Living in Biloxi MS, have been here since '85 (first Hurricane was Elena).
By: hcubed, 4:15 AM GMT on January 25, 2011
Since the main blog is working hard to ignore this, maybe someone should re-post it.
And, since the pictures don't transport well, we'll work on getting them moved, too.
***Along the way, a few comments, too***
Easterbrook on the magnitude of Greenland GISP2 ice core data
MAGNITUDE AND RATE OF CLIMATE CHANGES
Guest post by Dr. Don J. Easterbrook,
Dept. of Geology, Western Washington University
The GISP2 Greenland ice core has proven to be a great source of climatic data from the geologic past. Ancient temperatures can be measured using oxygen isotopes in the ice and ages can be determined from annual dust accumulation layers in the ice. The oxygen isotope ratios of thousands of ice core samples were measured by Minze Stuiver and Peter Grootes at the University of Washington (1993, 1999) and these data have become a world standard.
***No problem there, gives source and credit***
The ratio of 18O to 16O depends on the temperature at the time snow crystals formed, which were later transformed into glacial ice. Ocean volume may also play a role in δ18O values, but δ18O serves as a good proxy for temperature. The oxygen isotopic composition of a sample is expressed as a departure of the 18O/16O ratio from an arbitrary standard
(18O/16O)sample ‒ (18O/16O) x 103
where δ18O is the of ratio 18O/16O expressed in per mil (0/00) units.
***Once again, lists the standard, and the formulas used to get the results. Says that the 18O/16O ratio is an acceptable proxy.***
The age of each sample is accurately known from annual dust layers in the ice core. The top of the core is 1987.
***Here's one of the places where the science community has fallen down. There is only data to 1987. There's no data from this source AFTER then, so no way to see if the current warming would show up***
The δ18O data clearly show remarkable swings in climate over the past 100,000 years. In just the past 500 years, Greenland warming/cooling temperatures fluctuated back and forth about 40 times, with changes every 25-30 years (27 years on the average). None of these changes could have been caused by changes in atmospheric CO2 because they predate the large CO2 emissions that began about 1945. Nor can the warming of 1915 to 1945 be related to CO2, because it pre-dates the soaring emissions after 1945. Thirty years of global cooling (1945 to 1977) occurred during the big post-1945 increase in CO2.
***And here, I question. If, in the past 500 years, there are "cycles" averaging yrs, then one could assume that for data ending in 1987, that there have been at least 1.5 cycles from 1945-1987. So stating that "none" of these cycles have been caused by CO2 is questionable***
But what about the magnitude and rates of climates change? How do past temperature oscillations compare with recent global warming (1977-1998) or with warming periods over the past millennia. The answer to the question of magnitude and rates of climate change can be found in the δ18O and borehole temperature data.
***It would have to be found elsewhere. Once again, this data may be fine for PAST times, but is useless to see if the current warming (post 1987) can be seen in this particular ice core***
Temperature changes in the GISP2 core over the past 25,000 years are shown in Figure 1 (from Cuffy and Clow, 1997). The temperature curve in Figure 1 is a portion of their original curve. I’ve added color to make it easier to read. The horizontal axis is time and the vertical axis is temperature based on the ice core δ18O and borehole temperature data. Details are discussed in their paper. Places where the curve becomes nearly vertical signify times of very rapid temperature change. Keep in mind that these are temperatures in Greenland, not global temperatures. However, correlation of the ice core temperatures with world-wide glacial fluctuations and correlation of modern Greenland temperatures with global temperatures confirms that the ice core record does indeed follow global temperature trends and is an excellent proxy for global changes. For example, the portions of the curve from about 25,000 to 15,000 represent the last Ice Age (the Pleistocene) when huge ice sheets thousands of feet thick covered North America, northern Europe, and northern Russia and alpine glaciers readvanced far downvalley.
So let’s see just how the magnitude and rates of change of modern global warming/cooling compare to warming/cooling events over the past 25,000 years. We can compare the warming and cooling in the past century to approximate 100 year periods in the past 25,000 years. The scale of the curve doesn’t allow enough accuracy to pick out exactly 100 year episodes directly from the curve, but that can be done from the annual dust layers in ice core data. Thus, not all of the periods noted here are exactly 100 years. Some are slightly more, some are slightly less, but they are close enough to allow comparison of magnitude and rates with the past century.
Temperature changes recorded in the GISP2 ice core from the Greenland Ice Sheet (Figure 1) (Cuffy and Clow, 1997) show that the global warming experienced during the past century pales into insignificance when compared to the magnitude of profound climate reversals over the past 25,000 years. In addition, small temperature changes of up to a degree or so, similar to those observed in the 20th century record, occur persistently throughout the ancient climate record.
Figure 1. Greenland temperatures over the past 25,000 years recorded in the GISP 2 ice core. Strong, abrupt warming is shown by nearly vertical rise of temperatures, strong cooling by nearly vertical drop of temperatures (Modified from Cuffy and Clow, 1997).
Figure 2 shows comparisons of the largest magnitudes of warming/cooling events per century over the past 25,000 years. At least three warming events were 20 to 24 times the magnitude of warming over the past century and four were 6 to 9 times the magnitude of warming over the past century. The magnitude of the only modern warming which might possibly have been caused by CO2. (1978-1998) is insignificant compared to the earlier periods of warming.
Figure 2. Magnitudes of the largest warming/cooling events over the past 25,000 years. Temperatures on the vertical axis are rise or fall of temperatures in about a century. Each column represents the rise or fall of temperature shown on Figure 1. Event number 1 is about 24,000years ago and event number 15 is about 11,000 years old. The sudden warming about 15,000 years ago caused massive melting of these ice sheets at an unprecedented rate. The abrupt cooling that occurred from 12,700 to 11,500 years ago is known as the Younger Dryas cold period, which was responsible for readvance of the ice sheets and alpine glaciers. The end of the Younger Dryas cold period warmed by 9°F ( 5°C) over 30-40 years and as much as 14°F (8°C) over 40 years.
Magnitude and rate of abrupt climate changes
Some of the more remarkable sudden climatic warming periods are shown listed below (refer also to Figure 1). Numbers correspond to the temperature curves on Figure 5.
1. About 24,000 years ago, while the world was still in the grip of the last Ice Age and huge continental glaciers covered large areas, a sudden warming of about 20°F occurred. Shortly thereafter, temperatures dropped abruptly about 11°F. Temperatures then remained cold for several thousand years but oscillated between about 5°F warmer and cooler.
2. About 15,000 years ago, a sudden, intense, climatic warming of about 21°F (~12° C;) caused dramatic melting of the large ice sheets that covered Canada and the northern U.S., all of Scandinavia, and much of northern Europe and Russia.
3. A few centuries later, temperatures again plummeted about 20° F (~11°C) and glaciers readvanced.
4. About 14,000 years ago, global temperatures once again rose rapidly, about 8° F (~4.5°C), and glaciers receded.
4. About 13,400 years ago, global temperatures plunged again, about 14° F (~8°C) and glaciers readvanced.
5. About 13,200 years ago, global temperatures increased rapidly, 9° F (~5°C), and glaciers receded.
6. 12,700 yrs ago global temperatures plunged sharply, 14° F (~8°C) and a 1300 year cold period, the Younger Dryas, began.
7. After 1300 years of cold climate, global temperatures rose sharply, about 21° F (~12° C), 11,500 years ago, marking the end of the Younger Dryas cold period and the end of the Pleistocene Ice Age.
Early Holocene climate changes
8,200 years ago, the post-Ice Age interglacial warm period was interrupted by a sudden global cooling that lasted for a few centuries (Fig. 3). During this time, alpine glaciers advanced and built moraines. The warming that followed the cool period was also abrupt. Neither the abrupt climatic cooling nor the warming that followed was preceded by atmospheric CO2 changes.
Figure 3. The 8200 year B.P. sudden climate change, recorded in oxygen isotope ratios in the GISP2 ice core, lasted about 200 years.
Late Holocene climate changes
750 B.C. to 200 B.C. cool period
Prior to the founding of the Roman Empire, Egyptians records show a cool climatic period from about 750 to 450 B.C. and the Romans wrote that the Tiber River froze and snow remained on the ground for long periods (Singer and Avery, 2007).
The Roman warm period (200 B.C. to 600 A.D.)
After 100 B.C., Romans wrote of grapes and olives growing farther north in Italy than had been previously possible and of little snow or ice (Singer and Avery, 2007).
The Dark Ages cool period (440 A.D. to 900 A.D.)
The Dark Ages were characterized by marked cooling. A particularly puzzling event apparently occurred in 540 A.D. when tree rings suggest greatly retarded growth, the sun appeared dimmed for more than a year, temperatures dropped in Ireland, Great Britain, Siberia, North and South America, fruit didn’t ripen, and snow fell in the summer in southern Europe (Baillie in Singer and Avery, 2007). In 800 A.D., the Black Sea froze and in 829 A.D. the Nile River froze (Oliver, 1973).
The Medieval Warm Period (900 A.D. to 1300 A.D.)
The Medieval Warm Period (MWP) was a time of warm climate from about 900–1300 AD when global temperatures were apparently somewhat warmer than at present. Its effects were particularly evident in Europe where grain crops flourished, alpine tree lines rose, many new cities arose, and the population more than doubled. The Vikings took advantage of the climatic amelioration to colonize Greenland, and wine grapes were grown as far north as England where growing grapes is now not feasible and about 500 km north of present vineyards in France and Germany. Grapes are presently grown in Germany up to elevations of about 560 meters, but from about 1100 to 1300 A.D., vineyards extended up to 780 meters, implying temperatures warmer by about 1.0 to 1.4° C (Oliver, 1973, Tkachuck, 1983). Wheat and oats were grown around Trondheim, Norway, suggesting climates about one degree C warmer than present (Fagan, 2007).
The Vikings colonized southern Greenland in 985 AD during the Medieval Warm Period when milder climates allowed favorable open-ocean conditions for navigation and fishing. This was “close to the maximum Medieval warming recorded in the GISP2 ice core at 975 AD (Stuiver et al., 1995).
Elsewhere in the world, prolonged droughts affected the southwestern United States and Alaska warmed. Sediments in Lake Nakatsuna in central Japan record warmer temperatures. Sea surface temperatures in the Sargasso Sea were approximately 1°C warmer than today and the climate in equatorial east Africa was drier from 1000–1270 AD. An ice core from the eastern Antarctic Peninsula shows warmer temperatures during this period.
The Little Ice Age (1300 A.D. to the 20th century)
At the end of the Medieval Warm Period, ~1230 AD, temperatures dropped ~4°C (~7° F) in ~20 years and the cold period that followed is known as the Little Ice Age. The colder climate that ensued for several centuries was devastating (see e.g., Grove, 1988, 2004; Singer and Avery, 2007; Fagan, 2000). Temperatures of the cold winters and cool, rainy summers were too low for growing of cereal crops, resulting in widespread famine and disease. When temperatures declined during the 30–year cool period from the late 1940’s to 1977, some climatologists and meteorologists predicted a return to a new Little Ice Age.
Glaciers expanded worldwide (see e.g., Grove, 1988, 2004; Singer and Avery, 2007). Glaciers in Greenland advanced and pack-ice extended southward in the North Atlantic in the 13th century. The population of Europe had become dependent on cereal grains as a food supply during the Medieval Warm Period and when the colder climate, early snows, violent storms, and recurrent flooding swept Europe, massive crop failures occurred. Three years of torrential rains that began in 1315 led to the Great Famine of 1315-1317. The Thames River in London froze over, the growing season was significantly shortened, crops failed repeatedly, and wine production dropped sharply (Fagan, 2000; Singer and Avery, 2007).
Winters during the Little Ice Age were bitterly cold in many parts of the world. Advance of glaciers in the Swiss Alps in the mid–17th century gradually encroached on farms and buried entire villages. The Thames River and canals and rivers of the Netherlands frequently froze over during the winter. New York Harbor froze in the winter of 1780 and people could walk from Manhattan to Staten Island. Sea ice surrounding Iceland extended for miles in every direction, closing many harbors. The population of Iceland decreased by half and the Viking colonies in Greenland died out in the 1400s because they could no longer grow enough food there. In parts of China, warm weather crops that had been grown for centuries were abandoned. In North America, early European settlers experienced exceptionally severe winters.
Significance of previous global climate changes
If CO2 is indeed the cause of global warming, then global temperatures should mirror the rise in CO2. For the past 1000 years, atmospheric CO2 levels remained fairly constant at about 280 ppm (parts per million). Atmospheric CO2 concentrations began to rise during the industrial revolution early in the 20th century but did not exceed about 300 ppm. The climatic warming that occurred between about 1915 and 1945 was not accompanied by significant rise in CO2. In 1945, CO2 emission began to rise sharply and by 1980 atmospheric CO2. had risen to just under 340 ppm. During this time, however, global temperatures fell about 0.9°F (0.5° C) in the Northern Hemisphere and about 0.4°F (0.2° C) globally. Global temperatures suddenly reversed during the Great Climate Shift of 1977 when the Pacific Ocean switched from its cool mode to its warm mode with no change in the rate of CO2 increase. The 1977–1998 warm cycle ended in 1999 and a new cool cycle began. If CO2 is the cause of global warming, why did temperatures rise for 30 years (1915-1945) with no significant increase in CO2? Why did temperatures fall for 30 years (1945-1977) while CO2 was sharply accelerating? Logic dictates that this anomalous cooling cycle during accelerating CO2 levels must mean either (1) rising CO2 is not the cause of global warming or (2) some process other than rising CO2 is capable of strongly overriding its effect on global atmospheric warming.
Temperature patterns since the Little Ice Age (~1300 to 1860 A.D.) show a very similar pattern; 25–30 year–long periods of alternating warm and cool temperatures during overall warming from the Little Ice Age low. These temperature fluctuations took place well before any significant effect of anthropogenic atmospheric CO2.
Temperature changes recorded in the GISP2 ice core from the Greenland Ice Sheet show that the magnitude of global warming experienced during the past century is insignificant compared to the magnitude of the profound natural climate reversals over the past 25,000 years, which preceded any significant rise of atmospheric CO2. If so many much more intense periods of warming occurred naturally in the past without increase in CO2, why should the mere coincidence of a small period of low magnitude warming this century be blamed on CO2?
Updated: 9:09 PM GMT on January 25, 2011
By: hcubed, 9:10 PM GMT on January 24, 2011
...however, the proxy data I want to use has been contaminated by recent agriculture, and will only show the expected recent rise if I turn it upside down.
Think this study would ever pass peer-review with this data?
Think that it would be published in a mainstream journal?
Think that the other scientists would defend the usage of this data?
Surprise - it did - it has - and they did.
That is, if anyone concerned about openness, honesty, and a concern for the science is interested.
By: hcubed, 1:49 AM GMT on January 23, 2011
First, this is about METROLOGY (the science of measurement), not METEOROLOGY (the science of weather)
The Essay came from here: http://pugshoes.blogspot.com/2010/10/metrology.html
Metrology – A guest re-post by Mark of Mark’s View
"...This post is actually about the poor quality and processing of historical climatic temperature records rather than metrology.
My main points are that in climatology many important factors that are accounted for in other areas of science and engineering are completely ignored by many scientists:
1. Human Errors in accuracy and resolution of historical data are ignored
2. Mechanical thermometer resolution is ignored
3. Electronic gauge calibration is ignored
4. Mechanical and Electronic temperature gauge accuracy is ignored
5. Hysteresis in modern data acquisition is ignored
6. Conversion from Degrees F to Degrees C introduces false resolution into data.
Metrology is the science of measurement, embracing both experimental and theoretical determinations at any level of uncertainty in any field of science and technology. Believe it or not, the metrology of temperature measurement is complex.
It is actually quite difficult to measure things accurately, yet most people just assume that information they are given is “spot on”. A significant number of scientists and mathematicians also do not seem to realise how the data they are working with is often not very accurate. Over the years as part of my job I have read dozens of papers based on pressure and temperature records where no reference is made to the instruments used to acquire the data, or their calibration history. The result is that many scientists frequently reach incorrect conclusions about their experiments and data because they do not take into account the accuracy and resolution of their data. (It seems this is especially true in the area of climatology.)
Do you have a thermometer stuck to your kitchen window so you can see how warm it is outside?
Let’s say you glance at this thermometer and it indicates about 31 degrees centigrade. If it is a mercury or alcohol thermometer you may have to squint to read the scale. If the scale is marked in 1c steps (which is very common), then you probably cannot extrapolate between the scale markers.
This means that this particular thermometer’s resolution is 1c, which is normally stated as plus or minus 0.5c (+/- 0.5c)
This example of resolution is where observing the temperature is under perfect conditions, and you have been properly trained to read a thermometer. In reality you might glance at the thermometer or you might have to use a flash-light to look at it, or it may be covered in a dusting of snow, rain, etc. Mercury forms a pronounced meniscus in a thermometer that can exceed 1c and many observers incorrectly observe the temperature as the base of the meniscus rather than it’s peak (an alcohol curves downward, and a mercury meniscus bulges upward).
Another major common error in reading a thermometer is the parallax error. This is where refraction of light through the glass thermometer exaggerates any error caused by the eye not being level with the surface of the fluid in the thermometer.
If you are using data from 100′s of thermometers scattered over a wide area, with data being recorded by hand, by dozens of different people, the observational resolution should be reduced. In the oil industry it is common to accept an error margin of 2-4% when using manually acquired data for example.
As far as I am aware, historical raw multiple temperature data from weather stations has never attempted to account for observer error.
We should also consider the accuracy of the typical mercury and alcohol thermometers that have been in use for the last 120 years. Glass thermometers are calibrated by immersing them in ice/water at 0c and a steam bath at 100c. The scale is then divided equally into 100 divisions between zero and 100. However, a glass thermometer at 100c is longer than a thermometer at 0c. This means that the scale on the thermometer gives a false high reading at low temperatures (between 0 and 25c) and a false low reading at high temperatures (between 70 and 100c) This process is also followed with weather thermometers with a range of -20 to +50c
25 years ago, very accurate mercury thermometers used in labs (0.01c resolution) had a calibration chart/graph with them to convert observed temperature on the thermometer scale to actual temperature.
Temperature cycles in the glass bulb of a thermometer harden the glass and shrink over time, a 10 yr old -20 to +50c thermometer will give a false high reading of around 0.7c
Over time, repeated high temperature cycles cause alcohol thermometers to evaporate vapour into the vacuum at the top of the thermometer, creating false low temperature readings of up to 5c. (5.0c not 0.5 it’s not a typo...)
Electronic temperature sensors have been used more and more in the last 20 years for measuring environmental temperature. These also have their own resolution and accuracy problems. Electronic sensors suffer from drift and hysteresis and must be calibrated annually to be accurate, yet most weather station temp sensors are NEVER calibrated after they have been installed. Drift is where the recorder temp increases steadily or decreases steadily, even when the real temp is static and is a fundamental characteristic of all electronic devices.
Drift, is where a recording error gradually gets larger and larger over time - this is a quantum mechanics effect in the metal parts of the temperature sensor that cannot be compensated for typical drift of a -100c to +100c electronic thermometer is about 1c per year! And the sensor must be recalibrated annually to fix this error.
Hysteresis is a common problem as well - this is where increasing temperature has a different mechanical affect on the thermometer compared to decreasing temperature, so for example if the ambient temperature increases by 1.05c, the thermometer reads an increase on 1c, but when the ambient temperature drops by 1.05c, the same thermometer records a drop of 1.1c. (this is a VERY common problem in metrology).
But on top of these issues, the people who make these thermometers and weather stations state clearly the accuracy of their instruments, yet scientists ignore them! A -20c to +50c mercury thermometer packaging will state the accuracy of the instrument is +/-0.75c for example, yet frequently this information is not incorporated into statistical calculations used in climatology.
Finally we get to the infamous conversion of Degrees Fahrenheit to Degrees Centigrade. Until the 1960′s almost all global temperatures were measured in Fahrenheit. Nowadays all the proper scientists use Centigrade. So, all old data is routinely converted to Centigrade. take the original temperature, minus 32 times 5 divided by 9.
C=((F-32) x 5)/9
example- original reading from 1950 data file is 60F. This data was eyeballed by the local weatherman and written into his tallybook. 50 years later a scientist takes this figure and converts it to centigrade:
60-32 = 28
28×5 = 140
140/9 = 15.55555556
This is usually (incorrectly) rounded to two decimal places =: 15.55c without any explanation as to why this level of resolution has been selected.
The correct mathematical method of handling this issue of resolution is to look at the original resolution of the recorded data. Typically old Fahrenheit data was recorded in increments of 2 degrees F, eg 60, 62, 64, 66, 68, 70. Very rarely on old data sheets do you see 61, 63 etc (although 65 is slightly more common).
If the original resolution was 2 degrees F, the resolution used for the same data converted to Centigrade should be 1.1c.
Therefore mathematically :
60F = 16C
61F = 17C
62F = 17C
In conclusion, when interpreting historical environmental temperature records one must account for errors of accuracy built into the thermometer and errors of resolution built into the instrument as well as errors of observation and recording of the temperature.
In a high quality glass environmental thermometer manufactured in 1960, the accuracy would be +/- 1.4F. (2% of range)
The resolution of an astute and dedicated observer would be around +/-1F.
Therefore the total error margin of all observed weather station temperatures would be a minimum of +/-2.5F, or +/-1.30c..."
In short, it's possible that some of the observed temp changes are due to errors of accuracy, errors of resolution, errors of observation, and errors of recording of the temperatures.
Makes you wonder why the scientists don't list any "error bars" when displaying the anomalies.
Updated: 5:55 AM GMT on January 23, 2011
By: hcubed, 10:30 PM GMT on January 17, 2011
Everybody said it couldn't be done, that a perpetual motion machine would never work.
Well it does.
The perpetual motion machine I'm speaking of is one fueled by AGW.
A single theory, fueled by a select group of scientists, using selected data they "own", writing papers reviewed by their like-minded colleagues, placed in journals they consider as acceptable, and swallowed whole by a zealous group of believers.
One of the reasons that a true perpetual motion machine doesn't work is because of small amounts of negative feedback, i.e friction, air resistance, gravity. All these combine to slow or dampen out any movement.
Not so with the AGW perpetual motion machine.
"The believers in the theory behind AGW" simply ignore any negative feedback. To them, any extreme event, is a result of Anthropogenic Global Warming. Any observation has to be tied back to Anthropogenic Global Warming.
Even though the scientists can't agree on standards for weather station location. Even though they can't agree which stations to use. Even though they can't agree how to account for areas where there ARE NO TEMP STATIONS. Even though they can't agree on an averaging period to use for their charts. This is what you'll believe, so don't question it.
Their basis is the CO2 chart. It's steady increase is their "holy grail", where all trouble stems.
To them, there is absolutely no natural cause to any increase of temperatures (or CO2). None. Ever.
All the current warming is due only to the world's burning of fossil fuels.
Any other natural variations are ignored. Any long observed variations (earthly or solar) have no effect on the temps.
So the natural feedbacks are gone.
On to phase two.
They have to control what gets out to the public. Face it, the average person doesn't spend hours going through the published papers, trying to understand the multiple disciplines that perform the experiments.
So "The believers in the theory behind AGW" help each other out. They create lists.
There's a list as to which scientific disciplines are acceptable.
There's a list as to which journals you are to believe.
There's a list of the "nutjob" scientists (those who DARE to say that there's any other cause).
They have a willing group of publishers, newscasters, bloggers and commenters to keep up the steady drumbeat of Man-Induced-Catastrophic-Climate-Disruption.
They use scare tactics (dying polar bears). They use wording (catastrophic, unprecedented). They use charts (using data they own).
Puts out an extremely dire picture.
Then on to phase three.
They have to find a way to prevent others from expressing any other possibilities.
They have to find a way to prevent others from finding and reporting errors in their own work.
They have to find a way to label those who are not "Believers in the theory behind AGW". Their current label is "deniers".
As if we deny the facts. I, for one don't. What got to me was their insistence, in absolute certainty, by a preponderance of evidence, to the hundredth of a degree, that the 1 degree rise in temps that we're seeing has never been seen before, and can be tied to Man's use of fossil fuels alone.
They find posts that express different views, and, by monomania or trolling, dominate the comment section.
They find the SMALLEST item in a scientist's or blogger's past, and use that, argumentum ad nauseam (in which debaters wear out the opposition by just repeating arguments until they get sick), hoping that they'll stay away from the site.
They'll get on OTHER blogs and pass on their unsubstantiated rumors about those scientists and bloggers, once again to try and direct the traffic away from those sites.
They'll tear apart, in great detail, anyone's discussion of alternate theories, while insulating themselves from discussion of theirs.
All to keep the AGW perpetual motion machine going.
Maybe they need to google "self fulfilling prophecy".
Self fulfilling prophecy:
"...A false definition of the situation evoking a new behavior which makes the original false conception come 'true'. This specious validity of the self-fulfilling prophecy perpetuates a reign of error. For the prophet will cite the actual course of events as proof that he was right from the very beginning..."
By: hcubed, 10:28 PM GMT on January 16, 2011
Continuing the list, here:
Things Caused by Global Warming
Global warming makes poppies more potent.
So wait. Global warming destroyed most of the poppy crop, but those that survived are stronger.
Let's see the story:
"Warming World, Potent Poppies.
"Greater concentrations of carbon dioxide in a warming world may have a drastic effect on the potency of opium poppies, according to a new study. While this increase might mean more morphine available for legal pharmaceutical uses, the painkiller is also the main ingredient in heroin.
The current crop of poppies is twice as potent as those grown at carbon dioxide levels seen in 1950, says Lewis Ziska of the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Crop Systems and Global Change Laboratory. If projections hold, the rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide will increase morphine levels three-fold by 2050 and by 4.5 times by 2090."
So there's the link. It isn't man = more CO2 = Global Warming = stronger poppies, it goes straight to man = more CO2 = Global Warming and stronger poppies.
So it's man's fault that the poppies are more potent.
But wait, there's more.
"...Morphine is part of a class of chemicals called alkaloids, which plants produce to ward off bugs, birds and other natural dangers. While toxic to some animals, humans use hundreds of plant alkaloids in various ways. Cocaine, caffeine, capsaicin (which makes chili peppers hot), lysergic acid (a precursor for LSD) and the anti-malarial drug quinine are all examples of alkaloids.
The speed of the biological changes affecting plants’ alkaloid levels suggests that the climate may have a greater impact on plant life than computer models had generally predicted, Ziska says. Earlier studies by Ziska had shown that certain alkaloids decrease in some plants as carbon dioxide increases, including lower concentrations of nicotine in tobacco.
The net result, according to Ziska, is that climate change’s impacts on plants are likely to be chaotic and difficult to predict. For example, he says, “wheat may make more seeds, but we may have stronger poison ivy and poppies...”
...and changes in the strength of cocaine, caffeine, capsaicin, quinine and nicotine...
So to continue the problems:
"...Changes in alkaloid levels may pose a challenge to public health as carbon dioxide continues to build up in the atmosphere. The World Health Organization estimates that over 3.5 billion people rely on plants for part of their primary health care. This includes the U.S. population, where 25 percent of prescribed drugs contain an ingredient derived from plants."
So now, health care costs will go up because drug strengths will change.
"...Ziska’s research illustrates just how little we know about the biological effects of climate change. While predictions of increased drought and insect infestations in a warmer world are bad news for plants,..."
...and THERE'S the mandantory mention of global warming...
"...the carbon-enriched atmosphere would give them more fuel to burn, helping many species grow bigger and produce more seeds. Meanwhile, a secondary set of chemical reactions not related to plant growth may also be influenced by levels of atmospheric carbon. These reactions create many of the chemicals used in medicines and are so complex that, for many plants, says Ziska, “we don’t have any idea how climate change will affect them.”
So, while making some items stronger, others will get weaker. While Afghan farmers could get a price increase for stronger poppies, other countries will suffer as their items get weaker.
All because man = increased CO2 = global warming.
To finish the article:
"...Ziska found that not only did poppies produce more opium gum when grown in chambers with higher carbon dioxide levels, but the concentration of morphine in the gum also increased. He published his results in the May 2008 edition of the journal Climatic Change.
Climate change experts called the study’s results intriguing, but they point out that plants in the wild may behave differently. “This study shows the potential of individual plants,” says Peter Reich, an ecologist at the University of Minnesota, who was not involved in the study. But, he adds, “competing with the same species, or with other wild plants, changes the [growing] conditions.”
In real world conditions, Reich says, the effects of higher carbon dioxide are probably not as extreme as Ziska’s results suggest. “Interactions between plants and competitors, diseases, decomposers and bacteria affect fertility,” and the compounds plants produce, says Reich.
Ziska doesn’t dispute Reich’s comments, and is hoping that future studies will model real-world growing conditions more closely. He also advocates studying other plants, including the poppy P. somniferum. Large scale commercial poppy operations, both legal and illegal, collect opiates from P. somniferum. Since this species is closely related to P. setigerum, Ziska expects to see morphine increases in this plant as well.
Although climate change’s effects on plant biology are unpredictable, public pharmaceutical and medical reliance on these crops remains as important as ever. “What I find particularly surprising is not the science,” says Ziska, but the question: “Why aren’t people looking at this?”
Because they're more concerned with alarmism? Making the claim that poppies will be more potent can't be used to scare kids like making the claim that killing off polar bears can.
Of course, more CO2 = stronger drugs = Big Pharma profits, so now they'll have to question studies that are funded by drug companies.
Next item, Africa.
By: hcubed, 2:24 AM GMT on January 16, 2011
Continuing the list, here:
Things Caused by Global Warming
"Freak weather destroys Afghan poppies
By Jerome Starkey in Kabul
Wednesday, 23 April 2008
Faltering British efforts to tackle Afghanistan's poppy crop have found an unlikely ally – in the weather.
Freak weather linked to global warming is expected to reduce parts of the country's opium harvest drastically. Scientists believe freezing winter temperatures followed by late rains and a possible drought may cut this year's yields, with some farmers losing half of their crop.
The fierce winter cold – which claimed hundreds of lives across Afghanistan – is thought to have stopped millions of poppy seeds from germinating. Late rains have then stunted many of the plants that survived.
One expert said: "It was too cold in some areas for the seeds to come alive. Between 30 per cent and 50 per cent of the seeds may not have germinated."
Survey teams are busy scouring the country's poppy fields to get precise data on this season's plants. Privately, UN officials and European diplomats predict a drop in yields.
Poppies are more resistant to drought than food crops, but a nationwide water shortage at a key stage in the plants' life cycle is expected to stunt the size of the opium bulbs. Farmers harvest the sap from the bulbs. "The more water, the more opium," said the head of the UN environment programme, Asif Zaidi. "This year was exceptionally cold, followed by low rainfall. Some of the crop will be destroyed. But what extent we don't yet know."
Poppy cultivation increased from just 8,000 hectares in 2001, the last year of the Taliban regime, to a "frightening" 192,000 hectares last year, according to the UN, despite British-led efforts to crack down on the illicit crop.
Last year, Afghanistan produced a record 93 per cent of the world's poppy harvest. The industry is worth at least £2bn, almost half of Afghanistan's GDP.
The poppy farmers worst affected are those who planted in November, after the cold spell set in. That includes half of Helmand's poppy farmers and a third of growers nationwide.
Afghanistan's dry climate is especially susceptible to climate change, Mr Zaidi said. "Minor climatic changes result in major impacts," he added. "There are definitely changes taking place in Afghanistan."
So, the equation here is man = increased CO2 = global warming = poppies being destroyed.
From there, reasonable people would go: poppies being destroyed = less opium = less drug addiction = fewer lives destroyed.
But, in AGW think, nothing good happens, only bad.
They're not showing concern for the end users of the opium, but rather for the farmers and the Afghan people & country.
Repeating: "Last year, Afghanistan produced a record 93 per cent of the world's poppy harvest. The industry is worth at least £2bn, almost half of Afghanistan's GDP..."
This, despite "...The fierce winter cold – which claimed hundreds of lives across Afghanistan...". But, once again, deaths from cold take a back seat. Just doesn't tie into that whole warming planet thing.
And for those among the "believers in AGW", here's another rising trend you can use: "...Poppy cultivation increased from just 8,000 hectares in 2001, the last year of the Taliban regime, to a "frightening" 192,000 hectares last year..."
So there's been about a 24X INCREASE in poppy production in the last decade, the hottest decade so far.
And, if the next decade is worse, then can we expect a) another increase in production, or b) a decrease in production.
Either way, it will be tied back to fossil fuels...
Updated: 7:05 AM GMT on January 16, 2011
By: hcubed, 8:32 AM GMT on January 15, 2011
So let's start the new "list" - the things the news have reported that are caused by Global Warming.
We'll be using this site to glean the pearls from:
There, we find over 800 separate items that are caused by global warming, and by default, man.
The first item on their list, acne feeds to a bad link. Too bad, I really wanted their take.
But no worries. As we all know, whatever shows up on the Internet never goes away.
So Google "Acne, Global Warming", and this site comes up:
And sure enough, man=increased CO2=global warming=acne.
"...Actually, global warming is an exemplary impact of climate changes. Climate change not only increases the temperature, but it also brings several changes such as glacier retreat, destruction of ozone layer and abnormal weather etc. Several predictions and possibilities are there that climate change and greenhouse effect may affect your skin and cause skin disorders.
Sebaceous Glands and Acne:
The ideal temperature for human body is around 98.2 degrees F. A little fluctuation in the scale of temperature may occur on a temporary basis during exercise and any other body activities.
Human body works efficiently and effectively at 98.2 degrees F. Sebaceous glands and sweat glands are heat sensitive and produce their secretions very rapidly. Thus, continuous rise in temperature results in over activity of sebaceous glands and excessive production of sebum. Excessive production of sebum mixes with dead skin cells and clogs the hair follicles. Thus, the acne breakouts occur.
Average temperature has been markedly rising since 1940. It is considerably affecting hundreds of biological and ecological systems.
Agricultural Changes – Making Prone to Acne:
* Some Agricultural Changes that Are Making Human Skin Prone to Acne:
* Climate change has made situation difficult for crops and farmers. Farmers start using alternative methods of farming. They also start using pesticides and other synthetic chemicals to increase productivity levels of the yield.
* Synthetic chemicals and other concentrated pesticides on crops and soil result in loss of nutritious food substances.
* Less quantity and improper quality of nutritious substances, vitamins and minerals are the prominent causes of overactive sebaceous glands, which cause acne in a rapid and large manner.
* Basically, Ultra violet rays are classified into three categories depending on their wave lengths.
* Ultra violet B and C are more harmful for biological systems.
* Ultra violet B directly affects the skin and mainly causes sunburn.
* Ozone layer filters approximately 98% of harmful ultra violet rays and greatly helps biological systems to remain at safer side.
* Increasing climate change causes ozone layer depletion, which simply allows all harmful ultra violet rays directly on to the living beings of the earth. Thus, it mainly causes severe and intense skin disorders including acne, rashes and eczema.
Human skin is most sensitive and significantly affected organ by global warming or climate change. As a precautionary step, every human being must contribute in environmental protection..."
So there you have it. Your kid has acne because of man's burning of fossil fuels. Remind them of that when they ask for a car when they turn 16...
Of course, there was the mandatory mention of glacier retreat and abnormal weather. Had to include them as part of the discussion of skin problems.
Next on the list: Afghan Poppies Destroyed.
By: hcubed, 9:17 PM GMT on January 10, 2011
Actually, every single weather event is caused by Global Warming.
All the weather events of the last year (droughts, floods, heat, cold, rain, snow, wind) are DIRECTLY tied to the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming.
And the only way to change this catastrophic slide to the tipping point is for the United States to stop all usage of Fossil fuels.
There. That placates the AGW camp.
But if you really read the reports, there's always some other natural reason for the extreme (blocking high, El Nino and La Nina, or any range of alphabet-soup oscillations).
But it seems almost mandatory that Global Warming be included in the conversation.
So far, newspaper reports have listed over 800 items that are caused by AGW.
Things that are caused by Global Warming
Go ahead. Look at "the list". Grab any one. I'm in the process of going through this list, seeing how many of them can stll be read.
If they can be read, then it looks like I'll start a new series, posting each one as a seperate post. Enough to keep me going for a couple of years.
If one can't be read, I'll be sure to post that, too.
And we'll aso keep track of where the posts came from.
Wanna bet that not many came from Fox news?
Updated: 9:26 PM GMT on January 10, 2011
By: hcubed, 6:29 AM GMT on January 08, 2011
Since the main blog is mentioning coral bleaching, I'm repeating a previous posting - from "the list" - things that are supposed to be caused by ANTHROPOGENIC global warming.
This was #9. Unprecedented Coral Bleaching.
It seems that whenever you want to talk about the climate being effected, you must add the word “unprecedented”.
Reminder, then of the word "unprecedented": Without previous instance; never before known or experienced; unexampled or unparalleled.
Means it's never happened before. It has.
And, as usual, research is a wonderful thing.
"...Coral bleaching is the whitening of corals, due to stress-induced expulsion or death of their symbiotic protozoa, zooxanthellae, or due to the loss of pigmentation within the protozoa. The corals that form the structure of the great reef ecosystems of tropical seas depend upon a symbiotic relationship with unicellular flagellate protozoa, called zooxanthellae, that are photosynthetic and live within their tissues. Zooxanthellae give coral its coloration, with the specific color depending on the particular clade. Under stress, corals may expel their zooxanthellae, which leads to a lighter or completely white appearance, hence the term "bleached"..."
They’re saying that the natural color of the coral itself is white, it’s the color of the creatures living in the coral that gives coral its color.
Causes of “bleaching”?
• Increase/decrease in water temperatures
• Increase/decrease in solar irradiance (light levels)
• Changes in water chemistry (pH levels)
• Starvation caused by a decline in zooplankton
• Increased sedimentation (due to silt runoff)
• Pathogen infections
• Changes in salinity
• Low tide air exposure
• Cyanide fishing
• The effects of el Niño and la Niña events
• Changes in ocean currents, which relates to changes in phytoplankton and zooplankton populations, as well the amount of other nutrients present in the water
• Increase/decrease in air temperatures
• Build up of carbon dioxide and methane gases
• Increased or high water turbulence
• Pollution, which is not limited to the depositing of sediment from soil erosion, chemicals such as nitrite, nitrate, ammonia, phosphate, as well as other detrimental contaminants into the sea via river run-off and drain pipes (or even ship discharge)
Pretty long list, isn’t it?
And, there are studies written about strands of coral that were found 6m above the current sea levels.
Bet they’re bleached, too...
By: hcubed, 7:18 PM GMT on January 06, 2011
The debate (argument, discussion, whatever), rages on.
Some think that the two sides are as simple as "believers in the science behind the theory of anthropogenic global warming" and, on the other side, "non-believers in the science behind the theory of anthropogenic global warming".
Yet it's deeper than that.
Several questions are lumped together in those "simple" statements.
1. Do you believe that the earth is warming, Yes or No.
If you answered yes, then you've seen the list of observations supporting a warming world. If you answered no, read more.
2. Is CO2 increasing, Yes or No.
If you answered yes, then you've seen the results from several respected sources. If you answered no, read more.
Now, however, the questions get harder.
3. Do you believe that ALL of the measured increase in CO2 is the result of man's usage of fossil fuels, Yes or No.
If you answered yes, you've got a problem. You have to believe that there are no other natural sources of CO2. You have to discount rotting plant life, naturally-caused forest fires, coal fires, and oil fires.
If you answered no, then you have a decent understanding of the carbon cycle.
Next question is actually a two part one.
4a. Do you believe that EVERY change in the earth's past temperatures were caused by varying changes in CO2 concetration, Yes or No,
4b. Do you believe that CURRENT changes in the earth's temperature are caused by varying changes in CO2 concetration, Yes or No.
The "believers" want us to accept that the current rise in the earth's temperature (about .8 degrees or so in the past 150 years), are caused ONLY by MAN'S usage of fossil fuels.
So on that idea, we'll ask another question.
5. Are there ANY natural processes that could cause changes in the earth's temperature BESIDES CO2, Yes or No.
And now the arguemment really starts.
They'll pull out the list. They'll cite the papers. They'll cut down anyone who even TRIES to show a natural cause for temperature changes.
It doesn't matter that these changes may have occurred before. They'll abuse the word "unprecedented". They need to read the definition of the word.
We'll help them out:
"...without previous instance; never before known or experienced; unexampled or unparalleled..."
So they try to clarify it with "...in recorded history..."
Narrows it down a bit, doesn't it?
So they have to increase the "recorded history" with proxies. Ice cores. Boreholes. Selected trees. Anything they can, in trying to tease out the past.
Nothing wrong there. But when they repeatedly cite selected proxies, ignore others, refuse to update the ones they have, or use results in ways that the original researchers didn't, they show a bias.
When they stall in releasing data so that other concerned scientists can check their results, they show their bias.
When they make "adjustments" to the data, and don't explain the reasoning behind the adjustments, they show their bias.
You see, they exposed themselves in their original statement: belief or non-belief of anthropogenic global warming.
Anthropogenic. MAN-CAUSED. To them, there can be no other reason for global warming, or climate change, or climate disruption other than man's use of fossil fuels.
So do I believe in GW? Yes.
Do I believe that CO2 is increasing? Yes.
Do I believe that man should do what they can to reduce CO2? Yes.
But, because I don't believe that every single burp in the weather patterns are caused by man's usage of fossil fuels, I'll get labeled a denier.
Bottom line - if the choices are "believers in the science behind the theory of anthropogenic global warming" and, "non-believers in the science behind the theory of anthropogenic global warming", I can't claim either side.
By: hcubed, 11:30 PM GMT on January 01, 2011
Here are some papers providing evidence of an ice-free Arctic ocean over the past ~11,000 years.
Of course, the AGW crowd will look at the data as follows:
1. Check out the authors to see if they fall into their "those who are not to be believed" classification.
2. Look at the publications and see if they're on the "non-peer reviewed" list.
3. Dismiss the data gathering (saying the results are a result of 'cherry picking').
4. Use the old "but the rate today is greater" argument.
Doesn't matter that natural causes for an ice-free Arctic has happened before, the call to stop man's progress by drastic restrictions to the usage of fossil fuels will override reason.
At least for the intellectually honest, that is...
As a prime example of the hoops the AGW crowd will go through is this exchange on the main blog:
Peer Reviewed even!
Yeah, Ossqss already tried this. A couple of things:
1) "Scientific Research Publishing" (scirp.org) has developed a well-earned reputation as the publisher of several scam vanity journals, each with low academic standards (basically, it allows would-be scientists to pad their resumes with publishing credits in return for a fee and their own "reviews" of other SRP papers).
The scirp.org website, based in China, says the following on its "About Us" page, which will help you understand the level of rigorous proofreading it uses:
"Scientific Research Publishing (SRP: http://www.scirp.org) is engaged in the service of academic conferences and publications. It also devotes to the promotion of professional journals. The company has an outstanding work team as well as the widespread third party relations, enables our customers to obtain great satisfactions and convenience in their publications."
***Well, that took care of steps one and two***
2) Just the abstract alone proves the dishonesty of the "peer-reviewed" paper: numerous real peer-reviewed papers have demonstrated the cause-and-effect between rising CO2 levels: the higher atmospheric CO2 gets, the warmer it gets.
***And there's step number three.***
Of course, it comes as no surprise that Watts would desperately latch onto something like this; he has to know by now that his denialist point of view is dead in the water--but he's obviously not yet ready to give up his exhaustive search for little bits of science and non-science that will corroborate that point of view.
***With a side of poisoning the well and an ad hom attack.***
Updated: 11:03 PM GMT on January 02, 2011
The views of the author are his/her own and do not necessarily represent the position of The Weather Company or its parent, IBM.
Living in Biloxi MS, have been here since '85 (first Hurricane was Elena).