global warming data...garbage in...

[billc]

You mean this Tuvalu...

http://www.tuvaluislands.com/news/archived/2002/2002-02-01.htm

Check the Science
Well, rather than rely on Brown's "sense" of sea level rise, let's check the instruments. As it turns out, estimates of globally averaged sea level rise in the 20th century are irrelevant since Tuvalu's local sea level change is very different from the globally averaged change. There are three estimates of sea level changes for Tuvalu. The first is a satellite record showing that the sea level has actually fallen four inches around Tuvalu since 1993 when the hundred-million dollar international TOPEX/POSEIDON satellite project record began. Second comes from the modern instruments recording tide gauge data since 1978. There the record for Tuvalu shows ups and downs of many inches over periods of years. For example, the strong El Nino of 1997-98 caused the sea level surrounding Tuvalu to drop just over one foot. The El Nino Southern Oscillation is a natural - as opposed to man-made -future of the Pacific Ocean, as areas of the Pacific periodically warm then cool every few years, causing significant sea level rises and falls every few years in step with the co-oscillations of the ocean and atmosphere. The overall trend discerned from the tide gauge data, according to Wolfgang Scherer, Director of Australia's National Tidal Facility, remains flat. "One definitive statement we can make," states Scherer, "is that there is no indication based on observations that sea level rise is accelerating." Finally, there is the new estimate by scientists at the Centre Nationale d¹Etudes Spatiales who also find that between 1955 and 1996 the sea level surrounding Tuvalu dropped four inches.

All these measurements show that Tuvalu has suffered, at worst, no sea level rise. So much for Brown's sense of sea level trends for Tuvalu.

So again, no, I do not trust the "science."

 

[billc]

And more on the Island that isn't "sinking."

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/04/sinking_islands_or_stinking_is.html

The sinking island syndrome first made waves in October 1987, when the Muslim dictator of the south Asia island chain the Maldives, Maumoon Abdul Gayoom, presented an impassioned address to the United Nations General Assembly, alleging his Indian Ocean nation of 311,000 citizens was threatened by a rising sea. He claimed, "a mean sea level rise of two meters would suffice to virtually submerge the entire country of 1,190 small islands, most of which barely rise over two meters above mean sea level. That would be the death of a nation. With a mere one meter rise also, a storm surge would be catastrophic, and possibly fatal to the nation." Mr. Gayoom stated his nation's dire situation was related to climate changes that had been "provoked and aggravated by man."

Environmentalists lapped it up.

Furthering the climate chimera, in 2001 the leaders of Tuvalu announced they needed to evacuate because of the global warming induced rising ocean. After being rebuffed by Australia, the Tuvaluans asked New Zealand to accept its 11,000 citizens, but New Zealand declined.

Apparently, come editing time, big Al never got the news.

Truth is, Tuvalu and Maldives are not being swamped by an unstoppable rising sea. If anything, scientific research indicates oceans levels in that part of the world have been falling in recent years.

In 2004, Stockholm University professor Nils-Axel Mörner, of Sweden, published a paper in Global and Planetary Change (hardly a bastion for global warming deniers) regarding his extensive research of the ocean around the Maldives. He noted, "In our study of the coastal dynamics and the geomorphology of the shores we were unable to detect any traces of a recent sea level rise. On the contrary, we found quite clear morphological indications of a recent fall in sea level."

Dr. Mörner's research indicates that sea level about the Maldives has fallen approximately 11 inches in the past 50 years. In fact, additional research indicates that about the time the leaders of Tuvalu created headlines in 2001, the sea-level surrounding the nine atoll islands of their country had recently fallen 2.5 inches.

 

[billc]

Like most of the "man made," global warming hysteria, it is motivated by politics, and economics, of the scientists and the countries pushing hardest for this theory to be believed...elders Tuvalu for example is an example of a shakedown stunt...

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/...inking_is.html

Likewise, the Tuvalu problem is not climate change, nor tourism; they only receive about 1000 tourists each year. Tuvalu's bugaboo is that the island was never meant for modern inhabitation. The country's primary indigenous vegetable crop, taro, has been seriously over-farmed. There is no fresh water available -- only what can be cached from rain. Much of the population uses the island's lagoon for bathing and toilet facilities. The country has to ship its commercial waste to landfills in Fiji and New Zealand. Tuvalu is a tropical island mess being run by fools whose only remedy is evacuation.

Tuvalu's complaints of global warming are designed to be a shake-down operation, the likes of which would make a Chicago community organizer proud. In a 2007 press release, the Tuvalu government said:

[FONT=times new roman,times]he Deputy Prime Minister of Tuvalu, the Hon Tavau Teii, said that major greenhouse polluters should pay Tuvalu for the impacts of climate change. This claim was made during his speech to the United Nations High Level Meeting on Climate Change held at the UN headquarters in New York.[/FONT]

[FONT=times new roman,times]"Tuvalu is highly vulnerable to the impacts of climate change so we are seeking new funding arrangements to protect us from the impacts of climate change," Mr. Teii said. "Rather than relying on aid money we believe that the major greenhouse polluters should pay for the impacts they are causing."[/FONT]
​

[FONT=times new roman,times]So, while Mr. Gore conveniently lifted certain facts from the record when creating his film, he will no doubt champion the recent evacuations as prophetic vindication. Tuvalu is being decamped while New Zealand is being played like a cheap ukulele.
[/FONT]

Money and politics, not "science," is the main motivator of the theory of man made global warming.

 

[billc]

Here is a paper that looks at the issues around global warming including glacier melt and sea levels...

http://heartland.org/sites/all/modules/custom/heartland_migration/files/pdfs/24312.pdf

Page 20...

A recent 300-year study of Glacier National Park found its glaciers have advanced and retreated repeatedly, and not in sync with variable greenhouse gas levels. Another study found Alaskan glaciers have had periods of advance and retreat for at least 700 years. A researcher at the University of Alaska-Southeast reports that some 800 years ago Herbert Glacier retreated miles back into its valley. A forest grew. Then the glacier again advanced, then receded, advanced, and is again receding.

Page 21...

Is Sea Level Rise Accelerating?
An accelerated rise in sea level rise is far from scientifically established. Several studies in fact conclude that the rate of global sea level rise has been rather stable over the past century or more at a mean value of approximately 1.8 ± 0.3 mm yr-1.
Recently, White et al. (2005) conducted an analysis of the available data in an attempt to find the elusive predicted increase in the sea level's rate of rise (acceleration). They compared estimates of coastal and global averaged sea level between 1950 and 2000 and concluded their results confirm earlier findings of "no significant increase in the rate of sea level rise during this 51-year period" (the last half of the 20th century which includes two decades of a supposedly "unprecedented" rate of temperature increase.)

Page 30...

CLIMATE MODELS AND BASELESS ALARMISM
This brings us, finally, to the issue of climate models. Essential to alarm is the fact that most current climate models predict a response to a doubling of CO2 of about 4C. The reason for this is that in these models, the most important greenhouse substances, water vapour and clouds, act in such a way as to greatly amplify the response to anthropogenic greenhouse gases alone (ie, they act as what are called large positive feedbacks). However, as all assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) have stated (at least in the text—though not in the Summaries for Policymakers), the models simply fail to get clouds and water vapour right. We know this because in official model intercomparisons, all models fail

What was that again...

However, as all assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) have stated (at least in the text—though not in the Summaries for Policymakers), the models simply fail to get clouds and water vapour right. We know this because in official model intercomparisons, all models fail

And one more time...

all models fail

Why should I just accept this "science," as true or accurate with so much dishonesty in the work, and so much potential for the corruption of the science and scientists because of ego, greed, or political agendas with billions of dollars on the line for individuals and for research.

 

[Sukerkin]

Aye, BillC, the models are inaccurate - they can hardly be otherwise with the complexity of the systems and their interactions that are being modelled. They are nonetheless getting more accurate as computing power expands and more variables are understood. Extrapolating from approximations is ever a game of roulette and guiding approximations is the best we can do in terms of detailed modelling so far. However, the temperature rises are real and it is not common sense to waste and pollute when we have other options.

I get the feeling we are on the brink of another technological revolution ... we just need to survive long enough to reap its benefits (and restructure our economic models away from consumption for consumptions sake) :fingers crossed:. Ameliorating our position within the maelstrom of climate change so we have a chance to make it through to where we can once again mould the environment for our needs makes more sense to me than rejecting the entire notion that there is a problem to be addressed.

 

[billc]

it is not common sense to waste and pollute when we have other options.

I couldn't agree with you more on this. Or when you said this...

I have to say that I come down on the side of doing what we can that is economically viable without committing economic suicide.

Bear in mind that for me, 'going green' doesn't mean sackcloth and ashes and living a Neo-neolithic lifestyle

. For me Green means using nuclear power to stop using gas and oil for electricity generation and, other than for entertainment ('cos you can't beat a V12 Aston Martin {http://youtu.be/NZzVVVIKDxMor} or a rumbling Camaro {http://youtu.be/f03RM5i3cDs}

), we should stop burning petrol just to move cars around - it's far too useful for other things. I also am fully in favour of a much more extensive and accelerated space programme because what we will get from that is, eventually, the resources we need to carry on having an industrial civilisation with much of the pollution outsourced to where it does no harm.

I agree with you here as well.


It is way too common an attack to say that if you don't believe the information being put out by scientists who have been shown to have lied about data, tried to hide data from other scientists, and who have tried to prevent the expression of other view points by keeping them out of scientific journals or getting the editors of those journals fired, scientists who base their "facts," on models and equipment that have been shown over and over to be inaccurate or completely wrong,...that you are for pollution and waste. Where does that come from.

The things the supporters of the theory of "man made," global warming are pushing for are more than just preventing waste and pollution. They want massive wealth transfers, to themselves and countries that they think are the "victims," of man made global warming.

They want policies that will slow down those technological advances both you and I are looking forward to for the future. They want to stop third world countries from developing in order to stop global warming, condemning the people of those countries to lifestyles the advocates will never have to endure. Clean up pollution, stop waste, sure. Develop new clean energy technologies, absolutely, but not at the expense of energy technologies that actually work today, coal, oil and natural gas and nuclear energy. If these worriers of "man made," global warming are so eager to combat it, they sure don't show it by refusing to support nuclear energy. Transfer wealth based on "man made," global warming, stymie the development of the third world because of "man made," global warming...no way.

 

[WC_lun]

Those scientist have not been shown over and over again to be doing anything other than recording accurate information. You keep up with this meme, but it doesn't hold water. Fact is, 98% of those scientist agree global climate change is real and man made. You are living in a fantasy world where you deny the truth in science. Perhaps you'd just like to magic this problem away?

 

[billc]

You must not have read my post 191...

A new book on the myth of man made global warming...

http://pjmedia.com/blog/global-warning-how-gaia-replaced-god/

The hypothetical courtroom is a newly published book,


Global Warning, Trials of an Unsettled Science; and the prosecutor is its author, David Solway, a familiar name to regular readers of PJ Media.



What will especially raise readers’ ethical hackles are his disclosures of duplicity at what should be the most credible institutional levels in ensuring that counter-claims to the received wisdom are suppressed.

For a particularly egregious example of bad faith in communicating with the public, Solway cites a 2009 University of Illinois survey concluding that 97.4% of scientists agree that mankind is responsible for global warming. But the methodology of the survey was grossly corrupt. Of the 10,257 respondents, 10,180 demurred from the consensus. They were summarily rejected, even though included amongst them were solar scientists, meteorologists, physicists, and other scientific experts. Seventy-five of the remaining 77 respondents agreed with the proposition that global warming is caused by humans and voilà! That equals 97.4%. In fact, only .008% of the respondents concurred with the hypothesis. This is intellectual fraud of breathtaking arrogance, yet it is only one of a slew of truth-traducing offenses Solway has amassed.
How do academics and other global-warming stakeholders justify their complicity in manufacturing consent? Solway explains it as a form of cognitive dissonance of the type one often finds in religions and triumphalist ideologies, where ends are privileged over means. In his chapter on environmentalism as religion, Solway explains how Gaia, the earth’s divine avatar, replaced God in our secular age.

How do you believe the scientists when they can go back and erase or change their data...

Well, it may be that NASA was caught changing historical temperature data on it's site to make warming look more real. Is this true?

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/09/nasas_rubber_ruler.html

We've been hearing that 2012 has been the "hottest on record." I had written earlier that those claims were based on the contiguous United States only, or 1.5% of the earth's surface. The "global temperature" in 2012 through June was only the 10[SUP]th[/SUP] hottest on record. In fact, every single month of 1998 was warmer than the corresponding month of 2012.

I thought I'd update that analysis to include July's and August's temperatures. To my surprise, NASA's entire temperature record, going back to January 1880, changed between NASA's June update and its August update. I could not just add two more numbers to my spreadsheet. The entire spreadsheet needed to be updated.

I knew NASA would occasionally update its estimates, even its historical estimates. I found that unsettling when I first heard about it. But I thought such re-estimates were rare, and transparent. There is absolutely no transparency here. If I had not kept a copy of the data taken off NASA's web site two months ago, I would not have known it had changed. NASA does not make available previous versions of its temperature record (to my knowledge).

NASA does summarize its "updates to analysis," but the last update it describes was in February. The data I looked at changed sometime after early July.

​

In short, the data that NASA makes available to the public, temperatures over the last 130 years, can change at any time, without warning and without explanation. Yes, the global temperature of January 1880 changed some time between July and September 2012.

Surprise of surprise, the change had the effect of making the long-term temperature record support conclusions of faster warming. The biggest changes were mostly pre-1963 temperatures; they were generally adjusted down. That would make the warming trend steeper, since post-1963 temperatures were adjusted slightly upward, on average. Generally, the older the data, the more adjustment.

​

Hmmm...soooo...if this is true, then why should anyone trust what the "scientists" say is happening with the weather/climate? Is NASA doing this in order to get it's budget increased to "study" global warming?

 

[billc]

more on manmade global warming...not so much...

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/10/green-weenie-of-the-week-the-climateers.php

The news out of the Met Office in England, one of the official keepers of the global warming faith, that global temperatures continue to be flat, and that there has been no rising temperature trend for 18 years now, ought to just about inter the parrot once and for all. From the Daily Mail story today:

The world stopped getting warmer almost 16 years ago, according to new data released last week.
The figures, which have triggered debate among climate scientists, reveal that from the beginning of 1997 until August 2012, there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures.
This means that the ‘plateau’ or ‘pause’ in global warming has now lasted for about the same time as the previous period when temperatures rose, 1980 to 1996. Before that, temperatures had been stable or declining for about 40 years.
The new data, compiled from more than 3,000 measuring points on land and sea, was issued quietly on the internet, without any media fanfare, and, until today, it has not been reported.
This stands in sharp contrast to the release of the previous figures six months ago, which went only to the end of 2010 – a very warm year.
​

Ending the data then means it is possible to show a slight warming trend since 1997, but 2011 and the first eight months of 2012 were much cooler, and thus this trend is erased.

And the damage the hysteria over manmade global warming...

California is barreling ahead with its plant to install socialism in one state solve climate change in one state, with its own cap and trade program starting in January. The New York Times reports today:

The risks for California are enormous. Opponents and supporters alike worry that the program could hurt the state’s fragile economy by driving out refineries, cement makers, glass factories and other businesses. Some are concerned that companies will find a way to outmaneuver the system, causing the state to fall short of its emission reduction targets.
​

 

[billc]

Yes, and here is how the believers deal with apostates...

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-gr...radio-jock-forced-factual-accuracy-training-g

For those who would claim liberals are the free-speech champions, see Philip Bump at the eco-leftist Grist magazine. Australian morning "shock jock" Alan Jones, "who apparently belongs to the Limbaugh/AEI school of factual accuracy" on "climate change," is being cited by the Australian Communications and Media Authority (like their FCC) and has been ordered to undergo "factual accuracy" training.
Regulators ruled that Jones breached broadcast rules by claiming Australians contributed just ''1 per cent of .001 per cent of carbon dioxide in the air.” Climate activist scientists will apparently police the radio airwaves in Australia in a way Al Gore and the American Left can only envy:
Controversial shock jock Alan Jones has been ordered to undergo “factual accuracy” training, and to use fact-checkers, in another damaging blow to his credibility.
External trainers will conduct training sessions for Jones and other news and current affairs staff at [radio station] 2GB.…
University of Melbourne climate change scientist David Karoly said Australians were in fact responsible for .45 per cent of total carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. ''Obviously, we would much rather prefer that the comments of people like Alan Jones and Andrew Bolt were, in fact, correct, so it is pleasing to get this ruling from ACMA,'' Dr Karoly said.
The radio station told ACMA Jones' claims should have been taken as commentary, because his show was neither news nor current affairs, but, ''overwhelmingly … the personal opinion and comment of Jones''.
But the authority said any ''ordinary, reasonable listener'' would have taken his claims to be fact.

And here is a main stream journalist who actually awakened to the problem with the "green," movement...This is for Sukerkin and others who wonder why I always post about this stuff...

http://pjmedia.com/eddriscoll/2012/10/18/eco-fascists/

journalist Elizabeth Nickson, who was the European Bureau chief of Life magazine, in addition to contributing toTime, the Guardian, Vogue, Harper’s and numerous other MSM magazines, which typically have at least one boilerplate “green”-themed issue a year, found that out the hard way, hence the title of her new book, Eco-Fascists: How Radical Conservationists Are Destroying Our Natural Heritage:

An investigative reporter documents the destructive impact of the environmental movement in North America and beyond.


When journalist Elizabeth Nickson sought to subdivide her twenty-eight acres on Salt Spring Island in the Pacific Northwest, she was confronted by the full force and power of the radical conservationists who had taken over the local zoning council. She soon discovered that she was not free to do what she wanted with her land, and that in the view of these arrogant stewards it wasn’t really hers at all. Nickson’s long, frustrating, and eyeopening encounter with these zealots started her on a journey to investigate and expose the hugely destructive impact of the environmental movement on ordinary people and communities across North America—and the world.
What she discovered is shocking. Forty million Americans have been driven from their land, and rural culture is being systematically crushed, even as wildlife, forests, and rangelands are dying. In Eco-Fascists, Nickson explores how environmental radicals have taken over government agencies at the local, state, and federal levels. The result? A wholesale sequestration of forest, range, and water—more than 40 percent of North America—impoverishing us all, especially the most vulnerable. This confiscation of America’s natural heritage is a major factor contributing to our current economic decline; until it is acknowledged and addressed, our economy will not recover.
Nickson traces the tens of billions of dollars environmental nonprofits marshal every year to promote the notion that our essential natural systems are collapsing, and finds, in a brutal example of self-fulfilling prophesy, that their corrupted science is desertifying the heartland. She visits once-thriving communities that are turning to ghost towns because environmental legislation has forced mines, ranches, and mills to close and has forbidden critical forest, range, park, and wilderness maintenance.
Eco-Fascists exposes the major fallacies of the environmental movement—from wildlife protection to zoning to forest-fire management—and introduces us to the individuals who are fighting back. Fast-paced, highly accessible, and sure to be controversial, this is a work that will change the national conversation about environmental protection and its impact.

​

​

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-gr...ced-factual-accuracy-training-g#ixzz29xYay2IK