NC Media Watch

Global Warming Update: Opps Sacramento will not be flooded by sea level rise.

Russ Steele

This morning the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works blog has a heads on a blockbuster report to be published this fall. The post lists a summary of eleven scientific reports refuting fears of Greenland melting. Details here.

Ilulissat, Greenland – The July 27-29 2007 U.S. Senate trip to Greenland to investigate fears of a glacier meltdown revealed an Arctic land where current climatic conditions are neither alarming nor linked to a rise in man-made carbon dioxide emissions, according to many of the latest peer-reviewed scientific findings.  Recent research has found that Greenland has been warming since the 1880’s, but since 1955, temperature averages at Greenland stations have been colder than the period between 1881-1955.

A recent study concluded Greenland was as warm or warmer in the 1930’s and 40’s and the rate of warming from 1920-1930 was about 50% higher than the warming from 1995-2005. One 2005 study found Greenland gaining ice in the interior higher elevations and thinning ice at the lower elevations. In addition, the often media promoted fears of Greenland’s ice completely melting and a subsequent catastrophic sea level rise are directly at odds with the latest scientific studies.  These studies suggest that the biggest perceived threat to Greenland’s glaciers may be contained in unproven computer models predicting a future catastrophic melt. 

This should put to rest any of your fears about a sea level rise flooding Sacramento as suggested on a recent NCFocus post. The EPW Blog lists eleven recent studies that refute James Hansen’s scary paper on rapid sea level rise. You can read the whole post here, with links to the referenced papers.

So, if the facts do not support Hansen's computer models, what was the purpose of his scary report. Politics?

Al Gore will run for President

Russ Steele

I think that Al Gore will jump into the Presidential race in September.  I base my predictions on two things. Al is loosing weight, getting trim for those YouTube ads, and the climate change scare machine is moving into high gear.  On the local scene, Anna at NCFocus is helping out with a environmental awareness post that starts out: *Very scary.

Then Anna links to the two loudest global warming scare mongers:  The Guardian’s George Monbiot and NASA’s James Hansen. The subject is Hansen’s latest paper predicting a huge sea level rise that is coming any day now...  Just think, Sacramento will soon under water, with a 25 foot rise in sea level, and it could happen "real soon now."

Then Anna rounds out her scary post by linking to the New Scientist's Climate change: A guide for the perplexed,  a roundup of the 26 most common climate myths and misconceptions.

Humm...  Not to be out done, here is a list and a link to 30 articles in the Canada’s National Post,  critiquing the warmers climate myths.  We strive to be fair and balanced at NC Media Watch.

Statistics needed -- The Deniers Part I
Warming is real -- and has benefits -- The Deniers Part II
The hurricane expert who stood up to UN junk science -- The Deniers Part III
Polar scientists on thin ice -- The Deniers Part IV
The original denier: into the cold -- The Deniers Part V
The sun moves climate change -- The Deniers Part VI
Will the sun cool us? -- The Deniers Part VII
The limits of predictability -- The Deniers Part VIII
Look to Mars for the truth on global warming -- The Deniers Part IX
Limited role for C02 -- the Deniers Part X
End the chill -- The Deniers Part XI
Clouded research -- The Deniers Part XII
Allegre's second thoughts -- The Deniers XIII
The heat's in the sun -- The Deniers XIV
Unsettled Science -- The Deniers XV
Bitten by the IPCC -- The Deniers XVI
Little ice age is still within us -- The Deniers XVII
Fighting climate 'fluff' -- The Deniers XVIII
Science, not politics -- The Deniers XIX
Gore's guru disagreed -- The Deniers XX
The ice-core man -- The Deniers XXI
Some restraint in Rome -- The Deniers XXII
Discounting logic -- The Deniers XXIII
Dire forecasts aren't new -- The Deniers XXIV
They call this a consensus? - Part XXV
NASA chief Michael Griffin silenced - Part XXVI
Forget warming - beware the new ice age - Part XXVII
Open mind sees climate clearly - Part XXVIII
Models trump measurements - Part XXIX
What global warming, Australian skeptic asks - Part XXX

More thoughts on “Be Local, Buy Local”

Russ Steele

Reading the comments on the NCCLI shopping survey story in the Union online the majority of the comments seem to focus on choice, the freedom to spend the writers money how, when and where they choose. This raises the question. When did the failure of local business to be competitive in service, selection and price become the buyers responsibility?  If local businesses were competitive in these areas, more readers would shop local. There would not be any need to drive to Auburn/Roseville or Marysville/Yuba City, and it would be in the buyers economic self interest to shop local.

The “Be Local, Buy Local” campaign is about guilt.  We will not be a good citizens if we do not shop local. Yet, it is clearly in our economic self interest to shop where we get the best value for our money. Why should I give up my self interest for the best interest of local businesses?  Just because local business support local non-profits?  I am all for supporting our non profits. But, what if I choose to donate part of the money I saved by shopping in the valley, rather than going through a third party local business.  Why is it the buyers responsibility to keep local stores in business when they cannot, or will not, provide superior value?   

At one time we were an isolated community, we did not have the choices available today. The value of a product is determined by the market place, but the market is no longer local. Good roads and comfortable vehicles makes the market place regional, and the Internet makes it global.  Many local business seem to anchored in the past, and price their products as if we were still an isolated community.

The consummate shopper at our house checks the market value of any product on the Internet before she goes shopping, be it for a special hair spray she likes, or a fire pit for our deck. Locally the hair spray she uses was $17.00 a can. In Roseville it was three cans for $19.00. That makes the price a little over $6.00 a can. If bought local three cans would cost $51.00.  The cost to drive to Roseville in a car that gets 25 miles to the gallon is about $12.00. Total saving $39.00. Throw in buying a few blocks of our favorite cheese from Traders Joe's for $3.00, that cost $6.00 in a local grocery, and a shopping trip to the valley pays big dividends. On the other hand, buying the fire pit locally was a break even proposition, plus we had it the same day we made the buy decision. Unfortunately the buying experience at the local store made us wonder if UPS delivery would have been the better option, even if we had to wait a week for delivery.    

If shopping local is a feel good proposition, how about some feel good local service. Make us feel really good about spending a few extra bucks in the local stores. We all win, we get some feel good service, the local store gets our business, and we spare the air by not driving to the valley. I could have included spare our wallets, but in reality buyers can save hundreds of dollars a month by driving down the hill.  I wish it were not true, but those are the facts.  And, a shop local guilt campaign will not change these facts. My wallet does not have a pocket for guilt money. What's is in your wallet?

And the shop local utility function is?

Russ Steele

In a recent article by Dave Moller, we learned about a buy local campaign that will be launched in November to keep more shopping local.

"Be Local, Buy Local" is the campaign to be unfurled in November to capture more dollars from area residents, business leaders announced Thursday.

While these campaigns have a feel good factor how do we know if this one is successful? What utility function should be tracked to make sure this buy local campaign is a success?  Who is going to collect the data to measure it's success? Has someone established a baseline to measure any future changes in local business traffic? When I look at the 2007 Nevada County Indicator Report, the data is for 2003-2004. Will we have to wait 3 years to find out if the 2007 buy local campaign was a success?   Has anyone given any thought to this utility measurement issue?  If you have please send me an e-mail, or post a comment. 

Shopping Survey: Much ado about nothing

Russ Steele

I  was not very far into the Nevada County Shopping Survey, sponsored by the Nevada County Community Leadership Institute, Economic Development Sub-Group when I realized this was a bogus survey. The sample was too small for any reasonable confidence level, and the people completing the sample were self selecting.  All 434 read the Union online and they all took the time to complete the survey. This is not a random sample. It cannot reflect the real world.

My Cartoon Guide to Statistics, says the sample must be random to have a reasonable confidence level. Like names picked at random from a phone book.  Since most readers do not have the math and statistical skill to recognize the limitations the survey, nor to evaluate the stories in the Union reporting it, this survey could be dangerous as it presents a distorted view of the real world.  I would be cautious when making business decisions based on some of the anecdotal information in this survey. While it is some interesting insight in to shopping in Nevada County, It is not the real world.

George Rebane who teaches numeracy, and writes about numeracy on the SESF web page, has some thought about the survey at Rebane’s Ruminations. Also, as time permits see the SESF's Numeracy Nuggets.  It would be wise to read George's ruminations before, or after reading this survey. His final insights are well worth your time.

I suggest that next year the Nevada County Community Leadership Institute ask George come to  one of their training sessions and give a talk on Numeracy and Statistical Significance. Or, maybe they can give the students a copy of the Cartoon Guide to Statistics before taking anymore surveys. Or both. Then next year we can all look forward to some numerically significant information.   

Nevada global warming, and the reason is? (edited)

Russ Steele

The warmers continue to promote global warming using  the surface temperature records, with out recognizing the depth and scope of urban heat island impacts. Here is a Yahoo report on a recent study by Stephen M. Rowland, Professor of Geology at University of Nevada, Las Vegas.

 

 

Nevada is among the states with the most dramatic increase in average temperatures the last 30 years, according to a new study that examines the impact of global warming across the country.
ooo
The average temperature in Reno from June through August last year was 75.6 degrees, almost 7 degrees above the 30-year average, the U.S. Public Interest Research Group reported. The gap was the biggest measured nationally.

"Only a tiny bit of this increase in temperature can be attributed to increased urbanization the so-called urban heat-island effect," Rowland continued. "Global warming is here, and we better get serious about confronting it."

Well let's see about that.  Given the huge growth in the Reno area over the past thirty years, I think there is more UHI than the Professor is willing to admit. Consider this from the Climate History of Reno, by Brian F. O’Hara, National Weather Service.

The city of Reno has expanded in area over time and the Reno-Tahoe International Airport is now surrounded by an urban area. This difference between the two locations can be seen with precipitation, and especially temperature, data for Reno. There was a continual rise in average annual temperatures from the late 19th century through the 1930s (a gradual evolution from wood structures to brick and stone buildings and paved roads in town?). During the 1940s the average temperature was conspicuously less than it had been (since the readings were now being taken in a rural area). Average temperatures then started a gradual warm-up, with impressive rises during the 1980s and 1990s (urban heat island effects). In a strongly developed heat island, the temperature in the urban area can be up to 10°F greater than it is in the surrounding rural areas (Oliver and Hidore, 2002).

An earlier version of this post was edited due to an apples and oranges error in the graphics.

UPDATE:  Here is a graphic that compares the annual average temperatures at the Airport with a remote automated station at Desert Springs, about 20 miles away.  The AP is running here than the remote station. But, note how both plots turn down about 2003, the remote station more than the urban AP. I have noted this down turn in many remote rural stations.  The sun spots started declining in 2002.

Hey, I did not vote for this business busting crap!

Russ Steele

The Sac Bee’s climate change blog, The Hot House has been silent for a while as the Bee’ editorial staff is short handed, according to Stuart  Leavenworth, “I am the only editorial writer at The Bee this week. All my collegues [sic] on vacation, on leave or have left for better-paying jobs.”  Oh, but poor pay at the Bee was not the reason for my post.  Stuart had this little gem tucked in The Hot House.

Those crazy Senate Republicans are holding up the budget in an attempt to stop Jerry Brown from filing CEQA lawsuits that mention the words "climate change."

And the main stream press keep telling is was about excessive spending that was exceeding expected revenue, that was blocking he budget.  According to Stuart it is about the Republicans keeping Jerry Brown and all his liberal friends from using CEQA to doing more harm to our economy. Good for them. The environmentalists do enough harm now with out giving them a new tools to block any development they do not like, by making the developer prove his development does not contribute to global warming. All the while, they can not prove that releasing more CO2 into the environment is harmful. The plants seem to love more CO2, and it not clear how two more degrees are going to destroy California.

And why is this important to Nevada County, well Jerry Brown has expressed support for our local environmentalist who are organizing to stop the Yuba Highlands Project. Jerry was planning on using CEQA’s new found global warming mussel to stifle any development he does not like, or his new friends in Nevada County do not like.  They failed at the local level to block the development, now they are trying to use the power of the state to block Yuba Highlands. 

Why is Anthony Watts doing weather station surveys?

Russ Steele

Roger Pielke Sr., et al, have written a paper published in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society explaining “the use of temperature data from poorly sited stations can lead to a false sense of confidence in the robustness of multidecadal surface air temperature trend assessments.”

You can down load the full paper, Documentation of Uncertainties and Biases Associated with Surface Temperature Measurement Sites for Climate Change Assessment, at the American Meteorological Society online journal site here.

Temperature adjustments such as those resulting from change in instrumentation are, of course, necessary. However, the results shown in this paper demonstrate that the lack of correctly and consistently sited stations results in an inherent uncertainty in the datasets that should be addressed at the root, by documenting the micrometeorological deficiencies in the sites and adhering to sites that conform to standards such as the Global Climate Observing System (GCOS) Climate Monitoring Principles

Anthony and his team of volunteers are documenting siting deficiencies and the scope of the siting problem, by surveying as many of the 1221 USHCN stations as possible.  This information will be highly valuable to Dr. Pielke and his team of researchers in follow up studies of surface data measurement problems.  Many poorly sited stations are being used to record the potential scope of global warming, resulting in policies that could have a huge economic impact on the citizens of California.  More than enough reason for doing the survey.

Plan for a cooler wet winter

Russ Steele

The World Meteorological Organization in Geneva has made the following announcement.

La Nina, the cooling of sea surfaces in the Pacific Ocean which can wreak havoc with weather patterns, is likely to develop by the end of the year, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) said on Friday.

As the winds move westward and the ocean cools off of the coast of Peru, the La Nina will grow stronger. You can track the strength of the emerging La Nina here.

The last La Nina was from 1999 to 2001, and it produced wet and cold weather in Northern California. In Nevada County we are on the border of the wet/dry zone. Thus we should see large swings in variability.
The last La Nina produced earlier than usual wildfires in parched areas of New Mexico, Colorado and parts of Southern California. Hawaii was unusually dry, the Great Lakes regions were also dryer than normal with lake levels dropping six feet, and drought plaguing Kansas, Nebraska, Texas, Georgia and Florida.

We are going to have some interesting times ahead as the long term trends change from warm to cool, continuing a trend that started in 2003 in the Sierra according to the data from remote sensors, well away from the urban heat islands that are distorting the surface record. More details on this distortion at What's Up With That?

Union Global Warming Discussion

Russ Steele

Homer and I have been exchanging global warming comments here, if you are interested in the subject.