hcubed's WunderBlog

Well-funded information campaigns.
Posted by: hcubed, 1:59 AM GMT on February 27, 2012 +0
Since the heart of the matter between Heartland and Gleik appeared to be, a "...frustration with the ongoing efforts — often anonymous, well-funded, and coordinated...", then the funding that Heartland gets needs to be seen in context.

From here:

Link

"...The Funding Imbalance

Richard North at the EU Referendum blog provides some interesting comment regarding funding.

While the warmists are successfully focusing attention on the minor-league operations of the Heartland Institute, with a total budget for all its issues, which include health care, education, and technology policy, of around $4.4 million, their own funding arrangements, amounting to hundreds of millions of dollars, are largely evading scrutiny..."

"...The Climate Works Foundation, though, is of special interest as it was in 2008, awarded $460,800,000 from the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, a grant-making organisation with assets of $7.2 billion, which disbursed $353,400,000 in grants in 2011. It has made another grant to Climate Works only last week of $100 million – bringing the total grants to this organisation to just short of $600 million.

Where such huge funding is devoted to global warming advocacy, and policy development, there must indeed be a distortion of the democratic process, especially where politicians are also being paid. These organisations must come clean about the sources of their money, and provide exact details of how much is paid to which organisations, for what purposes.

Note that the latest grant of $100 million was made on the day after the hippies got all hot under the collar about Heartland's 'huge' annual budget of $4.4 million..."

I wonder just how "open" the The Climate Works Foundation is about THEIR funding.

Check for yourselves: Link

"...The ClimateWorks Foundation was launched in 2008 with the support of three foundations: The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, The McKnight Foundation, and The David and Lucile Packard Foundation..."

Three foundations.

1. The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation. Using their website, they have a chart here that shows, since 2003, they given 671 Environment grants to 171 groups, totaling $813,052,260.

Of this, $487,025,937 went to Climate Change/Global warming.

There were only three recipients for these funds:

Climate Works Foundation $481,505,182

European Climate Foundation $4,970,755

California Climate Action Registry $550,000

2. The David and Lucile Packard Foundation has worked with partners around the world to improve the lives of children, families, and communities—and to restore and protect our planet.

They've also donated to the ClimateWorks Foundation:

2010 $46,757,793

2009 $40,400,000

Makes their total so far: $568,662,975 ($87,157,793 plus $481,505,182).

Lets look at their third funder, The McKnight Foundation.

Two grants here - one in 2010 for $26,000,000, and another in 2008 for $16,000,000.

So since the ClimateWorks Foundation started, their three funders have "granted" them a total of $610,662,975.

Over 610 million dollars since 2008. About 150 mil per year.

How much was Heartland's funding again? $4,638,323.

That means that the ClimateWorks Foundation's annual funding is about 37x greater than the Heartland Institute.

And STILL they talk about the well-funded "Manufactured Doubt industry".

Show me ONE denialist org that got 610 million dollars since 2008 (or gets more that 150 million ANNUALLY) for their cause.
Updated: 2:36 AM GMT on February 29, 2012   Permalink | A A A
...and the counters rejoice...
Posted by: hcubed, 1:42 PM GMT on February 24, 2012 +0
Dr Masters introduced a new "counter" database - one that, as it's stated:

"...The Record Extremes page will give you the option to see U.S. and international records on a map and table. You can select any combination of record types at once, which, combined with the map, provides a interesting visual way to investigate record-setting events. The product uses data from three sources: (1) NOAA's National Climate Data Center, (2) Wunderground's U.S. records, and (3) Wunderground's International records..."

So let's do the first "counter" listing.

Using the data source as the NCDC Records (U.S. only), setting the date range from Jan 1 1890 to current, and selecting just 2 metrics, here's the result:

All time highs: 499

All time lows: 494

Seems well distributed. But one problem is going to pop up real quickly - it limits the answer to 500 only.

Let the counting begin...
  Permalink | A A A
Is the number one metric actually worth anything, part 3
Posted by: hcubed, 3:00 AM GMT on February 19, 2012 +0
With this next post about Januaries in the US, I’ll examine the third metric the counters use – supposedly, each decade is warmer than the last, and gets progressively warmer.

With this one, we’ll actually use the WMO definition of a decade – one that ends in “0”.

So we’ll start the decade comparison with the first full decade – from 1901-1910. Adding up the years (313.0), dividing by 10, and we get an average of 31.3.

Next decade from 1911-1920 totaled 299.8, for an average of 29.98 – a DROP in average of 1.32 degrees.

Hmm – it seems that there WASN’T a rise in average. Maybe that was just a fluke.

So adding 1921-1930 gets a total of 302.3, and an average of 30.23. That’s better, we see a rise over the previous decade (but not enough to make up for the loss). Does it continue?

The years of 1931-1940 gave us a total of 315.2, and an average of 31.52. An increase in average of 1.29 (but only a 0.2 degree rise over the decade of 1901-1910). A full “climate cycle” of 30 years, and only a 0.22 degree rise.

Moving along to 1941-1950, totals of 309.8 and average of 30.98.

ANOTHER drop from the previous decade.

Next in line was 1951-1960. Here we see a 315.5 total, and a corresponding average of 31.55. A rise of 0.57 degrees. Compared to our start, however, only a .25 degree increase.

Sure aren’t seeing the meteoric rise that was predicted.

Move to the 1961-1970 period. The totals are: 295.7, avg 29.57.

Oh no – not ANOTHER drop – of 1.98 degrees. What’s happening to the Global Warming signal?

Don’t lose hope yet. Still a few decades to go.

Now, observe 1971 – 1980. 290.3, and average of 29.03. Another drop, and the second straight decade with an average COLDER that our start decade.

Moving on to 1981 – 1990. 316.4 total (and averaged at 31.64). FINALLY, an average increase. And a whole 0.34 degree higher than the start.

A quick recap.

1901 - 1910 (avg of 31.3).
1981 – 1990 (avg of 31.64).

90 years – three full “climate cycles”, and only a 0.34 degree rise.

Maybe the “current” years are worse.

Let’s look at 1991 – 2000. Totaled out at 323.3, averaged at 32.33. Now that’s better – for the counters. An actual increase in temp averages, by a whole 0.6 degrees over the previous decade (and above our starting decade by 1.03 degrees.

One more shot – from 2001 to 2010. The most current decade.

Moment of truth. This is where skeptics come in – looking at the data and reporting it, good or bad.

Here’s the total – 328.7, and average of 32.87.
So we do see an increase in the current decade’s average. And an increase over the start decade – by a whopping total 1.57 degrees.

So in one part, they’re right - the current decade is warmer than the last, and warmer than the start. And the rise in avg over the decades works out to 0.142 degrees per decade (1.57 divided by 11 decades).

But there HASN’T been a steady decade-to-decade rise – some decades were colder.

And that wasn’t supposed to happen...
  Permalink | A A A
When the Science isn't Enough...
Posted by: hcubed, 2:12 AM GMT on February 18, 2012 +0
Somebody remind me again just what the Scientific Method was all about again...

"...From: AAAS Office of Public Programs
To: [undisclosed recipients]
Sent: Fri, February 17, 2012 5:02:17 AM
Subject: Join Live Webcast from AAAS 2012 – Saturday, 18 February at 5 pm PST

View on mobile or on web page

Why do so many political leaders and citizens remain unconcerned about climate change, water scarcity, fisheries depletion, and a host of other science-related global challenges? Find out by joining us for a Webcast of the plenary panel Science Is Not Enough, featuring three of the world’s most knowledgeable and compelling science communicators during the 2012 AAAS Annual Meeting.

This exceptional Webcast—set for 5:00—6:30 p.m. PT on Saturday, February 18—will arm scientists, educators, students, and citizens around the world with messages to help influence public perceptions and debate when the science supporting a position is not enough to carry the argument..."

Press release here:

Link

As a recap, let's remind the AAAS (The American Association for the Advancement of Science) what scientists are SUPPOSED to do:

"...Scientific method refers to a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge.

To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.

The Oxford English Dictionary says that scientific method is: "a method or procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses."

The chief characteristic which distinguishes a scientific method of inquiry from other methods of acquiring knowledge is that scientists seek to let reality speak for itself, and contradict their theories about it when those theories are incorrect, i. e., falsifiability. Although procedures vary from one field of inquiry to another, identifiable features distinguish scientific inquiry from other methods of obtaining knowledge. Scientific researchers propose hypotheses as explanations of phenomena, and design experimental studies to test these hypotheses via predictions which can be derived from them. These steps must be repeatable, to guard against mistake or confusion in any particular experimenter. Theories that encompass wider domains of inquiry may bind many independently derived hypotheses together in a coherent, supportive structure. Theories, in turn, may help form new hypotheses or place groups of hypotheses into context.

Scientific inquiry is generally intended to be as OBJECTIVE as possible, to reduce biased interpretations of results. Another basic expectation is to document, archive and share all data and methodology so they are available for careful scrutiny by other scientists, giving them the opportunity to verify results by attempting to reproduce them. This practice, called full disclosure, also allows statistical measures of the reliability of these data to be established..."

So, according to The American Association for the Advancement of Science's latest push, they just have to find a way to get "the world’s most knowledgeable and compelling science communicators" to "help influence public perceptions and debate when the science supporting a position is not enough to carry the argument".

So exactly who are they listing as the "world’s most knowledgeable and compelling science communicators"?

"...The panelists include James Hansen, director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies and adjunct professor of earth and environmental sciences at Columbia University..."

Wonder how much he'll be paid for THIS gig - he's already a millionaire from his previous speaking engagements.

"...Olivia Judson, who explores the intersection of science and society, focusing on such controversial issues as the actuarial use of DNA and the potential to grow human organs. Dr. Judson has presented science issues on television many times, most recently when she appeared in an episode of PBS’s “Nova” about DNA connections to evolution. She has written a weekly blog on evolutionary biology for the New York Times website, called “The Wild Side.” She is currently a Research Fellow at Imperial College in London.

Hans Rosling, professor of international health at the Karolinska Institute and co-founder of the Gapminder Foundation..."

His claim to fame?

He's the "...co-founder of the Gapminder Foundation, which developed the Trendalyzer software for converting international statistics into moving, interactive, and enjoyable graphics. Dr. Rosling promotes a fact-based world view through increased use and understanding of freely accessible public statistics. He presented the television documentary “The Joy of Stats,” which was broadcast in the United Kingdom in 2010. He is currently Professor of International Health at the Karolinska Institute in Sweden..."

"...The panel will be moderated by Frank Sesno, former CNN Washington bureau chief and director of the School of Media and Public Affairs at George Washington University..."

So they're exploring ways to package the data, because, as they admitted, sometimes the science supporting a position is not enough to carry the argument.
Updated: 2:50 AM GMT on February 19, 2012   Permalink | A A A
Portions of the leaked Heartland docs forged.
Posted by: hcubed, 7:17 AM GMT on February 17, 2012 +0
From the doc:

"...The Tuesday release of leaked documents from a non-profit group active in attacking climate change science is creating a ruckus in the blogosphere, as reported by the New York Times..."

Reports are coming out about one section of the "leaked" documents being faked. Let the authorities deal with that.

The main thing that is coming out of this affair is the listing of monies paid to "denialist" groups and individuals.

Imagine that - Heartland paid out some money.

Yet there is more evidence about others on the "warmist" side.

A post at The Daily Bayonet on February 14th said it well, “What the Heartland documents show is how badly warmists have been beaten by those with a fraction of the resources they’ve enjoyed. Al Gore spent $300 million advertising the global warming hoax. Greenpeace, the WWF (World Wildlife Fund), the Sierra Club, the National Resources Defense Council, NASA, NOAA, the UN and nation states have collectively poured billions into climate research, alternative energies, and propaganda, supported along the way by most of the broadcast and print media..."

All those billions of dollars dumped into the warmist sites, and they're being beaten by a $44,000 donation to WUWT.

See what the money to Watts got: 104,244,478 views.

See what the money to RealClimate got: 15,514,100 views.

Who's winning?
  Permalink | A A A
Is the number one metric actually worth anything, part 2
Posted by: hcubed, 3:43 AM GMT on February 16, 2012 +0
I'll start this with a comment I received on the last post:

"...I'm just curious, seeing that it's global warming, why would you just look at US data and not include a global average?..."

The quick answer is simple: I based that entry on Dr. Masters recent posting stating that, in the U.S., January 2012 was the 4th warmest ever (well, since records began).

Made me wonder where the rest of the years fell.

So what else does the January data say?

Well, I looked at the entire record of Januaries – and traced how the “number one” changed through time.

The “warmists” will see the count, and say “See – the fact that, over the years, the value of the number one has increased shows Global Warming”. Of course, they’ve changed it to Climate Change, but that’s a different story.

There were seven changes in January number ones over the record.

So let’s flip it over. Let’s see if the COLDEST value has changed. If the theory is right, a constantly warming world would either show fewer or no changes in the COLDEST values.

Here’s the same list, flipped:
1 1979 22.6
2 1977 23.7
3 1930 24.3
4 1940 24.5
5 1918 24.6
6 1963 25.1
7 1912 25.5
8 1937 25.6
9 1978 26.4
10 1982 26.6
11 1985 26.8
12 1924 27.0
13 1949 27.0
14 1929 27.1
15 1966 27.1
16 1895 27.5
17 1922 27.6
18 1962 27.6
19 1905 27.8
20 1970 27.8
21 1957 27.9
22 1936 28.1
23 1904 28.3
24 1988 28.3
25 1948 28.7
26 1897 28.8
27 1916 28.9
28 1917 29.1
29 1915 29.2
30 1984 29.3
31 1968 29.5
32 1925 29.8
33 1969 29.8
34 1991 29.8
35 1920 29.9
36 1994 29.9
37 2011 29.9
38 1971 30.0
39 1943 30.2
40 1959 30.2
41 1960 30.2
42 1955 30.3
43 1973 30.3
44 1996 30.3
45 1961 30.4
46 1899 30.5
47 1910 30.5
48 1972 30.5
49 1976 30.5
50 1997 30.5
51 1942 30.6
52 2004 30.6
53 1902 30.8
54 1993 30.8
55 2008 30.8
56 2010 30.9
57 1926 31.1
58 1951 31.1
59 1913 31.2
60 1945 31.2
61 2009 31.2
62 1950 31.3
63 1898 31.4
64 1907 31.5
65 1954 31.6
66 1974 31.6
67 1903 31.7
68 1956 31.7
69 1980 31.7
70 2007 31.7
71 2001 31.8
72 1987 32.0
73 1935 32.2
74 1946 32.2
75 1896 32.3
76 1927 32.3
77 1932 32.3
78 1964 32.3
79 1965 32.4
80 1901 32.5
81 1958 32.5
82 1919 32.6
83 1947 32.6
84 1928 32.7
85 1952 32.8
86 1938 32.9
87 1944 32.9
88 1909 33.0
89 1975 33.0
90 1981 33.0
91 1941 33.1
92 1908 33.2
93 2003 33.2
94 1911 33.5
95 1983 33.6
96 2005 33.6
97 1906 33.7
98 1967 33.7
99 1995 33.7
100 1931 33.8
101 1992 34.1
102 2000 34.2
103 1989 34.4
104 1999 34.4
105 1939 34.8
106 1900 34.9
107 1921 35.1
108 1933 35.1
109 1986 35.2
110 2002 35.2
111 1914 35.3
112 1923 35.3
113 1998 35.6
114 1934 35.9
115 2012 36.3
116 1953 37.2
117 1990 37.2
118 2006 39.7

The current “leader” (the coldest January since the record started) is 1979, coming in at a bone-chilling 22.6 degrees.

The first “number one” was determined the same way – the lowest temp after the first decade (1895-1904). Here, the first number one coldest would have been 1895, with 27.5 degrees.

So, in order, our next “winner” appeared in 1912, taking the “record” down to 25.5 – a drop of 2 degrees.

From there, we next saw a decrease during 1918. The new record of 24.6 dropped the low record by 0.9 degrees.

And then came 1930, with its record of 24.3 degrees. Only a drop of 0.3 degrees this time.

It took a few years since a new “leader” appeared – 1977. Its record of 23.7 dropped the low by another 0.6 degrees.

After that, we see the latest leader, 1979.

Six lead changes, and a drop of 4.9 degrees in lows.

Two of them occurring since the latest "warming point", the mid seventies.

Compared to the high number ones (there were seven), and the variation in highs (4.8 degrees), you could say they pretty much even each other out.

Argue it how you want.
Updated: 3:56 AM GMT on February 16, 2012   Permalink | A A A
Is the number one metric actually worth anything?
Posted by: hcubed, 8:49 PM GMT on February 12, 2012 +0
There are those who observe weather.

There are those who study weather.

And there are those who count weather events, to try and prove some point – about how bad it is, and how much worse it’s gonna get.

The latest “count” involves Januaries, and how the latest one (2012) came in at number four on “the list”.

Which started a search – where was this elusive list?

Went to the source (NCDC) and looked at their database.

Downloaded to excel, sorted, and I present the 118 Januaries since records began (sorted by temps).

1 2006 39.7
2 1953 37.2
3 1990 37.2
4 2012 36.3
5 1934 35.9
6 1998 35.6
7 1914 35.3
8 1923 35.3
9 1986 35.2
10 2002 35.2
11 1921 35.1
12 1933 35.1
13 1900 34.9
14 1939 34.8
15 1989 34.4
16 1999 34.4
17 2000 34.2
18 1992 34.1
19 1931 33.8
20 1906 33.7
21 1967 33.7
22 1995 33.7
23 1983 33.6
24 2005 33.6
25 1911 33.5
26 1908 33.2
27 2003 33.2
28 1941 33.1
29 1909 33.0
30 1975 33.0
31 1981 33.0
32 1938 32.9
33 1944 32.9
34 1952 32.8
35 1928 32.7
36 1919 32.6
37 1947 32.6
38 1901 32.5
39 1958 32.5
40 1965 32.4
41 1896 32.3
42 1927 32.3
43 1932 32.3
44 1964 32.3
45 1935 32.2
46 1946 32.2
47 1987 32.0
48 2001 31.8
49 1903 31.7
50 1956 31.7
51 1980 31.7
52 2007 31.7
53 1954 31.6
54 1974 31.6
55 1907 31.5
56 1898 31.4
57 1950 31.3
58 1913 31.2
59 1945 31.2
60 2009 31.2
61 1926 31.1
62 1951 31.1
63 2010 30.9
64 1902 30.8
65 1993 30.8
66 2008 30.8
67 1942 30.6
68 2004 30.6
69 1899 30.5
70 1910 30.5
71 1972 30.5
72 1976 30.5
73 1997 30.5
74 1961 30.4
75 1955 30.3
76 1973 30.3
77 1996 30.3
78 1943 30.2
79 1959 30.2
80 1960 30.2
81 1971 30.0
82 1920 29.9
83 1994 29.9
84 2011 29.9
85 1925 29.8
86 1969 29.8
87 1991 29.8
88 1968 29.5
89 1984 29.3
90 1915 29.2
91 1917 29.1
92 1916 28.9
93 1897 28.8
94 1948 28.7
95 1904 28.3
96 1988 28.3
97 1936 28.1
98 1957 27.9
99 1905 27.8
100 1970 27.8
101 1922 27.6
102 1962 27.6
103 1895 27.5
104 1929 27.1
105 1966 27.1
106 1924 27.0
107 1949 27.0
108 1985 26.8
109 1982 26.6
110 1978 26.4
111 1937 25.6
112 1912 25.5
113 1963 25.1
114 1918 24.6
115 1940 24.5
116 1930 24.3
117 1977 23.7
118 1979 22.6

Looking at the list, we see that the spread of temps go from a low of 22.6 in 1979, to a high of 39.7 in 2006.

If you were to use that count, you’d say that we’ve seen a 17.1 degree rise in the past 27 years, for a linear rise of .63 degrees per year.

And suggest that this meteoric rise could continue.

Which just hasn’t happened.

As a matter of record, let’s see what happened since 2006.

2006 – 39.7 – Current number one.
2007 – 31.7 – Came in at number 52
2008 – 30.8 – Came in at number 66
2009 – 31.2 – Came in at number 60
2010 – 30.9 – Came in at number 63
2011 – 29.9 – Came in at number 84
2012 – 36.3 – Came in at number four.

Wow. With ever-increasing global temperatures, it took 6 years for a year to get back into the top 10.

By the way, did we hear about how January of 2011 came in at number 84? Just curious.

***UPDATE - a quick look at the archive shows that, on Feb 18th 2011, Dr Masters did devote a single paragraph on the 2011 January standing:

"...For the contiguous U.S., January temperatures were the 37th coldest in the 116-year record, and it was the coldest January since 1994, according to the National Climatic Data Center..."

Not the 84th warmest, but rather the 37th coolest. I guess the closer we get to number one on either end, the worse it sounds.

The second part, the "coldest since 1994" needs a clarification, too - there is a three-way tie for that space:

81 1971 30.0
82 1920 29.9
83 1994 29.9
84 2011 29.9

85 1925 29.8
86 1969 29.8
87 1991 29.8

So yes, 2011 was the coldest since 1994 (tied) which was a tie with 1920. And close to those "records", we can see that 1971 was only 0.1 degree warmer, and that 1925, 1969, and 1994 were 0.1 degree colder.

Six different years that were within +/- 0.1 degree.

"...Despite the heavy snows in the Northeast U.S., January was the 9th driest January since 1895. This was largely due to the fact that the Desert Southwest was very dry, with New Mexico recording its driest January, and Arizona and Nevada their second driest..."

So the counters rejoice - they did find a number in the top 10 after all.

How’s the temps of the current decade doing? We’ll use the strict definition of a decade – the last 10 years.

From Jan 2003 – Jan 2012, there are currently 2 of them in the top 10 (2006, #1 and 2012, #4).

Doesn’t seem too severe, especially when you consider that there was a time in history when EVERY January of the (then) current decade was in the top 10.

Naturally, it would be the period of 1894 – 1904 (the beginning of the record). If that’s a basis of how severe a decade is, then nothing to date has matched it.

Ok, maybe that’s too much.

How about a time-line of how the number one January changed over the years?

Since the first “top 10” couldn’t have happened until there were 10 years, we’ll start in 1904.

The first “winner” of the coveted #1 of the top ten was 1900. Came in at a blistering 34.9, and currently resides at number 13.

The new number one took over in 1914 (with 35.3), and now resides at number 7.

And then came 1923. Tied with 1914 at 35.3 (and now resides at number 8 on the list).

Next up was 1934. A clear leader – beating the old number one by a mere 0.6 degrees (35.9). 1934 now resides at number 5.

It took another 19 years for a new leader to arrive – 1953. It’s “score” of 37.2 now resides at number 2.

Next up was a tie. 1990 was only able to match 1953 (and took 37 years to get there.)

It wasn’t until 2006 that our current leader took over (16 years later). The new record stands at 39.7.

So over a 118 year period, there have only been 7 “number one Januaries” (with 2 of them being ties) - and only one of the number ones appeared in the last decade.

Shouldn’t we be seeing a new number one every year?

Seems to be creating a new number one about every 19.1 years.

Using that metric, don’t expect the new Jan record until 2025.

I’ll have to look into Feb, so we can see what it’s history is.
Updated: 2:31 PM GMT on February 15, 2012   Permalink | A A A
Fourth warmest January on record for the U.S., Antarctica still frozen.
Posted by: hcubed, 12:02 AM GMT on February 09, 2012 +0
According to Dr Master's latest (and continuing the long tradition of looking for the warmest ever), we hear that the US had it's 4th warmest January in 2012.

They say that the warmest January occurred in 2006.

That means this makes the 6th year in a row that January failed to take over the number one slot (despite all the cry over CAGW).

It looks like the "loaded dice" failed to make the point again.

Meanwhile, despite the latest decade being the warmest we've seen in the past million years, Antarctica is still frozen, and has been for a few million years:

Russia says drillers reach long-buried Antarctic lake
By the CNN Wire Staff

updated 5:57 PM EST, Wed February 8, 2012

(CNN) -- Russian scientists have successfully drilled through two miles of Antarctic ice to a freshwater lake buried for millions of years, polar researchers announced Wednesday.

Lake Vostok, a body of fresh water about the size of Lake Ontario, is believed to have been covered by Antarctica's ice sheet for up to 30 million years. Russian researchers completed the years-long drilling effort Sunday, reaching the lake at a depth of 3,769 meters (2.3 miles) in the ice sheet, the St. Petersburg-based Arctic and Antarctic Research Institute reported.

When the ice above the lake was breached, lake water was sucked up into the bore and froze, the Russians said. That will allow researchers to take samples back to the surface without contaminating the lake below, they said.

Columbia University geophysicist Robin Bell said the Antarctic ice sheet has trapped the heat of the Earth like a blanket over the lake, keeping it liquid for an estimated 15 million to 30 million years. She said the Russians have been trying to reach Lake Vostok for a decade.

Some "consider it the equivalent of getting to the moon," Bell told CNN..."

Wow. A 15 to 30 million year old ice sheet. It's been that long since parts of Antarctica has been ice-free.

And still, it's the fourth warmest January...
  Permalink | A A A
Another unprecidented early season tropic system
Posted by: hcubed, 1:26 AM GMT on February 06, 2012 +0
According to the consensus, the added .7 degrees of warming we've seen in the last 131 years is supposed to cause more storms (both in frequency and in strength).

So, to the scientists, it comes as no surprise that we have 90L developing - a full 116 days before the beginning of the "official" season.

But as Dr Masters mentioned, it was just 60 years ago that saw another "early season" storm (the 1952 Groundhog Day Storm).

Let's see - climate is defined as a 30 year period. So we could say that 2 complete climate cycles have occurred since our last early season storm.

And, early storms are no indication of activity in the season. 1952 only had 7 recorded storms. The next storm to develop in 1952 was Hurricane Able, from 08/18-09/02.

Let's also go back just a few years - to the hyperactive 2005 season.

If climate change can be blamed for EARLY season storms, it could also be blamed for LATE season storms.

Enter Zeta.

"...Late on December 29, more than four weeks after the official end to the season, a tropical disturbance developed in the east-central Atlantic. It quickly became more organized and was declared Tropical Depression Thirty. The next day, Thirty was declared a tropical storm. Zeta made a turn toward the west but stalled and gradually weakened until dissipating on January 6, 2006..."

For those who love to count, Zeta developed 59 days AFTER the end of the "official" season.

And, there again, we hear that that late development wasn't unprecedented, either.

"...Zeta is one of the latest-forming tropical cyclones ever to develop in the recorded history of Atlantic hurricane seasons; the only later storm was Hurricane Alice of 1954-55, which is estimated to have become tropical on December 30, 1954 at 1 a.m. EST (0600 UTC). It is also the second recorded North Atlantic tropical cyclone (after Alice) to exist in two calendar years. In addition, Zeta surpassed Alice as the longest-lived tropical cyclone to form in December and cross over into the next year, and it was also the longest-lived January tropical cyclone. Zeta finally dissipated on January 6, 2006..."

So, numbers again.

Zeta, 2005/2006.

Alice, 1954/1955.

A 51 year span between record LATE season storms.

Again, those who forget past weather extremes are doomed to state that all current weather extremes are unprecedented.
Updated: 1:34 AM GMT on February 06, 2012   Permalink | A A A
The new hardiness zone maps are out
Posted by: hcubed, 4:11 PM GMT on February 02, 2012 +1
According to Dr Masters entry, the new 2012 USDA hardiness zone maps have been released.

Already, the CAGW links are spreading like wildfire, so a little history (and more info on other charts).

Info here, including other historical maps: Link

The first USDA Map was published in 1960 (USDA Miscellaneous Publication No. 814 "Plant Hardiness Zone Map.") and was developed by Henry Skinner while he was the Director of the U.S. National Arboretum. The map showed ten broad hardiness zones based on 10 degree F. gradients.

This map was revised in 1965 to add temperature data that had been missing from the original.

Another "hardiness map" was brought out by the Arnold Arboretum (AA), who published their first version in 1938. There are subtle differences between the AA and USDA maps (including the use of different temperature ranges), which lead to some confusion for gardeners. They updated their version in 1978, and by 1990 the AA version had fallen into disuse and the USDA version became the primary source for zone identification.

Back to the USDA map.

"...In 1990 a major overhaul of the USDA map was completed by H. Marc Cathey (USDA Miscellaneous Publication No. 1475) using temperature data from 1974 to 1986. One new zone was added to coincide with adding Mexico and Canada to the map. In addition, the prior 10 degree gradients were broken down into 5 degree a and b zones.

One of the primary reasons given for the update was that, "We have been losing from our landscapes plants that apparently survived the 1940's to the 1960's. Many of the hardiness zone classifications of plants are no longer considered valid. In North America, the ranges of temperature and moisture for the past decade were wider than those recorded for the 1940's through the 1960's." This is an intriguing statement, since it presages the current debate over the proposed update to the 1990 USDA map and the implication that the hardiness zones need to reflect recent global warming..."

Does the term unprecidented warming come to mind?

Oh well, back to the source.

"...In 2002 USDA contracted with the American Horticultural Society (AHS) to revise the 1990 Hardiness Zone Map and "better reflect minor regional variances in temperature that have occurred in the last decade" AHS. The AHS, under the direction of Dr. H. Marc Cathey, who lead the development of the 1990 USDA Map, issued a draft of the update in the May/June 2003 issue of "The American Gardener".

The AHS 2003 Draft differs in several ways from the 1990 version. Mexico and Canada are no longer represented. The number of zones has expanded from 11 to 15 to address ideal growing climates for sub-tropical and tropical plants. The 5 degree a/b zones were dropped in order to make the map easier to read. The AHS version is based on 16 years of data (1986 to 2002), while 1990 Map was based on 13 years of data (1974 to 1986).

The most striking aspect of the AHS Draft is that many of the hardiness zones have moved northward reflecting a general warming trend during the winters over the 16 year measurement period. 40% of the 4,600 weather stations used in developing the map showed a higher zone number compared to the 1990 USDA version..."

So why didn't his joint effort come forward? Who knows. It was rejected by the USDA with no comment.

That didn't stop others from modifying the "official" USDA map.

"...In 2004 the National Arbor Day Foundation released an update to the 1990 USDA Map using 15 years of temperature data. The result is similar to the AHS Draft with many of the hardiness zones shifting northward.

The National Arbor Day Foundation map was revised further in 2006, showing a continuing northward movement of the climate zones even compared to the 2004 version.

In 1995 the Florida Climate Center issued a Hardiness Zone Map for Florida using the same methodology as the 1990 USDA Map. The Florida Climate Center Map was based on temperature readings from 1981 through 1995 and, like the AHS Map and the Arbor Day Foundation Map, showed a northward migration of the hardiness zones..."

But there was more to come: the Heat Zone Maps.

"...The USDA Hardiness Zone Maps are based on the concept that, with respect to temperature, cold will have the greatest impact on plants. The American Horticultural Society (AHS) and other organizations have taken the approach that heat must also be taken into account in estimating whether a plant will thrive in a particular location. In 1997 Dr. H. Marc Cathey, issued the AHS Plant Heat-Zone Map. The Map is divided into 12 zones indicating the average number of days in a particular zone where temperatures in exceed 86 degrees (the point at which heat will cause experience damage to cellular proteins in plants).

More importantly, the AHS has combined the Heat and Hardiness Zone maps to create a four number rating system that indicates a plant's ability to withstand heat and cold. The first two numbers in the system indicate the optimum span of zones for cold hardiness and the second two numbers indicate the optimum span for heat tolerance. For example, a tulip may be rated as 3-8, 8-1. This indicates that, while a tulip can grow in Zones 1 through 8 during the summer, it will only thrive (and bloom), if it receives the average minimum temperatures present in Zones 3 - 8. While this approach is a definite improvement over sole reliance on the 1990 USDA Map, it will require an overhaul of existing hardiness indicators for plants. This will require significant time and resources and it is not clear whether the horticultural community is willing to invest the effort..."

All these maps, and yet there are a few other things the maps don't cover.

1. Snow cover. Snow acts as an insulator against extreme cold, protecting the root system of hibernating plants. If the snow cover is reliable, the actual temperature to which the roots are exposed will not be as low as the hardiness zone number would indicate.

2. Other factors such as soil moisture, humidity, the number of days of frost, and the risk of a rare catastrophic cold snap.

3. Many plants may survive in a locality but will not flower if the day length is insufficient or if they require vernalization (a particular duration of low temperature). With annuals, the time of planting can often be adjusted to allow growth beyond their normal geographical range.

Vernalization (from Latin: vernus, of the spring) is the acquisition of a plant's ability to flower or germinate in the spring by exposure to the prolonged cold of winter. After vernalization, plants have acquired the ability to flower, but they may require additional seasonal cues or weeks of growth before they will actually flower.

So, do the charts reflect a warming world? Yes.

Consider the fact that Minnesota is now in zone 3. About 12,500 years ago, it was covered by the Laurentide ice sheet.

Ever since that ice sheet melted, plants and animals have been moving back into that area (northward expansion).

Wouldn't it be great if a Plant Hardiness Zone Map existed of that period 12,500 years ago so a comparison could be made to the 2012 map?

I'd bet it would show the Hardiness Zones a little further south than they are now.
  Permalink | A A A