Climate For All

An All Around Science Blog

Category Archives: Politics

Fun With Pixels

Chris Turney Cant Pixel Out Of This One

Jan 2nd 2014

2/2/14 Image of the region located around Mertz Glacier, Mawson Hut, and the stranded Akademik Shokalskiy. Image Provided by NASA EOSDIS Worldview

Hopefully, most of you have been following the story at WUWT  about  the Russion research vessel Shokalskiy,   that has been stranded in sea-ice since Christmas Eve. If not, you can read what I wrote about it here and here After the Shokalskiy had been unable to be freed by numerous attempts, an airlift of the passengers was undertaken 8 days after being stuck in sea-ice.

A team of scientists lead by Chris Turney, had been attempting to follow a century old expedition that was led by Sir Douglas Mawson into the Antarctic, south of Australia.  The expedition was known as the Australia Antarctic Expedition 1911-1914.  This expedition bares the same name, but there is hardly any similarity between the two. Armed with a science team of on-board and on-shore scientists, college grads doing post-graduate work, friends, family, journalists and anyone else wanting to cough up the tens of thousands of dollars, set off for Antarctica to:

“…truly meld science and adventure, repeating century old measurements to discover and communicate the changes taking place in this remote and pristine environment.” – AAE Expedition Aim

The story I write tonight is about Chris Turney and how he is attempting to disguise how inept he is, and hopefully I can prove that. Because Turney veers away from the expeditions aim to ‘discover and communicate’, into a more of a ‘ hide and obfuscate’ aim.

I’ll tell you why I think so. Or better yet, I’ll show you.

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.

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

UPDATE:

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.

AGAIN !

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.

OK FINE ! I WILL !

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,

“IT’S WORSE THAN WE THOUGHT!!!”

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:

STABILIZATION OF ATMOSPHERIC GREENHOUSE GASES: PHYSICAL, BIOLOGICAL AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPLICATIONS

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.

un·cer·tain/ˌənˈsərtn/

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

MSNBC promotes Republicans and Climate Change Skeptics as Pathological

Those Damn Pathological Republican Skeptics !

On April 28th, Chris Hayes, the guest host for ‘The Last Word’ on MSNBC, likened  Birthers to Skeptics.

Joining Chris on the show were Chris Mooney, a political journalist for Mother Jones magazine, and Jonathan Kay, a managing editor of Canada’s National Post newspaper, who also wrote a book about conspiracy theorists.

Here is some excerpts from that program:

Mooney: There is a science of why we deny science, right? There are facts about why we can’t accept facts. Basically, it’s a theory called motivated reasoning. What it does is it takes modern neuroscience and shows, you know, how our processes of reasoning are actually driven by emotion. And we make up our minds subconsciously before we are even actually consciously thinking what we think and then we are down a path and we’re already rationalizing.

Hayes: People who are watching this are trusting that I’m not lying to them. And when I read a newspaper or when I read the Intergovernmental Panel Climate Change report from the UN, I trust that the whole thing isn’t a fabricated hoax. So how different is – John, maybe you can answer this. Is there something that delineates conspiracist belief formulations from sort of normal belief formation, with all of its biases, et cetera?

Kay: Yes, there is. And that is the fact that if you take a normal, rational person and you give them contrary evidence to what they believe, they will re-examine their original hypothesis. Whereas if you take a conspiracy theorists and give them contrary information, they will always simple expand the circle of conspirators. So, for instance, in the case of the Birthers, if you way, well, you know, the secretary of health and the governor, they have all said the birth certificate is legitimate, they will simply draw a bigger circle around the conspiracy and say, well, they’re in on it too; the media is in on it too; the justice system is in on it too. It’s a pathological way of thinking, which is utterly different from rational thought. I actually compare it to religion, in the sense that if you’re a committed Christian or a committed Jew or a committed Muslim, it doesn’t matter what your faith is. If someone gives you contrary evidence to your beliefs, you wont simply say, well, I guess I’ll re-examine my religious beliefs. You’ll say I take this on faith. And that’s the way I believe. Conspiracy theories, in many ways, are a religious faith for a secular age.

Later in the show, Hayes asks:

Hayes:  The question is, is Robert Gibbs right that the nature of American public life at this moment makes these problems worse, exacerbates them as opposed to mitigates them?

Kay: I think the big problem is the technology. Because this has always been part of human psychology. The problem is now technology, in particular the media on the Internet, allow people to inhabit their own reality on websites. The conspiracy theorists that I interviewed don’t watch shows like this. They don’t watch the mass media. Typically, they are in their own little self- contained Internet bubble of people who think like they do. So in their mind, they are not outsiders because they are surrounded every day, virtually, by people who think the way they do. This has never existed in American society prior to the Internet. Conspiracy theorists always had to go outside, interact with people, turn on the mass media, read a newspaper eventually, because that’s the only way to get news. And so they were confronted with the fact that they were outsiders. That reality doesn’t exist now. They can go into a custom made reality, inhabited only by people who share their esoteric beliefs. That is new.

Chris goes on and makes the leap here that its Republicans that are pathological:

Mooney:  I think there’s a reality gap between the parties. Republicans and Democrats believe different things about a lot of issues and it turns out Republicans are more likely to wrong. We can talk about that. But one of the factors is, you know, everyone has their own experts now. There’s been a 30, 40-year campaign to build right wing think tanks to fight back against academic experts. And so, you know, everyone can say I’ve got a PhD who thinks this. And for every PhD, there’s an equal and opposite PhD.

Hayes:  In the case of global warming particularly, which is a very, very high-stakes conspiracy theory, that a majority of Republicans out there share – John, what did you learn about how you break – you sort of break this kind of vicious cycle that conspiracists are under?

Kay:We have to teach people that conspiracism is a way of thinking that is pathological, and you have to exercise your mental self-discipline to try to get around it.

So there you have it.

A left wing show, with left wing hosts, questioning left wing supporters, to come to the conclusion that Republicans are pathological.

And in case you just skimmed over the excerpts, let me re-print what Mooney said about Republicans, “Republicans and Democrats believe different things about a lot of issues and it turns out Republicans are more likely to wrong.”

So, Birthers are no different than Skeptics, and they are both pathological Republicans.

Well, there you have the definitive summation of liberal media. Blame the Republicans and case solved.

Is there no end to the insanity.

Jesus.

Permafrost – The Cold Hard Facts

Permafrost – The Cold Hard Facts


Permafrost, the ‘frozen soil in a thermal state’, is likely the least studied phenomena in all of the environmental studies to date. After having read a dozen or so peer-reviewed papers, almost in each instance, those papers would include in their introduction or conclusion that more study and grants are needed to fully understand the science.

My purpose for bringing this subject up, is that a AP writer, Dan Joling, wrote a article on Monday, March 28th entitled ,”Warming brings unwelcome change to Alaskan villages.”

Joling, like so many others before him, write about environmental impacts as a result of man-made global warming, without discussing both sides of the story. Facts are rarely used and a single quote or two is made by some noted scientist that warns us that ‘climate change’ is to blame. Joling’s article bares this same resemblance.

The truth is, the town discussed in the article, Kivalina, is a coastal town that suffers from sea wave erosion. The city is currently seeking to relocate because of the erosion and had sued 24 companies in order to relocate. Kivalina cites that greenhouse gases are to blame. Kivalina also claims that a Canadian oil company is responsible for polluting its water source. Currently the suit is under appeal, after having been dismissed.

Neither the subject of sea wave erosion or the class action suits are mentioned in Jolings report, and both of these discoveries could very well contribute to a very different story, if Joling bothered to research the story at all.

Melting permafrost , due to global warming, is only a smoke screen for the real story. Sea wave erosion and soil contamination is more likely the issue, and greed could very well be the motivating factor for the city of Kivalina in order to blame global warming as its cause.

Yet, permafrost and its understanding deserves our attention as more and more stories like this continue to run in the main stream media.

The rest of my post will focus on the facts about permafrost and how some wish to manipulate those facts.

Read more of this post

Alpine Glaciers – Who Got It Right ?

Here is a headline that we all have become conditioned to:

Alpine Glaciers gone by 2050 !

Due to mans impact on climate change.

Here is a headline that I would like to suggest to the alarmists:

Global Alarmists Are Full of It !

Due to careful research of the past.

John Tyndall (2 August 1820 – 4 December 1893) was a prominent 19th century physicist and glaciologist . Tyndall, in an article from Popular Science, was quoted as saying that the ice of the alps “derives its origin from the heat of the sun.” The article continued, ” that if that were diminished, their source of supply would be cut off.”

Read more of this post

The Inconvenience of History

What Alarmists Fail to Mention

CO2 can take care of itself.

Molecular Structure of H2CO3

Much has been written about the subject of carbon dioxide and the disaster that it will bring if too much of it is released or stored in the atmosphere.

Some of what has been said about an increase in CO2 goes as follows:

  • Erosions of coastlines and islands due to rising sea levels.
  • Rising temperatures from man-made increases of CO2.
  • Arctic sea ice to withdraw and disappear by the middle of this century.
  • Increase in Hurricanes and Tornadoes.
  • Ad Nauseam. (This Latin phrase comes from a term in logic, the argumentum ad nauseam, in which debaters wear out the opposition by just repeating arguments until they get sick of the whole thing and give in.)

What I would like to provide to my readers is a little history of what the leaders of anthropogenic global warming omit from their discoveries and how it may impact your decision regarding climate change.
In the July, 1901 issue of Popular Science, Bailey Willis of the U.S. Geological Survey, wrote an article called, “Climate and Carbonic Acid”.
Much of what is written in this article is still considered fundamentally sound in todays colleges and institutions. A major contributor to the facts supplied in this paper comes from Professor T.C. Chamberlin
(1843-1928), University of Chicago.

Here are some visual excerpts from that article:

Read more of this post

A New Ice Age May Bury Us

Popular Science

June 1929 Issue

This is a story I found while attempting to search for a picture that Anthony Watts, at Watts Up With That, was requesting regarding a piece of coal. Though I never found that picture, it lead to me to find several other interesting subjects. Such as this story about an impending ice age.

Read more of this post

You’ve Got To Be Kidding Me !

‘Don’t Demonize the Messenger!’

Once again, we have the green movement feigning innocence and that familiar message,’ Nothing to see here people, please move on.’

Elizabeth E. May is the co-author with Zoe Caron of Global Warming for Dummies  and leader of the Green Party of

Canada. So its no wonder that the National Post printed this article she wrote for them Thursday, March 11th, 2010:

‘Climate scientists are ethical and honest. They just happen to have some bad news.’

Here are a few quotes from that post I thought was worth mentioning. If you like to read the article, just go here :

Climate scientists are now in a maelstrom of competing caricatures. In the Post last week, Patrick Keeney ( “Trust us, we’re experts,” March 5) described them as schemers, cooking the books, using PR and spin. Those who wish to believe the climate crisis is not the result of human activity herald as heroes scientists who disagree with the consensus view, while others deride them as corrupt.

Read more of this post