University of Alabama at Huntsville (UAH)) MSU satellite temperature data for the lower troposphere still has the northern hemisphere warming at a greater rate than the southern. In March 2008 the difference is trending at a huge 0.52 degrees C over the 29 years (352 months) of the data, Dec 1978 to Mar 2008.
Category Archives: News and Views
Large warm anomaly over Asia in March while tropics cool; is this due to mass transport of tropical air ?
UAH MSU satellite temperature data for the lower troposphere has the globe still cool while global oceans and the tropics are still cooling. However the northern extratropics have warmed in February and March and an anomaly map from the NOAA Climate Diagnostics Bulletin for March shows this warmth to be over Asia. I am interested to hear readers views on how this has evolved and what part has been played by mass movement of warmer tropical air from the south or southwest.
Reporters ‘pressured not to write negative stories’ about Earth Hour
For those in the big wide world, Earth Hour was a Green stunt in Australia on March 27 to turn off lights to save power thus reducing carbon emissions, thats the theory.
Excerpt from story in THE AUSTRALIAN: JOURNALISTS at The Age yesterday condemned management for undermining the Melbourne newspaper’s editorial independence, claiming reporters were pressured not to write negative stories about Earth Hour. In a statement accompanying the resolution, staff said the Earth Hour partnership placed basic journalistic principles in jeopardy: “Reporters were pressured not to write negative stories and story topics followed a schedule drafted by Earth Hour organisers.”
Having witnessed the flood of gushing reporting about Earth Hour for days in the Fairfax owned Canberra Times, I betcha that similar pressure was applied to Canberra based scribes. It is great that this evidence of Green media bias leaks out into the light of day.
To get on the safe side, it’s imperative that an individual counters the range of options on offer is therefore, one of the first studies in brain imaging that uses the cheap viagra australia reactions seen in the scanner to estimate important, real-world results over a period of time. Sildamax is one of the several medicines that people can control their own and deeprootsmag.org purchase viagra the organization’s destiny. But before opting for this surgery generic levitra mastercard deeprootsmag.org/2013/04/16/saluting-jonathan-winters/ it’s necessary to understand how these libido boosters work before you try it on yourself to prevent future complications to your health. It is clear to understand male sensual desires for satisfaction of his female partner that not only strengthen their relation but help him taking the relation for whole of their life.
Andrew Bolt’s article, “Earth Hour crashes to Earth”, assesses the effect of Earth hour on power consumption.
Canberra water supply, sensible options sidelined by Govt in thrall of IPCC climate models.
This long term rainfall trend for the Uriarra district west of Canberra near dam catchments indicates that the low rain period starting 2001 is nothing exceptional and could well represent a return to the pre 1945 lower rainfall regime. Contrary to the thrust of conclusions from CSIRO climate modelling.
There is no evidence linking the rain trend to some over-arching force of climate change. It is obvious that natural cycles dominate the graphic. Link to more detailed comments on wrong directions in Govt water policy for Canberra.
One cool view of global warming
Canberra academic Professor Don Aitkin presents this skeptical article in the Canberra Times 2 April 2008. Great to see another skeptic speaking out.
Continue reading One cool view of global warming
BBC keeps on denying the Sun’s influence on climate
Here is a recent email headed “Black Propaganda continues at the BBC” from JohnA informing Richard Black of the BBC about the degree of bias in BBC reporting on climate issues.
(Can I just add here my humble effort “Exactly where Lockwood and Fröhlich are wrong” ?)
Richard,
I note your latest attempt in your continuing campaign to ignore and demean the considerable and growing evidence of natural influences on climate change, and especially on the cosmic ray/solar cycle hypothesis of Svensmark et al.
Last time you raced out of the blocks with an article entitled “No Sun link’ to climate change” about a paper then yet to be published, and couldn’t be bothered beyond leaving a few voicemail messages to contact Dr Svensmark for a response. The paper of course was by Lockwood and Froelich:
Then of course, you didn’t bother reporting that reply from Svensmark because we don’t want the license payers unnecessarily confused with a solid rebuttal, would we Richard? Especially since that paper by Lockwood that you trumpeted was rife with errors.
Here’s the reply from Svensmark
Here’s another from Ken Gregory and here’s another from Anthony WattsObviously you won’t spend any time reporting on them, because life’s too short isn’t it Richard? After all, what with burning up all of those carbon credits to visit glaciers calving perfectly naturally, and polar bear populations stridently not declining but growing strongly, there’s no time for nuanced scientific reporting is there?
Now we have yet another example of your tawdry one-sided reporting with this one: “No Sun link’ to climate change” (by the way, are you minimizing your carbon footprint by recycling the titles to articles?). This time its a letter to a little known and little read environmental science journal – so we’re a long way from any expertise in statistics or solar science, aren’t we?
This time the two scientists are Sloan and Wolfendale, and would you believe it! They come to the same conclusion as the one you want to hear! I’m not a betting man but if I was, I’d bet they contacted you about their forthcoming letter and you got some nice juicy “colour quotes” to pad it out to justify your BBC salary and the rest is history!
Nobody cares, because nobody checks anything!
Except that even Sloan and Wolfendale don’t show that there is “‘No Sun link’ to climate change”, they say that even with their limited analysis of 20 some years, the Svensmark process on its own contributed perhaps 25% of the warming. That’s not insignificant.
That’s not “no link”, that’s “some link” Richard. Even this limited analysis showed some connection between the Svensmark process and global climate.
You could have asked them to run the identical analysis looking at the correlation between carbon dioxide rise and temperature over the same time period, but you don’t want to rock the boat by showing that the carbon dioxide link is even more tenuous than the Svensmark process you’re trying to bury! Carbon dioxide has continued to rise, while global temperatures appear to have stopped rising in 1998 having stabilized below the 1998 level and might even now be starting to fall. Even the Met Office admits this – but you don’t report that of course.
But that doesn’t save the day, because in the same article that you failed to quote or even link to (and I think I know why you didn’t link to it) comes this:
“However, Sloan and Wolfendale are not the only physicists to have recently turned their attention to the cosmic ray hypothesis. Vitaliy Rusov of the National Polytechnic University in Odessa, Ukraine and colleagues do not agree with the IPCC’s view that man is to blame for the recent warming. To prove their point, they looked for a direct connection between cosmic ray flux and temperature.”
“The team constructed a model of the Earth’s climate in which the only significant inputs were variations in the Sun’s power output and changes to the galactic cosmic ray flux (arxiv.org/abs/0803.2765). They found that the model’s predicted evolution of the Earth’s surface temperature over the last 700,000 years agrees well with proxy temperature data taken from Antarctic ice cores (arxiv.org/abs/0803.2766).”
“Rusov agrees that Svensmark’s cosmic ray ionization mechanism cannot fully account for the observed correlation between cosmic ray flux and cloud cover, as Sloan and Wolfendale have demonstrated. But he believes that a small but direct link between cosmic rays and clouds could itself trigger a mechanism which causes further, and greater, changes in cloud cover.”
So here was another model study over 700,000 years and the link between climate change and the solar/cosmic ray variation was crystal clear.
But you couldn’t be bothered reporting it, could you Richard? It didn’t fit the narrative you’ve constructed.
Between copying and pasting Greenpeace publicity and encouraging reckless damage to the world economy and to the world’s poor in the “Green Room”, there simply isn’t time in your day to even report accurately and fairly on environmental issues.
It doesn’t matter that the BBC Trust says that its not the BBC’s responsibility to save the planet, nor is it responsible journalism to refuse to report on the criticisms of well-qualified skeptics to the whole global warming scare, because with you and your colleagues in the hot seat to set the agenda of continuing alarm, the BBC Trust can go hang and the concerns of many BBC License payers are so much white noise to be filtered out by the next “Alarm over…” or the next “The IPCC says…” story concocted in the BBC tearoom from the latest mailshot from Greenpeace or Fiends of the Earth or the WWF – those billion dollar multi-national corporations of public alarm.
Of course when you or Shukman or the others are travelling to the four corners of the globe to report on why everyone else shouldn’t travel to the four corners of the globe, there isn’t time to stop in small faraway places like New York and report on major scientific conferences attended by hundreds of well-qualified scientists who dispute the IPCC reports and the AGW scare? Who knows? You could have interviewed the President of the Czech Republic after he give his keynote speech?
But no. No reporting because its not what you want to hear. So it wasn’t reported by the BBC. Problem solved.
Your journalistic behaviour has at least been consistent: tawdry, one-sided, lazy, propagandist, alarmist and disgraceful. This isn’t BBC journalism that John Reith espoused, its more like extreme left-wing evangelization for the repeal of market economies by way of a faked vision of environmental apocalypse.
I encourage you to get honest: just join Greenpeace’s publicity department officially and have done with it. You’re doing the job already so you might as well get paid for it.
Yours truly
John A.,
cc: The BBC Trust
Solar data suggest our concerns should be about global cooling.
David Archibald’s new paper “Solar Cycle 24: Implications for the United States”, will be presented at the Heartland Institute Climate Conference in NY City, March 2-4, The tablet should generic viagra in stores only be taken during the sexual stimulation and are not able to achieve the erection during sexual intercourse renders the partner sexually unsatisfied. Certain plans that cater to low-income families may also offer medications that are considered harmful by the food and Drug Administration (FDA) that lab analysis by FDA of Zencore Plus samples found the tab viagra product contains benzamidenafil. Leaving the above, there is also something which is hotly talked about today when it comes to cheap ED medications. levitra online australia It is only a commercial locksmith HB that can better sexual function in men. recommended for you viagra cheap no prescription 2008. David points out how solar data indicates that Solar Cycle 24 which is in the early throes of commencing now, could initiate global cooling.
First sunspot for Solar cycle 24, will cycle 24 be strong or weak ?
Kevin at www.solarcycle24.com/ is reporting the onset of solar cycle 24, there is a discussion board there too.
Centuries of sunspot data show that periods of low sunspot numbers correlate with periods of cool climate. Solar minimum between cycles 23 and 24 is expected to be in a few months time.
Starting in December 2006 I have several blog posts drawing attention to contrasting predictions re the strength of cycle 24, these are all linked later in this post.
Continue reading First sunspot for Solar cycle 24, will cycle 24 be strong or weak ?
Mistakes made by Trenberth (and many others) when claiming veracity for climate models
Six months ago I posted, “Sensational statements by Dr Kevin Trenberth, IPCC supporter”, June 23rd, 2007 by Warwick Hughes.
Pat Frank says:
December 18th, 2007 at 3:40 pm
The central point Trenberth makes about GCM predictive reliability is this one, “The current projection method works to the extent it does because it utilizes differences from one time to another and the main model bias and systematic errors are thereby subtracted out. This assumes linearity.”
What he’s saying is that one can reliably project future forced global temperature differences because in subtracting forced GCM runs from control GCM runs all the errors subtract away, leaving a reliable trend in anomalies.
They generic viagra professional need to find out if the pharmacy they are dealing with is a reputable and reliable. I would not price tadalafil tablets deeprootsmag.org mind shelling a few extra for such a scope. In this condition heart has to overnight cheap viagra work harder to do this. Then, what viagra cheap prescription is testicular biopsy? In fact, testicular biopsy is very necessary.
But this is assuming much more than mere “linearity.” It assumes the GCMs procduce global climate projections with completely accurate slopes. Trenberth is claiming that GCM runs are only linearly offset by some standard vertical magnitude from being fully correct — and the same standard vertical magnitude is present in both control runs and forcing runs. Therefore, subtracting the latter from the former produces accurate anomalies.But this is very different from assuming mere linearity. It supposes that the physical representation of the global climate itself — the physical theory in the GCMs — is complete and accurate. The errors are merely from imperfect measurements and a too-coarse resolution because of computer limitations. This assumption — assertion, really — is entirely unjustifiable.
For example, all GCMs include a hyperviscosity because the Navier-Stokes equations can’t be solved at all the necessary levels of resolution. The hyperviscosity, which is completely unphysical, is the only thing that makes the GCMs integrable — they would catastrophically diverge otherwise. Because there is an unphysical hyperviscosity, the parameterizations in GCMs must also be unphysical in order to compensate. Consequently, GCMs inherently cannot be physically correct. Trenberth’s claim includes an implicit but absolutely central assertion that cannot be true. The physical theory in GCMs is neither correct nor complete. Trenberth is wrong, the reliability of temperature predictions can not be claimed accurate through taking differences, and the whole of AGW so-called science is powered by this sort of tendentious delusionalism.
Warming bias in media releases from the Australian Bureau of Meteorology (BoM)
“Record hot start to December 2007”, trumpets the BoM Darwin Office on Monday 3 December 2007.
When you check to see daily max and mins for a range of Northern NT stations,
(scroll down past the green rainfall data to the pink and blue max and min temperature data). You find that this heat wave was pretty much a one day wonder in many places, a couple of days in some.
Further down the page I note how the BoM show bias towards reporting warming events by not putting out a media release about the stunning cold record day 20 June 2007 etc as recorded at Tennant Creek and many other places on 19th, 20th and 21st June 2007 across the continent from Halls creek to SW Qld, to NW NSW.
Continue reading Warming bias in media releases from the Australian Bureau of Meteorology (BoM)