Lots of packing, moving and unpacking this week. My data and computer have been a bit disconnected this week. Will be back on Sunday.
You are currently browsing the archives for February, 2011.
This is a rare departure for this website. This is a genuine New York Times article that I consider interesting and useful. It is not directly related to climate in any way, but I believe it is very relevant to the issue of Climate Scientists. I wrote previously about the problem of scientific bias that shows up in climate science. The problem is real, but proving the issue is a challenge because many simply won’t acknowledge the reality.
One common argument presented to me is that the majority of climate scientists believe global warming is real. If I say that doesn’t matter, the instant retort is that I must believe that it is a conspiracy and therefore I must be a conspiracy nut. That approach is boring as it achieves nothing. This article in the NYT shows that no conspiracy is needed to prevent dissenting views from being spoken or published. I remain a little shocked that the NYT published an article that so clearly shows the fundamental problem with the academic circles.
I have previously discussed my frustration with the persistent statements about the CO2 correlation with the glacial/interglacial cycle. The conclusion being that CO2 is the knob that controls the Earth’s climate, or at least the natural cycles that the Earth has experienced for the past few million years. I have also shown how the climate of the Northern Hemisphere tends to drive overall global temperature.
It all comes down to cause and effect. Warmists focus only on CO2. The central cause for all changes to the Earth’s climate is the change in CO2 concentration. They will discuss something that triggers CO2 levels to increase, but then once CO2 starts changing, the rest is history. This of course ignores the evidence that CO2 levels have been high every time the Earth has started a glacial (ice age) in the past.
When I previously discussed that 2010 will likely show a significant drop in the global sea level I also stated that the rate of rise was decreasing. I spent some time trying to find a good way to accurately portray the accuracy of that statement. It occurred to me that perhaps the best way to do so was to determine the “acceleration” of the sea level rise. If one thinks of the the change in sea level as a “speed” then the acceleration would be the rate at which the velocity is changing. The end result is surprising and in the end I have a definitive acceleration rate for the sea level rise. Unfortunately it is not one that the warmists will like, but the numbers are strikingly clear.
The first step I used was to calculate the rate of rise for each 5 year period from 1995-2008. I used the least adjusted data from The University of Colorado sea level data. That would be the no-inverted-barometer with the seasonal signal included. This should be the most raw form of the sea level data. I have shown the 5 year trend for each year with the raw data here.
The Scientific American is putting out a four piece series about solar energy. The main point of the article is that solar energy needs government intervention to compete with current methods of generating electricity. The article is straightforward in stating that without government intervention, there is no way that solar will be able to compete. Much like wind power the problem with these “free” sources of energy is that they are not dependable.
Even with the enormous push over the past 10-15 years, solar power in the United States is only now equal to a single nuclear power plant of 1 GW (1,000 MW) of power. Of course even that is misleading as in a single year a 1 GW nuclear power plant will produce 4 times as much total power. That is because all forms of power are rated at their peak capacity. Solar panels produce only enough electricity to rate that peak energy 21% of the time.
The people at Rutgers Snow Lab have been a bit behind and have not updated the snow extent tabular data since the posted the end of 2010 data. They are still not as tardy as the people that provide global sea level data which is now 5 months behind, but that is another story. They finally updated the weekly data and the monthly data. I was going to put together something about Groundhog Day, but I guess it is appropriate to discuss the snow coverage anyway since poor Phil is getting an icy mix of weather as I write this.
2011 is off to a snowy start. Each of the first 4 weeks of the year have been above average snow coverage for the entire Northern Hemisphere by about 1 standard deviation. Overall the total snow coverage is very comparable to the same period of time last year. Some weeks a little higher than last year and some a little lower.
The United States has experienced three Decembers in a row that had below average temperatures according to the GHCN (NCDC). The last time this happened was the period from 1966-1968. While the overall temperatures have not been exceptionally cold (the coldest was the 14th coldest on record), the string of below average Decembers is unusual. The last time there were four below average Decembers was 1924-1927. This gives next year the chance to really set a significant record string of below average temperatures for the month of December.
Of course this is the GHCN station data which is on average warmer than the satellite records. It is no surprise that they already give the US a 4 year string of below average temperatures for December. So depending on the source of the temperature data the month of December has been below average for the past 3-4 years.