Climate For All

An All Around Science Blog

Monthly Archives: May 2011

April Records of Coldest, Wettest, Snowiest Months

Something To Think About While MSM Embroils Us

With Global Warming Hysteria

April Records of Coldest, Wettest, Snowiest, Etc.

  • Seattle sets a record for coldest April on record

Read more:

  • Maple crop could be NH record

Read more:

  • Weekend to warm up after coldest April in over half a century

Read more:

  • Coldest April in Shimla in a decade

Read more:

  • April Record for Wettest, Coldest Month Since 1984

Read more:

  • We’re on pace for the coldest April ever. Reports of snow in Maple Ridge and Aldergrove this morning

Read more:–we-re-on-pace-for-the-coldest-april-ever

  • Month into spring, Chicago sets a snow record

Read more:,0,4754585.story

  • April breaks record for local snowfall with more than 4 feet

Read more:

  • Lingering snow delays opening of some Glacier National Park facilities

Read more:

  • La Nina brings flood risks and drought to the West

Read more:

  • Tennessee Gov. has asked President to declare 15 counties as federal disaster areas due to record flooding of the Mississippi.

Read more:

And the hits just keep on coming….

Co2 and the Amazon Rainforest

Co2 and the Amazon Rainforest

I usually don’t follow Lawrence Solomon, but there is a story being circulated around media outlets, that there seems no avoiding it. I’ll get to that in a second.

The WWF  supposedly claimed that over 60% of the Rainforest would be gone by 2030.

Seems that all the efforts of the  WWF,  through its prognostications and efforts to alarm us , was  for naught.


Daniel Nepstad,  was the author of that report by the World Wide Fund For Nature released at the U.N. climate change conference in Bali ’07.

How’s that working out for you Daniel?

You can read Lawrence Solomons article, in its entirety here:

Lawrence Solomon: Are high CO2 levels once again saving the Amazon Forest?

  May 8, 2011 – 1:12 AM ET | Last Updated: May 8, 2011 10:36 AM ET

The Amazon Forest – often called the lungs of the Earth – suffered a large drought in 2005 and an even larger one in 2010, devastating populations of river dolphins and other species and leading many climate scientists to fear the worst.  “Having two events of this magnitude in such close succession is extremely unusual, but is unfortunately consistent with those climate models that project a grim future for Amazonia,” said Simon Lewis, from the University of Leeds, co-author of “The 2010 Amazon Drought,” a paper published in Science in February of this year.

Today, just three months after that dire outlook, the doom and gloom is lifting. The Amazon and its species have made a dramatic comeback, so much so that the river populations of dolphins now exceed pre-dought levels, even in one of the hardest hit drought areas.

Read more of this post

Tide Gauges & Mean Sea Level

Tide Gauges & Mean Sea Level

Will The Real Sea Level Trend Please Stand Up !

In my continuing saga of sea levels, I thought that the work done by David Burton deserved its own post.

If anyone of you have been following my articles on Global Mean Sea Level (GMSL), I hope to bring even more nuggets of information your way.

David Burton has put together, probably the most comprehensive work regarding Mean Sea Levels.

You can view his website here.

Here is an partial image of his MSL Table page:

Pretty damn good work if you ask me.

The only thing I want to add,  is a comment that I used as an update to my GMSL article here and as a comment at WUWT here.

David Burton already beat me to determining MSL, using existing tide gauges.

Thank goodness. It would have taken me months to do the calculations.
0.61 mm/year.

Though before we get our hopes up, RealClimate already ‘debunked‘  him, saying that his calculations are not peer-reviewed and doesn’t take into account GIA.

In regards to tide gauge mean sea level averages, what purpose does it serve to include an adjustment for GIA?(rhetorical)

Tide gauges are one dimensional readings though. Simply height.

GIA is about 3D volumetric displacement of land mass, due to uplift from ice sheet loss, and giving a value to correct a means for that displacement of land mass.

So while we’re at it, lets adjust for subduction, sinkage, sea wave erosion, lava buildup, island construction(my favorite), and any other phenomena that adjusts the height of any given tide gauge.

We can’t though, because each tide gauge is not effected by one or more phenomena that another tide gauge might be effected by.

That is why the GIA correction can only be applied to satellite altimetry data.
This only allows the alarmist community to confuse the issue, using convoluted models to support their propagandization.

The actual, physical observance of existing tide gauges the world over show only a 0.61 mm/year rise in the historical registry.

Which leads me to wonder where all that rise is hiding at.

If we don’t see any physical evidence at known tide gauge sites, then all the rise must be happening wherever man is not present.

Those 50 mile long, remote, uninhabitable beach fronts must be 10 feet under water right now.

Cosmic Rays Creating ‘Hot Spots’ Around The Globe

Just read this story over on New Scientist, and I am just going to paste the article in its entirety here.

Cosmic Rays - Courtesy of New Scientist

Strange cosmic ray hotspots stalk southern skies

Cosmic rays crashing into the Earth over the South Pole appear to be coming from particular locations, rather than being distributed uniformly across the sky. Similar cosmic ray “hotspots” have been seen in the northern skies too, yet we know of no source close enough to produce this pattern.

“We don’t know where they are coming from,” says Stefan Westerhoff of the University of Wisconsin-Madison.

Westerhoff and colleagues used the IceCube neutrino observatory at the South Pole to create the most comprehensive map to date of the arrival direction of cosmic rays in the southern skies. IceCube detects muons produced by neutrinos striking ice, but it also detects muons created by cosmic rays hitting Earth’s atmosphere. These cosmic ray muons can be used to figure out the direction of the original cosmic ray particle.

Good mystery

Between May 2009 and May 2010, IceCube detected 32 billion cosmic-ray muons, with a median energy of about 20 teraelectronvolts (TeV). These muons revealed, with extremely high statistical significance, a southern sky with some regions of excess cosmic rays (“hotspots”) and others with a deficit of cosmic rays (“cold” spots).

Over the past two years, a similar pattern has been seen over the northern skies by the Milagro observatory in Los Alamos, New Mexico, and the Tibet Air Shower array in Yangbajain. “It is interesting that the pattern can be matched between [these experiments], at least qualitatively. They have very different techniques and systematic effects,” says cosmic-ray physicist Paul Sommers at Pennsylvania State University in University Park. “I regard those hotspots as a good mystery.”

It’s a mystery because the hotspots must be produced within about 0.03 light years of Earth. Further out, galactic magnetic fields should deflect the particles so much that the hotspots would be smeared out across the sky. But no such sources are known to exist.

Cosmic funnel

One of the hotspots seen by IceCube points in the direction of the Vela supernova remnant, a possible source of cosmic rays, but it’s almost 1000 light years away. Cosmic rays coming from such large distances should be constantly buffeted and deflected by galactic magnetic fields on route, and should thus have lost all directionality by the time they reach Earth. In other words, such long-distance cosmic rays should appear to come from all parts of the sky. That’s not what has been observed.

Milagro has also seen hotspots that appear to come from implausibly distant sources. As an explanation, Felix Aharonian of the Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies in Ireland and colleagues have suggested that there could be a “tube” of magnetic field lines extending between the source and our solar system, funnelling the cosmic rays towards us. However, Aharonian admits the theory is highly speculative.

Others have proposed that a local phenomenon called magnetic reconnection – in which solar magnetic field lines cross and rearrange, converting magnetic energy to kinetic energy – could be accelerating local cosmic rays to energies in the TeV range and beaming them towards Earth, creating the observed hotspots. “It implies that we have a Tevatron in the solar system,” says Aharonian, referring to the particle accelerator at Fermilab in Batavia, Illinois. “That’s also crazy, but it is at least less crazy than other explanations.”

Westerhoff’s team presented their results at the American Physical Society’s meeting in Anaheim, California, on Saturday.

If I had one question to ask, the hotspots they mention to be produced within 0.03 light years, would roughly put that near the heliospheric boundry wouldn’t it?


Global Mean Sea Level

An Introduction Into Global Mean Sea Level, A Fallacy of  Alarmism, and Beyond

How Reliable Is This Graph ? Courtesy of UC@Boulder


Here is the latest image from the Sea Level Research Group at the University of Colorado:

GMSL Courtesy of UC@Boulder

This is how the confusion starts in regards to GMSL.

Both graphs show a rate of 3.1 , but use a different order of corrections.

The first graph is from 2010, has no inverse barometer correction  and no GIA application.

The Second graph is from 2011, has the inverse barometer applied and GIA applied.

Meaning, that in order to continue to show the same exact rate of rise, they had to modify the means by adding values to their data.


The  sea level group from UC @ Boulder  have this to say about the matter:

One important change in these releases is that we are now adding a correction of 0.3 mm/year due to Glacial Isostatic Adjustment (GIA), so you may notice that the rate of sea level rise is now 0.3 mm/year higher than earlier releases. This is a correction to account for the fact that the global ocean basins are getting slightly larger over time as mantle material moves from under the oceans into previously glaciated regions on land. Simply subtract 0.3 mm/year if you prefer to not include the GIA correction.

What the FUCK !?!?!?!

Why include the GIA correction now, if you hadn’t been doing it before.

And then tell us if ya don’t like it, just subtract 0.3 mm/year from the average.


That means that in one year, the GMSL annual average of satellite altimetry data, has dropped  from 3.1 to 2.8 mm/year.

In order for a 20 year average to decrease by an amount of 0.3 mm/year is……… a 6.0 mm drop in a year.

I don’t know about you, but thats a huge dip.

I guess it’s not ok to have a decline in the average, when you have an army of alarmists screaming,


I will end my rant for now with this….

What goes up….

Reminds me what Timo Niroma said about the length of solar cycles 15-22, “The short cycles of the 20th century has created a debt that must be paid.”
The value added adjustments in GMSL, allowing alarmists to suggest an accelerated rise, will undoubtedly cause nature to slam the whole process.
I know this is bad form on my part, but I kind of hope that those in a position to claim, “Its worse than we thought”, continue to do so.
So when the bottom falls out of CAGW, they fall right along with it.

Introduction to GMSL

“The IPCC considers two simple indices of climate change, global mean temperature and sea level rise. The change in global mean temperature is the main factor determining the rise in sea level; it is also a useful proxy for overall climate change.”

IPCC Technical Paper III1.2.4

The Global Temperature and Sea Level 

Implications of Stabilizing Greenhouse Gases

Having already written several posts on sea levels, I think it has become necessary to investigate the origins of sea level data, how it is interpreted, and what, if any, conclusions can be derived from it.

Read more of this post

Climate Waffles

Just gotta get me some of that

Climate Waffle

With all the current media hype over how climate change is responsible over every catastrophe that is happening, I thought it would be a good idea and go back to see exactly what the IPCC had said about ‘Climate Change’.

Here is a portion of the UNIPCC report on climate change and sea levels. If your eyes are already glazing over, just attempt to notice the words I’ve highlighted and we can move on:


IPCC Technical Paper III

1.2.4 The Global Temperature and Sea Level

Implications of Stabilizing Greenhouse Gases

This report considers two simple indices of climate change, global mean temperature and sea level rise. The change in global mean temperature is the main factor determining the rise in sea level; it is also a useful proxy for overall climate change. It is important to realize, however, that climate change will not occur uniformly over the globe; the changes in temperature and in other climate variables such as precipitation, cloudiness, and the frequency of extreme events, will vary greatly among regions. In order to evaluate the consequences of climate change, one must consider the spatial variability of all factors: climate forcing, climate response, and the vulnerability of regional human and natural resource systems. However, consideration of regional details is outside the scope of this paper.

The spatial patterns of some radiative forcing agents, especially aerosols, are very heterogeneous and so add further to the spatial variability of climate change. In this paper, aerosol forcing is presented in terms of global averages so that an impression can be gained of its likely overall magnitude, its effect on global average temperature, and its effect on sea level rise. The effect of aerosol forcing on the detail of climate change, however, is likely to be quite different from the effect of a forcing of similar magnitude, in terms of global average, due to greenhouse gases. In terms of regional climate change and impacts, therefore, the negative forcing or cooling from aerosol forcing must not be considered as a simple offset to that from greenhouse gases.

Temperature and sea level projections depend on the “assumed” climate sensitivity, the target and pathway chosen for CO2 concentration stabilization, and the assumed scenarios for other greenhouse gases and aerosol forcing. The relative importance of these factors depends on the time interval over which they are compared. Out to the year 2050, CO2 concentration pathway differences for any single stabilization target are as important as the choice of target; but on longer time-scales the choice of target is (necessarily) more important. Outweighing all of these factors, however, is the climate sensitivity uncertainties in which dominate the uncertainties in all projections.

as·sume/əˈ uh-so͞om/

1. Suppose to be the case, without proof
2. Adopted in order to deceive; fictitious; pretended; feigned
3. To take for granted or without proof; suppose
4. An expression what the assumer postulates, that is often a confessed hypothesis or theory.
The author(s) of this paper really liked the word, assume(d). There are 39 references to the word, assume(d), 39 times.
For this being a scientific paper to prove climate change is man-made, there seems to be alot of assumptions.
Forget the scientific method and base facts on assumptions is what this technical paper offers. Assumptions.


1. Not able to be relied on; not known or definite: “an uncertain future”.
2. (of a person) Not completely confident or sure of something:
There is another word these author(s) used with even greater use;  uncertainty(ies). The word uncertainty(ies) is used 91 times.
So what we have here is a authored technical paper in the UNIPCC manuscript that uses assumptions and uncertainties to turn theories into facts. Go figure.
Then we have millions of people make reference to these papers in the UNIPCC reports as their basis for their belief on CAGW( Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming).
But lets move to the subject matter of this technical paper, before we ‘assume’ too much.
They write,” The change in global mean temperature is the main factor determining the rise in sea level; it is also a useful proxy for overall climate change.”
So, based on assumptions and uncertainties, the scientists that wrote this technical paper believe that all we need to know is global temperatures will rise, which will cause sea levels to rise, assuming man-made Co2 rise causes climate to change.

So we are not confused what the IPCC considers climate change, lets use the definition thats provided in the glossary of this technical paper.

Climate Change is: Climate change as referred to in the observational record of climate occurs because of internal changes within the climate system or in the interaction between its components, or because of changes in external forcing either for natural reasons or because of human activities. It is generally not possible clearly to make attribution between these causes. Projections of future climate change reported by IPCC generally consider only the influence on climate of anthropogenic increases in greenhouse gases and other human-related factors.

So, climate change is natural reasons or because of human activities, but it is uncertain to conclude the causes, and for future predictions, the IPCC only considers man-made increases for their predictions.

Read more of this post