Archive for the 'Global Warming' Category
Three important posts lately. Two are from WattsUpWithThat.com and one from Climate Audit concerning the “trick” used to “hide the decline”.
1) The new and improved hockey stick. Drudged up from ice core data in Greenland, it turns out that there has been incredible warming lately, but it’s not nearly what it’s been in the past. I invite you to see my video of the images compiled.
UPDATE: I’ve posted a second video with voice-over and improved annotation:
2) The seriously fudged Darwin, Australia data. I don’t know about it being smoking gun as it’s one example, but it’s truly amazing how much manipulation had to go into the Darwin data points to make them fit a warming trend. I’ll say it’s deliberate when I see two more examples of this kind of homogenization of the data.
3) Some people have been decrying the “trick”, saying scientists use “tricks” all the time. They have a point, but only to a certain degree. In this case, the “trick” was used to explain why a certain data set was truncated when matched with two other tree-ring data sets. The “Climategate” emails even show discussions of how to mitigate the impact of this data on the data that “proves” skyrocketing temperatures. Read the whole thing.
It’s a lot of reading, but it’s clear there were serious shenanigans going on here and with the IPCC directorate.
HEY YOU! THANKS FOR STOPPING BY from Ace, or HotAir, or wherever you’re dropping in from. Be sure to visit some of the guys on my blogroll. More great climate discussions go on at DigitalDiatribes.wordpress.com.
I’ve been semi-purposefully holding back on the ClimateGate (ugh, I hate naming anything “-gate”) scandal to see how this plays out. And from what I can tell, there are two camps (surprise!), one group that denies that the problem is not the scientists but the “hackers” that released the data, and another group that seems to think these emails prove that the world is cooling.
From my perspective, I think that turning this on a hunt for the “hacker” is crazy. It’s obvious from the files that this was a pre-compiled list of information for an FOI request. It’s also obvious that someone involved in the compiling had a change of heart after reading through some of the material they were compiling, and then decided to release it. The alternative theory is that someone knew there was an FOI document that was compiled at the CRU, stole it, then looked for information to discredit it. Both would be released close to the Copenhagen meeting for maximum damage, and that’s what we’ve seen.
Does this disprove Anthropogenic Climate Change? No. ( AGW has yet to be concretely proven anyway.) Does it prove there is a worldwide conspiracy to promote AGW? No. However, if there was any good science to come out of the CRU, this document release pretty much discredits it, and I’ll explain why.
- In the code for computer “models” that were supposed to account for planetary temperature changes and predict future changes, there are plenty of comment lines that talk about temperature adjustments to make the data fit the the theory. Scientists aren’t supposed to do that. We’re supposed to form theories based upon collected data. There are many entries of this in the released data from CRU. Add to this the “trick” to “hide the decline”, and you’ve got people doing things that they shouldn’t be doing. If there is a decline, report the decline. Don’t falsify the data.
- The deletion of raw data to avoid an FOI is damning. Scientists don’t delete data unless it’s garbage, and even then, the methods to collect data are often rerun. This is physical science as well, so hard, raw data is something you spend years collecting.
- The refusal to cooperate with an FOI request is damning. All science should be transparent. If a center is designed to collect climate data, it should be open with that data. Hiding it makes us wonder what they are hiding and why they are hiding it. As they say in politics, it’s not the crime that gets you, it’s the cover-up. And here some very prominent climatologists are hiding things.
- Putting pressure on editors of peer-reviewed journals to exclude “denialists” is probably the biggest sin here. When you attempt to exclude scientific conclusions to push your own agenda, you are no longer playing the role of scientist, but the role of ignorant Luddite. Imagine some physicists put pressure on journal editors to exclude Einstein’s work on relativity to push their own Newtonian agenda? Imagine what the world of physics would be without Einstein’s contributions? These guys were attempting to bully scientific opinion. The most memorably example of that is the Church bullying Gallileo. I now consider these “scientists” more of an AGW “inquisition”. They’re already using Saul Alinsky’s tactics against the scientists who dispute dangerous AGW. You can see the faith-based mentality in the people who want to sock it to Pat Michaels. You don’t see me bent out of shape about the guys who believe in the Electric Sun to the point I want to kick them in the privates. That kind of emotion should be pulled out of science, but instead we see it permeating the ranks of the AGW proponents.
People who ignore this scandal do so at their own peril. There are serious problems that should be denounced by the total of the scientific community.
The all-around GENIUS Nobel Laureate who’s been touting geothermal energy tells Conan the planetary core temperature of earth is “several million degrees“:
Conan: Now, what about … you talk in the book about geothermal energy …
Al: Yeah, yeah.
Conan: and that is, as I understand it, using the heat that’s generated from the core of the earth …
Conan: … to create energy, and it sounds to me like an evil plan by Lex Luthor to defeat Superman. Can you, can you tell me, is this a viable solution, geothermal energy?
Al: It definitely is, and it’s a relatively new one. People think about geothermal energy — when they think about it at all — in terms of the hot water bubbling up in some places, but two kilometers or so down in most places there are these incredibly hot rocks, ’cause the interior of the earth is extremely hot, several million degrees, and the crust of the earth is hot …
The CORE is several million degrees!? Quick, call Hillary Swank!
The SUN has a core temperature of a few million Kelvins. The Earth’s core is estimated to be about 6000-7000 K. You’d think he’d know this, being an expert on renewable energy and all that. Unless he’s just a political hack making things up as he goes along to push his fantasy of imminent destruction by CO2.
New story out– falling CO2 levels caused Antarctica to form!
And ready for the biggest leap of scientific faith yet? It comes from “scientist” Bridget Wade from Texas A&M:
The study reconstructed CO2 levels around this period, showing a dip around the time ice sheets instarted to form. CO2 levels were around 750 parts per million, about double current levels.
“There are no samples of air from that age that we can measure, so you need to find something you can measure that would have responded to the atmospheric CO2,” Paul Pearson of Cardiff University told Reuters.
Wait.. 750 ppm? That’s double what we have today. Aren’t we supposed to already have hit a tipping point where runaway warming is inescapable? Aren’t we a few ppm of CO2 away from a planet that will warm by 15 degrees a year, creating a feedback loop that will melt every ice cube on earth?
But… if the CO2 value was twice that of current CO2 concentrations, then how can the greenhouse model predict rapid glacier and ice cap formation? It can’t. There has to be a systematic event which triggers the shift. If the planet is unfazed, then there is no way glaciers could form, so long as the CO2 concentration is 750 ppm.
But that doesn’t stop our intrepid scientist from making a wild allegation that there is a correlation between a drop in CO2 values to a formation of ice caps. This has to completely ignore any other outside factors to be true, and to do such a thing is complete ignorance.
In the “you can’t make this stuff up” file, Al Gore showed up in Congress to plead to his Democrat buddies that “action must be taken” before the world reaches the point of no return. But here’s what he said:
“It is a challenge that this Congress must rise to,” Gore said. “I wish I could find the words to get past the partisan divide that both sides have contributed to. … It shouldn’t be partisan. It should be something we do together in our national interest.”
Nice words. But what happened 24 hours earlier?
UK’s Lord Christopher Monckton, a former science advisor to Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, claimed House Democrats have refused to allow him to appear alongside former Vice President Al Gore at a high profile global warming hearing on Friday April 24, 2009 at 10am in Washington. Monckton told Climate Depot that the Democrats rescinded his scheduled joint appearance at the House Energy and Commerce hearing on Friday. Monckton said he was informed that he would not be allowed to testify alongside Gore when his plane landed from England Thursday afternoon.
So, he urges bipartisanship, so long as the other side of the political deivide doesn’t get to hear the evidence contrary to Gore’s premise! Of course, this is typical of Gore. It’s not the first time he ran from a debate.
And where is this blatant hypocrisy reported in the media? Oh, it’s not! When you control the media, you frame the debate, and when you exclude half of the debate, you control the conclusions.
No wonder I’m depressed.
It’s amazing. People are dead because of an arson campaign, and a reporter for the AFP takes the time to make a ludicrous leap between the wildfires and climate change.
The key point in the story comes from bushfire expert Mark Adams:
“I have never seen weather and other conditions as extreme as they were on Saturday, the fire weather was unprecedented,” Adams said.
“We don’t have all the evidence yet to fully explain this day in terms of climate change, however all the science to date shows that we can expect more extreme weather in the years to come.
Let me rephrase that for you. “We have no real evidence that these fires are in any way connected to climate change, but I’m going to fearmonger nonetheless and blame the warming planet and CO2 emissions!”
Remember all the flak Al Gore gets when he attends an AGW conference while it’s 8 below, and the environmentalists warn us not to base our conclusions on allegorical evidence (and, rightly so, environuts!)? Well, it cuts both ways. Australia’s had one hot summer, but global temperatures have been either stagnant or in decline, on average, since 1998 (or 2001, if you want to avoid using such an outlier of a data point as 1998).
Of course, the idiot reporting this for AFP doesn’t bother to check the data before seeking out a one-sided argument on climate change.
Just when I think I’m out, they pull me back in!
In particular, somebody who thinks government should start limiting how many kids you should have to limit the impact on the environment.
State-forced abortions! Where did I ever hear that before!?
Now, if you think about this policy, it effectively spells the death of socialism. Socialism works on the principle that the children of tomorrow will pay for the retirement of the workers of today. Well, if you limit the number of kids today, there will be more workers and less to pay, to a point where the promised monies to the elderly will exceed the tax revenue of the children, leading to higher taxes until you get to a point where the government cannot pay all the retirees, and you get a collapse. It’s where we’re heading with social security, but the politicians are too afraid to fix it. And forcing abortion isn’t going to fix it, it’s only going to exascerbate the problem.