and venues: http://joannenova.com.au/2010/01/monckton-plimer-tour-australia-dates-venues/#more-5933

I don’t have a conflict of interest because what I am doing is in my interest.
Pachauri in a spot as climategate hits TERI
By Ajmer Singh, India Today, Jan 10, 2010
http://indiatoday.intoday.in/site/Story/78466/Pachauri+in+a+spot+as+climategate+hits+TERI.html?complete=1

And finally, it is time to bring in the lawyers and the various state attorney generals to demand their piece of the action.
AES Agrees To Climate Change Disclosure Protocol with NY Attorney General: Is SEC Guidance For Climate Change Disclosure Next?
By: Jeffrey B. Gracer, Law firm: Sive, Paget & Riesel PC
http://blog.sprlaw.com/2009/12/aes-agrees-to-climate-change-disclosure-protocol-with-ny-attorney-general-is-sec-guidance-for-climate-change-disclosure-next/ [may require manual entry]
************************************************
BELOW THE BOTTOM LINE

Under the Freedom of Information Act, Greenpeace is demanding Universities release the emails of certain climate warming “skeptics.” Climategaters may be getting a rougher treatment.
Agent looking for ‘Climategate’ insiders
By Colleen Boyle, The Daily Collegian, Penn State, Jan 11, 2010 [H/t Brad Veek]
http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archive/2010/01/11/agent_looking_for_climategate.aspx

US Weather Bureau Report – November 2
The Arctic ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consul Ifft, at Bergen, Norway. Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers, he declared, all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone. Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met with as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes. Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the gulf stream still very warm. Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared. Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts, which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds.
  I’m sorry, I neglected to mention that this report was from November 2, 1922 as reported by the AP and published in The Washington Post.
[H/t Bill Gray]
################

 Kenneth Haapala   www.sepp.org

Dr Marohasy was publically documenting discrepancies – including incomplete data sets being used by top UK climate scientists that spuriously support the case for global warming – before the now infamous emails from the Climate Research Centre in the UK were leaked.  She gives informative and entertaining talks on global warming and other environmental issues [ http://jennifermarohasy.com/display/speaker.html ].

Update December 1st, 2009 -  What a momentous week in Australian federal politics!  And this morning, against considerable odds, a so-called climate change sceptics, Tony Abbot, took over as leader of the Opposition.   It is now likely that the National and Liberal parties will unite behind Mr Abbot, and those passionate on this issue will fight very hard on the issue of emissions trading and the science of climate change.   The mainstream media have always been dismissive of Tony Abbot.  They are now going to have to at least report him on these issues and it may be in the context of an early federal election.  

It is a great day for democracy in Australia. 

The mainstream media has been offensively biased on the issue of man-made global warming.  A journalist and friend recently described them as acting as “attack dogs”.   Most journalists and editors never thought there was any real opposition in the Liberal party to the ETS, they should reflect on how wrong they were and  now try and honestly understand Tony Abbot’s position and give other so-called sceptics a fair hearing.

Update November 24th, 2009 – Today the Australian Parliament is likely to vote for an emissions trading scheme in effect introducing very costly and unnecessary new legislation and regulation on the basis carbon dioxide is a pollutant and the Earth’s climate in crisis.

I recently received a postcard by snail mail with comment that this blog is a “little island of sanity in a mad world”.

I have certainly found it reassuring at times to read some of the comments in support of my blog posts explaining why there is no climate crisis. 

But alas it seems the Australian government is going to ignore rational debate and discuss in favour of politics.

And recently I received a copy of a new book by Christopher Booker entitled ‘The Real Global Warming Disaster: Is the obsession with climate change turning out to be the mostly costly scientific blunder in history?’ (Continuum 2009) and it begins:

“This book tells the story of what has been, scientifically and politically, one of the strangest episodes of our time. Indeed, as a case study in collective human psychology, it is turning out to have been one of the most extraordinary chapters in the history of our species.”

Feel free to continue to post at this increasingly long thread, though I feel I have probably contributed as much as I can by way of new blog posts to rational discussion on environmental issues including global warming/the climate crisis. 

Much thanks and cheers.

October 20th, 2009 -  Thanks for the many emails and submissions assuming I will be back soon.   But alas I am still wandering.   Those wanting to be useful could, instead of sending me something to post, make a financial donation to this blog.   There is a little orange button at the right-hand side of this page.   It asks for A$50.  

PS I am making progress with my book – the dystopian fiction.   And the picture of the truck was taken a few days ago in northwestern New South Wales.    

October 7th, 2009 – “Walkabout” is a word we use here in Australia to let others in our community know we are going away for a period of time – perhaps to take more time to reflect on life.  

I’m off for a bit – going walkabout.  

PS I attended a lecture by Professor Bob Carter last night and was reminded that not so long ago the English speaking world believed all Swans to be white.   The photograph of the black swans was taken by Jennifer Marohasy in western Victoria, Australia, in October 2007.

He contacted me about six years ago when I was working on the Murray River and water issues. He expressed concern about Australia’s great artesian basin and over extraction of what he considered a finite resource.

We later corresponded over climate change issue. Lance believed we must try harder to understand the causes of natural climate change instead of assuming anthropogenic global warming. He was particularly interested in the oceans as a source of carbon dioxide. On June 24, 2009 he wrote:

“The relationship between CO2 and ocean temperature is ordained by the solubility relationship.   I attach [see above] a chart showing my experience curve for the only reliable temperature records we have. It is difficult to argue against a correlation of 0.99.  

I also attach [see below] my experience curve for Global average sea surface temperature and earth rotation. Note the correlation of 0.99.

The reason why SST, CO2 and LOD correlate so well is that they are all dependent variables. The external driving force is the independent variable. It is the electromagnetic field imposed on the earth which causes motion (rotation) and electromagnetically induced heating. The driving force is nominally from the Sun.

However, I do not believe that the Sun causes its own sunspots. I suspect the source is a pulsating emf from galactic sources. As health and time permit I will contemplate further.”

Lance died last week, on Thursday October 1.  He was 84 years old.

Since his dead I have learnt that before his official retirement Lance was a world authority on rock behaviour and tunnelling, a former president of the Institution of Engineers Australia, and a recipient of its highest award, the Peter Nicol Russell Memorial Medal.

He had worked on the Snowy Mountain hydroelectricity scheme and was once Pro-Vice Chancellor at Melbourne’s Monash University.

Lance did not consider nature or climate benign and man rather puny in the scheme of things… unless we harness science and ideas in practical ways to protect and nurture civilization. Thus Lance championed big infrastructure projects.

He encouraged me at different times, suggesting that it was important to stay “candid and thoughtful”.

Lance Endersbee died last week, but his ideas will live on.

******************

Links and Notes

Lance Endersbee: 

Emeritus Professor, AO, FTSE. ME, Hon FIEAust., Hon Mem Eng Inst Canada, F.ASCE. Former Pro Vice Chancellor, Monash University, 1988-9, Dean, Faculty of Engineering, 1976-88.

Extensive career in hydropower engineering and water resource projects 1950-1976 in Australia and overseas with Snowy Mountains Authority, Hydroelectric Commission of Tasmania, and the United Nations.

Vice Pres. Int Soc Rock Mechanics 1966-70. Pres. IEAust 1980, Cr 1967-80.

Recipient: Peter Nicol Russell award 1986, Chapman Medal 1967, Warren Prize 1963.

Book, A Voyage of Discovery, a history of ideas about the earth, with a new understanding of the global resources of water and petroleum, and the problems of climate change. 2005.

Blog posts:

http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2008/02/carbon-dioxide-versus-temperature/ 

http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2007/09/the-atmosphere-is-thin-and-oceans-shallow-an-illustration-and-note-from-lance-endersbee/ 

http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2007/09/atmospheric-carbon-dioxide-levels-follow-sea-surface-temperature-a-note-from-lance-endersbee/

 On Line Opinion Author:

 http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/author.asp?id=261 

The Great Artesian Basin and Plutonic water  http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=1215

In response to recent suggestions by Canadian statistician Steve McIntyre that the official reconstructions may have been fudged, Keith Briffa, from the Climate Research Unit associated with the UK Met. Office, has responded explaining that there was no cherry picking of data in the development of the reconstructions used by the IPCC and others, rather, the methodology is not yet robust.  

Given this admission from a leading UK climate scientist, it would perhaps be appropriate for the head of the IPCC, Rajendra Pachauri,  to now advise world leaders that there are potential problems with the methodology used in the development of key assumptions underpining the consensus view on anthropogenic global warming and that until further notice, the big meeting in Copenhagen should be postponed.

Following is Professor Briffa’s response:   

“MY attention has been drawn to a comment by Steve McIntyre on the Climate Audit website relating to the pattern of radial tree growth displayed in the ring-width chronology “Yamal” that I first published in Briffa (2000). The substantive implication of McIntyre’s comment (made explicitly in subsequent postings by others) is that the recent data that make up this chronology (i.e. the ring-width measurements from living trees) were purposely selected by me from among a larger available data set, specifically because they exhibited recent growth increases.

“This is not the case. The Yamal tree-ring chronology (see also Briffa and Osborn 2002, Briffa et al. 2008) was based on the application of a tree-ring processing method applied to the same set of composite sub-fossil and living-tree ring-width measurements provided to me by Rashit Hantemirov and Stepan Shiyatov which forms the basis of a chronology they published (Hantemirov and Shiyatov 2002). In their work they traditionally applied a data processing method (corridor standardisation) that does not preserve evidence of long timescale growth changes. My application of the Regional Curve Standardisation method to these same data was intended to better represent the multi-decadal to centennial growth variations necessary to infer the longer-term variability in average summer temperatures in the Yamal region: to provide a direct comparison with the chronology produced by Hantemirov and Shiyatov.

“These authors state that their data (derived mainly from measurements of relic wood dating back over more than 2,000 years) included 17 ring-width series derived from living trees that were between 200-400 years old. These recent data included measurements from at least 3 different locations in the Yamal region. In his piece, McIntyre replaces a number (12) of these original measurement series with more data (34 series) from a single location (not one of the above) within the Yamal region, at which the trees apparently do not show the same overall growth increase registered in our data.

“The basis for McIntyre’s selection of which of our (i.e. Hantemirov and Shiyatov’s) data to exclude and which to use in replacement is not clear but his version of the chronology shows lower relative growth in recent decades than is displayed in my original chronology. He offers no justification for excluding the original data; and in one version of the chronology where he retains them, he appears to give them inappropriate low weights. I note that McIntyre qualifies the presentation of his version(s) of the chronology by reference to a number of valid points that require further investigation. Subsequent postings appear to pay no heed to these caveats. Whether the McIntyre version is any more robust a representation of regional tree growth in Yamal than my original, remains to be established.

“My colleagues and I are working to develop methods that are capable of expressing robust evidence of climate changes using tree-ring data. We do not select tree-core samples based on comparison with climate data. Chronologies are constructed independently and are subsequently compared with climate data to measure the association and quantify the reliability of using the tree-ring data as a proxy for temperature variations.

“We have not yet had a chance to explore the details of McIntyre’s analysis or its implication for temperature reconstruction at Yamal but we have done considerably more analyses exploring chronology production and temperature calibration that have relevance to this issue but they are not yet published. I do not believe that McIntyre’s preliminary post provides sufficient evidence to doubt the reality of unusually high summer temperatures in the last decades of the 20th century.

“We will expand on this initial comment on the McIntyre posting when we have had a chance to review the details of his work.

K.R. Briffa
30 September 2009

Briffa, K. R. 2000. Annual climate variability in the Holocene: interpreting the message of ancient trees. Quaternary Science Reviews 19:87-105.
Briffa, K. R., and T. J. Osborn. 2002. Paleoclimate – Blowing hot and cold. Science 295:2227-2228.
Briffa, K. R., V. V. Shishov, T. M. Melvin, E. A. Vaganov, H. Grudd, R. M. Hantemirov, M. Eronen, and M. M. Naurzbaev. 2008. Trends in recent temperature and radial tree growth spanning 2000 years across northwest Eurasia. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B-Biological Sciences 363:2271-2284.
Hantemirov, R. M., and S. G. Shiyatov. 2002. A continuous multimillennial ring-width chronology in Yamal, northwestern Siberia. Holocene 12:717-726.”

**************************************

Notes and Links

from http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/yamal2000/   [Thanks to Nick Stokes for the link.]

Yamal: A “Divergence” Problem, by Steve McIntyre, 27 September 2009
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=7168

Also http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/09/leading-uk-climate-scientists-must-explain-or-resign/

Photograph of Professor Briffa from http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/photo/keith2007b.jpg

Mr McIntyre’s analysis of the data – which he had been asking for since 2003 – suggests that scientists at the Climate Research Unit of the Hadley Centre associated with the UK Met. Office  have been using only a small subset of the available data to make their claims that recent years have been the hottest of the last millennium.   When the entire data set is used, Mr McIntyre claims that the hockey stick shape disappears completely. [1]    

Mr McIntyre has previously showed problems with the mathematics behind the ‘hockey stick’.   But scientists at the Climate Research Centre (CRU), in particular Dr Briffa, have continuously republished claiming the upswing in temperatures over the last 100 years is real and not an artifact of the methodology used – as claimed by Mr McIntyre.     However, these same scientists have denied Mr McIntyre access to all the data.    Recently they were forced to make more data available to Mr McIntyre after they published in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society  -  a journal which unlike Nature and Science has strict policies on data archiving which it enforces.  
 
This week’s claims by Steve McInyre that scientists associated with the UK Met. Office have been less than diligent  are serious and suggest some of the most defended building blocks of the case for anthropogenic global warming are based on the indefensible when the methodology is laid bare.    

This sorry saga also raises issues  associated with how data is archived at the UK Met. Office with incomplete data sets that spuriously support the case for global warming being promoted while complete data sets are kept hidden from the public –  including from scientific sceptics like Steve McIntyre. 
 
It is indeed time leading scientists at the Climate Research Centre associated with the UK Met. Office explain how Mr McIntyre is in error or resign.

***********

Notes and Links

[1] Yamal: A “Divergence” Problem, by Steve McIntyre, 27 September 2009
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=7168

The above chart shows the difference when the entire data set (black line) as opposed to a subset (red line) is used to reconstruct temperature.   The chart is accompanied by the following comment from Mr McIntyre:  “The next graphic compares the RCS chronologies from the two slightly different data sets: red – the RCS chronology calculated from the CRU archive (with the 12 picked cores); black – the RCS chronology calculated using the Schweingruber Yamal sample of living trees instead of the 12 picked trees used in the CRU archive [leaving the rest of the data set unchanged i.e. all the subfossil data prior to the 19th century]. The difference is breathtaking.”

Mann, Michael E.; Bradley, Raymond S.; Hughes, Malcolm K. (1998), “Global-scale temperature patterns and climate forcing over the past six centuries” (PDF), Nature 392: 779–787, doi:10.1038/33859, http://www.caenvirothon.com/Resources/Mann,%20et%20al.%20Global%20scale%20temp%20patterns.pdf  

Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy#cite_note-17

CRU Refuses Data Once Again
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=6623 

http://climateresearchnews.com/2009/09/the-hockey-stick-is-dead/

http://www.thegwpf.org/news/137-lord-lawson-calls-for-public-inquiry-into-uea-global-warming-data-manipulation.html

Lester Brown of the Earth Policy Institute puts it this way, “The melting of the glaciers in the Himalayas and on the Tibetan Plateau will deprive the Indus, Ganges, Yangtze and Yellow rivers of the ice melt that sustains their flow during the dry season and the irrigation systems that depend on them.”

But according to Patrick Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace, it’s a case of cognitive dissonance.  He explains:

“In other words the supply of melt water from the melting glaciers is threatened by the melting of the glaciers. This is correct in that if the glaciers melt completely there will be no more melt water from the glaciers.

“What if the glaciers were not melting due to a colder climate? Then where would the irrigation water come from? How about if the glaciers were advancing 100 meters per year toward the villages that need the melt water for irrigation?  

“How does the logic of this situation escape these bright minds?

“It snows every winter in the Himalayas. When the snow melts it fills the rivers. Where there is net melting of the glaciers this adds additional water to the rivers.

“But they can’t have it both ways. If they want to have continued melt water from the glaciers then the glaciers must continue to melt.

“Seeing that the glaciers are finite in size this would eventually result in no glacier, and reliance on annual snow melt.”

*****************

Notes and Links

Read more from Patrick Moore, Greenspirit Strategies Ltd., at www.greenspirit.com

The UNEP report is ‘2009 Climate Change Science Compendium 2009’ which can be downloaded at http://en.cop15.dk/files/pdf/compendium2009.pdf [4MB] .

The report is summarized in the newsletter at http://en.cop15.dk/news/view+news?newsid=2193

Read Lester Brown at http://www.earth-policy.org/index.php?/plan_b_updates/2009/update82

The image of Bhutan glaciers melting is from http://pnb.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Glacial_lakes,_Bhutan.jpg  . Thanks Wikipedia.

And more on glacial lakes here: http://www.eorc.jaxa.jp/en/imgdata/topics/2008/tp080402.html

And so much more on melting glaciers at google:

BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Himalayan glaciers ‘melting fast’
14 Mar 2005 … Melting Himalayan glaciers could lead to catastrophic water shortages, a conservation group warns.
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4346211.stm  

Himalayan Glacier – Glaciers of Himalayas – Himalayas Famous Glaciers
It is the second largest glacier in the Himalayan region. Shigar River, which is a tributary of the Indus River, originates from this glacier. …
www.himalaya2000.com/himalayan…/himalayan-glaciers.html

Himalayan Glacier Melting Observed From Space
The Himalayan glaciers are melting under the effect of global warming. However, the extent of this melting remains difficult to assess from ground surveys …
www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/03/070327113346.htm

Himalaya Glaciers,Glacier in Himalayan Range,Glaciers in …
Glaciers in Himalaya – Provide information on various glaciers in uttaranchal region of india himalayan range, glacier in himalaya, himalayan glaciers and …
www.travel-himalayas.com/himalayan…/uttaranchal-glaciers.html

Himalayan Glaciers Seem to Be Growing: Discovery News
5 May 2009 … In the Western Himalayas, a group of some 230 glaciers are bucking the global warming trend. They’re growing.
dsc.discovery.com/news/2009/05/05/himalayas-glaciers.htm

“Dr Andy Derocher, the outgoing chairman of the PSBG and Professor at the University of  Alberta, wrote to inform Taylor that he was not welcome at the 2009 meeting of the PBSG.

“Keep in mind as you read his comments (below) that Taylor had arranged funding to attend the meeting in Copenhagen, and has been at every meeting of this group since 1981. With 30 years of experience in polar bear research, it goes without saying that he has something to contribute to any discussion about polar bear conservation. This is the original email from Derocher to Taylor explaining why he was not invited:   

Hi Mitch,

The world is a political place and for polar bears, more so now than ever before. I have no problem with dissenting views as long as they are supportable by logic, scientific reasoning, and the literature.  

I do believe, as do many Polar Bear Specialist Group (PBSG) members, that for the sake of polar bear conservation, views that run counter to human induced climate change are extremely unhelpful. In this vein, your positions and statements in the Manhattan Declaration, the Frontier Institute, and the Science and Public Policy Institute are inconsistent with positions taken by the PBSG.

I too was not surprised by the members not endorsing an invitation.

Nothing I heard had to do with your science on harvesting or your research on polar bears – it was the positions you’ve taken on global warming that brought opposition.

Time will tell who is correct but the scientific literature is not on the side of those arguing against human induced climate change.
I look forward to having someone else chair the PBSG.

Best regards,
Andy (Derocher) …

Keep reading here:  http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/exile_for_non-believers.html
Pdf here:  http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/Nova-Exile_for_non_believers.pdf

‘Exile for Non-Believers’, by Joanne Nova, published by the Science and Public Policy Institute, September 2009 

Photo Credit: Susanne Miller, United States Fish and Wildlife Service   http://www.fws.gov/home/feature/2008/polarbear012308/polarbearphotos.html

These are the conclusions from Willis Eschenbach who lives in Honiara, Solomon Islands.  He explains why:

“Much has been written of late regarding the impending demise of the world’s coral atolls due to sea level rise. Recently, here in the Solomon Islands, the sea level rise has been blamed for salt water intrusion into the subsurface “lens” of fresh water under some atolls. Beneath the surface of most atolls, there is a lens shaped body of fresh water which floats on the seawater underneath. The claim is that the rising sea levels are contaminating the fresh-water lens with seawater.

These claims of blame ignore several facts. The first and most important fact, discovered by none other than Charles Darwin, is that coral atolls essentially “float” on the surface of the sea. When the sea rises, the atoll rises with it, and when the sea falls, they fall as well. Atolls exist in a delicate balance between new sand and coral rubble being added from the reef, and sand and rubble being eroded by wind and wave back into the sea.

When the sea falls, more sand tumbles from the high part, and more of the atoll is exposed to wind erosion. The atoll falls along with the sea level. When the sea level rises, wind erosion decreases. The coral grows up along with the sea level rise. The flow of sand and rubble onto the atoll continues, and the atoll rises. Since atolls go up and down with the sea level, the idea that they will be buried by sea level rises is totally unfounded. They have gone through sea level rises much larger and much faster than the current one.

Given that established scientific fact, why is there water incursion into the fresh water lenses? Several factors affect this. First and foremost, the fresh water lens is a limited supply. As island populations increase, more and more water is drawn from the lens. The inevitable end of this is the intrusion of sea water into the lens. This affects both wells and plants, which both draw from the same lens. It also leads to unfounded claims that sea level rise is to blame. It is not. Seawater is coming in because fresh water is going out.

The second reason for salt water intrusion into the lens is a reduction in the amount of sand and rubble coming onto the atoll from the reef. When the balance between sand added and sand lost is disturbed, the atoll shrinks. This has two main causes — coral mining and killing the wrong fish. The use of coral for construction in many atolls is quite common. At times this is done in a way that damages the reef as well as taking the coral. This is the visible part of the loss of reef, the part we can see.

What goes unremarked is the loss of the reef sand, which is essential for the continued existence of the atoll. The cause for the loss of sand is the indiscriminate, wholesale killing of parrotfish and other reef-grazing fish. A single parrotfish, for example, creates about half a tonne of coral sand per year. Parrotfish and other beaked reef fish create the sand by grinding up the reef with their massive jaws, digesting the food, and excreting the ground coral.

In addition to making all that fine white sand that makes up the lovely island beaches, beaked grazing fish also increase overall coral health, growth, and production. This happens in the same way that pruning makes a tree send up lots of new shoots, and in the same way that lions keep a herd of zebras healthy and productive. The constant grazing by the beaked fish keeps the corals in full production mode.

Unfortunately, these fish sleep at night, and are easily wiped out by night divers. Their populations have plummeted in many areas in recent years. Result? Much less sand.

The third reason for salt water intrusion into the lens is the tidal cycle. We are currently in the high part of the 18 year tidal cycle. The maximum high tide in Honiara in 2008 was about 10 cm higher than the maximum tide in 1996, and the highs will now decrease until about 2014. People often mistake an unusually high tide for a rise in sea level, which it is not. There has been no increase in the recorded rate of sea level rise. In fact, the global sea level rise has flattened out in the last couple years.

What can be done to turn the situation around for the atolls? There are a number of essential practical steps that atoll residents can take to preserve and build up your atoll, and protect the fresh water lens:

1. Stop having so many kids. An atoll has a limited supply of water. It cannot support an unlimited population. Enough said.

2. Catch every drop that falls. On the ground, build small dams in any watercourses to encourage the water to soak in to the lens rather than run off to the ocean. Put water tanks under every roof. Dig “recharge wells”, which return filtered surface water to the lens in times of heavy rain. Catch the water off of the runways. In Majuro, they have put gutters on both sides of the airplane runway to catch all of the rainwater falling on the runway. It is collected and pumped into tanks. On other atolls, they let the rainwater just run off of the airstrip back into the ocean …

3. Conserve, conserve, conserve. Use seawater in place of fresh whenever possible. Use as little water as you can.

4. Make the killing of parrotfish and other beaked reef grazing fish tabu. Stop fishing them entirely. Make them protected species. The parrotfish should be the national bird of every atoll nation. I’m serious. If you call it the national bird, tourists will ask why a fish is the national bird, and you can explain to them how the parrotfish is the source of the beautiful beaches they are walking on, so they shouldn’t spear beaked reef fish or eat them. Stop killing the fish that make the very ground under your feet. The parrotfish and the other beaked reef-grazing fish are constantly building up your atoll. Every year they are providing tonnes and tonnes of fine white sand to keep your atoll afloat in turbulent times. You should be honoring and protecting them, not killing them. This is the single most important thing you can do.

5. Be very cautious regarding the use of coral as a building material. An atoll is not solid ground. It is is not a constant “thing” in the way a rock island is a thing. An atoll is an eddy, an ever-changing body constantly replenished by a (hopefully) unending river of coral sand and rubble. It is a process, wherein on one side healthy reef plus beaked coral-grazing fish plus storms provide a continuous stream of coral sand and rubble. This sand and rubble are constantly being added to the atoll, making it larger. At the same time, coral sand and rubble are constantly being eaten away, and blown away, and eroded away from the atoll. The shape of the atoll changes from season to season and from year to year. It builds up on this corner, and the sea washes away that corner.

And of course, if anything upsets that balance of sand added and sand lost, if the supply of coral sand and rubble per year starts dropping (say from reef damage or coral mining or killing parrotfish) or if the total sand and rubble loss goes up (say by heavy rains or strong winds or a change in currents) the atoll will be affected.

So if coral is necessary for building, take it sparingly, in spots. Take dead or dying coral in preference to live coral. Mine the deeps and not the shallows. Use hand tools. Leave enough healthy reef around to reseed the area with new coral. A healthy reef is the factory that annually produces the tonnes and tonnes of building material that is absolutely necessary to keep your atoll afloat. You mess with it at your peril.

6. Reduce sand loss from the atoll in as many ways as possible. This can be done with plants to stop wind erosion. Don’t introduce plants for the purpose. Encourage and transplant the plants that already grow locally. Reducing water erosion also occurs with the small dams mentioned above, which will trap sand eroded by rainfall. Don’t overlook human erosion. Every step a person takes on an atoll pushes sand downhill, closer to returning to the sea. Lay leaf mats where this is evident, wherever the path is wearing away. People wear a path, and soon it is lower than the surrounding ground. When it rains, it becomes a small watercourse. Invisibly, the water washes your precious sand into the ocean. Invisibly, the wind blows the ground out from under your feet. Protect your island. Stop it from being washed and blown away.

7. Monitor and build up the health of the reef. You and you alone are responsible for the well-being of the amazing underwater fish-tended coral factory that year after year keeps your atoll from disappearing. Coral reseeding programs done by schools have been very successful. Get the kids involved in watching the reef. Educate the people that they are the guardians of the reef. Talk to the fishermen.

8. Expand the atoll. Modern coastal engineering has shown that it is quite possible to “grow” an atoll. The key is to slow down the water as it passes by. The slower the water, the more sand builds up. Slowing the water is accomplished by building low underwater walls perpendicular to the beach. These run out until the ends are a few metres underwater. Normally this is done with a geotextile fabric tubes which are pumped full of concrete. In the atolls the similar effect can be obtained with “gabbions”, wire cages filled with blocks of dead coral. Wire all of the wire cages securely together in a triangular shape, stake them down with rebar, wait for the sand to fill in. It might be possible to do it with old tires, fastened together, with chunks of coral piled on top of them. It will likely take a few years to fill in. Here’s a before and after picture of the system in use on a beach (not an atoll), taken three years apart. Note the low height and triangular shape of the wall extending out from the beach and continuing underwater (made of 3 concrete-filled geotextile fabric tubes). This  triangular shape does not attempt to stop the water currents. It just slows them down and directs them toward the beach to deposit their load of sand. Eventually, the entire area fills in with sand.

Of course to do that, you absolutely have to have a constant source of sand … like for example a healthy reef … with lots of parrotfish. That’s why I said above that the single most important thing is to protect the fish and the reef. If you have beaked fish and a healthy reef, you’ll have plenty of sand and rubble forever. If you don’t, you’re in trouble.

Coral atolls have proven over thousands of years that, if left alone, they can go up and down with any sea level rise. And if we follow some simple conservation practices, they can continue to do so and to support atoll residents. But they cannot survive an unlimited population increase, or unrestricted fishing, or overpumping the water lens, or unrestrained coral mining.

Willis Eschenbach
Honiara, Solomon Islands

*******************************

Further Reading:

On sea level rise in Honiara: Pacific Country Report Sea Level & Climate: Their Present State Solomon Islands June 2006, http://www.bom.gov.au/ntc/IDO60031/IDO60031.2006.pdf

On global sea level rise levelling off: University of Colorado at Boulder Sea Level Change,  http://sealevel.colorado.edu

On Darwin’s discovery: Darwin, C., The Autobiography of Charles Darwin 1809-1882, 1887

“No other work of mine was begun in so deductive a spirit as this; for the whole theory was thought out on the west coast of S. America before I had seen a true coral reef. I had therefore only to verify and extend my views by a careful examination of living reefs. But it should be observed that I had during the two previous years been incessantly attending to the effects on the shores of S. America of the intermittent elevation of the land, together with the denudation and deposition of sediment. This necessarily led me to reflect much on the effects of subsidence, and it was easy to replace in imagination the continued deposition of sediment by the upward growth of coral. To do this was to form my theory of the formation of barrier-reefs and atolls.” (Darwin, 1887, p. 98, 99)

On the results of coral mining and changing the reef: Xue, C. (1996) Coastal Erosion And Management Of Amatuku Island, Funafuti Atoll, Tuvalu, 1996, South Pacific Applied Geoscience Commission (SOPAC), http://conf.sopac.org/virlib/TR/TR0234.pdf

On the same topic: Xue, C., Malologa, F. (1995) Coastal sedimentation and coastal management of Fongafale, Funafuti, Tuvalu, SOPAC Technical Report 221

On parrotfish creating sand: http://www.seacortez.com/fish/scaridae.html

On the cause of erosion in Tuvalu: Tuvalu Not Experiencing Increased Sea Level Rise, Willis Eschenbach, Energy & Environment, Volume 15, Number 3, 1 July 2004 , pp. 527-543

On expanding island beaches: Holmberg Technologies, http://www.erosion.com/

On the dangers of overpopulation: Just look around you …

Photograph via Walter Starck.