This is interesting and worth viewing.
Peter
http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&VideoID=2028375596
Monday, October 8, 2007
Sunday, October 7, 2007
The Law and Jim Hansen's (NASA) Temperature Data
It seems Jim Hansen of NASA and his manipulated temperature data would not be recognized in a court of law in the United States. It seems this means the theory that man is causing global warming is invalid, and any laws, or legal actions based upon it must be negated. Any lawyers out there who can comment on this?
Peter
from: http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1891#more-1891
Will Richardson says:
August 11th, 2007 at 7:17 pm
Re: 2&3 Bigcitylib.
No. The point is that substantial and material adjustments are being made to the temperature “record” relied on by climate scientists, the adjustments support the hypothesis of AGW, and the adjuster (Jim Hansen of NASA) refuses to disclose the data and calculations which he assures the public justify his adjustments.
In law, this would not be allowed. Let me quote from Florida Rule of Evidence 90.705 (actually Section 90.705, Florida Statutes):
90.705 Disclosure of facts or data underlying expert opinion.–
(1) Unless otherwise required by the court, an expert may testify in terms of opinion or inferences and give reasons without prior disclosure of the underlying facts or data. On cross-examination the expert shall be required to specify the facts or data.
(2) Prior to the witness giving the opinion, a party against whom the opinion or inference is offered may conduct a voir dire examination of the witness directed to the underlying facts or data for the witness’s opinion. If the party establishes prima facie evidence that the expert does not have a sufficient basis for the opinion, the opinions and inferences of the expert are inadmissible unless the party offering the testimony establishes the underlying facts or data.
The Federal Rule is similar. In other words, Hansen’s “adjusted” temperature “record” would be inadmissible in a court of law almost anywhere in the United States, as would any evidence based on his temperature “record”.
Peter
from: http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1891#more-1891
Will Richardson says:
August 11th, 2007 at 7:17 pm
Re: 2&3 Bigcitylib.
No. The point is that substantial and material adjustments are being made to the temperature “record” relied on by climate scientists, the adjustments support the hypothesis of AGW, and the adjuster (Jim Hansen of NASA) refuses to disclose the data and calculations which he assures the public justify his adjustments.
In law, this would not be allowed. Let me quote from Florida Rule of Evidence 90.705 (actually Section 90.705, Florida Statutes):
90.705 Disclosure of facts or data underlying expert opinion.–
(1) Unless otherwise required by the court, an expert may testify in terms of opinion or inferences and give reasons without prior disclosure of the underlying facts or data. On cross-examination the expert shall be required to specify the facts or data.
(2) Prior to the witness giving the opinion, a party against whom the opinion or inference is offered may conduct a voir dire examination of the witness directed to the underlying facts or data for the witness’s opinion. If the party establishes prima facie evidence that the expert does not have a sufficient basis for the opinion, the opinions and inferences of the expert are inadmissible unless the party offering the testimony establishes the underlying facts or data.
The Federal Rule is similar. In other words, Hansen’s “adjusted” temperature “record” would be inadmissible in a court of law almost anywhere in the United States, as would any evidence based on his temperature “record”.
Geologists Views On Climat Change
An interesting comment about geologists.
Peter
May 22nd, 2005
Climate: Geological Views #1
By Steve McIntyre
I gave a speech last week at my tennis/squash club on climate change (which presents speeches from time to time). I included some geological concepts that I don’t usually have an opportunity to talk about. The class of scientist who tend to be most unimpressed with IPCC-type climate science are geologists - which is where I got started in this. If you took an Oreskes-type survey among geologists, I don’t believe for a minute that you would get anything like IPCC solidarity. Unlike most scientists, geologists also happen to know a lot about climate history. Here’s an interesting graphic that I used: Read the rest of this entry »
Peter
May 22nd, 2005
Climate: Geological Views #1
By Steve McIntyre
I gave a speech last week at my tennis/squash club on climate change (which presents speeches from time to time). I included some geological concepts that I don’t usually have an opportunity to talk about. The class of scientist who tend to be most unimpressed with IPCC-type climate science are geologists - which is where I got started in this. If you took an Oreskes-type survey among geologists, I don’t believe for a minute that you would get anything like IPCC solidarity. Unlike most scientists, geologists also happen to know a lot about climate history. Here’s an interesting graphic that I used: Read the rest of this entry »
Friday, October 5, 2007
Decline In Arctic Sea Ice Caused By Unusual Winds, Not Warming
The supposedly drastic and unusual melting of Arctic sea ice this past summer has made the news recently. The cause has always been attributed to global warming, which many people want us to believe is caused by man's carbon dioxide emissions.
However, here is an alternative theory. Scientists at NASA now say the disappearance of the ice may be caused by unusual winds, not purely warming. I wonder if they have told Global Warming Jim Hansen about this?
Peter
Recent Rapid Decline in Arctic Sea Ice caused by Unusual Winds, says NASA
Post below lifted from Accuweather. See the original for links and graphics
In a news release from NASA Monday, a group of scientists have determined that unusual winds caused the rapid decline (23% loss) in winter perennial ice over the past two years in the northern hemisphere. This drastic reduction is the primary cause of this summer's fastest-ever sea ice retreat in recorded history which has lead to the smallest extent of total Arctic coverage on record.
According to the NASA study, the perennial ice shrunk by an area the size of Texas and California combined between the winter of 2005 and the winter of 2007. What they found was the Arctic Ocean north of Siberia and Alaska was dominated by thinner seasonal ice that melts faster compared to the thicker ice confined to the Arctic Ocean north of Canada. The thinner ice is more easily compressed and responds more quickly to being pushed out of the Arctic by winds.
"Unusual atmospheric conditions set up wind patterns that compressed the sea ice, loaded it into the Transpolar Drift Stream and then sped its flow out of the Arctic," said Son Nghiem of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory and leader of the study. When that sea ice reached lower latitudes, it rapidly melted in the warmer waters. What about these unusual wind patterns. Well, the article does not go into that too much, but I must believe some of this is due to changes in the Arctic Oscillation (AO) and the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) which are large atmospheric circulations which have major impacts on the weather in certain parts of the world.
If you look at the two graphics below, you will notice that both the AO and the NAO have been predominately in the positive phase (red) between 1989-1995 and again from 1999 to current. The positive phase of the (AO) typically leads to milder than normal winters over Scandinavia and Siberia, while colder than normal conditions prevail across Greenland. The positive phase of the NAO again leads to colder conditions over Greenland, while much of the eastern U.S. is warmer than normal in general.
However, here is an alternative theory. Scientists at NASA now say the disappearance of the ice may be caused by unusual winds, not purely warming. I wonder if they have told Global Warming Jim Hansen about this?
Peter
Recent Rapid Decline in Arctic Sea Ice caused by Unusual Winds, says NASA
Post below lifted from Accuweather. See the original for links and graphics
In a news release from NASA Monday, a group of scientists have determined that unusual winds caused the rapid decline (23% loss) in winter perennial ice over the past two years in the northern hemisphere. This drastic reduction is the primary cause of this summer's fastest-ever sea ice retreat in recorded history which has lead to the smallest extent of total Arctic coverage on record.
According to the NASA study, the perennial ice shrunk by an area the size of Texas and California combined between the winter of 2005 and the winter of 2007. What they found was the Arctic Ocean north of Siberia and Alaska was dominated by thinner seasonal ice that melts faster compared to the thicker ice confined to the Arctic Ocean north of Canada. The thinner ice is more easily compressed and responds more quickly to being pushed out of the Arctic by winds.
"Unusual atmospheric conditions set up wind patterns that compressed the sea ice, loaded it into the Transpolar Drift Stream and then sped its flow out of the Arctic," said Son Nghiem of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory and leader of the study. When that sea ice reached lower latitudes, it rapidly melted in the warmer waters. What about these unusual wind patterns. Well, the article does not go into that too much, but I must believe some of this is due to changes in the Arctic Oscillation (AO) and the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) which are large atmospheric circulations which have major impacts on the weather in certain parts of the world.
If you look at the two graphics below, you will notice that both the AO and the NAO have been predominately in the positive phase (red) between 1989-1995 and again from 1999 to current. The positive phase of the (AO) typically leads to milder than normal winters over Scandinavia and Siberia, while colder than normal conditions prevail across Greenland. The positive phase of the NAO again leads to colder conditions over Greenland, while much of the eastern U.S. is warmer than normal in general.
A College Freshman Sees Through The Al Gore Hoax On Global Warming
A well-written article from a college freshman. It is nice to see college students thinking and questioning the claims being made about global warming.
Peter
from: http://media.www.dailytexanonline.com/media/storage/paper410/news/2007/10/03/Opinion/The-Sky.Is.Falling-3007739.shtml
10/3/07
The sky is falling
By Daniel Earnest
After watching Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth," I saw that Gore, despite his monotonous tone and poor use of humor, is indeed a great persuasive speaker. But that is just it - Gore employs useless rhetoric and persuasive techniques, such as showing the image of a cute, fuzzy polar bear, to convince the world of global warming's validity, rather than sticking to the facts. Gore's efforts made him to be one of the most sought-after speakers in America and, most recently, garnered him an Oscar. Hailed as a secular saint and the Noah of our time by experts such as Katie Couric and Oprah Winfrey, Gore travels to campuses across the nation to proliferate his alarmist cries, attempting to act as a sort of John the Baptist in the wilderness.
However, outside the realm of the liberal media and Hollywood, Gore is looked at with pity and disgust by real scientists who have done extensive research on the subject of global warming. According to February 2007 issue of Philidelphia Magazine, for instance, geologist Robert Giegengack believes Gore's understanding of the world is so poor that he told his undergraduate students at the University of Pennsylvania: "Every single one of you knows more about global warming than Al Gore."
But why would Al Gore devote his life to a seemingly baseless, ridiculous science? The answer is simple - the ecology of helpless protesting has become a very lucrative business. Billions of dollars of grant money are flowing into the pockets of those on the man-made global warming bandwagon. All of the alarmism is designed to get your money and then guilt you into living your life a certain way. Aside from this, do not forget that Gore charges $100,000 at each stop on his tour across the nation.
So what is really going on in our atmosphere, and can we prevent it from happening? Climate scientists across the globe once thought, like Al Gore, that CO2 was the culprit in the story of global warming. However, recent scientific research has shown that the sun has been driving temperature changes, as we have the highest solar activity we have had in 1,000 years. In fact, according to the Danish National Space Center, the planet is experiencing a natural period of low cloud cover due to fewer cosmic rays entering the atmosphere.Also, the Russian Academy of Sciences showed in January that, as solar radiation warms Earth, CO2 is released into the atmosphere from the world's oceans, not from SUVs and factories.
Also, CO2 may not be as dangerous and threatening as we once thought. Surprisingly, in 2006, even the United Nations' records show that cow emissions are more damaging to the planet than CO2 from cars.Greenhouse gases, the lovechildren of increased CO2 levels, do not consistently continue to have a warming effect on Earth, contrary to popular opinion. At some point "the heat-trapping capacity of the gas and its effect get saturated, and you don't have increased heating," according to a report by Boston College geology and geophysics professor Amy Frappier.
Furthermore, the Kyoto Protocol is nothing but a socialist scheme designed to suck money out of rich countries to level the worldwide economic playing field. Additionally, the Kyoto Protocol is all cost with no gain. Wharton Econometrics Forecasting Associates estimates that Kyoto would cost an average family of four $2,700 annually, yet would only reduce the temperature by 0.06 degrees Celsius. Also, if legislation like Kyoto would pass in our country, it would represent the largest tax increase ever. According to Wharton, the Kyoto Protocol would cost the U.S. economy at least $300 billion annually, 10 times President Clinton's 1993 record tax increase, which cost $32 billion.
It's no wonder the Senate unanimously voted down Gore in the late 1990s. Also, since Gore calls for great reform, wouldn't you expect him to be an environmental leader? However, this is not the case, as Gore not only flies on a private jet to all the different cities around the nation, but he also has not converted to green energy or sacrificed consumption, as he has called the citizens of America to do. I guess you could say he is almost as hypocritical as the do-nothing Democrats in Congress. I'm not sure which is more arrogant: to say we caused global warming or to say that we can fix it. Both positions are wrong.
The notion that humans have caused global warming is sensational, and alarmists such as Gore can be equated to little kids attempting to scare each other about the end of the world. It quite possibly could be the greatest deception in the history of science, and people need to search for answers from real experts, rather than listening to Hollywood stars and political has-beens. (Earnest is an economics freshman.)
Peter
from: http://media.www.dailytexanonline.com/media/storage/paper410/news/2007/10/03/Opinion/The-Sky.Is.Falling-3007739.shtml
10/3/07
The sky is falling
By Daniel Earnest
After watching Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth," I saw that Gore, despite his monotonous tone and poor use of humor, is indeed a great persuasive speaker. But that is just it - Gore employs useless rhetoric and persuasive techniques, such as showing the image of a cute, fuzzy polar bear, to convince the world of global warming's validity, rather than sticking to the facts. Gore's efforts made him to be one of the most sought-after speakers in America and, most recently, garnered him an Oscar. Hailed as a secular saint and the Noah of our time by experts such as Katie Couric and Oprah Winfrey, Gore travels to campuses across the nation to proliferate his alarmist cries, attempting to act as a sort of John the Baptist in the wilderness.
However, outside the realm of the liberal media and Hollywood, Gore is looked at with pity and disgust by real scientists who have done extensive research on the subject of global warming. According to February 2007 issue of Philidelphia Magazine, for instance, geologist Robert Giegengack believes Gore's understanding of the world is so poor that he told his undergraduate students at the University of Pennsylvania: "Every single one of you knows more about global warming than Al Gore."
But why would Al Gore devote his life to a seemingly baseless, ridiculous science? The answer is simple - the ecology of helpless protesting has become a very lucrative business. Billions of dollars of grant money are flowing into the pockets of those on the man-made global warming bandwagon. All of the alarmism is designed to get your money and then guilt you into living your life a certain way. Aside from this, do not forget that Gore charges $100,000 at each stop on his tour across the nation.
So what is really going on in our atmosphere, and can we prevent it from happening? Climate scientists across the globe once thought, like Al Gore, that CO2 was the culprit in the story of global warming. However, recent scientific research has shown that the sun has been driving temperature changes, as we have the highest solar activity we have had in 1,000 years. In fact, according to the Danish National Space Center, the planet is experiencing a natural period of low cloud cover due to fewer cosmic rays entering the atmosphere.Also, the Russian Academy of Sciences showed in January that, as solar radiation warms Earth, CO2 is released into the atmosphere from the world's oceans, not from SUVs and factories.
Also, CO2 may not be as dangerous and threatening as we once thought. Surprisingly, in 2006, even the United Nations' records show that cow emissions are more damaging to the planet than CO2 from cars.Greenhouse gases, the lovechildren of increased CO2 levels, do not consistently continue to have a warming effect on Earth, contrary to popular opinion. At some point "the heat-trapping capacity of the gas and its effect get saturated, and you don't have increased heating," according to a report by Boston College geology and geophysics professor Amy Frappier.
Furthermore, the Kyoto Protocol is nothing but a socialist scheme designed to suck money out of rich countries to level the worldwide economic playing field. Additionally, the Kyoto Protocol is all cost with no gain. Wharton Econometrics Forecasting Associates estimates that Kyoto would cost an average family of four $2,700 annually, yet would only reduce the temperature by 0.06 degrees Celsius. Also, if legislation like Kyoto would pass in our country, it would represent the largest tax increase ever. According to Wharton, the Kyoto Protocol would cost the U.S. economy at least $300 billion annually, 10 times President Clinton's 1993 record tax increase, which cost $32 billion.
It's no wonder the Senate unanimously voted down Gore in the late 1990s. Also, since Gore calls for great reform, wouldn't you expect him to be an environmental leader? However, this is not the case, as Gore not only flies on a private jet to all the different cities around the nation, but he also has not converted to green energy or sacrificed consumption, as he has called the citizens of America to do. I guess you could say he is almost as hypocritical as the do-nothing Democrats in Congress. I'm not sure which is more arrogant: to say we caused global warming or to say that we can fix it. Both positions are wrong.
The notion that humans have caused global warming is sensational, and alarmists such as Gore can be equated to little kids attempting to scare each other about the end of the world. It quite possibly could be the greatest deception in the history of science, and people need to search for answers from real experts, rather than listening to Hollywood stars and political has-beens. (Earnest is an economics freshman.)
Bias In Climate Research
It is not only American climate scientists who are guilty of bias in their research and reporting, this comes from "down under", Australia.
Peter
from: http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Walker_Circ_2.pdf
Ignoring a Natural Event to Blame Humans
By ignoring a natural event scientists blame climate changes on human activity
John McLean
October 2007
Introduction
In the last week of September 2007 we had yet another example of a well-recognized natural climate event being ignored in order to sell the notion that mankind is responsible for global warming. Maybe it was deliberate or maybe just ignorance, but you'd think that capable scientists would look closely at prior research and the data and not just be activists for their latest cause.
This time it was Power and Smith, from Australia's CSIRO and Bureau of Meteorology respectively, who were reporting a weakened Walker Circulation over the last 30 years and a concurrent period of unprecedented El Niño dominance [note 1], both of which they blamed on human activity.
Last year in May it was Vecchi et al [2] who told us that the same Walker Circulation had weakened by 3.5% since the mid-1800s and there that there was a just 1% probability that this was due to natural events. Vecchi and Soden [3] recently continued their line of argument from 2006 by claiming that an ensemble of 23 climate models confirms that weakening of the Walker Circulation is to be expected under anthropogenic warming.
These three papers seem to be the product of researchers lost in their computer simulations and putting the virtual reality of computer models ahead of observational reality.
What they attribute to human activity are natural events that have been well described by other researchers.
The Walker Circulation
The Walker Circulation, to which all three papers refer, is a large zonal circulation cell over the equatorial Pacific. Air in the extreme western Pacific rises from near sea level to around 15,000 feet, then travels eastward under the Earth's rotation to the eastern Pacific where it sinks back to sea level and westerly winds force it back across the ocean to the complete the loop.
Figure 1 - Walker Circulation during normal conditions compared to that during El Nino conditions
(from http://www.bom.gov.au/lam/climate/levelthree/analclim/elnino.htm)
(Continued at original site)
Peter
from: http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Walker_Circ_2.pdf
Ignoring a Natural Event to Blame Humans
By ignoring a natural event scientists blame climate changes on human activity
John McLean
October 2007
Introduction
In the last week of September 2007 we had yet another example of a well-recognized natural climate event being ignored in order to sell the notion that mankind is responsible for global warming. Maybe it was deliberate or maybe just ignorance, but you'd think that capable scientists would look closely at prior research and the data and not just be activists for their latest cause.
This time it was Power and Smith, from Australia's CSIRO and Bureau of Meteorology respectively, who were reporting a weakened Walker Circulation over the last 30 years and a concurrent period of unprecedented El Niño dominance [note 1], both of which they blamed on human activity.
Last year in May it was Vecchi et al [2] who told us that the same Walker Circulation had weakened by 3.5% since the mid-1800s and there that there was a just 1% probability that this was due to natural events. Vecchi and Soden [3] recently continued their line of argument from 2006 by claiming that an ensemble of 23 climate models confirms that weakening of the Walker Circulation is to be expected under anthropogenic warming.
These three papers seem to be the product of researchers lost in their computer simulations and putting the virtual reality of computer models ahead of observational reality.
What they attribute to human activity are natural events that have been well described by other researchers.
The Walker Circulation
The Walker Circulation, to which all three papers refer, is a large zonal circulation cell over the equatorial Pacific. Air in the extreme western Pacific rises from near sea level to around 15,000 feet, then travels eastward under the Earth's rotation to the eastern Pacific where it sinks back to sea level and westerly winds force it back across the ocean to the complete the loop.
Figure 1 - Walker Circulation during normal conditions compared to that during El Nino conditions
(from http://www.bom.gov.au/lam/climate/levelthree/analclim/elnino.htm)
(Continued at original site)
The Real History of Carbon Dioxide Levels
GeoPete
Message #1 - 10/04/07 02:20 AM
This is important information I have not seen before. It seems CO2 levels varied considerably in the recent past, and are the result of the rising and falling of temperature, not the cause of temperature changes. This is in direct contradiction to the assumptions of those believing in man-caused global warming. Take note!
Peter
THE REAL HISTORY OF CARBON DIOXIDE LEVELS"
Prof. Beck's paper "180 YEARS OF ATMOSPHERIC CO2 GAS ANALYSIS BY CHEMICAL METHODS" has now been published in the journal Energy and EnvironmentClick to view image. A PDF copy of the full paper can be obtained from the author: egbeck@biokurs.de. Excerpt below. It shows that actual past measurements of atmospheric CO2 have undergone great variation in levels from time to time in the period surveyed. Levels were not "flat" before the 20th century, as is usually asserted. There is a discussion of the paper hereClick to view image. I mentioned this matter previously on March 9th. -- where there is also a link to an early version of the full paper.Click to view imageABSTRACT More than 90,000 accurate chemical analyses of CO2 in air since 1812 are summarized. The historic chemical data reveal that changes in CO2 track changes in temperature, and therefore climate in contrast to the simple, monotonically increasing CO2 trend depicted in the post-1990 literature on climate-change. Since 1812, the CO2 concentration in northern hemispheric air has fluctuated exhibiting three high level maxima around 1825, 1857 and 1942 the latter showing more than 400 ppm. Between 1857 and 1958, the Pettenkofer process was the standard analytical method for determining atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, and usually achieved an accuracy better than 3%. These determinations were made by several scientists of Nobel Prize level distinction. Following Callendar (1938), modern climatologists have generally ignored the historic determinations of CO2, despite the techniques being standard text book procedures in several different disciplines. Chemical methods were discredited as unreliable, choosing only a few which fit the assumption of a climate CO2 connection."(continued here)
Message #1 - 10/04/07 02:20 AM
This is important information I have not seen before. It seems CO2 levels varied considerably in the recent past, and are the result of the rising and falling of temperature, not the cause of temperature changes. This is in direct contradiction to the assumptions of those believing in man-caused global warming. Take note!
Peter
THE REAL HISTORY OF CARBON DIOXIDE LEVELS"
Prof. Beck's paper "180 YEARS OF ATMOSPHERIC CO2 GAS ANALYSIS BY CHEMICAL METHODS" has now been published in the journal Energy and EnvironmentClick to view image. A PDF copy of the full paper can be obtained from the author: egbeck@biokurs.de. Excerpt below. It shows that actual past measurements of atmospheric CO2 have undergone great variation in levels from time to time in the period surveyed. Levels were not "flat" before the 20th century, as is usually asserted. There is a discussion of the paper hereClick to view image. I mentioned this matter previously on March 9th. -- where there is also a link to an early version of the full paper.Click to view imageABSTRACT More than 90,000 accurate chemical analyses of CO2 in air since 1812 are summarized. The historic chemical data reveal that changes in CO2 track changes in temperature, and therefore climate in contrast to the simple, monotonically increasing CO2 trend depicted in the post-1990 literature on climate-change. Since 1812, the CO2 concentration in northern hemispheric air has fluctuated exhibiting three high level maxima around 1825, 1857 and 1942 the latter showing more than 400 ppm. Between 1857 and 1958, the Pettenkofer process was the standard analytical method for determining atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, and usually achieved an accuracy better than 3%. These determinations were made by several scientists of Nobel Prize level distinction. Following Callendar (1938), modern climatologists have generally ignored the historic determinations of CO2, despite the techniques being standard text book procedures in several different disciplines. Chemical methods were discredited as unreliable, choosing only a few which fit the assumption of a climate CO2 connection."(continued here)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)