NC Media Watch

Just a couple of Sunday afternoon climate change questions

Russ Steele

1)  With the release of 250,000 State Department Cables (e-mail) how many of them discuss the huge global warming crisis?  What was revealed?  Anything, after all this is a world wide crisis!

2)  How can global warming cause Sierra lake waters to warm faster than the air over them, as was reported in this study reported in this San Francisco Chronicle article. Where did the heat come from, CO2 only warms the air, now can lakes warm faster than the CO2 warmed air over them? 

The world's largest lakes, including Lake Tahoe, have been warming rapidly for 25 years as the global climate changes, NASA scientists report.

And throughout the Northern Hemisphere, surface water temperatures of many lakes have been rising even faster than the warming air above them, according to observations by ultra-sensitive satellites.

3)  Just how accurate are those ultra-sensitive satellites that they can pick out Sierra lakes from the ground clutter?  Sensor beams expand as they travel from space. 

Perhaps some of really smart people who come here with the back ground and experiences can help me answer these questions? Thanks!

 

OMG: A bottom up approach to solving a problem that does not exist.

Russ Steele

Our local lefty, masquerading as middle of the road blogger, is supporting the idea that the future of our world is being threatened by global warming, and to support his case he uses an editorial in the San Diego Union-Tribune: World must act on global warming

In an editorial on Sunday, the San Diego Union-Tribune agrees that California can be a leader with a bottom-up approach.

“The severity of climate change, and the need to do something about it, is well-understood in San Diego and throughout California.

As we keep reading,  we learn that the Editorial Board is just a bunch of warmers who have been drinking the global warming cool aid for a long time.

This editorial page has long accepted the science that shows global warming is real, that it is at least in part a result of man-made pollutants in the atmosphere and that something must be done about it.

The Editorial Board goes on pointing to a study by the San Diego Foundation on all the bad things that global warming will bring to San Diego.

The San Diego Foundation recently did a comprehensive regional assessment of climate change impacts to San Diego County. The foundation estimated that by 2050 local sea levels will rise 18 inches if no changes are made in global carbon dioxide gas emissions. This would flood many areas of Mission Beach and other low-lying areas of our coastline.

There is more unadulterated carp in the study, but for now lets just focus in the sea level rise. Art Horn, a Meteorologist, writes in The Crown Jewel of Global Warming is a Fake at ICECAP:

In its latest 2007 climate assessment report number 4 the IPCC states that sea level increased at a rate of about 13.5 inches during the 20th century. This number is considerably higher than the 6.7 inch per century rate derived from tidal gauges around the world. David Burton found the rate of rise from tide gauges to be only 2.4 inches per century. Data from the TOPEX/Poseidon satellite mission launched in 1992 indicated a 12.2 inch per century rate based on data from 1993 to 2005.  In its latest report the IPCC has predicted sea level will rise as little as 7 inches to as much as 118 inches (ten feet) by the year 2100. Some are predicting much greater rises. Recently Fen Montaigne a senior editor at Yale Environment 360 wrote that if the west Antarctic ice sheet melts sea level will rise 16 to 20 feet. Al Gore is predicting a 20 foot sea level rise by 2100. Dr. James Hansen of NASAs Goddard Institute for Space Studies is predicting the possibility of an 82 foot rise by 2100. These frightening predictions are the crown jewel of the global warming establishment.
 

Is this an idea worth pursuing?

Russ Steele

When California goes bankrupt, rather than get a federal bail out should it be required to renounce state status and revert to being a territory?

This idea comes from a comment at the Volokh Conspiracy blog.  “Any law that lets states be bailed out should require them to renounce their state status and revert to being territories, to be reorganised by the federal government as new states. That has the advantage of getting rid of the old, dysfunctional, state government, removing the state and its inhabitants from national influence until they’ve had a chance to learn some wisdom, and being enough of a penalty to make bailouts unattractive to other states.”

Becoming a territory again could also create an opportunity for the citizens still remaining in the state to reorganize California into two or more states,  Coastal California and Sierra California.  Or, if you prefer, Northern California and Southern California.  It is clear in it's current configuration California has become ungovernable. In every crisis there is an opportunity.

Exit question: Is this an idea worth pursuing?

Should California reject strong conservatism for more RINOism?

Russ Steele

Once again the political hand wringers at Calbuzz are advising California Republicans to reject the Tea Party, stop opposing the Democrats tax and spend policies and to adopt the green job myth to save California's economy. Details at the Sierra Foothills Report.

The party’s fixation on opposing everything the Democrats propose is hurting Republicans more than it is their opponents. The GOP should take the lead in advocating an economic rebound strategy that relies on Silicon Valley innovation, green jobs and high-tech research and development. The party could integrate this with increased exports for a growing agricultural sector and a healthy and expanding service economy.”

On the other hand remember all the hand wringing by those those smart “conservative” pundits after the 2008 election, arguing that the GOP had to moderate or else risk extinction?

We can see how well that strategy worked out in California.  If you start the election with RINOs, you wind up with RINOs, and independent voters soundly rejected Arnold in a skirt, who was just another RINO of a different gender. 

While across the Nation strong conservatives were elected to the House of Representative in huge numbers, some pundits are saying the 2010 midterm wins are only going re-enforce a silly notion that Republican can win big in 2012 without changing their conservative stripes?  Really?

While the know it all Calbuzz pundits and Jeff P are arguing that changing demographics mean conservatism will eventually go the way of the dodo bird. They are contend the only way Republicans can win in California is to ignore what happened across the rest of the nation and capitulate to the Democratic reality that we can tax and  spending our way to prosperity.  Really?

My thinking is more in line with Congressman McClintock, that some of the best 2012 campaign sound and video bites will to be created by Gov. Jerry Brown’s performance over the next two years.  Under the thumb of the unions Brown will be unable to stop the spending. He will have to raise taxes, to pay for the run away spending. He will continue to support going green while Republican’s in the House are pulling the alternative energy subsides, resulting in soaring energy costs and the destruction of the California economy.

Those mean Republican’s in Washington will reign in the EPA by cutting of their funding and restore water to the Central Valley so that California farmers can actually grow and export more of the State's agricultural products as suggested above. But, we need to make sure that Republicans get the credit and the resulting hispanic vote for restoring prosperity to the Central Valley.

It is not impossible for Republicans to get more of the hispanic votes in California. CNN exit polls revealed that across the nation a robust 38% voted for House Republicans. It was 30% in 2006 and 29% in 2008.  Not huge, but headed in the right direction,  a trend that can be expanded on in 2012,  once it is clear that Brown and the Democrats cannot save California from economic destruction. 

Exit question: Should Republican's follow the Tea Party Patriots to success, or try to be more like tax and spend Democrats?

Warming or not warming -- only the computers knows.

Russ Steele

We learn from the UK Met Office in this article in the Uk Mirror that: World warming faster than originally thought, Met Office claims
       
The world is warming faster than originally thought, the Met Office claimed yesterday.

Scientists say new ways of measuring tell-tale temperature fluctuations on the surface of the oceans show scientists have under-estimated climate change by 0.03C.

Then we have consider this from Watts Up With That: Examination of CRU data suggests no statistically significant warming 

A. J. Strata has been looking at the raw data and finds no significant warming.  It appears to be the data processing that is causing the warming.

I have been working on this post for about a week now, testing a hypothesis I have regarding the raw temp data vs the overly processed CRU, GISS, NCDC, IPCC results (the processed data shows dramatic global warming in the last century). I have been of the opinion the raw temp data tells a different, cooler story than the processed data. My theory is alarmists’ results do not track well with the raw data, and require the merging of unproven and extremely inaccurate proxy data to open the error bars and move the trend lines to produce the desired result.

ooo

People have found actual CRU code that does this, and it does it by smearing good temp data with inaccurate proxy data (in this case the tree rings) or hard coded adjustments. The second method used by alarmists is to just drop those inconvenient current temps showing global cooling, which has also been clearly discovered in the CRU data dump.

I have been attempting to compensate for the lack of raw temperature data by using the country-by-country graphs dumped with data from University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (CRU). The file is named idl_cruts3_2005_vs_2008b.pdf, which tells me this is the latest version of the CRU raw temp data run in prep for a new release of the latest data (the PDF file was created in July 2009).

I am very confident this data is prior to the heavy handed corrections employed by CRU and its cohorts. The fact is you can see a lot of interesting and telling detail in the graphs. Much of the Pacific Ocean data has been flipped since 2005 trying to correct prior errors and you can see the 2008 data trend way downward in most of the graphs. In addition, the 1930′s-1940′s warm periods have not been squelched yet. The alarmists have not had a chance to ‘clean up’ this data for the general public (which is one reason I think it was in the dump).

You can read the complete analysis by A.J. Strata here.

Exit Question:  Should be beleive the raw data, or data massaged by rent seeking scientist that have a vested interest in promoting global warming?  

 

Over the e-mail transom: The Cost of CARB!

Russ Steele

Up here on Banner Lava Cap we have been out of power for days. Some of us on the mountain have lived here for years and know how important a emrgency generator can be to our quality of life in the winter.  Newcomers are just learning that important lesson. A regular reader of this blog sent me this e-mail:

After the recent power outages, a young couple across the street from me asked for my help in selecting a portable generator to power the essentials in their home during a power outage.
 
I felt 3500 watts would do the trick.  Looking at Home Depot on-line, Husky model HU3650 was listed at $500.  But, alas. It is not available for sale in California.  However, for $600 they can get the same exact same unit, model HU36511 which is CARB approved.  Looking through the specifications, both models are the same.  Except the CARB approved model has a sealed gas reservoir cap for that additional $100.
 
My neighbors called Home Depot in Reno and they have 6, $500 units on the shelf. My neighbors are heading over the rocks to Reno this weekend.

In a follow up e-mail we learn that the CARB approved gas cap on the generator has a check valve in it that allows air in to the gas tank to prevent the tank from creating a vaccume as fuel is consumed, while not allowing fumes to escape.

The extremely dangerous non CARB approved cap has a pin hole in the cap without the check valve allowing fumes from the tank to escape. The sad part is Husky can charge an additional $100 for a 50 cent plastic check valve, claiming a recoup of costs from going through the CARB approval process.

Reality is that Husky may have some costs  to recover, after hearing about the costly testing and certification process that CARB is putting Anthony Watts through to certify the imported electric cars he is wants to sell in California. That certification maybe costing him years of future profits.  The "electric vehicles" have to complete a CARB prescribed testing cycle to insure his electric vehcles will not produce CO2 or particulates. No, really.

Exit question:  What kind of expensive testing did Husky have to do to certify that a 50 cent plactic check valve will not pollute the air?

How far are we from an economic recover?

Russ Steele

Before we can hope for any recovery, we need to see how far the economy has fallen. It seems that many economic statistics just keep getting worse every single year. Below are 11 statistics that reveal just how far the U.S. economy has fallen over the past four years from the Daily Market . . .

#1 In November 2006, the “official” U.S. unemployment rate was 4.5 percent.  Today, the “official” U.S. unemployment rate has been at 9.5 percent or greater for more than a year.

#2 At Thanksgiving back in 2006, 26 million Americans were on food stamps.  Today, there are over 42 million Americans on food stamps and that number is climbing rapidly.

#3 According to the U.S. Census Bureau, median household income in the United States fell from $51,726 in 2008 to $50,221 in 2009.  Median household income declined the year before that too.  Meanwhile, prices have continued to rise throughout that period.

#4 At the end of the third quarter in 2006, 47 banks were on the FDIC “problem list”.  At the end of the third quarter in 2010, 860 banks were on the FDIC “problem list”.

#5 California home builders began construction on 1,811 homes during the month of August, which was down 77% from August 2006.

#6 In 2006, new home sales in the United States were near record highs.  In 2010, new home sales in the United States are at record lows as the following graph from Calculated Risk demonstrates….

#7 A recent survey of last year’s college graduates found that 80 percent moved right back home with their parents after graduation.  That was up substantially from 63 percent in 2006.

#8 According to one analysis, the United States has lost a total of 10.5 million jobs since 2007.

#9 In 2006, the Social Security program took in somewhere in the neighborhood of 100 billion more dollars than it paid out.  Of course the U.S. government spent all that money instead of setting it aside.  So now more U.S. retirees than ever are ready to start drawing on Social Security and a “tipping point” is rapidly coming.  Social Security will pay out more in benefits in 2010 than it receives in payroll taxes.  This was not supposed to happen until at least 2015, and the years ahead look very, very grim….

#10 The U.S. government’s debt ceiling has been raised six times since the beginning of 2006.

#11 In 2006, the U.S. national debt was getting close to 9 trillion dollars.  Today, the U.S. national debt is well past 13 trillion dollars and is rapidly closing in on 14 trillion dollars.

Exit Question: Is there much hope for an economic turnaround any time soon?

Source is Daily Markets

Update: A regular reader thought this might be an appropiate graphic for this posts. What do you think?

More peer-reviewed evidence that sun and cosmic rays impact Earth's climate

Russ Steele

Graphic from JoAnn Nova

Here is the papers abstract: Cosmic rays linked to rapid mid-latitude cloud changes
B. A. Laken , D. R. Kniveton, and M. R. Frogley
Abstract. The effect of the Galactic Cosmic Ray (GCR) flux on Earth’s climate is highly uncertain. Using a novel sampling approach based around observing periods of significant cloud changes, a statistically robust relationship is identified between short-term GCR flux changes and the most rapid mid-latitude (60°–30° N/S) cloud decreases operating over daily timescales; this signal is verified in surface level air temperature (SLAT) reanalysis data. A General Circulation Model (GCM) experiment is used to test the causal relationship of the observed cloud changes to the detected SLAT anomalies. Results indicate that the anomalous cloud changes were responsible for producing the observed SLAT changes, implying that if there is a causal relationship between significant decreases in the rate of GCR flux (~0.79 GU, where GU denotes a change of 1% of the 11-year solar cycle amplitude in four days) and decreases in cloud cover (~1.9 CU, where CU denotes a change of 1% cloud cover in four days), an increase in SLAT (~0.05 KU, where KU denotes a temperature change of 1 K in four days) can be expected. The influence of GCRs is clearly distinguishable from changes in solar irradiance and the interplanetary magnetic field. However, the results of the GCM experiment are found to be somewhat limited by the ability of the model to successfully reproduce observed cloud cover. These results provide perhaps the most compelling evidence presented thus far of a GCR-climate relationship. From this analysis we conclude that a GCR-climate relationship is governed by both short-term GCR changes and internal atmospheric precursor conditions.

More details and discussion at Watts Up With That, full paper is here.  In a comment at WUWT the author makes it very clear that, while there may be a connection between the sun, cosmic rays and clouds, climate researchers cannot turn their back on anthropogenic warming research funding sources.  Ben Laken writes in the comments:

Firstly, I would say (and I sure I speak for my co-authors Dom and Mick also here), this work does not comment on global warming and it should not be interpreted to cast doubt on recent anthropogenic warming. What it does, is rather establish that there may be good evidence of a Cosmic Ray – cloud signal detectable in satellite observations of clouds, which has traditionally been a very murky area as over the last 10 or so years, published work in this area has dealt with small sample sizes, and observations of limited statistical significance.

So, the important thing here is that it finds interesting evidence to suggest that this complicated element of (theoretical) natural atmospheric variability, may be operating.

Anthony is right, this opens the door for more research and more analysis of existing data.  Watch these speakers at the 3rd International Climate Conference in Berlin, Dec. 3-4, 2010:

• Prof. Dr. Henrik Svensmark, Denmark, Atmospheric Sciences
• Prof. Dr. Nir Shaviv, Israel, Astrophysicist
• Prof. Dr. Jan Veizer, Canada, Paleo-geologist

P Gosselin at http://notrickszone.com/ will be attending and reporting. Stay Tuned

Global Warming Skeptics Ascend in Congress

Russ Steele

Jim Snyder and Kim Chipman write that cap-and-trade may be just the first casualty of the new science-doubters in the House and Senate. Read the full article here.  They write,  the bottom line is numerous global-warming skeptics taking office in the next Congress will try to undo President Obama's environmental initiatives.

While that is good news on the national scene, in California the Air Resources Board continues to plunge forward with the implementation of AB32, which includes a cap and trade scheme to squeeze carbon fees from consumers.  Alos, the low carbon fuel standard will go into effect in January 2011, driving up the cost of fuel by 30-80 % over time.

The other good news is that the Republican House leadership have indicated the plan on ending subsidies for wind and solar, making it nearly impossible for CARB to reach it's mandated 33% alternative energy goals.  The Venture Capital community was planning on those subsides to make wind and solar profitable. If the profit making subsides go way, so will the VCs and anymore huge solar and wind projects.

In the 1970s and early 1980s we saw high interest in wind energy, with many small inefficient wind turbines on the hills surrounding San Francisco. Once the wind energy subsides expired, many of the turbines fell into disrepair. This could happen again, when the federal subsidies vanish, creating more blight on the landscape. Energy companies have build thousands of monuments to anthropogenic global warming all across the hill tops in California to remind us of CARB's duplicity. Who will be responsible for removing these bird shredders when it becomes clear that human caused global warming was a United Nations hoax. As one of the IPCC Report Co-Chairs recently admitted, AGW was not about the science, it was about wealth distribution.

Keep an eye on the next round of UN IPCC climate talks in Cancun, Mexico, on Nov. 29, set for 12 days of fruitless negociations. The science will be given the short shift, with an emphasis on economic issues. The director of policy planning for UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon,  Robert Orr told reporters in New York that while “expectations for Copenhagen were huge, we are at a different point today.” As no broad-based accord will be reached, the “order of the day is pragmatism” and negotiators should “make progress where we can on the issues we can,” he said.

Since the Copenhagen Confrence failed to renew the Kyoto Protocol, negociation emphasis has been on forest protection, climate aid and technology sharing. These are more money issues than about saving the planet from AGW.  Without full Congressional support for the UN climate change hoax, it will be difficult for President Obama’s team to make greenhouse reduction commitments,  and to sign American Taxpayers up for another round of wealth distribution.  Stay tuned, I will be following Cancun developments.

Prop 23 Update: So you want to open a trucking business in California

Russ Steele

Hillarious parody of CARB’s punitive attitude toward California job creators.  Watch a trucker go to Mary Nichols to try to open a business, only to become so frustrated with her that he asks her if she is “completely retarded” while she insists that she is a “very big deal” who is “trying to save the world.”

H/T to Suspend AB32.org