Friday, November 30, 2007

The Fix is in - Adjusting the Records to Fit the Theory

What do Chantal, Erin, Gabrielle, Ingrid, and Melissa all have in common with Jerry? No this isn't a dating compatibility test. All these names belong to storms that some say didn't deserve names, that is, they weren't really tropical storms.

The above storms may have reached winds of 39mph, but the central pressure, which is another measure of the intensity of a storm, would have classified them as just depressions and not tropical storms.

There appears to be a rush to name storms these days, according to Neil Frank, a former director of the National Hurricane Center. Interviewed for this story in the Houston Chronicle, Frank said "This year, I would put at least four storms in a very questionable category, and maybe even six."

Chantal is the cluster of clouds off the U.S. east coast in the top right side of this satellite image

Why is this important? Because the number of tropical storms that are named is part of the historical record. In order to show that there is increased storm activity due to global warming, you must have more storms. In the past, none of the storms mentioned above would have been given a name. Chantal formed outside of the tropics and wouldn't even have been classified as a tropical storm.

There has already been an effort underway to prove that there weren't more storms that we didn't record due to the lack of technology, now there is the current effort to make sure we record more storms than ever. This will allow the global warming alarmists to quote the false statistics as proof that global warming is increasing the number of tropical storms and hurricanes.

But we can see where this is going. To argue that we didn't miss storms before the advent of satellite technology so that the historical numbers are not underestimated, and then to argue that the use of said technology is exactly what is allowing us to name more storms than ever before is the kind of logic-bending and science-skewing that goes on all the time in the name of global warming proof.

Wednesday, November 28, 2007

Jakarta Floods Not Global Warming

The AP is again reporting on global warming. This time they are citing Jakarta's Environment Minister, Rachmat Witoelar's declaration that global warming is at least partially to blame for the current flooding situation in that city.

If I were the environment minister, I would seek to blame global warming myself. The city is plagued with garbage that clogs sewage systems as well as unbridled construction and development of areas that previously served as water catchments. Add to this the fact that 40% of Jakarta is below sea level and that the government did not repair a broken sea wall and you start to get the picture. Rapid deforestation of areas for more development have destroyed natural breakwaters between the sea and the land. What a relief for the environment minister to have global warming as a popular scapegoat, an excuse that will not be questioned, especially as the UN climate change conference which will be held in Indonesia next week will find it extraordinarily convenient to their purpose.

Jakarta has always experienced annual flooding during the time of the wet season, which runs October to February. Last February, flooding from torrential rain caused rivers to overflow and 60% of Jakarta was underwater. There is rarely a year without flooding. Did the AP article mention that it is raining in Jakarta right now? No.

This photo is not of Jakarta today, it's from last February. Flooding like this has happened many times in the past and gets worse as the drainage problems are not dealt with. Flooding was as bad in February 2002, and in 1996 and so on. However, last February, global warming wasn't to blame as "Environment Minister Rachmat Witoelar said the main reason for the flooding of Jakarta was the elimination of water catchment areas following the construction of large numbers of buildings."

The truth is that sea levels haven't risen. Land mismanagement and the failure of the government to stem deforestation, rampant construction of buildings in water catchment areas and devise a system for proper waste disposal has led to a crisis in the drainage problem. For Jakarta, flooding is inevitable, with or without global warming.

Tuesday, November 27, 2007

Michael Mann's New Stick

One of the predicted consequences of global warming is that hurricanes and tropical storms will become more frequent, more intense and more deadly. In fact, they contend that this is happening now. But hurricane experts like Chris Landsea explain that storms go in cycles and that poor data on the number of tropical storms prior to the development of technology to track them, leads many to underestimate the number of these storms. To add to the global warming alarmist's misery, is the pitiful number of hurricanes over the last two years.

So, what to do about the missing data that's needed to support the contention that global warming is causing increased hurricane activity? Why supply it, of course. Hence, this report out of Penn State that claims that the estimates of tropical storms prior to the advent of airplanes and radar and satellites have not been undercounted. They have a computer model that tells them so.

The computer model tells them that they haven't underestimated the number of storms prior to 1944, and supports the theory that storm activity has increased due to warming oceans. This becomes less surprising when you realize that Michael E. Mann, director of the Earth System Science Center, and associate professor of meteorology at Penn State, is one of the three researchers who released the report in the current issue of Geophysical Letters.

Mann, as you probably know, is the inventor of the famed "hockey stick" graph. His graph featured prominently in global warming propaganda until it was proved to be inaccurate. In order to show a global average temperature that was consistent until it suddenly shot up due to human industrial activity (thus forming the hockey stick shape) it was found that the computer model dismissed any temperature data that didn't fit the hockey stick shape. Gone were the "little ice age" and the medieval warming period - deleted from history.

So, is it surprising that Mann has now stated conclusively, based on a computer model utilizing storm data for the last sixty years (years that were after the increase in carbon emissions due to human activity) that he is quite sure of how many storms occurred before that time?

The problem, of course, is that no one can be sure of storms there are no evidence of. Prior to modern tracking methods, the only storms that were recorded were those that made landfall or were recorded by ships. One of the reasons that the Great Hurricane of 1938 caused so much devastation and took so many lives is that ships had put into shore, having had warnings of gale winds. No one knew the storm had intensified as it had, no one knew which direction it was tracking or that it was on a collision course with Long Island and the New England coastline. They didn't know until it slammed into the coast, washing away houses, buildings and 682 people.

On the other hand, had the storm tracked out to sea and eventually dissipated over cold North Atlantic waters, no one would have ever known that it was a raging, intense hurricane capable of such destruction. It would have been undercounted.

We are asked, nevertheless, to have faith once again in computer models, for computer models is pretty much all that is left to support the anthropogenic global warming theory. As hurricane forecasts disappoint with scarcer storms, *global average temperatures start to fall and Arctic ice melts are blamed on ocean current oscillations that are naturally occurring, it gets harder to shore up the theory that time will eventually prove wrong. I hope we can keep them from destroying the world before that happens.

*US satellite figures show temperatures have fallen since 1998, declining in 2007 to a 1983 level

Sunday, November 25, 2007

No Room in Bali for UN Jets

If you were going to a UN conference to discuss climate change, could you pick a more beautiful spot than Bali? According to the UNFCCC the reason that Bali was chosen is because it has already experienced extreme weather events that signal the impending disasters that global warming is bringing. We are assuming they mean the high winds of a couple of weeks ago, due to a passing storm system. To my knowledge, there has been no evidence that the winds were caused by global warming. So there must be another reason for their choice.

Could it be the 31°C year-round temperature, beautiful beaches, local art and culture that draws them to this island paradise? No, for surely they would not suggest that serious-minded global warming-conscious leaders occasion the huge carbon emissions from jets simply for an island getaway. Which leads to another problem. Bali's airport doesn't have enough room for all those dignitaries' jet planes. According to this report at , the VIP delegations won't be able to park their jets at Bali's airport.

(11/3/2007) Tempo Interaktif reports that Angkasa Pura - the management of Bali's Ngurah Rai International Airport are concerned that the large number of additional private charter flights expected in Bali during the UN Conference on Climate Change (UNFCCC) December 3-15, 2007, will exceed the carrying capacity of apron areas. To meet the added demand for aircraft storage officials are allocating "parking space" at other airports in Indonesia.

The operational manager for Bali's Airport, Azjar Effendi, says his 3 parking areas can only accommodate 15 planes, which means that some of the jets used by VIP delegations will only be allowed to disembark and embark their planes in Bali with parking provided at airports in Surabaya, Lombok, Jakarta and Makassar.

Saturday, November 24, 2007

Poor, Elderly to Suffer Most from Global Warming Legislation

As usual, while bemoaning the state of the environment and quaking in their political shoes should they not be perceived as doing enough about global warming, politicians like Barbara Boxer are closing their eyes to the substantial financial burden that legislation to adopt carbon mandates without enacting polices to increase domestic energy supplies will cause hard-working Americans.

At today's Environment and Public Works Committee hearing, several Senators called for more time to review and analyze the economic impacts of the Lieberman-Warner global warming cap-and-trade bill. Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA), the chair of EPW, rejected such calls saying no more time or analysis was needed to mark up the bill (S.2191).Nov 15, 2007

Yet analysis of the Leiberman-Warner bill by the Energy Information Administration (EIA) shows that energy costs for both consumers and employers will zoom. The hardest hit will be the working class, the elderly and the poor.

Here's an example:

*Higher natural gas use means natural gas prices are 41 to 53 percent higher in 2030 than business as usual projections.

*Electricity prices in 2030 are between 34 to 40 percent higher than business as usual projections.

in testimony before the EPW Committee last week, Dr. Anne Smith of Charles River Associates International said the Lieberman bill would cause welfare losses of $4 to $7 trillion between 2010 and 2050.

Al Gore's 20-room mansion uses more energy in one month than the average American does in one year. Be assured that he is among the few who will be able to continue this level of consumption if legislation like this passes. The rest of us won't be able to afford the little we manage to pay for now.


Tuesday, November 20, 2007

Offsetting Utah

The Department of Energy plans to spend $67 million dollars to pump carbon dioxide into rock formations in Utah as a way to contain the greenhouse gas and keep out of the atmosphere.

CO2 will be compressed and then injected 5000 feet below the surface into muddy layers of rock. Geologists know that these rock formations can hold C02; until 1979 they pumped CO2 out of a large underground pool of it to make dry ice and soda drinks.

Whether these measures will have any effect on the climate remains to be seen. What they will do is create a new industry. They will also raise the value of property in these areas. It's interesting that while the global warming alarmists are lambasting large corporations who, in their opinion, have become pollution-creating, climate-destroying creatures of greed, that there is plenty of money to be made from the scare and guilt-mongering of global warming theory. Everyone from the guy selling carbon offsets to neutralize your cat's carbon pawprints to new industries that promise to bury CO2 where it will never hurt you is bound to make a buck.

Friday, November 16, 2007

Hurricanes Cause Global Warming

Gore's assertion that Katrina was fueled by global warming has been generally disputed and rejected by nearly all hurricane experts (as well as a high court justice in the UK). On top of that, the past two hurricane seasons have fallen far short of even average and have definitely not lived up to the predictions that the out of control temperature increases of global warming would increase hurricane frequency. Thus, it becomes harder and harder for global warming alarmists to find current evidence to support their dire pronouncements.

However, with a new twist on it, Katrina can still be a herald call to the global warming camp. A new study of NASA data shows that forests in the gulf coast were damaged by Katrina, thus diminishing their carbon-absorption as well as releasing the carbon dioxide they held into the atmosphere and ...(drum roll please) Ta da! contributing to global warming.

So if we can't blame the hurricane on global warming, we can blame global warming on the hurricane. It's all good.

Wednesday, November 14, 2007

Arctic Oscillations to Blame, Not Global Warming

A NASA press release yesterday reveals that university researchers and a team from NASA have detected an ongoing reversal in Arctic Ocean circulation that may be responsible for many of the changes in the Arctic currently being blamed on global warming. The reversal in ocean circulation is triggered by atmospheric circulation changes that vary on decade-long time scales.

"Our study confirms many changes seen in upper Arctic Ocean circulation in the 1990s were mostly decadal in nature, rather than trends caused by global warming," said James Morison of the University of Washington's Polar Science Center Applied Physics Laboratory, Seattle. "While some 1990s climate trends, such as declines in Arctic sea ice extent, have continued, these results suggest at least for the 'wet' part of the Arctic -- the Arctic Ocean -- circulation reverted to conditions like those prevalent before the 1990s," he added.

The Arctic Oscillation was fairly stable until about 1970, but then varied on more or less decadal time scales, with signs of an underlying upward trend, until the late 1990s, when it again stabilized. During its strong counterclockwise phase in the 1990s, the Arctic environment changed markedly, with the upper Arctic Ocean undergoing major changes that persisted into this century. Many scientists viewed the changes as evidence of an ongoing climate shift, raising concerns about the effects of global warming on the Arctic.

Morison said data gathered by Grace and the bottom pressure gauges since publication of the paper earlier this year highlight how short-lived the ocean circulation changes can be. The newer data indicate the bottom pressure has increased back toward its 2002 level. "The winter of 2006-2007 was another high Arctic Oscillation year and summer sea ice extent reached a new minimum," he said. "It is too early to say, but it looks as though the Arctic Ocean is ready to start swinging back to the counterclockwise circulation pattern of the 1990s again."

Of course, the news being particularly damaging to the global warming propaganda machine, it comes with the warning that some computer models indicate that global warming might make these natural Arctic Oscillations stronger in the future.

Eco Credit Cards for Environmentally Safe Shopping

Because you're human it's important at times to have feel-good techniques to relieve your mind occasionally from the burden of being responsible for the impending destruction of our planet. When the UN's top climate official equates inaction on global warming to criminal irresponsibility, just driving your hybrid vehicle or filling the recycling bin isn't enough. It becomes even harder during this season of ultimate consumerism to assuage your feelings of culpability for the global warming that will soon engulf the planet and incinerate (or drown) the hopes for its future.

MBNA Canada Bank has come up with a solution that will fulfill your need for consumption of goods as well as the need to reduce your carbon footprint. Their new "green" credit card is the only environmentally sound way to do your Christmas shopping. For every $100 spent, they will buy 50 cents worth of carbon offsets. They do caution that they can't guarantee this will help the environment - since they don't know what consumers will be purchasing with the card, they can't say that their offsets will be sufficient.

Currently, this card is available only in Canada but it's sure to catch on. The Eco-Logique is sure to be a certifiable green hit with the most satisfying rewards system ever offered on a credit card.

Whether it actually helps the environment or has any impact on global warming is completely irrelevant. The card will make people "think" that they are helping the environment, and that's more important.

Monday, November 12, 2007

Obesity Causes Global Warming

The causes of global warming are varied enough to lay a guilty charge at the feet of every man, woman and child on the planet, which makes it the greatest political opportunity of all time in terms of social engineering.

The newest culprit in global warming is obesity.. Yes, that's right. Fat people cause global warming.

Because the APHA (American Public Health Association) intends to link obesity with global warming, soon it won't just be people driving gas guzzling vehicles or corporations spewing pollutants into the air who will be under fire. Soon, just carrying extra weight will cause the fiery finger of global warming to point at you.

Already we have been informed that cars carrying fat people use more gasoline. More fossil fuel emissions, more global warming. Maybe one day cars will weigh the occupant with a cleverly installed scale built into the seat and reject those whose weight exceeds a preset limit.

But at least one leading environmentalist calculates that walking is more injurious to the atmosphere than driving. Exercise requires fuel, and for a human that relates to the amount of calories consumed. Chris Goodall, author of How to Live a Low-Carbon Life maintains that food production is so energy-intensive that it creates more carbon emissions to provide those calories than it does to simply get in the car and drive.

Thursday, November 8, 2007

Weather Channel Founder Calls Global Warming a Scam

John Coleman, founder of The Weather Channel, sounds off about the Global Warming scam at ICECAP. In the article Coleman says that because of "natural cycles and drifts in climate" that the next twenty years could as easily see a cooling trend as a warming trend.

Here's an excerpt:

It is the greatest scam in history. I am amazed, appalled and highly offended by it. Global Warming; It is a SCAM. Some dastardly scientists with environmental and political motives manipulated long term scientific data to create an allusion of rapid global warming...

I have read dozens of scientific papers. I have talked with numerous scientists. I have studied. I have thought about it. I know I am correct. There is no run away climate change. The impact of humans on climate is not catastrophic. Our planet is not in peril.

Read the full article at:

Monday, November 5, 2007

Skeptic Talks About His Nobel Prize

If you haven't read John Christy's piece in the Wall Street Journal, you should. Christy explains that as a contributor to the IPCC report, he is also part winner of the Nobel Peace Prize. But Christy explains that he is just one of many scientists who don't see global warming as the catastrophic threat to life on our planet that Al Gore claims it is. The full article is open to subscribers only, but I did note they are offering two free weekks with if you sign up for a subscription. You can read an excerpt here.

It reminds us that there are other scientists, whose expertise and knowledge was sought out by the IPCC but whose bottom-line opinion on athropogenic global warming doesn't match that of the official opinion expressed in the Summary for Policymakers (which as we know, was edited and compiled mostly by bureaucrats and not scientists). Chris Landsea, prominent expert on hurricanes and North Atlantic hurricanes particularly, resigned from the IPCC (read his open letter to the IPCC here) when he realized that the official statements regarding increased hurricane activity being a result of global warming was not supported by the data. Had he not resigned, he could have had his own 0.0001 piece of the Nobel Prize.

Thursday, November 1, 2007

Birthday Parties that Don't Cause Global Warming

The question used to be "Can Johnny read?" when society's focus was on educating children in the basics. Nowadays, it might be "Does Johnny recycle?". Probably not Johnny, though. In this politically correct environment, there are no male children. When was the last time you read a parenting article where the child was not referred to as "she"? More importantly, she would probably be named something more environmentally-conscious like "Ocean" or "Sky".

When your children get to school, they will be taught about the disappearing rainforest and thoroughly warned that the Earth probably won't be here long enough for them to grow up. But there's no reason to wait until they are school age, you can start scaring educating your children about global warming and living the carbon neutral life while they are yet toddlers.

How about throwing them a low carbon impact birthday party as this Essential Baby article suggests? Just because you had toys as a kid is no reason to pass on your profligate ways to your children. Kids will grow up with a healthy conscience, knowing that you didn't allow them to have those environmentally-damaging, colorful, plastic toys that every other kid on the block and in their pre-school has. No kid wants to be responsible for the destruction of the planet his parents live on.

This eco-friendly cake won't spew smoke from burning candles into the atmosphere

The most frightening thing about this article, is the violence in the language regarding the eco-horror toys that a child receives as presents, the ones that make his parents "cringe". We are told one toy "vomits" a catchphrase (it talks) when you "throttle" it (press a button on its neck). Strangling the toy is the bit that appears to appeal most to the adult author of this article. Being environmentally friendly seems to make people cranky.

How about the parents who made their daughter a play stove out of an old beer carton? Is encouraging the consumption of alcoholic beverages preferable to allowing them to play with plastic toys? I am sure it's alright though, surely they teach her to recycle the bottles. Of course, if they wanted to be totally environmentally responsible, they wouldn't have children at all and stop littering the planet with more pesky humans that will lead to the earth's ultimate demise.

I agree with the idea that kids are better off with toys that do less and require more imagination. Encouraging children to supply the animation and creativity in playtime is greatly to be encouraged. But choosing toys that foster creativity should be for the child's development and not to satisfy and soothe the conscience of adult parents who have already consumed their share of childhood fun.