NC Media Watch

Why do they do it, is such a great question

Russ Steele

Writing at Climate Audit, Buddenbrook asks a question I have often pondered. Why do highly intelligent scientists distort the science of atmospheric temperature change, and then try to stifle any debate over those distortions. Maybe some of the global warming proponents down at the State Capitol, or our local NCFocus contributors, have the answers, but Buddenbrook has some interesting theories we all should ponder.   

Why do they do it? This is the question that bothers me. What have they got to gain in all this?

If there is going on a conscious and systematic distortion of science, why is it happening? People like Hansen, Solomon, Schmidt, Mann they are not stupid people. They must themselves be aware of the huge uncertainties involved re: modelling, metrics, climate forcings, climate complexity. Then why is a facade created, a facade to the politicians and the public, that the science would be settled? That the “debate is over”, like they keep saying. Why are the IPCC fighting a political fight to supress scientific debate and inquiry? Shouldn’t falsification be in the heart of all science?

I have five possible theories, but I’m not sure how viable they are:

1. Personal pride - People who have invested their life work into AGW can’t come into terms with the possibility that it would have been without a meaning. That the modelling, everything would have been purposeless in the end. There is too much emotion invested, after all the preaching to “denialists”, all the warnings to the public, it’s psychologically impossible to back down now.

2. Power, recognition - IPCC is wielding global power, they already have a huge impact on EU policies, and with the second round of Kyoto could become a keyplayer in world politics. Recognition and stature contain addictive emotions.

3. Genuine concerns - They seriously believe that the probability of CAGW is high enough to justify the suppression of uncertainty, that the end justifies the means. The potential risks are too huge to have the politicians arguing for another 10-15 years, so it is justifiable to create an impression, that the debate would be over, that arguments should end, and concrete actions begin.

4. Personal financial gain - CAGW is a huge business, billions are being channelled into the research. If CAGW dropped from the political agenda, thousands of people would be in the danger of losing well paying jobs and research grants. How easy would it be for a person who has studied and tuned GCMs for the past 15-20 years, to find an equally well paying job?

5. A broader perspective of green and global social idealism, possibly preceding career choice - CAGW is a tool to undermine free capitalism, consumerism, exploitation of the planet and global disparity. AGW scientists can feel their jobs to contain a larger purpose and meaning, that they are fighting a good fight, which can become emotionally very satisfying, a sort of a “flow”. And even if the worst CAGW fears are not realised, it’s still important to change our mindset about how we use and share the earth’s resources, and to become aware of the dangers there are involved.

I think that elements of all five have some validity.  I am interested in your thoughts in the comments.

New site in town

Russ Steele

Anna has an interesting new site up, which she launched on Wednesday called The Nevada County Voice, a consolidation site that collects local content on to one single page. This could become a every popular opening page, for a quick scan of all the local news.  She also has a companion blog for comments. This approach has a lot of potential for developing a community dialog. Let's hope it meets her expectations.

Fort Bragg full monty

Russ Steele

I have posted the full photo set for Fort Bragg at Anthony Watt's stationsurvey.org site here. Please note the mean temperature plot. This rural garden site is sheltered from the wind and does not show any strong global warming trend.

Anthony's What Up With That? has as interesting summary of recent survey finds. Anthony's site was also mentioned on Rush Limbaugh's radio program yesterday.  This survey is getting some national attention, so much so that NOAA has taken down some of the station management information, making it harder for volunteers to find the weather stations.

UPDATE:  Here is a link to the NOAA decision to remove station management information on the Climate Science Blog.

MORE UPDATE: Anthony Watt's discusses removal of the stations managers information on What's Up With That? Anthony clearly stated his position at the end of his post, which I agree with.  If we cannot audit the stations, they should be removed from the historical climate network.  Unverifiable data should not be used to make public policy. Anthony was kind enough link to this blog and this Ft Bragg post.

Fort Bragg CSI Report

Russ Steele

The family is in Mendocino for a week, preparing for my fourth daughters wedding on Saturday. With a lull in the planning and preparation, I visited the Ft Bragg weather station which is part of the US Historical Climate Network and did a photo survey. According the regional NWS Office  in Eureka, Ft Bragg has the longest temperature history in the Western Region, having been established in the late 1860s. I still have to do some more research to nail down the exact date, NOAA’s NCDC data base indicates the the starting location as the Ft Bragg Train Station 1 January 1931. It was move to Cleone about five miles north of Ft Bragg in September of 1988, where it is today.

Weather Station/Climate Station Site Survey Form
Site Name: Fort Bragg
NASA GISS or USHCN Site Numerical ID: 043161-01
Site Physical Address: Five miles north of Ft Bragg, CA, near the town of Cleone.
Date and time of survey: 06/27/07
Name of person doing the site survey: Russ Steele
Surveyor contact email or phone number: [email protected]

Reported Coordinates and Elevation of site: 39.50N 123.78W , 120ft
Measured GPS Coordinates of site: 39.50948N, 123.75655W,
Measured Elevation 207ft    Evidence of shelter repainted? MMTS   
Google Earth Link: See Google Earth Photo.

Site description and known history: This site has been at this location for over 15 years according to the Curator, and it was automated in 1995.  Based on elevation changes, the NCDC data base indicates it was move to the present location in September of 1988. The site was located at the AM Radio Station downtown from 1984 to 1988, prior to being relocated to this rural garden location. I have to track down the exact shelter location at the radio station.  It was moved to the radio station from the train station, near the edge of town in 1984. According to a trainman at the station, the shelter was located where the propane tank is now sitting in the pictures below.

Survey Notes: According one report, the rain gage sat for many years under the tree to the left of the propane tank.  The move from the radio station to the current location was due to the lack of reporting the the NSW. The radio station broadcast the daily temperatures, but they often forgot to send them to the weather service.

See some pictures below. I will post the full set to Anthony Watt’s http://www.surfacestations.org/ when I have completed my research on all the shelter locations, most likely after the wedding.

New math used to determine the global warming scientific consensus?

Russ Steele

Through the fine work of Steve McIntyre and all the Climate Audit readers and contributors who filed Freedom of Information act requests, the IPCC Assessment Report #4 Reviewer Comments are now know on line here.  We now know there were only 170 authors and reviewers of AR4. See authors list here. Now to be fair, we should consider that many other authors did contribute papers, which the 170 authors and reviewers cherry picked for their review. Here is a list of papers that were not reviewed, as they did not fit the global warming template.

I guess the IPCC used some new mathematical method to come up with the 2,500 scientist who review and concurred with the report. John Hunter a regular contributor at Climate Audit went looking for those missing authors and came to this assessment after looking through the reviewed Chapters:

My own estimates for AR4 are:
No. of authors: > 600
No. of reviewers: > 650
No. papers reviewed: ~6000

Perhaps Anna at NCFocus can help us with a list of the 2,500 scientist that reviewed and approved the AR4 Report.  She likes to debunk my views on global warming.   Perhaps some of her sources have an insiders list of the 2,500 concurring climate scientists. Maybe Al Gore has the list? Maybe our Governor who thinks the "science is known" has the list.

Which global warming camp are you in, the Sun or CO2?

Russ Steele

See this the UK News story before you answer this question.

ALMOST three quarters of people believe global warming is a 'natural occurrence' and not a result of carbon emissions, a survey claimed today.

This goes against the views of the vast majority of scientists who believe the rise in the earth's temperatures is due to pollution.

The online study which polled nearly 4000 votes found that a staggering 71 percent of people think that the rise in air temperature happens naturally.

In the past the majority of scientist have proven to be wrong, one modern example being plate tectonics. And some of the major proponents of AGM are beginning to cover their bets, should the sun and natural climate cycles prove to be the major source of climate change. And the evidence grows every week with new research coming to the fore.

Here is a very interesting paper from South Africa, by W J R Alexander, F Bailey, D B Bredenkamp, A van der Merwe and N Willemse,  that finds a strong correlation between sunspots cycles and African hydrological cycles.

Comment policy change

Russ Steele

To encourage more comments on posts I have turned OFF the typepad authentication feature,  Now anyone with an e-mail address can comment.  And I encourage readers to share your ideas and thoughts.  However, I did turn on the moderation feature, which may delay your comments for a few hours, to keep out the junk. Please do not post anonymous comments, as I do not read these comments, nor do I want them wasting a readers time.

UN IPCC author admits model limitations

Russ Steele

I have been and continue to skeptical of the climate models and how they are used to justify greenhouse gas regulation policy in California. Now one of the major IPCC authors, Kevin Trenberth, Climate Analysis Section, National Center for Atmospheric Research, expresses his view on the Nature blog about the limitations of the IPCC models.

I have often seen references to predictions of future climate by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), presumably through the IPCC assessments (the various chapters in the recently completed Working Group I Fourth Assessment report I can be accessed through this listing). In fact, since the last report it is also often stated that the science is settled or done and now is the time for action.

In fact there are no predictions by IPCC at all. And there never have been. The IPCC instead proffers “what if” projections of future climate that correspond to certain emissions scenarios. There are a number of assumptions that go into these emissions scenarios. They are intended to cover a range of possible self consistent “story lines” that then provide decision makers with information about which paths might be more desirable. But they do not consider many things like the recovery of the ozone layer, for instance, or observed trends in forcing agents. There is no estimate, even probabilistically, as to the likelihood of any emissions scenario and no best guess. 

Public transit is not the ozone solution

Russ Steele

The local ozone issue made the KCRA, Channel 3, 6:00 clock news last night.  In the story about STAinNC, a local group taking action to reduce ozone, it was suggested that more folks in the valley get out of their cars and ride public transit.  Let me share part of a article I researched and wrote in the Fall of 2005:

“Californian's love their cars,” according to the California Public Policy Institute, including  those in the Sacramento Metropolitan Survey Area (MSA).  The US Census Travel-to-Work Survey shows  75.2 percent of Sac Metro's 685,945 workers drove alone in 1990, with 13.7 percent using carpools.   Only 0.2 percent, or about 1,372 of the 685,945 workers rode light rail.  By 2000 the labor force had risen to 799,989, with 75.3 percent driving alone, and 13.5 percent carpooling. The labor force went up 114,000 in ten years, but only 0.3 percent, or about 2,399 commuters, chose to ride light rail to work.  A little more than 1000 light rail riders per day.
 
Looking at traffic congestion from 1990 to 2000 the annual traffic delays in Sacramento went from 32 minutes in 1990 to 35 minutes in 2000, according to the Texas Transportation Institute Mobility Survey. In the 2005 Mobility Survey, which used 2003 data, the delay increased to 40 minutes. Congestion went up 9 percent from 1990 to 2000.  It was up 12.5 percent by 2003. From 1988 to 2001 Light Rail rider-ship only grew 7 percent according to the American Public Transportation Association.  Not fast enough to reduce traffic congestion.

Are there a more effective solutions?  A closer look at the Census data offers one clue. The 1990 data shows that 3.1 percent of the Sacramento MSA labor force worked from home.  By 2000 it was up to 4.0 percent, taking 11,735 more commuters off the road each day. Telecommuting was 80 percent more effective in reducing traffic congestion, than hundreds of millions of dollars invested in light rail.

If we use light rail use as a proxy for public transit, you can see that telecommuting is a more effective solution that trying to get more people to ride public transit.

Feel good resolutions are not the answer

Russ Steele

Let’s get the disclosure out of the way up front. I am an asthmatic and under the care of a UC Davis Doctor for my asthma, which flares up about three times a year, usually in the fall after the first rains, or when the smoke from forest fires invade our community in the summer. 

I read this morning in The Union that a new group STA in NC is planning to send resolutions to Grass Valley, Nevada City and the County. More details on the meeting can be found at the SESF Blog.

"No one is taking the leadership on this," Garvey said. "We believe we have an obligation to take the lead role on this."

The group will take a clean air resolution to the Grass Valley City Council on July 31, Garvey said.

Members plan to take a similar resolution to Nevada City and the county Board of Supervisors later this summer, he said. Members also have contacted Sen. Sam Aanestad, R-Grass Valley, and hired a lawyer to look into bringing suit against Central Valley and Bay Area polluters.