Climate

While reading a Dilbert comic linked to by commenter Amino Acids in Meteorites on Wattsupwiththat.com, I noticed this comment at the top of the list under the comic.

Aug 23, 2010
Whether we as humans are causing global warming is moot at this point for two reason:

1) Whether we're causing it or not, it's wise and the right thing to do to take care of our environment. To hide behind beliefs that we as humans aren't causing global warming is, frankly, asinine. The reason it is asinine is because even if we're not causing global warming, I'm still seeing smog in L.A., trash on the roadways and urban sprawl way out of control. We're not helping the environment.

2) The point is moot because, hey, this is a freakin' comic! Enjoy the humor of it and let's move on! =D

Firstly, it's kind of arrogant for the commenter to preach to us about the right thing to do and then say it's just a comic, move on.

Here are a few choice quotes from Michael Mann from the ClimateGate emails.

August 26, 2005: email 1125067952: He has engaged in some very nasty, and in my opinion unprofessional email exchanges with some close colleagues of mine who have established some fundamental undisclosed errors in work he co-published with von Storch.

Of course, all of Mann's email exchanges and postings at RealClimate are professional...

August 26, 2005: email 1125067952: There are some similarly problematic issues with Cubasch, who, like von Storch, … has engaged in inflammatory and personal public commentary. There is no room for that on any side of the debate.

Except when it's Mann himself accusing everyone who disagrees with him of being in the pocket of "big oil".

April 26, 2006: email 1146062963 : [Mike Mann referring to data requests from Steve McIntyre] I’m saddened to hear that this bozo is bothering you too, in addition to the National Center for Atmospheric Research, the National Science Foundation, the National Academy of Sciences, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and everyone else. Rest assured that I won’t ever respond to McIntyre should he ever contact me, but I will forward you any email he sends related to this. I assume Scott feels the same way…

Another totally professional comment by The Mann! Is "bozo" a climate science term?

May 12, 2006: email 1147435800: [Again, Mann referring to McIntyre] Personally, I don’t see why you should make any concessions for this moron.

Ditto...

I'm sure everyone passing by here has heard of the recent CRU "hack" and release of email and data as reported at various blogs.

Some are over-reacting, in both directions, others are being prudently cautious, and yet others are trying to ignore it. A lot of questions remain to be answered, but what IS clear is that the emails appear to be legitimate.

Of course context is important, and I'm sure much of this is not taking that into account, or assuming a certain context. However, some of the more incriminating emails would be damning in any context.

What has been revealed is indeed a catastrophe, a catastrophe of elitist science and corruption of the peer-review process. At the very least, these "scientists" stand accused of hiding inconvenient results, gross hyperbole against other scientists, and probably outright fraud.

For what it's worth, I am willing to believe that CO2 might be a problem, but when we see incompetence and espionage such as these "scientists" have engaged in, it's difficult for me to take anything they say seriously ever again. They HAVE betrayed the public trust, and they don't seem to care. They have engaged in unethical practices made famous by "green" groups such as WWF, Greenpeace, Sierra Club, RAN, and others, by grossly overstating their case, manipulating results, and creating something that isn't there.

My hope out of all this, that one of the "elite" in these emails will step forward and tell the truth. But I'm not holding my breath.

Update: Just found this quote at the end of the "Rules of the Game" PDF included with the "hacked" file compilation:

“First they ignore you; then they laugh
at you; then they fight you; then you win.”
Mahatma Gandhi

'Contraception cheapest way to combat climate change'

This is old news. Many have exposed the Green Agenda for what it is, a means of population control/reduction, and de-industrialization of the West. This just proves the point so many of us have been making.

Greens don't want cheap, clean energy. They want fewer humans on the planet, but are incredibly unwilling to lead by example.

If you watch American television, you may often see the advertisements sponsored by the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) where the actor Noah Wyle tells us that Polar Bears are on the edge of extinction.

Funny that, when I go to the WWF site about Polar Bears, one finds the following curious statement:

With 20-25,000 polar bears living in the wild, the species is not currently endangered, but its future is far from certain.

Hmm, so on one hand WWF tells us they're on the verge of extinction, then tells us that they're not even endangered, yet. Of course they go on to say that "global warming" will most likely cause Polar Bears to go extinct within 100 years. They provide no evidence for this, just gratuitous assertions.

We know that Polar Bears have been around as a distinct species (though there are some who argue they are a sub-species of Brown Bear) for about 200,000 years. Which means they've lived through at least one other interglacial period. Our knowledge of previous interglacials shows that, according to Ice Core analysis, most were warmer than the current Holocene interglacial. So, if Polar Bears have survived previous warmer interglacial times, and warmer periods within the current interglacial, why is it that this less warm time is going to wipe them out?

WWF also seems to ignore the fact that Polar Bears live perfectly well on land as well as ice.

I won't go into the fact there there has been no established direct or even indirect link between human industrial CO2 emissions and melting of Arctic sea ice (or retreating glaciers, melting ice sheets, etc). But apparently for WWF and many other political organizations, it's a foregone conclusion. They don't need to wait for actual evidence, apparently.

NOAA: Global Ocean Surface Temperature Warmest on Record for June

Some excerpts from the press release:

The world’s ocean surface temperature was the warmest on record for June, breaking the previous high mark set in 2005, according to a preliminary analysis by NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C. Additionally, the combined average global land and ocean surface temperature for June was second-warmest on record. The global records began in 1880.

Couple of things here. First, it shouldn't be much of a surprise to anyone that it's warmer now than it was 150 years ago. I think we're all glad it is.

Second, since the oceans are warmer, according to NOAA, it's pretty obvious that the oceans are warming the atmosphere, not the other way around.

The global land surface temperature for June 2009 was 1.26 degrees F (0.70 degree C) above the 20th century average of 55.9 degrees F (13.3 degrees C), and ranked as the sixth-warmest June on record.

Wow, I'm sure glad we're not near the "average". 55.9 F would suck in the summer. Of course, I'm not sure why the 20th century average is any more important than the 19th, 18th, 17th, etc.

NOAA doesn't come to any conclusions on this press release, but it really seems like useless information, especially the concept of a "global surface temperature". Some places warm, some places cool, some remain relatively static. And until NOAA and NWS address their surface stations for collecting temperature data, the land surface record is fairly meaningless.

I'm also curious as to why a half a degree C over 150 years is a big deal. The weekly variation in temperature in Western Washington over the last week was over 30 degrees F. There were no mass extinctions, no droughts, no floods, just hot, then cool.

Where's the catastrophe?

I've posted the three pictures in the Gallery I took that first day. All were taken with a Nikon D40 digital SLR with a 55-200mm zoom lens.

Here are the preview sizes with links to the full sizes:

Overall East full size

Overall East closer full size

Closest zoom full size

Update April 27, 2009: I received a call from the curator of the site, and he has no problem with me coming out to do a proper survey. So, it's just a matter of time before I can schedule a time with him.

Prelude: I've added this explanation after the fact to explain what's being done here, for those who stumble across is who may not know.

This is my very small part of an all-volunteer effort to physically survey USHCN, GHCN, and GISS official Temperature Stations of record, as originated by Anthony Watts at SurfaceStations.org. The purpose is to document siting issues, microsite biases, undocumented station moves, etc, which may or may not have an effect on the temperature records being used to shape Global Warming policy in the US and around the world.

Many of the sites are monitored by citizen volunteers, and as such many are located at private residences. Thus, great care is taken to obtain permission, as politely as possible, from the curators in order to perform a site survey. You can read all about the process at SurfaceStations.org.

Well, I'm sitting in my car 60 feet away from the Olga MMTS. I'm in the driveway of the residence where it's located.

Unfortunately, no one is home.

I'm posting via my Blackberry, so I'm not going to go too in-depth right now. I'm going to write a note and leave on the front door so I can hopefully come out some other time for a proper survey.

Update: Back home. No luck contacting the folks who live at the location. I did leave the note as described above, so hopefully I'll hear back from them.

March 28, 2009, 11:31 am
‘Tipping Points’ and the Climate Challenge [click the title for the entire article]
By Andrew C. Revkin

In early assessments of global warming, most curves were smooth. Rising concentrations of greenhouse gases would raise temperatures. Then glaciologists started finding evidence of extraordinarily abrupt jumps in regional temperatures. Other evidence revealed past eras when seas rose precipitously. The possible shutdown of important Atlantic Ocean currents added to the sense of nonlinear and disruptive risk. A certain best seller propelled the phrase “tipping point” deep into popular discourse. Add that all together and what do you get? The prospect that human-driven warming is poised to push Earth past dangerous tipping points is now a cornerstone of many environmental campaigns.

But what tipping points are well established and which ones remain what Stephen W. Pacala of Princeton University has called “the monsters behind the door”? I have a piece in the Week in Review section exploring these concerns. Given the limits on space in print, I thought it worthwhile to add some additional voices here and encourage further discussion. The bottom line? A growing effort to clarify such risks has yielded what amounts to the same message climate experts have been conveying for more than two decades: More emissions of greenhouse gases raise the odds of trouble. The conclusion is similar to that in the “burning embers” diagrams from the third Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report and a recent paper.

More alarmism based on computer games. It has yet to be shown that "human-driven warming" is even happening, much less whether there are such things as "tipping points".

Global warming vs. unemployment
Congress is gearing up for another run at a cap-and-trade law and opponents say it will cost too many jobs. Are they right?

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Get ready for fireworks. As congressional Democrats begin drafting another bill regulating greenhouse gases, opponents are already saying it would cost millions of jobs amid the worst recession in decades.

To be sure, estimates on how many jobs may be lost and when those loses would come vary widely depending on who's counting.

The most middle-of-the-road analysis seems to come from the government's Energy Information Administration. EIA said last year's failed Lieberman-Warner greenhouse gas bill would result in about 100,000 fewer jobs per year.

But the EIA's estimate is taking fire from all sides. Opponents of the bill say it is far too low, while supporters say it is far too high.

I'm still unclear how allowing the rich to continue "polluting" will combat "global warming" in any way. I'm also unclear how preventing poor countries from being able to use the most cost-effective energy available will combat "global warming".

Is there a quantitative study showing how ANY cap and trade system will affect global temperatures?