During the past 6-years since Hurricane Katrina, global tropical cyclone frequency and energy have decreased dramatically, and are currently at near-historical record lows. According to a new peer-reviewed research paper accepted to be published, only 69 tropical storms were observed globally during 2010, the fewest in almost 40-years of reliable records.
Furthermore, when each storm's intensity and duration were taken into account, the total global tropical cyclone accumulated energy (ACE) was found to have fallen by half to the lowest level since 1977.
In his new paper, "Recent historically low global tropical cyclone activity", Dr. Ryan Maue, a meteorologist from Florida State University, examined the last 40-years of global hurricane records and found strikingly large variability in both tropical cyclone frequency and energy from year-to-year. Since 2007, global tropical cyclone activity has decreased dramatically and has continued at near-historical low levels. Indeed, only 64 tropical cyclones were observed globally in the 12-months from June 2010 - May 2011, nearly 23-storms below average obliterating the previous record low set in 1977.
On average, the North Atlantic including the Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean Sea accounts for about 1/8 of total global tropical cyclone energy and frequency. However in 2010, the Atlantic saw 19 tropical storms, of which 12 became hurricanes as expected (and forecasted) due to the intense La Nina event and continued positive Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO). The Atlantic Ocean's accumulated cyclone energy (ACE) corresponded to about 1/3 of the global calendar year output while the Western North Pacific typhoon season experienced a record few number. Seasonal forecasters of Atlantic hurricanes expect a similar but somewhat tempered outcome for the 2011 season, which has yet to get underway.
While the North Atlantic continued a 16-year period of above-normal activity in 2010, the North Pacific including the warm tropical waters from China to Mexico experienced the quietest tropical cyclone season in at least 40-years of historical records. Similarly, the most recent Southern Hemisphere cyclone season, except for the disastrous impacts of Yasi, was also notably below average. All told through June 27, 2011, overall global accumulated cyclone energy and frequency has settled into a period of record inactivity.
That's just weather. 6 years isn't long enough to tell anything. When we have 100 years without hurricanes we will concede your victory.
Really? They were blaming Katrina on ONE storm in ONE year. If we have ONE year with a lot of activity, they blame global warming. So, one bad year is global warming, but 6 is just weather? REALLY?
This is talking about hurricane data going back to 1977, which is 34 years, not just 6.
Today we have 1 (one) lonely sunspot. During the height of the warming in the last decade, there were 200+ spots at a given time. The fact is that the sun is in a reduced activity cycle and we are getting global cooling as the consequence.
Don't forget that we have rivers flooding in various regions late into the spring. The reason is greater snowfall and extended cold weather over the winter. This gives greater spring runoff. Yes we are in a cooling cycle. If we aren't lucky, it will turn into a mini ice age. If we are lucky, it will start warming again. We just don't know.
Today we have 1 (one) lonely sunspot. During the height of the warming in the last decade, there were 200+ spots at a given time. The fact is that the sun is in a reduced activity cycle and we are getting global cooling as the consequence.
Don't forget that we have rivers flooding in various regions late into the spring. The reason is greater snowfall and extended cold weather over the winter. This gives greater spring runoff. Yes we are in a cooling cycle. If we aren't lucky, it will turn into a mini ice age. If we are lucky, it will start warming again. We just don't know.
Arn
That, and the increase in tornadoes. Severe weather like tornadoes and strong thunderstorms, depend on a *difference* in temperature between two air masses. If the world is warming, like they want us to believe, then the temperature will even out between the tropics and poles, there will be *less* difference in temperature and therefore fewer big storms with tornadoes and heavy rain.
I read that there was a reason why hurricanes would *decrease*, something having to do with a difference in wind shear. I'll post it if I can find it.
Hurricanes are "fed" by hot Caribbean sea water evaporating during the day. The warm moist air is carried aloft and condenses higher up. This starts the process. The shear happens with conflicting air currents between the upper atmosphere and the lower atmosphere.
The illusion of debate So why do deniers continue to make their loud, and egregiously mistaken, claims? And what explains the tiny handful of deniers with verifiable academic credentials?
Many are (generally former) Professors, albeit usually with tenuous unpaid Adjunct or Emeritus associations with universities.
Are these individuals indicative of a scientific debate, after all? And if not, what motivates them?
Today, denial of the link between HIV and AIDS would be laughable, if the consequences of that denial hadn’t been so serious.
It is thus important to remember that twenty years ago a tiny handful of people in the medical community, including senior academics at reputable universities, rejected the consensus that HIV causes AIDS.
It is illuminating that just as in climate science, the contrarian publications on HIV were accompanied by an unusual context that made headlines and raised eyebrows for the same ethical reasons that arise from climate deniers’ subversion of peer review.
An example from astronomy is also prescient. The consensus of astronomers is that the sun consists largely of hydrogen and helium, and is powered by fusion at its core.
The evidence for this is overwhelming, and supported by multiple independent lines of investigation.
Like climate change, there are contrarian academics who argue against the consensus. O. Manuel, unpaid Emeritus of the Missouri University of Science and Technology, has claimed for decades that the sun is mostly composed of iron.
Manuel has recently published his bizarre theories in the bottom-tier journal Energy & Environment, also a favorite of climate deniers due to its, to put it mildly, unusual review processes.
There is an important lesson here: an overwhelming scientific consensus does not imply the absence of contrarian voices even within the scientific community.
Over time, those contrarian voices simply fade away because no one takes them seriously, despite their shouts of “censorship” and accusations of bias.
This is not to say that a scientific consensus is never overturned.
There are well-known examples such as the Helicobacter pylori discovery in medicine, and continental drift in geology. But in both cases the arguments were won and lost in the peer-reviewed literature, not by contrarians sitting on the side-lines writing opinion pieces about how they were being oppressed.
No, I just get tired of wasting time with you. I created this thread, and have been posting how the global warming people are wrong for 39 pages over a few years. You believe no matter what. Good for you, enjoy that.
OK, enough wasting time with newf, back to science. With reports that the sun may be entering an extended period of low activity, and thus the possibility of a little ice age, I was looking for info on how such a period would affect the climate of the area I live and I came across more proof of the Medieval Warm Period being WARMER than today, which pretty much undoes the case for catastrophic consequences of the current temperature (since there wasn't any major increase in sea level at that time, it won't happen now).
This is a peer reviewed paper on evidence for the MWP and LIA occurring in Northern California, and that it corresponds to evidence from other locations.
Reference McGann, M. 2008. High-resolution foraminiferal, isotopic, and trace element records from Holocene estuarine deposits of San Francisco Bay, California. Journal of Coastal Research 24: 1092-1109.
Background Was there a Medieval Warm Period anywhere in addition to the area surrounding the North Atlantic Ocean, where its occurrence is uncontested? This question is of utmost importance to the ongoing global warming debate, since if there was, and if the locations where it occurred were as warm then as they are currently, there is no need to consider the temperature increase of the past century or more as anything other than the natural progression of the persistent millennial-scale oscillation of climate that regularly brings the earth several-hundred-year periods of modestly higher temperatures (such as the Medieval Warm Period) and lower temperatures (such as the Little Ice Age) that are unrelated to variations in atmospheric CO2 concentration.
What was done In a study that sheds additional light on this subject, McGann (2008) analyzed a sediment core retrieved from the western portion of south bay near San Francisco International Airport (37°37.83'N, 122°21.99'W) for the presence of various foraminifers, as well as oxygen and carbon stable isotopes and numerous trace elements found in the tests of Elphidium excavatum.
What was learned The U.S. Geological Survey researcher reports that "benthic foraminiferal abundances, stable carbon and oxygen isotopes, and Mg/Ca ratios suggest that the climate of south bay has oscillated numerous times between warm and dry, and cool and wet conditions over the past 3870 years," and that "both the Medieval Warm Period [MWP] and the Little Ice Age [LIA] are evident." More specifically, she identifies the MWP as occurring from AD 743 to 1343 and the LIA as occurring in two stages: AD 1450 to 1530 and AD 1720 to 1850. In addition, she states that the timing of the MWP "correlates well with records obtained for Chesapeake Bay (Cronin et al., 2003), Long Island Sound (Thomas et al., 2001; Varekamp et al., 2002), California's Sierra Nevada (Stine, 1994), coastal northernmost California (Barron et al., 2004), and in the San Francisco Bay estuary in north bay at Rush Ranch (Byrne et al., 2001), and south bay at Oyster Point (Ingram et al., 1996)," and that the cooler and wetter conditions of the LIA have been reported "in Chesapeake Bay (Cronin et al., 2003), Long Island Sound (Thomas et al., 2001; Varekamp et al., 2002), coastal northernmost California (Barron et al., 2004), and in the San Francisco Bay estuary at Rush Ranch (Bryne et al., 2001), Petaluma Marsh (Ingram et al., 1998), and in Richardson Bay (Ingram and DePaolo, 1993)."
As for the more recent past, McGann notes that "near the top of the core" foraminiferal abundances suggest that, "once again, regional warming has taken place." However, that warming does not appear to have returned the region to the level of sustained warmth it enjoyed during the peak warmth of the MWP.
What it means The new results and their concurrence with results obtained by many other researchers -- both nearby and across the country on the east coast of the United States -- continue to strengthen our contention that (1) the warming of the past century or so has been nothing more than the natural and only-to-be-expected recovery of the earth from the extremely cold conditions of the LIA, which phenomenon has yet to return the planet to the level of sustained warmth characteristic of the MWP, and that (2) this transition has had nothing to do with the increase in the air's CO2 concentration that has occurred over the same time period.
References Barron, J.A., Heusser, L.E. and Alexander, C. 2004. High resolution climate of the past 3,500 years of coastal northernmost California. In: Starratt, S.W. and Blumquist, N.L. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Twentieth Annual Pacific Climate Workshop. U.S. Geological Survey, pp. 13-22.
Byrne, R., Ingram, B.L., Starratt, S., Malamud-Roam, F., Collins, J.N. and Conrad, M.E. 2001. Carbon-isotope, diatom, and pollen evidence for late Holocene salinity change in a brackish marsh in the San Francisco estuary. Quaternary Research 55: 66-76.
Cronin, T.M., Dwyer, G.S., Kamiya, T., Schwede, S. and Willard, D.A. 2003. Medieval Warm Period, Little Ice Age and 20th century temperature variability from Chesapeake Bay. Global and Planetary Change 36: 17-29.
Ingram, B.L., DeDekker, P., Chivas, A.R., Conrad, M.E. and Byrne, A.R. 1998. Stable isotopes, Sr/Ca, and Mg/Ca in biogenic carbonates from Petaluma Marsh, Northern California, USA. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 62: 3229-3237.
Ingram, B.L. and DePaolo, D.J. 1993. A 4300-year strontium isotope record of estuarine paleosalinity in San Francisco Bay, California. Earth and Planetary Science Letters 119: 103-119.
Ingram, B.L., Ingle, J.C. and Conrad, M.E. 1996. Stable isotope record of late Holocene salinity and river discharge in San Francisco Bay, California. Earth and Planetary Science Letters 141: 237-247.
Stine, S. 1994. Extreme and persistent drought in California and Patagonia during Medieval time. Nature 369: 546-548.
Thomas, E., Shackeroff, J., Varekamp, J.C., Buchholtz Ten Brink, M.R. and Mecray, E.L. 2001. Foraminiferal records of environmental change in Long Island Sound. Geological Society of America, Abstracts with Program 33(1), A-83.
Varekamp, J.C., Thomas, E., Lugolobi, F. and Buchholtz Ten Brink, M.R. 2002. The paleo-environmental history of Long Island Sound as traced by organic carbon, biogenic silica and stable isotope/trace element studies in sediment cores. Proceedings of the 6th Biennial Long Island Sound Research Conference, Groton, CT.
Lockwood, M., Harrison, R.G., Woolings, T. and Solanki, S.K. 2010. Are cold winters in Europe associated with low solar activity? Environmental Research Letters 5: 10.1088/1748-9326/5/2/024001.
What was done
Noting that "solar activity during the current sunspot minimum has fallen to levels unknown since the start of the 20th century," and that "the Maunder minimum (about 1650-1700) was a prolonged episode of low solar activity which coincided with more severe winters in the United Kingdom and continental Europe," the authors write that "motivated by recent relatively cold winters in the UK," they investigated the possible connection between these severe winters and low solar activity, identifying "regionally anomalous cold winters by detrending the Central England temperature record using reconstructions of the northern hemisphere mean temperature."
What was learned
Lockwood et al. discovered that "cold winter excursions from the hemispheric trend" do indeed "occur more commonly in the UK during low solar activity, consistent with the solar influence on the occurrence of persistent blocking events in the eastern Atlantic," and they state that "colder UK winters (relative to the longer-term trend) can therefore be associated with lower open solar flux (and hence with lower solar irradiance and higher cosmic ray flux)." They are quick to note, however, that "this is a regional and seasonal effect relating to European winters and not a global effect."
What it means
The four researchers conclude that since "average solar activity has declined rapidly since 1985 and cosmogenic isotopes suggest an 8% chance of a return to Maunder minimum conditions within the next 50 years (Lockwood, 2010)," their results suggest that, "despite hemispheric warming, the UK and Europe could experience more cold winters than during recent decades."
The case they make for their conclusion sounds logical enough; but only time will tell if the inference proves true.
Reference
Lockwood, M. 2010. Solar change and climate: an update in the light of the current exceptional solar minimum. Proceedings of the Royal Society A 466: 303-329.
Possibly some good news for me, regarding a possible "Little Ice Age" and the climate of California. It appears that agriculture was not adversely affected, at least in Southern California, based on a scientific paper from 1985.
No, I just get tired of wasting time with you. I created this thread, and have been posting how the global warming people are wrong for 39 pages over a few years. You believe no matter what. Good for you, enjoy that.
That's just it Bear, it's only your opinion that the overwhelming majority of scientists are wrong as mine is only an opinion that they are correct. You are claiming to know what you cannot.
But as you said you go on and believe whatever it is you want just don't expect everyone else to buy what you've been sold and regurgitate on here.
And *that* is a myth. But keep clinging to it, if it gets you through the night.
Of course it is, everything that opposes your opinion is.
Wait....Prove it. Find some major recognized scientific bodies that disagree with Climate Change and post them here. Not that tired old list that you pull out that has been debunked for years now, an actual one.
That's just it Bear, it's only your opinion that the overwhelming majority of scientists are wrong as mine is only an opinion that they are correct. You are claiming to know what you cannot.
But as you said you go on and believe whatever it is you want just don't expect everyone else to buy what you've been sold and regurgitate on here.
That is the laugh of the day Newf. The overwhelming majority of scientists repudiate Global Warming. Your opinion is not wrong because they are wrong, your opinion is wrong because you are wrong.
A cold spell on earth is a distinct possibility, not a given, and not a certainty, but it is a possibility and a chilling one at that.
Possibly some good news for me, regarding a possible "Little Ice Age" and the climate of California. It appears that agriculture was not adversely affected, at least in Southern California, based on a scientific paper from 1985.
The fear for California should not be an ice age. It should be more a catastrophic plate shift and a king size tsunami. It may well be the thing which actually does do in California. I hope not, but, it is definitely a possibility.
Of course it is, everything that opposes your opinion is.
Wait....Prove it. Find some major recognized scientific bodies that disagree with Climate Change and post them here. Not that tired old list that you pull out that has been debunked for years now, an actual one.
So it must be a "major scientific body", not a series of peer-reviewed papers? Is that your only standard, major scientific bodies?
So, "weather isn't climate", you can't just talk about local and regional weather events as proof of anything, but NOAA takes one month of records from one region and uses that in it's "State of the Climate" report? Really?
So, "weather isn't climate", you can't just talk about local and regional weather events as proof of anything, but NOAA takes one month of records from one region and uses that in it's "State of the Climate" report? Really?
??? What "State of the Climate" report are you referring to? The one about the National Climate in the U.S. or Global Climate?
quote
Overview The State of the Climate Report is a collection of monthly summaries recapping climate-related occurrences on both a global and national scale. The report is comprised of the following sections:
Global •Global Analysis — a summary of global temperatures and precipitation, placing the data into a historical perspective •Upper Air — tropospheric and stratospheric temperatures, with data placed into historical perspective •Global Snow & Ice — a global view of snow and ice, placing the data into a historical perspective •Global Hazards — weather-related hazards and disasters around the world •El Niño/Southern Oscillation Analysis — atmospheric and oceanic conditions related to ENSO
National •National Overview — a summary of national and regional temperatures and precipitation, placing the data into a historical perspective •Drought — drought in the U.S. •Wildfires — a summary of wildland fires in the U.S. and related weather and climate conditions •Hurricanes & Tropical Storms — hurricanes and tropical storms that affect the U.S. and its territories •National Snow & Ice — snow and ice in the U.S. •Tornadoes — a summary of tornadic activity in the U.S.
quote
Questions? For all climate questions, please contact the National Climatic Data Center's Climate Services and Monitoring Division:
Climate Services and Monitoring Division NOAA/National Climatic Data center 151 Patton Avenue Asheville, NC 28801-5001 fax: +1-828-271-4876 phone: +1-828-271-4800 email: ncdc.info@ncdc.noaa.gov To request climate data, please E-mail:ncdc.orders@ncdc.noaa.gov
[This message has been edited by newf (edited 07-09-2011).]
Good article when you read past the attention grabbing title.
quote
Although he found no evidence of bias in BBC output, he suggested where there is a “scientific consensus” it should not hunt out opponents purely to balance the story.
He highlighted climate change as an example along with the controversy over the Measles, Mumps and Rubella vaccine potentially leading to autism.
On climate change, Professor Jones said there had been a “drizzle of criticism of BBC coverage” arising from “a handful of journalists who have taken it upon themselves to keep disbelief alive”.
The report says: “In its early days, two decades ago, there was a genuine scientific debate about the reality of climate change. Now, there is general agreement that warming is a fact even if there remain uncertainties about how fast, and how much, the temperature might rise.”
Lord Lawson, chairman of the sceptical Global Warming Policy Foundation, said the fact that carbon dioxide levels were rising leading to global warming was not under dispute. However, he added, its extent and effect could not be explained by majority scientific opinion alone
But the BBC Trust defended the report. A spokesman said: “The report is not suggesting that climate change sceptics will not have a place on the BBC in future.
“The point Professor Jones makes is that the scientific consensus is that it is caused by human activity. Therefore the BBC’s coverage needs to give less weight to those who oppose this view, and reflect the fact that the debate has moved on to how to deal with climate change.”
The next time you read that NASA declares this or that day, month or year the hottest since yadda, yadda, yadda — you might want to check the source. It’s a pretty safe bet that it came from the Goddard Institute for Space Studies and probably quotes its director, James Hansen.
One would imagine that if you can trust any organization regarding reliable climate information, it would be NASA, right? Particularly a NASA organization named after Dr. Robert H. Goddard, widely recognized as the “father of American rocketry.” Think how important it is to get weather information right when launching people into space, and consider all those satellites and other high-tech stuff they have at their disposal. One would certainly believe that they could be relied on to give us the real scoop. Unfortunately, one might be very wrong, at least regarding the Goddard Institute for Space Studies.
First of all, GISS is actually only a climate modeling shop that relies on surface (not satellite) data that is mostly supplied by others. And even some top NASA scientists consider the dataset produced by GISS inferior to data provided by two other principal organizations, the National Climate Data Center’s Global Historical Climatology Network and the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (CRU) — home of the “ClimateGate” scandal.
As reported in a NASA memo to USA Today’s weather editor from Reto Ruedy at GISS: “My recommendation to you is to continue using NCRDC [NOAA] data for U.S. mean [temperatures] and Phil Jones’ [CRU] data for the global mean…We are basically a modeling group…for that purpose what we do is more than accurate enough [to assess model results]. But we have no intention to compete with either of the other two organizations in what they do best.” He clarified this point, saying, “…the National Climate Center’s procedure of only using the best stations is more accurate.”
And just how good is that CRU data? One ClimateGate log posted by database programmer Ian “Harry” Harris doesn’t provide much public confidence, reporting: “[The] hopeless state of their [CRU] database. No uniform data integrity. It’s just a catalogue of issues that continues to grow as they’re found…There are hundreds if not thousands of pairs of dummy stations…and duplicates…Aarrggghh! There truly is no end in sight. This project is such a MESS. No wonder I needed therapy!!”
In a ClimateGate e-mail, CRU Director Phil Jones has acknowledged that CRU mirrors U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) data. “Almost all the data we have in the CRU archive is exactly the same as in the Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN) archive used by the NOAA National Climate Data Center,” the e-mail said. And as noted by meteorologist Joseph D’Aleo in a January 28, 2011 Energy Tribune article, NASA GISS also uses NOAA data, applying its own adjustments. While all three databases suffer from the same flaws, NASA “tuning” tends to show the warmest trend anomalies, with CRU’s generally the lowest, according to D’Aleo. Such differences result from various assumptions regarding unknowns such as changing urbanization and other land use influences that contaminate surface temperature recordings.
Dr. Ruedy of GISS confessed in an email that “[the United States Historical Climate Network] data are not routinely kept up-to-date, and in another that NASA had inflated its temperature data since 2000 on a questionable basis. “NASA’s assumption that the adjustments made the older data consistent with future data…may not have been correct”, he said. “Indeed, in 490 of the 1,057 stations the USHCN data was up to 1 C degree colder than the corresponding GHCN data, in 77 stations the data was the same, and in the remaining 490 stations the USHCN data was warmer than the GHCN data.”
Anthony Watts, a meteorologist who has conducted extensive surveys of NOAA temperature recording posts, told FoxNews.com in February 2010 that “…90 % of them [surface stations] don’t meet the [government's] old, simple rule called the ’100-foot rule for keeping thermometers 100 feet or more from biasing influence… and we’ve got documentation”.
NOAA and NASA have both received legal Freedom of Information Act requests for unadjusted data and documentation of all adjustments they have made in order to assess the reliability of their reports in keeping with a Data Quality Act requiring that any published data must be able to be replicated by independent audits. And both have resisted these requests despite promises of transparency and the fact that together they receive nearly a billion dollars in direct annual government climate research funding. They are to also receive up to $600 million more from the Recovery Act of 2009.
Christopher Horner, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute has sought NASA GISS records through the FOIA for three years, including documents related to human-caused global climate crisis theory promotions undertaken by federal employees such as those of Gavin Schmidt, a principal blogger with the aggressively global warming activist RealClimate.org website. Filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in August of 2007 and January of 2008, the CEI vs. NASA suit specifically seeks documents related to temperature records that NASA was forced to correct in response to criticism from a leading climate watchdog and RealClimate.org nemesis Steve McIntyre. NASA released some documents, arguing that those associated with RealClimate.org were “agency records”, and then ceased to comply after admitting that 3,500 RealClimate.org-related emails had been found on Schmidt’s computer.
The American Tradition Institute’s Environmental Law Center also filed a FOIA lawsuit in the federal district court in the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C. on June 21, 2011 to force NASA to release records that pertain to James Hansen’s outside income-producing activities which have brought him at least $1.2 million in the past four years alone. ATI is seeking documents revealing possible noncompliance with applicable federal ethics and disclosure regulations, and with NASA Rules of Behavior. Hansen’s high profile global warming alarmism and related energy policy statements fall far outside his official Civil Service job role.
Hansen first gained worldwide attention in 1988 following testimony before then-Senator Al Gore’s Committee on Science, Technology and Space when he stated with 99 % certainty that temperatures had in fact increased, and that there had been some greenhouse warming, although he then made no direct connection between the two. This observation was consistent with concerns about a particularly warm summer that year in some U.S. regions.
Over time Hansen’s pronouncements became ever more dramatic. In a Dec. 6, 2005 presentation to the American Geophysical Union he stated that the Earth’s climate was already reaching a tipping point that will result in the loss of Arctic ice as we know it, with sea levels rising as much as 80 feet during this century (40 times higher than even the upper end of the most recent alarmist U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change summary report has projected), thus flooding coastal areas. He warned that this could be halted only if greenhouse gas emissions were reduced within the next 25 years.
In a Jan. 29, 2006, New York Times interview Hansen charged that NASA public relations people had pressured him to allow them to review future public lectures, papers and postings on the GISS website. Yet in January 15, 2009 testimony before the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works-Minority Committee, his former boss John S. Theon, retired chief of NASA’s Climate Processes Research Program, took issue with the interference charge, stating: “Hansen was never muzzled even though he violated official agency position on climate forecasting (i.e., we did not know enough to forecast climate change or mankind’s effect on it). Hansen has embarrassed NASA by coming out with his claim of global warming in 1988 in his testimony before Congress.”
Dr. Theon also testified that: “My own belief concerning anthropogenic [man-made] climate change is that models do not realistically simulate the climate system because there are many very important sub-grid scale processes that the models either replicate poorly or completely omit”. He observed: “Furthermore, some scientists have manipulated the observed data to justify their model results. In doing so, they neither explain what they have modeled in the observations, nor explain how they did it…this is contrary to the way science should be done.” He then went on to say “Thus, there is no rational justification for using climate model forecasts to determine public policy”.
Many members of the newly reconstituted U.S. Congress who are determined to cut non-essential government spending are very likely to agree. Perhaps this circumstance will substantially chill the overheated atmosphere surrounding NASA GISS operations.
The next time you read that NASA declares this or that day, month or year the hottest since yadda, yadda, yadda — you might want to check the source. It’s a pretty safe bet that it came from the Goddard Institute for Space Studies and probably quotes its director, James Hansen.
One would imagine that if you can trust any organization regarding reliable climate information, it would be NASA, right? Particularly a NASA organization named after Dr. Robert H. Goddard, widely recognized as the “father of American rocketry.” Think how important it is to get weather information right when launching people into space, and consider all those satellites and other high-tech stuff they have at their disposal. One would certainly believe that they could be relied on to give us the real scoop. Unfortunately, one might be very wrong, at least regarding the Goddard Institute for Space Studies.
First of all, GISS is actually only a climate modeling shop that relies on surface (not satellite) data that is mostly supplied by others. And even some top NASA scientists consider the dataset produced by GISS inferior to data provided by two other principal organizations, the National Climate Data Center’s Global Historical Climatology Network and the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (CRU) — home of the “ClimateGate” scandal.
As reported in a NASA memo to USA Today’s weather editor from Reto Ruedy at GISS: “My recommendation to you is to continue using NCRDC [NOAA] data for U.S. mean [temperatures] and Phil Jones’ [CRU] data for the global mean…We are basically a modeling group…for that purpose what we do is more than accurate enough [to assess model results]. But we have no intention to compete with either of the other two organizations in what they do best.” He clarified this point, saying, “…the National Climate Center’s procedure of only using the best stations is more accurate.”
And just how good is that CRU data? One ClimateGate log posted by database programmer Ian “Harry” Harris doesn’t provide much public confidence, reporting: “[The] hopeless state of their [CRU] database. No uniform data integrity. It’s just a catalogue of issues that continues to grow as they’re found…There are hundreds if not thousands of pairs of dummy stations…and duplicates…Aarrggghh! There truly is no end in sight. This project is such a MESS. No wonder I needed therapy!!”
In a ClimateGate e-mail, CRU Director Phil Jones has acknowledged that CRU mirrors U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) data. “Almost all the data we have in the CRU archive is exactly the same as in the Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN) archive used by the NOAA National Climate Data Center,” the e-mail said. And as noted by meteorologist Joseph D’Aleo in a January 28, 2011 Energy Tribune article, NASA GISS also uses NOAA data, applying its own adjustments. While all three databases suffer from the same flaws, NASA “tuning” tends to show the warmest trend anomalies, with CRU’s generally the lowest, according to D’Aleo. Such differences result from various assumptions regarding unknowns such as changing urbanization and other land use influences that contaminate surface temperature recordings.
Dr. Ruedy of GISS confessed in an email that “[the United States Historical Climate Network] data are not routinely kept up-to-date, and in another that NASA had inflated its temperature data since 2000 on a questionable basis. “NASA’s assumption that the adjustments made the older data consistent with future data…may not have been correct”, he said. “Indeed, in 490 of the 1,057 stations the USHCN data was up to 1 C degree colder than the corresponding GHCN data, in 77 stations the data was the same, and in the remaining 490 stations the USHCN data was warmer than the GHCN data.”
Anthony Watts, a meteorologist who has conducted extensive surveys of NOAA temperature recording posts, told FoxNews.com in February 2010 that “…90 % of them [surface stations] don’t meet the [government's] old, simple rule called the ’100-foot rule for keeping thermometers 100 feet or more from biasing influence… and we’ve got documentation”.
NOAA and NASA have both received legal Freedom of Information Act requests for unadjusted data and documentation of all adjustments they have made in order to assess the reliability of their reports in keeping with a Data Quality Act requiring that any published data must be able to be replicated by independent audits. And both have resisted these requests despite promises of transparency and the fact that together they receive nearly a billion dollars in direct annual government climate research funding. They are to also receive up to $600 million more from the Recovery Act of 2009.
Christopher Horner, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute has sought NASA GISS records through the FOIA for three years, including documents related to human-caused global climate crisis theory promotions undertaken by federal employees such as those of Gavin Schmidt, a principal blogger with the aggressively global warming activist RealClimate.org website. Filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in August of 2007 and January of 2008, the CEI vs. NASA suit specifically seeks documents related to temperature records that NASA was forced to correct in response to criticism from a leading climate watchdog and RealClimate.org nemesis Steve McIntyre. NASA released some documents, arguing that those associated with RealClimate.org were “agency records”, and then ceased to comply after admitting that 3,500 RealClimate.org-related emails had been found on Schmidt’s computer.
The American Tradition Institute’s Environmental Law Center also filed a FOIA lawsuit in the federal district court in the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C. on June 21, 2011 to force NASA to release records that pertain to James Hansen’s outside income-producing activities which have brought him at least $1.2 million in the past four years alone. ATI is seeking documents revealing possible noncompliance with applicable federal ethics and disclosure regulations, and with NASA Rules of Behavior. Hansen’s high profile global warming alarmism and related energy policy statements fall far outside his official Civil Service job role.
Hansen first gained worldwide attention in 1988 following testimony before then-Senator Al Gore’s Committee on Science, Technology and Space when he stated with 99 % certainty that temperatures had in fact increased, and that there had been some greenhouse warming, although he then made no direct connection between the two. This observation was consistent with concerns about a particularly warm summer that year in some U.S. regions.
Over time Hansen’s pronouncements became ever more dramatic. In a Dec. 6, 2005 presentation to the American Geophysical Union he stated that the Earth’s climate was already reaching a tipping point that will result in the loss of Arctic ice as we know it, with sea levels rising as much as 80 feet during this century (40 times higher than even the upper end of the most recent alarmist U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change summary report has projected), thus flooding coastal areas. He warned that this could be halted only if greenhouse gas emissions were reduced within the next 25 years.
In a Jan. 29, 2006, New York Times interview Hansen charged that NASA public relations people had pressured him to allow them to review future public lectures, papers and postings on the GISS website. Yet in January 15, 2009 testimony before the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works-Minority Committee, his former boss John S. Theon, retired chief of NASA’s Climate Processes Research Program, took issue with the interference charge, stating: “Hansen was never muzzled even though he violated official agency position on climate forecasting (i.e., we did not know enough to forecast climate change or mankind’s effect on it). Hansen has embarrassed NASA by coming out with his claim of global warming in 1988 in his testimony before Congress.”
Dr. Theon also testified that: “My own belief concerning anthropogenic [man-made] climate change is that models do not realistically simulate the climate system because there are many very important sub-grid scale processes that the models either replicate poorly or completely omit”. He observed: “Furthermore, some scientists have manipulated the observed data to justify their model results. In doing so, they neither explain what they have modeled in the observations, nor explain how they did it…this is contrary to the way science should be done.” He then went on to say “Thus, there is no rational justification for using climate model forecasts to determine public policy”.
Many members of the newly reconstituted U.S. Congress who are determined to cut non-essential government spending are very likely to agree. Perhaps this circumstance will substantially chill the overheated atmosphere surrounding NASA GISS operations.
Brought to you by Larry Bell - Professor of Architecture and author, Climate of Corruption: Politics and Power behind the Global Warming Hoax.
Nah..... I think I still trust the majority of true experts and scientists in the field of climate.
I'd also like to see some proof to this claim
quote
NOAA and NASA have both received legal Freedom of Information Act requests for unadjusted data and documentation of all adjustments they have made in order to assess the reliability of their reports in keeping with a Data Quality Act requiring that any published data must be able to be replicated by independent audits. And both have resisted these requests despite promises of transparency
[This message has been edited by newf (edited 07-23-2011).]
Newf, you are still wrong today like you were last week and the week before.
The majority of scientists do not support the Global Warming scam even though Al and his pals claim they do.
Arn
Wow that's a great commentary. Arn you go ahead and believe whatever it is you like, it's the sun, it's cooling, it's the rapture...etc, that's fine, have at it but please don't try to tell me I'm wrong to have an opinion or choose to believe what most scientists do.
You want to be believe you are some kind of expert? Submit your data and theories for peer review, take up your arguements with the real experts and see how far you get. No? Well then just admit you have an opinion just as I do, feel free to post whatever you like or believe but don't get upset if everyone doesn't believe it too. It's really getting kind of old, and smacks of immaturity IMO.
Look up the facts yourself. Just don't quote Al or the IPCC because they are proven to be liars.
Arn
And that's one of the big problems, you and certain others claim to "know" what you cannot (you merely have an opinion like most everyone else ) and for some reason get upset when others don't just blindly follow. I fully admit that the science changes and must be adjusted with any new findings but the goal is to understand climate change better all the time, no matter what the outcome. I simply choose to believe the majority of the true experts and scientists who have studied this complex issue instead of some internet hack or blogger who assume they know better than the true experts. Not saying that there are not valid counter arguements made at times by certain actual experts or scientists but forgive me if I don't consider you one of them. Again I'll go with the overwhelming majority of experts and scientists in the field of climate.
[This message has been edited by newf (edited 07-24-2011).]
Originally posted by newf: Brought to you by Larry Bell - Professor of Architecture and author, Climate of Corruption: Politics and Power behind the Global Warming Hoax.
Nah..... I think I still trust the majority of true experts and scientists in the field of climate.
I guess you didn't bother to read the quote from Reto Ruedy, scientist at NASA GISS about how the GISS temp data isn't as accurate?
"“My recommendation to you is to continue using NCRDC [NOAA] data for U.S. mean [temperatures] and Phil Jones’ [CRU] data for the global mean…We are basically a modeling group…for that purpose what we do is more than accurate enough [to assess model results]. But we have no intention to compete with either of the other two organizations in what they do best.” He clarified this point, saying, “…the National Climate Center’s procedure of only using the best stations is more accurate.”"
"NASA had inflated its temperature data since 2000 on a questionable basis"
Another quote from a database programmer saying that the CRU temp data is "a mess"...and the NASA guy is telling you that the CRU data is BETTER than theirs (at GISS)
And just how good is that CRU data? One ClimateGate log posted by database programmer Ian “Harry” Harris doesn’t provide much public confidence, reporting: “[The] hopeless state of their [CRU] database. No uniform data integrity. It’s just a catalogue of issues that continues to grow as they’re found…There are hundreds if not thousands of pairs of dummy stations…and duplicates…Aarrggghh! There truly is no end in sight. This project is such a MESS. No wonder I needed therapy!!”"
==============================================
That's one scientist from NASA GISS and one of the people who dealt with the CRU data itself TELLING YOU about the problems with the data. Nice try dismissing this because of the author of the article.
"“My recommendation to you is to continue using NCRDC [NOAA] data for U.S. mean [temperatures] and Phil Jones’ [CRU] data for the global mean…We are basically a modeling group…for that purpose what we do is more than accurate enough [to assess model results]. But we have no intention to compete with either of the other two organizations in what they do best.” He clarified this point, saying, “…the National Climate Center’s procedure of only using the best stations is more accurate.”"
"NASA had inflated its temperature data since 2000 on a questionable basis"
Another quote from a database programmer saying that the CRU temp data is "a mess"...and the NASA guy is telling you that the CRU data is BETTER than theirs (at GISS)
And just how good is that CRU data? One ClimateGate log posted by database programmer Ian “Harry” Harris doesn’t provide much public confidence, reporting: “[The] hopeless state of their [CRU] database. No uniform data integrity. It’s just a catalogue of issues that continues to grow as they’re found…There are hundreds if not thousands of pairs of dummy stations…and duplicates…Aarrggghh! There truly is no end in sight. This project is such a MESS. No wonder I needed therapy!!”"
==============================================
That's one scientist from NASA GISS and one of the people who dealt with the CRU data itself TELLING YOU about the problems with the data. Nice try dismissing this because of the author of the article.
Exactly Bear, that's one person. Please show all the others that claim that their data is false or can't be verified using the various other data sets. Also what is he really saying? Where is the context from these "emails" ? Hell you gave his email, how about you write him and ask if he believes in climate change or not and if he thinks NASA's data is accurate. You can go ahead and believe whatever it is you like, their data is open for peer review, feel free to prove them wrong.
I guess this guy is going to bring down the whole house of cards of rising global temperatures and climate change hey? Oh wait, which is it again that you believe? Temperature is rising just not due to humans isn't it? Or have you changed your tune again?
[This message has been edited by newf (edited 07-24-2011).]
Exactly Bear, that's one person. Please show all the others that claim that their data is false or can't be verified using the various other data sets. You can go ahead and believe whatever it is you like, their data is open for peer review, feel free to prove them wrong.
I guess this guy is going to bring down the whole house of cards of rising global temperatures and climate change hey? Oh wait, which is it again that you believe? Temperature is rising just not due to humans isn't it? Or have you changed your tune again?
This is why you fail, newf. You believe in "scientific consensus", which is completely meaningless. You worry about scientific organizations and the number of scientists who agree with something, when all it takes is ONE to undo the whole thing if that one scientist's work is correct. I give you one scientist who says that NASA's data is the least accurate, and you just dismiss it because it isn't EVERY scientist saying it. This PROVES that you don't understand how science is done. So spare me your crap about how *I* don't get it or that I'm "changing my tune again". You change yours whenever it is convenient.
[This message has been edited by fierobear (edited 07-24-2011).]
And that's one of the big problems, you and certain others claim to "know" what you cannot (you merely have an opinion like most everyone else ) and for some reason get upset when others don't just blindly follow. I fully admit that the science changes and must be adjusted with any new findings but the goal is to understand climate change better all the time, no matter what the outcome. I simply choose to believe the majority of the true experts and scientists who have studied this complex issue instead of some internet hack or blogger who assume they know better than the true experts. Not saying that there are not valid counter arguements made at times by certain actual experts or scientists but forgive me if I don't consider you one of them. Again I'll go with the overwhelming majority of experts and scientists in the field of climate.
Don't believe the Gore hype Newf. There are people with billions of dollars invested in solar and wind, and they want to trash other energy sources. They use not for profit agencies as fronts. They simply make up what they can't find legitimately.
Every time someone posts scientific information on this thread that you disagree with, you start posturing and postulating and throwing out insults. First you spout stuff you've only read on the internet or heard on the CBC and then you criticize stuff others read on the internet as not being valid.
That's one scientist from NASA GISS and one of the people who dealt with the CRU data itself TELLING YOU about the problems with the data. Nice try dismissing this because of the author of the article.
Wow he actually put his name on papers that conclude things like:
"Global temperature is rising as fast in the past decade as in the prior 2 decades, despite year-to-year fluctuations associated with the El Niño-La Niña cycle of tropical ocean temperature. Record high global 12 month running mean temperature for the period with instrumental data was reached in 2010. "
"Ample physical evidence shows that carbon dioxide (CO2) is the single most important climate-relevant greenhouse gas in Earth's atmosphere."
But I'm sure you can prove where he is not trusting of the NASA data sets and such.
Also why does this gentleman suddenly have a respected and authoratative voice to you? All other NASA scientists seem to be wrong according to you, why does this guy suddenly get a pass? Only because his words were used in an attempt to show that he is going against the Climate change theory? Write him and ask his views on CLimate Change and see what he says, I'll be interested in his reply.
