Posted by honestclimate in Discussions.
Tags: climate change, global warming
Modellers Remove Evidence of Cooling and Editor Removes Comment by Climate Sceptic
From the Jennifer Marohasy blog, January 23, 2009
WITHIN the scientific community it has generally been accepted that as a continent, Antarctica, has been getting colder – or at least not warming. Those who subscribe to the general consensus that climate change is driven by manmade carbon dioxide emissions, and that the world is generally getting warmer, have claimed this is not inconsistent with their greenhouse gas theory or the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) models. They have explained that Antarctica is a general exception to the global trend because of a loss of ozone in the polar stratosphere. [1]
When communicating with the general public, however, some high profile scientists, including from the CSIRO, have been so bold as to falsely claim even the Antarctic is warming. Perhaps because they wanted to avoid appearing inconsistent or having to explain such an annoying exception to the generally accepted global warming trend over the last 100 or so years. [2]
Now the prestigious journal Nature has published an article explaining that the Antarctic has been generally warming and at about the same rate as the rest of the planet. [3] This news made the cover of the latest issue of the journal with a dramatic graphic illustration of the new reconstruction of Antarctic surface temperature trends for 1957–2006.
One of the authors of the new paper, Michael Mann, director of the Earth System Science Center at Pennsylvania State University, has explained that he is pleased that the previous inconvenience of a cooling trend in Antarctica can now be dismissed. Indeed he now has a paper published in the prestigous and peer-reviewed journal Nature claiming as much. But this does not necessarily make it true.
Dr Mann is famous for managing to falsely recreate past temperatures so they accord with the popular global warming consensus. Indeed Dr Mann is responsible for the infamous hockey-stick graph that suggested the medieval warm period did not exist.
In this new study Dr Mann and others have combined incomplete data from both satellites and weather stations with some complicated statistics to generate a model of climate for the continent for the period 1957-2006.
Bill Kininmonth, formerly of the Australian Bureau of Meteorology, was interviewed on Australian national radio as part of a segment on the new findings. Mr Kininmonth explained that there has been no reduction in the cycle of Antarctic sea ice and that he was generally sceptical that the west Antarctic ice sheet was likely to melt – a claim made earlier in the segment by Dr Barry Brook from Adelaide University.
In apparent contravention of ABC Broadcasting principles, the comment from Mr Kininmonth has been expunged from the transcript and the podcast. [4]
It seems computer models can remove evidence of cooling and editors can remove comment from climate change sceptics – but of course the truth does not cease to exist because it is ignored.
Read the rest here
Posted by honestclimate in Discussions.
Tags: climate change, global warming, Professor Will Alexander, professor william alexander
UNVERIFIED HYPOTHESES
Professor Will Alexander
By Professor Will Alexander
Via Email, January 22, 2009
What is our Minister hoping to achieve at the Midrand Summit?
The Summit is a closed event with no debate allowed on the science on which it is founded. Why is this? It must be obvious that there is something that the Minister’s advisers wish to withhold from public scrutiny. Some examples are given in the attached memo. There are more to follow.
Climate alarmists repeatedly claim that the science is settled. This statement is false. In this memo I demonstrate the opposite.
Our Minister and the people of this country are being seriously misled by corrupt science. It is practised by a handful of individuals who appear to have no concern for the welfare of our nation or its peoples.
Let me continue.
The opening sentence of the Summit information brochure is:
The South African government regards climate change as one of the greatest threats to our planet and our people.
Unfortunately the statement in itself is demonstrably false. If the situation is indeed so serious, why has the Minister not followed the normal procedure of appointing a multi-disciplinary commission of enquiry consisting of representatives of all the affected groups of our society, to advise him?
Instead he has chosen to rely on the advice of a few climatological and environmental extremists. It has become obvious that they have no wider knowledge in the engineering and applied sciences. They have no knowledge of all the economic and sociological consequences of their recommendations.
Furthermore, we are a rainbow nation struggling to overcome the inequalities of the past. Our nation is already suffering from the consequences of Eskom’s failure to keep up with the rising electricity demand. We are on the brink of running out of water as the demand exceeds the availability. Our rivers are becoming increasingly polluted. The economic recession has already resulted in job losses as mines and businesses start closing down.
Poverty is increasing, not decreasing. Crime and racial conflicts within the poorer communities are increasing.
Against all this background, the imposition of restrictions on emissions from our coal burning power stations, transport and other activities can only worsen the situation.
Moving to the international scene, all you have to do is to look at a map of the world. Note South Africa’s position surrounded by oceans at the southern tip of the African continent.
Can any sane person believe that any action that we take can have even the remotest effect on the world’s climate? Compare our emissions with the emissions of the countries in the northern hemisphere from the USA in the west, through Europe in the middle, and on to India and China in the east.
Why does the Minister not instruct his advisers to present him with the comparison of South Africa’s emissions in units, not percentages, with each of those of the world’s largest emitters? Don’t let them say that South Africa is the world’s 16th largest emitter. Insist that they provide the actual quantities. They will be very instructive.
I love my country and its people. I am not prepared to remain silent while a small group of intellectually challenged individuals are intent on forcing South Africa to its knees.
Memo 06/09
Climate change is an unverified hypothesis
Thursday 22 January 2009
Once again I must stress that my memos are not attacks on the integrity of individuals. They expose the unscientific practices that are misleading our government. These can cause incredible harm to our nation and its peoples. It is essential that they be brought to the attention of the authorities, the public, and the scientific profession. The forthcoming Midrand Summit is founded on false science. These are some examples.
In 2004 I was a member of a team of international experts appointed to advise the Japanese authorities on the establishment of an international water research institute. During a break, I asked the team what they thought of the climate change issue. The response was unanimous. It was nothing more than an unverified hypothesis.
This is the basic difference between pragmatic engineering approaches and theoretical climatological approaches. The fundamental requirement of all computer models in the engineering sciences is that the models must be developed using one or more datasets. The models then have to be verified using data not included in the development of the model. No engineer would consider using an unverified computer model.
Now compare this with a very recent example.
Alarmist predictions
I’m sure that it was a coincidence but the day after the distribution of my memo describing the SW Cape nonsense by 15 authors, the local Beeld newspaper carried an article on a paper published by Francois Engelbrecht and the others in the International Journal of Climatology. The headline of the newspaper article was that large parts of South Africa would be drier in future. The rainfall in the Limpopo region would decrease by up to 20% and in the SW Cape it would decrease by up to 30%.
These are dramatic decreases. But as in the case of the 15-authored SW Cape analyses, there are serious believability problems in the analyses.
Firstly, the predictions were based on the output of a single computer model. Secondly and most importantly, changes of this magnitude cannot occur suddenly. We are told that the emissions from burning fossil fuels have been increasing for at least the past 50 years. The decreases in rainfall should therefore be observable in the data. The first thing that the authors should have done was to verify their predictions by examining the long district rainfall records published by the South African Weather Service. This is what they would have found.
District 4 is in the extreme SW Cape that includes Cape Town. It is in the winter rainfall area. District 35 on the other hand, is in the Limpopo region. This is at the very opposite end of South Africa. It is deep in the summer rainfall region.
The histogram of the data for District 4 in the SW Cape region shows a steady increase in rainfall during the period of record. Trend analyses also show an increase in District 35. From this information alone it is clear that there are fundamental errors in the climate computer model used by Engelbrecht.
As a matter of interest, Districts 33 to 35 are in the Kruger National Park. The rainfall in the Kruger National Park also shows no decrease during the period of record. This exposes the fraudulent claims that the wildlife in our national park are at risk due to climate change. I will return to this in a later memo.
Now we can go one step further. I carried out comprehensive analyses that are described in my 474 page technical report Climate change and its consequences — an African perspective. I demonstrated that there was a 9% increase in South African rainfall during the period from 1921 to the end of the century. My report has 51 tables, 33 figures and 218 references.
Report of UK Met Office at Bali
The Hadley Centre of the UK Met Office was once an esteemed institution. At the Bali conference it produced a document titled New science for managing climate risks. In a section titled Water – drought and flooding, it produced a table postulating percentage changes in the flow of the major rivers of the world as a result of climate change. It claimed that there would be a 30.6% increase in the flow in the Congo River, while there would be a 34.9% decrease in the flow in the Zambezi River. How is this possible when these two rivers have adjacent headwater catchments?
This is pure alarmist nonsense. Once again these uninformed climatologists failed to calibrate their models with real-world data.
Publications like this distributed at an international conference on climate change are thoroughly unprofessional and misleading. This table does not contain information on a single river in Europe or North America. The obvious reason is that these fallacies could be easily checked by hydrologists in these continents. The Hadley Centre relied on the assumption that there are no intelligent hydrologists in the river catchments listed in their table.
Marion Island
The uninhabited Marion Island is located in the cold seas between South Africa and the Antarctic. A manned South African weather station is in operation on the island. In an article published in the South African Journal of Science, a climatologist discussed the influence of global warming on the single glacier on the island. He produced two photographs. One taken in 1966 showed a glacier prominently in the foreground. The other taken in 2005 showed that the glacier had disappeared. It was claimed that this was due to global warming.
However, a closer examination shows that the latter photograph was an enlargement of the barren background of the 1966 photograph. No subsequent apology was offered.
Other conscientious climatologists have also published papers on the climate of Marion Island. Now their conclusions are marred by this single example of unscientific opportunism.
Technology transfer
I watched President Obama’s inaugural address on TV while the writing this memo. It was very inspiring. I’m sure that all reasonable people of the world will wish him success in achieving his objectives.
On Wednesday, our local newspapers headlined his inauguration with lots of praise. One of the newspapers also carried an article on an inner page. Our Minister of Environmental Affairs and Tourism was in Washington. He informed the new administration of the ambitious plans that South Africa intends implementing to reduce our undesirable emissions. He ended up by informing his hosts that technology transfer and financial assistance from developed to developing nations is essential for addressing climate change on a global scale.
Our Minister obviously hopes to be able to inform the Midrand Summit that he was successful in obtaining technology transfer and financial assistance from the new American administration. Even if he is successful he is taking a huge risk. I have not seen a single report that predicts that all nations will commit themselves to undertake meaningful measures to reduce their emissions at the Copenhagen conference at the end of this year. Surely our nation has higher priorities.
Once again the Minister’s scientific advisers are misleading him. Firstly, carbon capture and storage technology does not exist. Secondly, and more importantly, the developing nations of Africa simply do not have the technological expertise to implement it. We discussed technology transfer at United Nations discussions on natural disaster mitigation. We decided that it was simply impractical in most African countries.
Let me give you an example.
One of our meetings was held at Gigiri outside Nairobi. It is the headquarters of the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP). A member of the UNEP staff addressed us. He complained that the nations of Africa were not implementing the recommended environmental conservation measures.
After he completed his presentation I stood up. I challenged him to walk out of the room and along the road towards Nairobi. On the way he would pass through a squatter settlement on the banks of a stream. I asked him to imagine what the reaction of the squatters would be if he requested them to stop cutting down the indigenous vegetation for firewood, and cease polluting the stream with sewage effluent. Would they heed his demands?
This is the embarrassing situation that our Minister is in. He has chosen to listen to the advice of climate alarmists. Their only source of information is unverified climate models and refereed papers in the literature. Their practical knowledge of the real-world situations is close to zero. Now the people of South Africa must suffer from their ignorance.
Summit questions
The Climate Change Summit invitation makes frequent references to the science of climate change and recent developments. It will be fascinating to see how the 15-authored SW Cape report that I discussed in my earlier memo, the examples in this memo, and my 474-page technical report will feature in the summit presentations.
Regards
Will Alexander
Posted by honestclimate in Discussions.
Tags: climate change, global warming, Professor Bob Carter
Facts debunk global warming alarmism
Professor Bob Carter
By Professor Bob Carter
From The Australian, January 20, 2009
THE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reported that October in the US was marked by 63 record snowfalls and 115 lowest-ever temperatures.
Over the past few years, similar signs of colder than usual weather have been recorded all over the world, causing many people to question the still fashionable, but now long outdated, global warming alarmism. Yet individual weather events or spells, whether warmings or coolings, tell us nothing necessarily about true climate change.
Nonetheless, by coincidence, growing recognition of a threat of climatic cooling is correct, because since the turn of the 21st century all real world, long-term climate indicators have turned downwards. Global atmospheric temperature reached a peak in 1998, has not warmed since 1995 and, has been cooling since 2002. Some people, still under the thrall of the Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change’s disproved projections of warming, seem surprised by this cooling trend, even to the point of denying it. But why?
There are two fundamentally different ways in which computers can be used to project climate. The first is used by the modelling groups that provide climate projections to the IPCC. These groups deploy general circulation models, which use complex partial differential equations to describe the ocean-atmosphere climate system mathematically. When fed with appropriate initial data, these models can calculate possible future climate states. The models presume (wrongly) that we have a complete understanding of the climate system.
GCMs are subject to the well-known computer phenomenon of GIGO, which translates as “garbage in, God’s-truth out”.
Alternative computer projections of climate can be constructed using data on past climate change, by identifying mathematical (often rhythmic) patterns within them and projecting these patterns into the future. Such models are statistical and empirical, and make no presumptions about complete understanding; instead, they seek to recognise and project into the future the climate patterns that exist in real world data.
In 2001, Russian geologist Sergey Kotov used the mathematics of chaos to analyse the atmospheric temperature record of the past 4000 years from a Greenland ice core. Based on the pattern he recognised in the data, Kotov extrapolated cooling from 2000 to about 2030, followed by warming to the end of the century and 300 years of cooling thereafter.
In 2003, Russian scientists Klyashtorin and Lyubushin analysed the global surface thermometer temperature record from 1860 to 2000, and identified a recurring 60-year cycle. This probably relates to the Pacific decadal oscillation, which can be caricatured as a large scale El Nino/La Nina climatic oscillation. The late 20thcentury warming represents the most recent warm half-cycle of the PDO, and it projects forwards as cooling of one-tenth of a degree or more to 2030.
In 2004, US scientist Craig Loehle used simple periodic models to analyse climate records over the past 1000 years of sea-surface temperature from a Caribbean marine core and cave air temperature from a South African stalactite. Without using data for the 20th century, six of his seven models showed a warming trend similar to that in the instrumental record over the past 150 years; and projecting forward the best fit model foreshadows cooling of between 0.7 and 1 degree Celsius during the next 20-40 years. In 2007, the 60-year climate cycle was identified again, by Chinese scientists Lin Zhen-Shan and Sun Xian, who used a novel multi-variate analysis of the 1881-2002 temperature records for China. They showed that temperature variation in China leads parallel variation in global temperature by five-10 years, and has been falling since 2001. They conclude “we see clearly that global and northern hemisphere temperature will drop on century scale in the next 20 years”.
Most recently, Italian scientist Adriano Mazzarella demonstrated statistical links between solar magnetic activity, the length of the Earth day (LOD), and northern hemisphere wind and ocean temperature patterns. He too confirmed the existence of a 60-year climate cycle, and described various correlations (some negative). Based on these correlations, Mazzarella concludes that provided “the observed past correlation between LOD and sea-surface temperature continues in the future, the identified 60-year cycle provides a possible decline in sea-surface temperature starting from 2005, and the recent data seem to support such a result”.
Thus, using several fundamentally different mathematical techniques and many different data sets, seven scientists all forecast that climatic cooling will occur during the first decades of the 21st century. Temperature records confirm that cooling is under way, the length and intensity of which remains unknown.
Yet in spite of this, governments across the world – egged on by irrational, deep Green lobbying – have for years been using their financial muscle and other powers of persuasion to introduce carbon dioxide taxation systems. For example, the federal Labor government recently spent $13.9million on climate change advertising on prime time television and in national newspapers and magazines.
Similarly, the London-based Institute for Public Policy Research advised the British Government “ultimately, positive climate behaviours need to be approached in the same way as marketeers approach acts of buying and consuming … It amounts to treating climate-friendly activity as a brand that can be sold. This is, we believe, the route to mass behaviour change.”
Introduction of a carbon dioxide tax to prevent (imaginary) warming, euphemistically disguised as an emissions trading scheme, is a politician’s, ticket clipper’s and mafia chief’s dream. All will welcome a new source of income based on an invisible, colourless, odourless, tasteless and often unmeasurable gas. No commodity changes hands during its trading, and should carbon dioxide emissions actually decrease because of the existence of a carbon dioxide market (which is highly unlikely), the odds are that it will have no measurable effect on climate anyway. Nonetheless, the glistening pot of gold which beckons to be mined from the innocent public is proving nigh irresistible, and it is going to need a strong taxpayer revolt to stop it in Australia.
The present global financial crisis should be inducing politicians not to squander money on non-solutions to non-problems. Yet to support their plans for emissions taxation Western governments, including ours, are still propagating scientifically juvenile greenhouse propaganda underpinned only by circumstantial evidence and GCM computer gamesmanship.
Perhaps a reassessment will finally occur when two-metre thick ice develops again on Father Thames at London Bridge, or when cooling causes massive crop failure in the world’s granary belts.
Bob Carter is an adjunct professor of geology at James Cook University.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24934655-5017272,00.html
Posted by honestclimate in Discussions.
Tags: climate change, Dr Tim ball, global warming, tim ball
How the World was Bullied into Silence
Dr Tim Ball
By Dr. Tim Ball, Canada Free Press, Jan 19, 2009
One of the most disturbing aspects of the global warming scam is the number of prominent people and entire segments of society bullied into silence. Consider the case of Dr. Joanne Simpson described as follows. “the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology, and formerly of NASA, who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.” Then consider her statement. “Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly�.As a scientist I remain skeptical… The main basis of the claim that man’s release of greenhouse gases is the cause of the warming is based almost entirely upon climate models. We all know the frailty of models concerning the air-surface system.”
No, we don’t all know the frailty of the models! Certainly most of the media and thereby the public and politicians don’t know, otherwise the latter would not be planning completely unnecessary, incredibly expensive and society altering policies. But the opening comment is actually frightening and speaks to why the scam has progressed so far. “Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receive any funding, I can speak quite frankly.” Undoubtedly, there are positions and times when people are muzzled; national security is a good example. I sympathize with young people starting out on careers. I understand the pressure of maintaining a family and paying mortgages. But none of this should apply to science. It’s a measure of the degree to which climate change has become political. It’s also a measure of the degree of bullying that has occurred. Why would a scientist in an organization directly involved in climate science not feel free to speak out? But they are not the only ones who have kept quiet.
Entire segments of society have either remained silent or taken evasive action. Few had the courage to even ask for a full and open debate. Now everything is changing as the claims of warming are offset by the realities of cooling. Cold weather is doing more to raise questions about the scam of global warming than all the appeals to scientific reason. Even people who don�t understand the science recognize the illogic of arguing that colder temperatures are due to warming. This is causing advocates of human caused global warming to take increasingly ridiculous positions to defend the indefensible. They are making more strident calls for action accompanied by claims the tipping point, beyond which action is too late, is ever closer. Politicians are warned not to let economic woes divert them from saving the planet.
Consider this incredible and totally unfounded position reported in the Observer – Guardian newspaper; Barack Obama has only four years to save the world. That is the stark assessment of NASA scientist and leading climate expert Jim Hansen, who last week warned only urgent action by the new president could halt the devastating climate change that now threatens Earth. Hansen must know that if the cooling trend continues, as many scientists anticipate, he is in a dangerous position. When a bureaucrat convinces a politician of a scientific position, as Hansen has so forcefully done with Gore and Obama, and they make it a major part of their political positions he is on a treadmill. He has to keep spinning the story and avoid the facts while increasing the threats. Further, Hansen must make sure political actions he advocates, such as carbon taxes, must be implemented before more cooling occurs and Obama’s four-year term ends.
On the other side of the debate, an increasing number of scientists are speaking out for a variety of reasons. Read more here.
Posted by honestclimate in Discussions.
Tags: climate change, global warming, Professor Will Alexander, professor william alexander
CORRUPT SCIENCE by Professor Will Alexander
Professor Will Alexander
Via Email, January 20, 2009
Dear all,
CORRUPT SCIENCE
This is the first of my memos directly targeted at the Midrand Summit on climate change.
My apologies for overloading you with all these memos, but this is a vitally important national and international event.
It is most important that my memos be distributed to South African scientists so that they can appreciate the damage that is being done in the name of science. There is more to follow.
Memo 05/09
Climate summit. Corrupt science
Tuesday 20 January 2009
Alexandra Township, Johannesburg.
I took this photograph in Alexandra Township. The flimsy shacks are built on an old refuse dump that is now being eroded away by the river. A large tree has already collapsed into the river. The wreckage of a Volkswagen Beetle had its roof stripped off to be used for the construction of a shack. The Jukskei River in the foreground is the most polluted river in South Africa. This is because of the complete lack of sanitation facilities in the shacks along its banks.
This Township is less than 20 km from the summit venue. How dare our Ministry of Environmental Affairs and Tourism hold an expensive four-day summit on climate change, attended by 600 delegates, when thousands of people are living in abject poverty within 20 minutes driving distance from Midrand?
I have been involved in searching for solutions to these difficult sociological problems for more than 15 years. Resulting from my work in Alexandra, I was appointed by the United Nations Secretary-General as a member of the United Nations Scientific and Technical Committee on Natural Disasters. This United Nations body functioned at the same time as another United Nations body the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).
However, there was no communication between the two bodies. This was for the simple reason that our studies demonstrated without doubt that increases in the loss of life from natural disasters were due to growing human populations and forced occupation of areas exposed to floods and droughts. The photograph above is an example.
Our thorough studies demonstrated that there was no evidence of increases in the frequency or magnitude of floods and droughts. This is not what the UNFCCC wanted to hear.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was established in 1988 by two high level international agencies. These were the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO), and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). It has produced several assessment reports at roughly five-yearly intervals. The latest was issued in 2007. From the beginning, the approach adopted by the IPCC was directly contrary to the recommendations of other United Nations bodies. The claims of increases in floods and droughts have no substance.
Search for solutions
The development of solutions to this very important sociological problem is very difficult. I described it in my United Nations commissioned study Risk and Society – an African Perspective that was published in 1999.
Coincidentally, another United Nations initiative was published at the same time. This was the Declaration on Science and the Use of Scientific Knowledge. It was the output of a combined UNESCO/ICSU World Conference on Science held at Budapest, Hungary in June 1999. It emphasised the need for vigorous scientific debate and multidisciplinary approaches to the difficult problems of the future.
These are some extracts from the Budapest Declaration. The emphases are mine.
We seek active collaboration across all the fields of scientific endeavour, i.e. the natural sciences such as the physical, earth and biological sciences, the biomedical and engineering sciences, and the social and human sciences.
Today, there is need for a vigorous and informed democratic debate on the production and use of scientific knowledge…Greater interdisciplinary efforts, involving both natural and social sciences, are a prerequisite for dealing with ethical, social, cultural, environmental, gender, economic and health issues.
Scientists have a special responsibility for seeking to avert applications of science, which are ethically wrong or have adverse impact.
The practice of scientific research and the use of knowledge from that research should always aim at the welfare of humankind.
The social responsibility of scientists requires that they maintain high standards of scientific integrity and quality control, share their knowledge, communicate with the public and educate the younger generation.
You will not find examples of vigorous debates or the results of multidisciplinary studies in the IPCC assessment reports.
Each and every one of these essential research requirements will be ignored in the scientific presentations at the Midrand Summit.
My involvement
Ever since my involvement in the climate change issue, I have repeatedly requested that we get together to seek solutions related to the climate change problem. All my approaches were rebuffed. Not only have the climate alarmists ignored the solidly-based recommendations of the other United Nations bodies, but they have done their best to suppress all contrarian research.
At the previous Midrand conference on climate change held in October 2005, the Minister firmly rejected the idea of any cooperation with scientists in the other disciplines who were more cautious. Now we have another climate summit. Once more the delegates will be exposed to one-sided presentations based on environmental concerns. The delegates will not hear any balanced views on the subject.
I was invited to present my views on natural disasters at a conference in Ecuador, South America. I requested the audience to imagine that the hall was full of people directly exposed to natural hazards. What would their reaction be to the conference proceedings I asked?
Now I ask the climate summit organisers the same question. What do they think the reaction of the people from Alexandra Township would be if they were invited to attend the summit?
In the following memos I will have much more to say on the whole climate change charade that will be presented at Midrand.
Is it too much to expect that these memos will end up on the desk of the Minister? His scientific advisers are misleading him.
Please pass this memo on to other South African scientists so that they can appreciate the damage that is being done to the image of science as an honourable profession.
Regards
Will Alexander
Posted by honestclimate in Temperature.
Tags: climate change, global warming, Temperature
GISS Divergence with satellite temperatures since the start of 2003
From Watts Up withThat, January 18, 2009
By Steve Goddard and Anthony Watts
Some of the excellent readers of the last piece we posted on WUWT gave me an idea, which we are following up on here. The exercise here is to compare GISS and satellite data (UAH and RSS) since the start of 2003, and then propose one possible source of divergence between the GISS and satellite data. The reason that the start of 2003 was chosen, is because satellite data shows a rapid decline in temperatures starting then, and GISS data does not. The only exception to the downward trend was an El Nino at the start of 2007, which caused a short but steep spike. Remembering back a couple of years, Dr. Hansen had in fact suggested that El Nino might turn into a “Super El Nino” which would cause 2007 to be the “hottest year ever.”
The last six years ( 2003-2008 ) show a steep temperature drop in the satellite record, which is not present in the GISS data. Prior to 2003, the three trends were all close enough to be considered reasonably consistent, but over the last six years is when a large divergence has become very apparent both visually and mathematically.
Click link for larger source image http://www.woodfortrees.org
Since the beginning of 2003, RSS has been dropping at 3.60C/century, UAH has been dropping at 2.84C/century, and GISS has been dropping at 0.96C/century. All calculations are done in a Google Spreadsheet here:
The divergence between GISS and RSS is shown below. Since the start of 2003, GISS has been diverging from RSS at 2.64C/century, and GISS has been diverging from UAH at 1.87C/century. RSS has been diverging from UAH at minus 0.76C/century, indicating that RSS temperatures have been falling a little faster than UAH over the last six years, as can also be seen in the graph above.
Read the rest here
Posted by honestclimate in Discussions.
Tags: climate change, climate change madness, global warming
The Flight 1549 Blame Game
From ICECAP
By Thomas Lifson, The American Thinker
It didn’t take long for the warmists to blame the US Airways crash on global warming, which is, after all, deemed responsible for anything bad. Time Magazine, which was once widely read, sprang into action: While officials use radar and radio collars to track bird populations, habitat destruction and climate change have disrupted migratory patterns. Moreover, the populations of certain species of birds are increasing at rapid rates, thanks to changes in food supply. The Canada-goose population, for example, has grown 7.3% annually from 1980 to 2006.
Rush Limbaugh may have been the first person to point out that greenies have made the protection of birds (especially waterfowl) a major priority, and an increase in bird population is a goal they have achieved—that may deserve blame for the crash, if anything is to be blamed other than an Act of God. Greg Pollowitz of NRO did the legwork and discovered that none other than New York Senator Chuck Schumer boasted of being responsible for an earmark that increased the population of Canada geese right in the neighborhood of LaGuardia Airport, from which the doomed aircraft took off: This issue came up in 2004 when Geesepeace was trying to save a flock of geese from Riker’s Island (in the flight path of Laguardia) rather than have the geese killed:
In this time of trouble in faraway places, the man-versus-fowl struggle brewing on Rikers Island may seem trivial. But its implications are dire for a certain flock. On one side are geese, slender-necked and given to relieving themselves liberally, who like where they are living, a stone’s throw away from La Guardia Airport. On the other is a worried band of federal officials who believe the geese are too close to planes carrying millions of passengers in and out of one of the nation’s busiest airports.
History teaches that these things hardly ever end well – for the birds at least. Indeed, by the end of the day today, barring a last minute reprieve, 495 Canada geese will be on their way to an upstate slaughterhouse, Port Authority and federal wildlife officials said yesterday. There’s nothing in the New York Times archives between the 2004 slaughter and the crash yesterday, but I think an investigation into what was or wasn’t done over the years to control the geese is in order. If environmental concerns overrode passenger safety then that’s something that needs to be debated in light of yesterday’s miracle. Hat tip: Doug Powers
Update: Marc Sheppard has similar thoughts:
When word first broke that the remarkable Hudson River emergency landing of US Airways Flight 1549 was caused by a flock of Canadian geese, two thoughts immediately occurred. One – Somehow PETA would focus more on the agony of the geese that were sucked into both of the plane’s jet engines than the safety of the 150 passengers and five crew members, perhaps even suing US Air and hero pilot Chesley B. “Sully” Sullenberger for animal cruelty. And Two – Somehow, somewhere, global warming would be blamed.
Well—no word yet from the animal advocates. But their fellow greenies in the climate alarm department didn’t disappoint, as the Time piece above notes.
Outstanding. Perhaps after PETA figures out what to do about the freezing iguanas falling from trees in Florida, we’ll hear the geese’s side of the story.
Now the New York Times has stepped in with similar nonsense.
See larger image coutesy of Jim Peden here.
Posted by honestclimate in Discussions.
Tags: climate change, global warming, Professor Will Alexander, professor william alexander
PACEMAKERS REQUIRED
Professor Will Alexander
By Professor Will Alexander
Via email, January 17, 2009
A golden opportunity has arisen that will allow us to deliver a fatal blow to climate alarmism. A UNFCCC-type summit is to be held at Midrand, South Africa early in March.
At the Bali summit the UN managed to keep us at a distance. Now things are very different. We have time to prepare strong written rebuttals and distribute them to the attendees and the media via the Internet ahead of the conference.
It will be the organisers’ turn to be vulnerable to heart attacks, and search for pacemakers.
Your early comments and/or participation will be very welcome.
Memo 04/09
Climate change. Pacemakers required
Saturday 17 January 2009
Wedding anniversary postponed
Gladys and Will Alexander on New Years Day in East London. Five days later Gladys was in the Wilgers Hospital ICU after a heart attack. She has since recovered and is fit and well.
My wife and I returned to our home in Pretoria on Monday 5 January. We had a wonderful holiday with our family. Our three children are scattered far and wide. It was the first time that we were together with our children in nine years. We were thoroughly spoilt by them.
On Wednesday after our return to Pretoria we were due to celebrate our 59th wedding anniversary. This was not to be. On Tuesday my wife had a heart attack. We called Netcare emergency ambulance. The paramedics were wonderful.
She ended up in the Hospital ICU. The cardiologist told her that she could thank God that she was still alive, which we did. She is an extrovert with many friends who also prayed for her.
Two days later she was back home. She is tough. She will probably have to have a pacemaker inserted to regulate her heartbeat.
Climate change summit
Now it is my turn. On Friday after I sent off my memo Who will tell the Minister, a colleague drew my attention to an announcement of the climate change summit to be held at Midrand on 3-6 March. Details are provided on the website:
http://www.ccsummit2009.co.za/
I downloaded the information this morning, Saturday. This immediately increased my heartbeat. I thought that it may be my turn to have a pacemaker installed.
We went shopping. Our favourite Superspar has a little cafeteria that serves coffee at R4.50 per cup. I bought another notebook and started writing this memo while my wife toured the aisles with a shopping trolley. This usually occupies half an hour or so.
After deep thought and two cups of coffee my heartbeat slowed down. This is what I have in mind.
Counter-attack
As I described in my Who will tell the Minister memo, the Minister has isolated himself from reality. He is taking a huge political risk. Elementary salesmanship tells us that it is very difficult to sell something that has no benefits to the purchaser. The general election is due weeks after the summit. The economic recession is biting. Thousands of people have already been laid off. The opposition parties will be on the warpath. The media will be unsympathetic.
It is obvious that his scientific advisers have failed to inform him that the science of climate change is rapidly disintegrating as others in the engineering and applied sciences become involved. This is a weakness that we must exploit.
Notice also that this is not a conference. It is labelled the 2009 Climate Change Response Policy Development Summit. This summit programme consists of presentations by his acolytes followed by question and answer sessions. There have been no invitations for presentations by anybody other than those nominated by the organisers. Even those wishing to attend will be screened:
As participation in the climate change summit 2009 proper is limited to 600 climate change response stakeholders, unfortunately, the participation of mandated representatives … will be prioritised.
This exclusionist policy is typical of the UNFCCC procedures that a group of us experienced at the Bali conference 13 months ago. There is no room for debate on the science – just questions and answers.
The very essence of the summit is presentations based on:
… the IPCC’s fourth assessment report pertaining to climate change science as well as new or emerging findings and/or trends.
This is the summit’s weakness. The rapidly emerging science from the other disciplines discredits the very basis of the IPCC’s position. We must demonstrate this.
Another Achilles’ Heel is the press conference.
The media is provided with an opportunity to interview the various summit speakers.
We must inform the press before the summit.
Those of us who have concerns regarding the welfare of this country and its people, particularly the poor and disadvantaged communities, have an obligation to expose the corrupt science on which the summit will be based. There will be nobody at the summit who can speak up for them.
This is what I have in mind. In consultation with others I will produce two short reports that solidly refute the reports of the IPCC’s working groups. The reaction of his advisers will be to refer to the fictitious consensus of international scientists and the overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary. We must refute both of these claims.
Our strength is that the whole scientific basis is collapsing. Also, the adverse effects of the actions that our authorities intend imposing on the income-generating activities, particularly business, industry, agriculture and mining, must be highlighted. There will be inevitable additional job losses. The trade unions are unlikely to be sympathetic.
Pacemakers required
I know that there are many recipients of my memos who are equally critical of this whole climate change fiasco. This is a golden opportunity for all of us nationally, as well as internationally, to expose this whole alarmist nonsense for what it is.
I therefore invite those who would like to play a part in bringing about the downfall of climate alarmism, to send me one-page notes on any statements in the IPCC 4th assessment reports that you can demonstrate are seriously in error. Use your own presentation style and letterhead if you wish. The notes should be targeted at intelligent, lay readers. The comment has to be short, to the point, and above all it has to be true, accurate and bulletproof. Much is at stake.
Please provide your name, affiliation, country of residence and email address.
It is not necessary to provide references but keep them at hand so that we can produce them if required.
Your comments on the proposal would be helpful even if you are unable to provide the notes.
I look forward to this challenge. It is what I have long been hoping for. In the meantime I will continue with my memos. I have a lot to say.
Finally
Phantom of the Opera is our favourite musical. We have seen it three times, twice in London and once in Pretoria. Do you remember the final scene when the large chandelier crashes to the floor? This is my vision of the future of climate alarmism. The Midrand summit will be the stage.
Regards
Will Alexander
