FOR MUCH of the Northern Hemisphere, the cold is abating. As climate scientists long realized, a short period does not create a trend. Even global warming advocates, who insisted that the 1998 El Nino warming was a trend, are now claiming that the cold does not contradict their warming trend. Their time spans are evidently extremely adjustable.
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:
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?”
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]
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
4. Climategate: How to Hide the Sun
By Dexter Wright, American Thinker, Jan 14, 2010
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]
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]
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
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
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
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
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
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.]
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.]
“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
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
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.
By Rich Trzupek, Front Page, Jan 13, 2010
Roguish EPA’s Junk Science Risks Recovery
By Steve Milloy, Investors Business Daily, Jan 11, 2010
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]
“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
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
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.”
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
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]
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