Qohel Home Page

Click photo to go to Peter's profile






Quality Web Hosting at the Best Price






www.1and1.com

Archive for the ‘Science’ Category

Yeah, yeah. I know. Weather is not climate. Unless it’s warm, then it is.

But the National Snow and Ice Data Center (University of Colorado) reports that Arctic summer sea ice has increased by 409,000 square miles, or 26 per cent, since 2007 (via Watts Up With That).

And compare a photo image of current Northern Hemisphere snow and ice cover with an image of the same area a year ago.

When will the world listen to science that works, as opposed to what does not work?

That is the question posed by astrophysicist and long range weather forecaster Piers Corbyn:

It is certainly hot in South Australia – over 40 degrees on Kangaroo Island. Adelaide is even hotter – about 43 degrees.

One or two very hot spells in a season are not unusual, however. The hottest day I have ever lived through was 46 degrees in the early 80s, also in Adelaide.

Has the last decade been the hottest on record in Australia, as Australia’s Bureau of Meteorology says? I noted a couple of days ago that even it were, this is no reason to assume that human activity is responsible.

In fact, there is no correlation between human production of CO2 and changes in climate, but very strong correlation between solar activity and global temperature change.

I also noted that there have been no new temperature records, hot or cold, in the last decade.

Warwick Hughes has shown that in the case of Darwin and Alice Springs, the temperature data do not supprt the BOM’s claim.

There is also considerable doubt that the BOM has adequately taken into account the Urban Heat Island Effect.

These graphs, also from Warwick Hughes, demonstrate the IPCC orthodox warming of about 0.6 degrees in large Australian cities over the 20th century, but no warming at all in rural centres:

Australian Capital City Temperatures 1882 -1982

Australian Regional Temperatures 1882 -1982

Then there is the fact that data has been carefully ‘corrected’, almost always so that older temperatures are lowered, and more recent temperatures increased.

This graph from Watts Up With That shows adjusted data versus raw data for Darwin over the period 1880 to 2000:

Darwin Raw vs Adjusted Temperatures 1880 to 2000

Then there is the fact the even the warming alarmists at East Anglia CRU found the Australian temperature records so poor they are almost incomprehensible. A couple of quotes from the Climategate emails:

I am very sorry to report that the rest of the databases seem to be in nearly as poor a state as Australia was. There are hundreds if not thousands of pairs of dummy stations, one with no WMO and one with, usually overlapping and with the same station name and very similar coordinates. I know it could be old and new stations, but why such large overlaps if that’s the case? Aarrggghhh! There truly is no end in sight… So, we can have a proper result, but only by including a load of garbage!

OH F%*# THIS. It’s Sunday evening, I’ve worked all weekend, and just when I thought it was done I’m hitting yet another problem that’s based on the hopeless state of our databases. There is no uniform data integrity, it’s just a catalogue of issues that continues to grow as they’re found.

Getting seriously fed up with the state of the Australian data. so many new stations have been introduced, so many false references.. so many changes that aren’t documented. Every time a cloud forms I’m presented with a bewildering selection of similar-sounding sites, some with references, some with WMO codes, and some with both. And if I look up the station metadata with one of the local references, chances are the WMO code will be wrong (another station will have it) and the lat/lon will be wrong too.

So how much confidence can we have in the BOM’s claim that this has been the hottest decade since records began?

Very little.

According to the Australian BOM the last decade has been Australia’s hottest since record keeping began.

Even if this were true, this in itself is no reason to jump to the conclusion it is all our fault and the world is going to hell in a handbasket. No matter what the ever amusing Minister for Rabbits Peter Garrett has to say.

In fact, as I noted a couple of posts ago, there is no evidence this is the case at all.

But the BOM’s clams are doubtful for a number of reasons.

I’ll say more about this tomorrow, but for today I just note that not one Australian temperature record, high or low, has been set in the last ten years:

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Highest Recorded Temperature:

 Canberra  42.2 C  (108.0 F) on the 1st February, 1968

Lowest Recorded Temperature:

 Canberra  -10.0 C  (14.0 F) on the 11th July, 1971

NEW SOUTH WALES

Highest Recorded Temperature:

 Wilcannia  50.0 C  (122.0 F) on the 11th January, 1939

Lowest Recorded Temperature:

 Charlotte Pass  -23.0 C  (-9.4 F) on the 29th June, 1994

NORTHERN TERRITORY

Highest Recorded Temperature:

 Finke  48.3 C  (118.9 F) on the 2nd January, 1960

Lowest Recorded Temperature:

 Alice Springs  -7.5 C  (18.5 F) on the 12th July, 1976

QUEENSLAND

Highest Recorded Temperature:

 Birdsville  49.5 C  (121.1 F) on the 24th December, 1972

Lowest Recorded Temperature:

 Stanthorpe  -11.0 C  (12.2 F) on the 4th July, 1895

SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Highest Recorded Temperature:

 Oodnadatta  50.7 C  (123.3 F) on the 2nd January, 1960

Lowest Recorded Temperature:

 Yongala  -8.2 C  (17.2 F) on the 20th July, 1976

TASMANIA

Highest Recorded Temperature:

 Hobart  40.8 C  (105.4 F) on the 4th January, 1976

Lowest Recorded Temperature:

 Shannon  -13.0 C  (8.6 F) on the 30th June, 1983

VICTORIA

Highest Recorded Temperature:

 Mildura  47.2 C  (117.0 F) on the 10th January, 1939

Lowest Recorded Temperature:

 Mt Hotham  -12.8 C  (9.0 F) on the 13th August, 1947

WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Highest Recorded Temperature:

 Mardie  50.5 C  (122.9 F) on the 19th February, 1998

Lowest Recorded Temperature:

 Booylgoo Springs  -6.7 C  (19.9 F) on the 12th July, 1969

Figures from an amateur site on world temperature extremes. Some readings not yet verified.

I have ‘un-stickied’ the article about the Easy Guide to the Politics and Science of Global Warming.

You can still find it by clicking on the link.

It is clear to all except the most violently irrational or funding dependent warming alarmists that there is no correlation between human produced CO2 and changes in global temperature over the last century.

However there is general agreement that there has been some warming, about 0.6 of one degree Celsius, over the last century.

If human activity has not caused this temperature increase, what has?

If we can learn what has caused past temperature change, we should be able to predict future change, and prepare for it.

Neither the UK Met Office nor the Australian Bureau of Meteorology have had much success in predicting recent seasonal changes.

This is because both Met Office and BOM predictions are based on ideology – theories about what the weather should be doing – rather than observations of what the weather really is doing.

Has anyone got it right?

Yes. In a letter posted on Jon Ray’s Greenie Watch, astrophysicist Piers Corbin writes:

Further to Newsnight tonight (7th Jan 2010) where the Met Office and BBC so-called expert lied about the reality of long-range forecasting:

We at WeatherAction predicted this very cold weather SIX months ago using solar activity (nothing to do with CO2) and added extra detail weeks ahead. Our forecasts of EXTREME events are consistently 85% reliable.

There is no need for the UK and Europe to be unprepared and run out of salt. The consequent suffering and road deaths are a direct consequence of the Met Office and BBC failed science and litany of lies.

Would the BBC care to hear from us as to why the Met Office fail, fail and fail again in medium and long range forecasting and when this cold weather will end and then return? I Suspect not. Would you care to consider the following –

1. The Met Office statement on Newsnight that they ‘verify’ their climate forecasts against past dates

2. That the said past data was fraudulently produced by, for example, the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia and exposed in the CLIMATEGATE files..

3. It is therefore unsurprising that the Met Offices climate and season ahead forecasts fail fail and fail again. They are rooted in failed science and falsified data.

– The world has been cooling for at least 7 years while CO2 has been rising – contrary to their foreacst.

– The floody ‘non barbecue’ summers of 2007, 2008 and 2009 and the cold winter 08/09 and now 09/10 were ALL the opposite of the Met office forecast and ALL as predicted by WeatherAction months ahead. Met Office scored 0/5 and WeatherAction scored 5/5.

4. The failed Met Office forecast for this winter and the consequent unnecessary suffering and road deaths should be laid at the feet of the University of East Anglia, the Met Office and the BBC — and charges of collective manslaughter be issued.

Piers is understandably angry. Accurate forecasting, that is, forecasting based on observation rather than ideology, saves lives.

You can check the accuracy of Pier’s own predictions at Weather Action.

Piers uses ‘predictable aspects of solar activity – particle and magnetic effects from the Sun – as the basis for forecasting weather many months and even years in advance.’

This works for two main reasons. More solar activity means the sun produces more heat and light.

More solar activity also means fewer cosmic rays reaching Earth.

Cosmic rays encourage the development of clouds. Clouds reduce the temperature. So more solar activity means less cosmic rays, which means fewer clouds, which means higher temperatures.

There is no meaningful correlation between human production of CO2 and changes in temperature. There is a very close correlation between decrease in cosmic rays and increase in temperature:

Cosmic Rays and Global Temperature

Research shows the small amount of electro-magnetic radiation from mobile phones may help prevent Alzheimer’s Disease.

So that’s yet another failed science scare.

Although, to be fair, I’m not sure it was ever scientists who were behind the mobile phones will fry your brain theory. I think that was Richard Branson. The same guy who made a fortune selling mobile phones.

But never mind, even if mobile phones aren’t scary any more, and no one believes the global warming stuff any more, new science scares can always be found.

But scientists in Britain have really excelled themselves with this one.

A star called T Pyxidis 3260 light years away might explode in a supernova some time in the next 100 years. Maybe.

If it does, it might explode with force of a billion billion billion megatons of TNT. Some good highlights to look forward to in the MTV best explosion category that year.

If it does, the explosion could, possibly, in about four or five thousand years, strip away the ozone layer from the Earth.

And then we’ll all die. Perhaps.

Plenty of funding opportunities there, chaps.

Sadly, the black hole at the centre of the Milky Way is not chewing its way through the galaxy as quickly as previously thought.

Ah well, there’s still the Large Hadron Collider to worry about. Or use as an excuse for sex.

Finally, proof of global warming:

Proof of Global Warming

Proof of Global Warming

But then, what about this:

A new study shows no change in the proportion of atmospheric and absorbed CO2 for the last 150 years.

Many climate models also assume that the airborne fraction will increase. Because understanding of the airborne fraction of carbon dioxide is important for predicting future climate change, it is essential to have accurate knowledge of whether that fraction is changing or will change as emissions increase.

To assess whether the airborne fraction is indeed increasing, Wolfgang Knorr of the Department of Earth Sciences at the University of Bristol reanalyzed available atmospheric carbon dioxide and emissions data since 1850 and considers the uncertainties in the data.

In contradiction to some recent studies, he finds that the airborne fraction of carbon dioxide has not increased either during the past 150 years or during the most recent five decades.

The research is published in Geophysical Research Letters.

Oh, hang on. He looked at real world data. The man’s obviously completely unreliable.

Climate changes all the time.

How do we adapt to these changes in a way that assists the most vulnerable – that is, the poor?

One way is to adopt policies which will assist poorer people to develop the resources and strategies they need to buffer them from  rapid climate change.

Another is to make sure we know what is going on, so we can make plans to cope with the changes that are actually occurring.

Because so much data has been lost/manipulated, etc, we have very little idea what has really happened over the last fifty years.

One thing is for sure. it isn’t getting any warmer.

There are record low temperatures across the Northern Hemisphere, from the US and Canada to the UK to China and Siberia.

Bitter Winters in the Andes can no longer be described as an anomaly. Growing numbers of children – hundreds in some small rural districts – are dying each year from cold.

 It’s time we stopped playing global warming computer games, and started dealing with real world changes, and the real world needs of  people who cannot, as Al Gore can, squander 200,000 kilowatt hours of electricity each year.

One of the worrying things about the cherry-picking, data fudging, distorting, lying, fund-grabbing behaviour that has characterised global warming alarmism over the last two decades, is that we now have no idea at all what the climate has been doing.

Much of the original temperature data seems to have disappeared, leaving only value-less ‘value-added’ data.

What data we have, when the Urban Heat Island Effect  is taken into account, along with the fudging and cheating, shows little or no warming, or even cooling.

Climate changes can be and have been devastating in the past, rapid cooling far more so than gradual warming.

There is nothing we can do to stop natural climate change.

We can prepare for it. And that preparation may save millions of lives.

There is no doubt that next major change will be towards a cooler world.

Let’s hope we can quickly get past the hiatus in real climate science caused by well-funded claims of non-existent anthropogenic global warming, and find real world data that will give us real world answers.

In the meantime, it is a deadly cold Winter in the Northern Hemisphere:

A Cold Winter in Europe

A Cold Winter in Europe

After considering a number of possible candidates for the next major science scare, the UN today annouced the winner was the asteroid Apophis.

‘We’ve got as much funding, and as many free holidays, as we are likely to get from global warming,’  UN Secretary-General Ban Ki Moon announced today. ‘It’s time to move on.’

‘The asteroid Apophis meets all the criteria for the next DSSO. There is a slim chance it could cause major destruction, on a scale the world has never seen.’  He said.

‘It will take billions of dollars in research funds, and several conferences, before we know whether this destruction is likely or or not. But the consequences of not acting are so dire, that even if the science is not proven, we owe it to our children and grandchildren to put the planet first, and give the world the benefit of the doubt.’

Anatoly Perminov told the Russian radio station Golos Rossii: “People’s lives are at stake. We should pay several hundred million dollars and build a system that would allow us to prevent a collision, rather than sit and wait for it to happen and kill hundreds of thousands of people.”

Mirrors, lights and even paint could change the way the object absorbed light and heat enough to shift its direction over 20 years or so. With less notice, mankind could be forced to take more drastic measures, such as setting off a massive explosion on or near the object to change its course.

Smoke and mirrors?

Same deal as climate change, then.

PS.  Ban Ki Moon didn’t really say any of that. But he might as well have.

Another worthwhile therapeutic result from adult stem cells.

Useful applications from embryonic stems cells – 0. From non-destructive, ethical stem cell research, over 70, as at 2007.

Researchers have used stems cells taken from mice to create tooth buds. A small incision was made in the animals’ gums and the bud implanted. New teeth grew.

The tooth bud produces a new tooth, and the bone required to anchor the tooth to the jaw.

Professor Paul Sharpe, a specialist in the field of regenerative dentistry at the Dental Institute of King’s College, London, says the same techniques will produce similar results in humans:

Using a local anaesthetic, the tooth bud is inserted through a small incision into the gum. Within months, the cells will have matured into a fully-formed tooth, fused to the jawbone. As the tooth grows, it releases chemicals that encourage nerves and blood vessels to link up with it.

Jo Nova has put together a massive wall chart of highlights (low lights?) from the FOI file of documents and emails from Hadley.

It details more than twenty years of data fudging, bullying of scientists with alternative views, pressuring scientific journals, hijacking the peer review process, and outright lying about the evidence for anthropogenic climate change by a small cabal of well-funded public servants.

The only disappointment is that Jo repeats the furphy about the medieval church silencing sceptics. Jo is usually a careful researcher and clear thinker, so this is a little surprising.

In reality, the medieval church was the friend of science, and consistently encouraged the asking of questions and the search for truth.
 
This is one of the reasons it is the West that has been the home of science, and Western thought which has provided so many of the answers to questions about the natural world.

But that hesitation aside, Jo’s wallchart is a product of a prodigious amount of work, displayed, as always, in a clear and interesting way.

This is both funny and tragic because the words put into Obama’s mouth are true, and the plan would work. But it will just never happen.

Imagine the posibilities, the hopenchangen. But, instead, real hope, and real change.

Darn. The more I think about it, the sadder I feel.

From Scott Ott’s Scrappleface:

Delegates to the global climate conference in Copenhagen sat in stunned silence today as President Obama solved the global warming crisis with a single 25-minute speech.

“While the challenges we face may seem insoluble,” the Nobel laureate said, “the solution is actually quite simple. It’s historically reliable. It works every time it’s sincerely tried.”

“Basically, the problem is that poor nations are broke,” Obama explained, “and rich nations don’t want to throw their money down a totalitarian rathole, into the hands of tyrants who see this treaty as a gold mine and who have no intention of reducing carbon emissions. Since we need trillions of dollars to fund development of speculative green technologies, the only answer is for the poor nations to get rich fast.”

Obama said the broad outlines of his plan included having poor nations “adopt the time-tested Protestant work ethic, free-market capitalism and equal justice under law.”

“Once you see your vocation as a calling from God,” he said, “you work diligently toward excellence, to bring glory to your creator. If your property rights are guaranteed under law, you work to improve yours, and to acquire more, by serving others. Under my plan, within half a century, the less-developed nations will go from being pathetic dependents to equal trading partners.”

While skeptics said the president’s plan would put off a solution until the world’s coastlands were under water, Obama said, “Free men and women solve problems for profit, for accolades and for inscrutable personal purposes … but they do solve problems. If, in five decades, there’s still a climate crisis, we can all get together, kick in an equal share per capita, and hire someone to fix it.”

So, good news all around.

The SMH is reporting a draft deal at Crappenhuggen.

What they are reporting is not a ‘deal’ but a draft document put together by developed nations as a possible basis for a take it or leave it offer to greedy socialist whingers leaders of developing nations.

I have no hope at all that any world leader will be brave enough to admit that the whole fiasco has been completely pointless, that we don’t know enough to know what to do, that anything we could do at this point is likely to make things worse, and so the wisest thing is to do nothing.

No, they will all want to look they have achieved something, so some agreement will be forthcoming.

There will be lots of smiles, handshakes and congratulations.

But for all the good it will do the world it might as well be lots of piles, milkshakes and flatulence.

The only thing to hope for is that this will just amount to a commitment to ‘journey forward together’ of ‘growth in our sense of commitment to one another as members of a single global community.’

And of course for the US, Australia, Canada, etc, to pay billions of dollars in bribes compensation to developing nations.

Sigh

Data from Russian stations have been (with equally dodgy US surface station data) a large part of the evidence for warming.

Now that the Russian data are known to have been carefully selected – using only the 25% of stations that showed a consistent warming trend – there is no credible basis for any claim that the world has been warming at all, let alone at unusual rates.

And there is still no reason that any of the minor changes in the always changing global climate should be attributed to human activity.

Politicians who do not have the backbone to ask questions now, and to stand up to the hysteria, or who commit their countries to painfully costly and pointless plans to reduce the use of cheap fuels, will be punished mercilessly when they next face an election.

Bye Mr Rudd. Bye Mr Obama.

I’d be a believer too if I thought I’d be up for billions in grants, cars, holidays, Swiss bank accounts.

There are vast amounts of money to be made in being victims of climate change.

So it’s no wonder the President of the Maldives and the chief negotiater for Tuvalu (who lives in New South Wales) are sobbing about how the greedy West has caused sea levels to rise, destroying their tiny, vulnerable countries.

But hey, a cookie a few billion dollars will make us feel better.

The sobbing and hand-wringing is despite the fact that there has been no increase in global mean temperature over the last fifteeen years, and no sea level rise in Tuvalu or the Maldives for the last thirty years.

You just have to have faith. Name it and claim it, brothers and sisters! Hallelujah!

It’s all perfectly rational – if money or approval is your goal.

What is lacking at Copenhagen is rationality not motivated by self-interest – either a desire for cash, or for for world recognition as a really cool guy, the bloke who saved the day, the man who stayed up all night to work for a solution, the chap who really ought to be the next Secretary General.

Global warming fervour is often compared with religious faith. I have made that comparison myself. But this is unfair to religious leaders.

When I was a parish priest I regularly told parishioners, ‘Don’t take my word for what I tell you – do your own research, check, read, ask questions.’

The only reason to believe anything is because it is true. And decisions about what is true need to be made on the basis of evidence, not feelings or desires.

This is the exact opposite of what is required to be considered a true climate believer. Questions are not welcomed. Those who doubt are cast into the outer darkness and denounced as deniers.

Environmental journalist and rational person Phelim McAleer was told by one Copenhagen participant to ‘get out while you still can’ and was later assaulted during a live television interview.

In a paroxysm of self-parody, Kevin Rudd told Copenhagen participants and world leaders (about 50 of them, anyway) that he fears a ‘triumph of form over substance … a triumph of inaction over action’ and that history would judge them if they failed.

I agree on both counts.

A triumph of form, of easy compliance, of the desire to appear noble and statesman-like, over real hard headed science and rational discussion of the issues is exactly what is to be feared.

And history will certainly judge leaders who failed to ask questions about whether the science of global warming was sufficiently well grounded to justify desperate promises of billions of dollars, and hurried decisions to limit the use of cheap fuels on which most of the world’s wealth depends.