CO2 only works in the Northern Hemisphere

All the global warming hysteriacs claim that CO2 is the cause of global warming. I think I can disprove that. CO2 is spread evenly throughout the atmosphere. It blocks outgoing radiation everywhere equally because the physics is simple: X quantity of CO2 will increase the optical depth of the atmosphere by amount Y. Optical depth in simple terms is the opacity of the atmosphere to a given frequency. CO2 absorbs infrared, and so to certain infrared wavelengths, the atmosphere doesn't look clear and it has a hard time escaping. That is the theory.

Now look at the picture below.



You can go to the website, the NOAA website, and make this map. It is a trend map. It shows not the temperature but the rate the temperature is rising. A positive trend means the location is warming (reddish colors); a negative trend meand the location is cooling. Note that from 1971 to 2009, only the northern hemisphere is warming. Antarctica is cooling. Isn't that interesting. CO2 doesn't work in Antarctica!!!

The real answer is that CO2 isn't the cause of the warming or the cooling. It is hyper-illogical to think that CO2 causes warming in the northern hemisphere and cooling south of 60 deg S latitude, that is, in Antarctica.

Then there is another issue. Think of all the caterwalling that we have heard about how global warming is going to melt Antarctica, raise the sea levels and drown all those Bangladeshi's who are too stupid to move out of the way of the rising waters. Given that we know that Antarctica was below freezing in 1971, and we know from the trend map that it has been getting colder over the past 40 years or so, the global warming hyper-illogical hysteriac is asking us to believe that Antarctica is going to melt while it is getting colder by the year!

Only global warming makes people believe such nonsense.

Climatologists Suppress Dissent But Deny It

Found deep in a computer code hacked from the Climate Research Unit was a comment on how to handle the tree ring temperature proxy after 1960. It seesm that the thermometer record was continuing to rise but the pesky tree rings were not showing that increase in temperature. So a programmer writing code wrote this:


;Plots 24 yearly maps of calibrated (PCR-infilled or not) MXD reconstructions
; of growing season temperatures. Uses “corrected” MXD – but shouldn’t usually
; plot past 1960 because these will be artificially adjusted to look closer to
; the real temperatures.




Simply put, the global warming folk ignored the tree ring data and changed it to make it look like what they wanted it to look like. How very very very scientific of them. <- that was sarcasm

Well, the Wall Street Journal this morning has some more on these 'open-minded truth-seeking scientists. It says:


"For the record, when we've asked Mr. Mann in the past about the charge that he and his colleagues suppress opposing views, he has said he 'won't dignify that question with a response,"[/SIZE=3] Regarding our most recent queries about the hacked emails, he says he 'did not manipulate any data in any conceivable way,' but otherwise refuses to answer specific questions." Global Warming with the Lid Off, Wall Street Journal, Novf 24 2009, p. A22



How very very untruthful of the man if one is to believe what is found in the email allegedly written by him.




From: "Michael E. Mann"
To: Phil Jones ,rbradley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, mhughes@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,srutherford@xx...@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Re: Fwd: Soon & Baliunas
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 08:14:49 -0500
Cc: k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,jto@u.arizona...@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, keith.alverson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,mmaccra...@u.arizona.edu, mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

Thanks Phil,
(Tom: Congrats again!)
The Soon & Baliunas paper couldn't have cleared a 'legitimate' peer review process anywhere. That leaves only one possibility--that the peer-review process at Climate Research has been hijacked by a few skeptics on the editorial board. And it isn't just De Frietas, unfortunately I think this group also includes a member of my own department... The skeptics appear to have staged a 'coup' at "Climate Research" (it was a mediocre journal to begin with, but now its a mediocre journal with a definite 'purpose').
Folks might want to check out the editors and review editors:

[1]http://www.int-res.com/journals/cr/crEditors.html

In fact, Mike McCracken first pointed out this article to me, and he and I have discussed this a bit. I've cc'd Mike in on this as well, and I've included Peck too. I told Mike that I believed our only choice was to ignore this paper. They've already achieved what they wanted--the claim of a peer-reviewed paper. There is nothing we can do about that now, but the last thing we want to do is bring attention to this paper, which will be ignored by the community on the whole...
It is pretty clear that thee skeptics here have staged a bit of a coup, even in the presence of a number of reasonable folks on the editorial board (Whetton, Goodess, ...). My guess is that Von Storch is actually with them (frankly, he's an odd individual, and I'm not sure he isn't himself somewhat of a skeptic himself), and without Von Storch on their side, they would have a very forceful personality promoting their new vision. There have been several papers by Pat Michaels, as well as the Soon & Baliunas paper, that couldn't get published in a reputable journal.

This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the "peer-reviewed literature". Obviously, they found a solution to that--take over a journal! So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering "Climate Research" as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board...What do others think?
mike


Truth seekers shouldn't care if a paper is brought to the attention of others, but these guys only wanted to suppress dissenting and critical views. What a sad sham this is.

The above was a response to an email allegedly from Phil Jones


I think the skeptics will use this paper to their own ends and it will set paleo back a number of years if it goes unchallenged. I will be emailing the journal to tell them I'm having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor. A CRU person is on the editorial board, but papers get dealt with by the editor assigned by Hans von Storch.
Cheers
Phil


Yes, if this isn't a case of suppressing opposing views I don't know what one is. And of course, after denying their critics opportunities to publish, these guys then claim that the work is no good because it can't be published.

Salinger and Control of Peer Review

It is quite fascinating going through the alleged emails of the climatologists. Once again, Phil Jones, at least, is not denying their reality.

I will bold the part of this that implies the active suppression of dissent.

From: j.salinger@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
To: Tom Wigley , Phil Jones , Mike Hulme , Keith Briffa , James Hansen , Danny Harvey , Ben Santer , Kevin Trenberth , Robert wilby , "Michael E. Mann" , Tom Karl , Steve Schneider , Tom Crowley , jto , "simon.shackley" , "tim.carter" , "p.martens" , "peter.whetton" , "c.goodess" , "a.minns" , Wolfgang Cramer , "j.salinger" , "simon.torok" , Mark Eakin , Scott Rutherford , Neville Nicholls , Ray Bradley , Mike MacCracken , Barrie Pittock , Ellen Mosley-Thompson , "pachauri@xxxxxxxxx.xxx" , "Greg.Ayers" , Tom Wigley
Subject: And again from the south!
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 20:28:20 +1200

Dear friends and colleagues

This will be the last from me for the moment and I believe we are all
arriving at a consensus voiced by Tom, Barrie, Neville et al., from
excellent discussions.

Firstly both Danny and Tom have complained to de Freitas about
his editorial decision, which does not uphold the principles of good
science. Tom has shared the response. I would be curious to find
out who the other four cited are - but a rebuttal would be excellent.

Ignoring bad science eventually reinforces the apparent 'truth' of
that bad science in the public mind, if it is not corrected. As
importantly, the 'bad science' published by CR is used by the
sceptics' lobbies to 'prove' that there is no need for concern over
climate change. Since the IPCC makes it quite clear that there are
substantial grounds for concern about climate change, is it not
partially the responsibility of climate science to make sure only
satisfactorily peer-reviewed science appears in scientific
publications? - and to refute any inadequately reviewed and wrong
articles that do make their way through the peer review process?

I can understand the weariness which the ongoing sceptics'
onslaught would induce in anyone, scientist or not. But that's no
excuse for ignoring bad science. It won't go away, and the more
we ignore it the more traction it will gain in the minds of the general
public, and the UNFCCC negotiators. If science doesn't uphold the
purity of science, who will?

We Australasians (including Tom as an ex pat) have suggested
some courses of action. Over to you now in the north to assess
the success of your initiatives, the various discussions and
suggestions and arrive on a path ahead. I am happy to be part of it.

Warm wishes to all

Jim

source

One certainly gets the feeling that anything that gets through peer-review with these guys and which disagrees with these guys, is not legitimately good science. And after they squash any article which they disapprove of, they can turn around and whack the skeptic with the claim that his work isn't peer reviewed.

GISS says: European Thermometers Don't Work

James Hansen's group and colleagues at the Goddard Institute of Space Science (GISS) take the global temperatures and process them, correct them and out put maps and charts showing how the earth is warming incredibly and implying that we are all going to die before it is over (which may be true regardless of what happens to CO2--so the preachers tell me)

Anyway, sometimes it is really instructive to look at the corrections, to see what patterns they have geographically. To that end, I went to this site and made a map using the Hadley/Reyn Ocean data plus the unadjusted land data from 1880-2008 data. Next the gridded data was downloaded. I then made the same map using the GISS adjusted data and downloaded it. Then, after subtracting one grid from another, one can see what the magnitude of the adjustments are. Then I averaged the difference over both the latitudinal and longitudinal axes producing two graphs. Just so you can visually see the difference between the two maps, here is the unadjusted data followed by the adjusted map.






Note that the adjusted map has hotter temperatures. This is a very important point: a scientist only corrects the data if he thinks he knows it is bad and how much it is bad. In the case of thermometers, this means that they think the thermometers they correct are not working properly. That says that in general GISS has to think that the raw data is reading far too cold and must have their readings pushed upwards. There really is no other explanation for the additional heat. We will apply this logic to their corrections.

So, now that we have seen the maps, let's look at the latitudinal distribution of the corrections. This is very interesting.



When all is boiled down to its essence, the GISS temperature editors must be believing that southern hemisphere thermometers work just fine. They need no corrections, or very small corrections. But WOAH, move that thermometer into the northern hemisphere and it goes cold on them. How interesting that the laws of physics change between the hemispheres. Metallic expansion, upon which most thermometers are based, must behave differently in the north than in the south because the GISS folks feel the need to correct the north far in excess of the correction they give to the southern hemisphere.

Of course, the conclusions drawn from their corrections are silly. But that doesn't mean the logic is faulty, it means that the corrections are silly. Why would modern thermometers in, say Argentina or South Africa work better than those in Europe? They shouldn't.

Let's look at the longitudinal distribution of their adjustments. In this case I averaged the adjustments over the longitude bins.




Woah!!! This says that the GISS climatologists somehow believe that a thermometer in Africa or Europe needs as much as 8x more correction than a thermometer in China. Wow. What a discovery. And since the only way that the max correction can be both in the northern hemisphere and between 0 and 81 deg longitude is for the bad thermometers to be in Europe. All of the European thermometers read too cold and must have heat added to them. So much for German engineering. What happens to a thermometer in Europe that makes the GISS climatologists think that they are all reading too cold? Are all the thermometers inside shopping malls? I doubt it. But since GISS won't change the temperature of a thermometer unless there is something wrong with it, clearly they think that European thermometers are just crap.

The logical conclusion from all this? If you want your thermometer to work well, don't move it to Europe, Africa or the Northern Hemisphere. Carry on.

Apparent Data Alteration among the Climatologists

Here is an example of data alteration by the climatologists. Do any of the AGW folk want to defend the cutting out of data that shows cooling? Here is an alleged email from Mick Kelly, a New Zealander to Phil Jones the leader of the Hadley Centre. I will post the various emails in the temporal order. This comes from http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=927&filename=1225026120.txt




> > Hi Phil
> >
> > Just updated my global temperature trend graphic for a
> public talk and
> > noted
> > that the level has really been quite stable since 2000 or
> so and 2008
> > doesn't look too hot.
> >
> > Anticipating the sceptics latching on to this soon, if they
> haven't done
> > already, has anyone had a good look at the large-scale circulation
> > anomalies
> > over this period? I haven't noticed anything consistent
> coming up in the
> > annual climate reviews but then I wasn't really looking.
> >
> > Be awkward if we went through a early 1940s type swing!
> >
> > Hope all's well with you
> >
> > Mick
> >
> > ____________________________________________
> >
> > Mick Kelly
> > PO Box 4260 Kamo
> > Whangarei 0141 New Zealand
> > email: mick.tiempo@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
> > web: www.tiempocyberclimate.org
> > ____________________________________________


Phil allegedly replied:


]> -----Original Message-----
> From: P.Jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx [mailto:P.Jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx]
> Sent: 24 October 2008 20:39
> To: Mick Kelly
> Subject: Re: Global temperature
>
>
> Mick,
> They have noticed for years - mostly wrt
> the warm year of 1998. The recent coolish years
> down to La Nina. When I get this question I
> have 1991-2000 and 2001-2007/8 averages to hand.
> Last time I did this they were about 0.2 different,
> which is what you'd expect.
> In Iceland at a meeting that Astrid invited me to.
> Cold with snow on the ground, but things cheap as the
> currency has gone down 30-40% wrt even the pound.
>
>
> Cheers
> Phil
>


to which Mick apparently said he would cut out the downward trending data.




From: Mick Kelly
To:
Subject: RE: Global temperature
Date: Sun, 26 Oct 2008 09:02:00 +1300

Yeah, it wasn't so much 1998 and all that that I was concerned about, used
to dealing with that, but the possibility that we might be going through a
longer - 10 year - period of relatively stable temperatures beyond what you
might expect from La Nina etc.

Speculation, but if I see this as a possibility then others might also.
Anyway, I'll maybe cut the last few points off the filtered curve before I
give the talk again as that's trending down as a result of the end effects
and the recent cold-ish years.
Enjoy Iceland and pass on my best wishes to Astrid.

Mick



For those who have claimed that there isn't a conspiracy you should go look through these emails as I have. here we have a guy altering the data to make it look warmer, no doubt with the best of intentions.

So, does anyone want to defend what they are doing?

More Peer Review Corruption

The global warming advocates (AGW) have used the peer review process to exclude anyone who has a differing opinion from them. The peer-review criterion they want seems to be whether or not the article is critical or accepting of anthropogenic global warming. "Good science" supports the AGW crowd; "bad science" doesn't. Such a process will ensure that the skeptics can't get published. Below are excerpts from an alleged email from Tom Wigley on Wed Apr 23, 2003 (and yes I checked to see that Apr 23, 2003 was a Wednesday). His desire to control what gets published is quite clear in this alleged email

In this part he wants to be able to control the publication of papers critical of his position. That is what a peer-reviewer does.

Let me give you an example. There was a paper a few years ago by Legates and Davis in GRL (vol. 24, pp. 2319-1222, 1997) that was nothing more than a direct and pointed criticism of some work by Santer and me -- yet neither of us was asked to review the paper. We complained, and GRL admitted it was poor judgment on the part of the editor. Eventually (> 2 years later) we wrote a response (GRL 27, 2973-2976, 2000). However, our response was more that just a rebuttal, it was an attempt to clarify some issues on detection. In doing things this way we tried to make it clear that the original Legates/Davis paper was an example of bad science (more bluntly, either sophomoric ignorance or deliberate misrepresentation). source

Buried in an email Jan 21, 2005 was an email to Mann which gave the editor's reasons for not including Mann as part of the review team. This was apparently from Malcolm Hughes to Mike Mann.

At 08:47 PM 1/20/2005, mhughes@xxxxxxxxx.xxx wrote:
>
>> Mike - I found this sentence in the reply from the GRL
>> Editor-in-Chief to be
>> interesting:
>> "As this manuscript was not written as a Comment, but rather as
>> a full-up scientific manuscript, you would not in general be asked to
>> look it over."here

This would be normal procedure, but given the penchant for dissent suppression that these guys engaged in, one is not surprised to see Mann want to stop any criticism of his work.

This second case gets to the crux of the matter. I suspect that deFreitas deliberately chose other referees who are members of the skeptics camp. I also suspect that he has done this on other occasions. How to deal with this is unclear, since there are a number of individuals with bona fide scientific credentials who could be used by an unscrupulous editor to ensure that 'anti-greenhouse' science can get through the peer review process (Legates, Balling, Lindzen, Baliunas, Soon, and so on).

The peer review process is being abused, but proving this would be difficult.

The best response is, I strongly believe, to rebut the bad science that does get through. This is from this site

Amazingly he doesn't see that he is trying to abuse the peer review process himself by denying opposite opinions and criticisms of his own work. He also wants to control who deFreitas choses to use. How totalitarian of him.

And this allegedly from Treavor Davies shows again that they are merely interested in being sure that no 'bad science' defined as anything critical of them gets published, but then using that against any critic.

From: "Davies Trevor Prof (ENV)"
To: "Ogden Annie Ms (MAC)" , "Briffa Keith Prof (ENV)" , "Jones Philip Prof (ENV)"
Subject: RE: Climate Research Centre crisis spreads
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2009 08:33:16 +0100
Cc: "Summers Brian Mr (REG)" , "Preece Alan Mr (MAC)"

WE should make a statement along these lines. We should also stress that McIntyres analysis has not been peer-reviewed (& we need to explain what this means - for the man-in-the street).

Given the fact that this campaign is clearly not going to die down & we now have a silly attempt to escalate it locally (dragging Norfolk's reputation thro the mud), I have revised my view & feel we do need to pursue the spectator more vigorously. To me, it seems straightforward - Keith has been accused of fraud on an official Spectator website - that is (wharever the legal word is).

Peer review has become a cudgel to be used on opponents in all areas of science. Members of one point of view populate the review panels and reject anything that disagrees with them. Then the use the lack of publications by critics in peer reviewed journals as a reason no one should listen to them. This is not science but politics.

CRU hacked emails and Peer Review Corruption

I have been skeptical for a long time about the criticism of global warming advocates to allow skeptics to publish. Then they turn around and claim that the skeptical science is no good because they don't publish in reputable journals. Emails from the Hadley center confirm this

For anyone wanting to peruse all the emails go to http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/search.php

The interesting thing as I am perusing, there is almost no way this could be a hoax. 62 mb of data is 62 books worth of information, a book being about 1 meg worth of writing. But there is another interesting thing. Phil Jones admits that CRU was hacked and in an interview does not deny the emails are legitimate. here

I am looking into statements about peer review. This allegedly from

From: "Michael E. Mann" To: Phil Jones ,rbradley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, mhughes@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,srutherford@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,tcrowley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Subject: Re: Fwd: Soon & Baliunas Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 08:14:49 -0500 Cc: k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,jto@u.arizona.edu,drdendro@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, keith.alverson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,mmaccrac@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,jto@u.arizona.edu, mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx



Thanks Phil,

(Tom: Congrats again!)

The Soon & Baliunas paper couldn't have cleared a 'legitimate' peer review process
anywhere. That leaves only one possibility--that the peer-review process at Climate
Research has been hijacked by a few skeptics on the editorial board. And it isn't just De Frietas, unfortunately I think this group also includes a member of my own department...

The skeptics appear to have staged a 'coup' at "Climate Research" (it was a mediocre
journal to begin with, but now its a mediocre journal with a definite 'purpose').
Folks might want to check out the editors and review editors:

What is hilarious is that he wants climate journals to have a different purpose--the exclusion of skeptics while he complains about skeptics finding a way to publish.


Then at the end of the email Mike Mann says this about the criticism of skeptics that they can't get published anywhere. Of course that was because, as I have said several times, the peer review process is stacked against them. These emails prove it.



This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the
"peer-reviewed literature". Obviously, they found a solution to that--take over a journal!

So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering "Climate Research" as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently
sit on the editorial board...

What do others think?

mike

Attached to the alleged Mike Mann email was an email allegedly from Phil Jones. He too is against free expression of scientific thought

Dear all,

Tim Osborn has just come across this. Best to ignore probably, so don't let it
spoil your day. I've not looked at it yet. It results from this journal having a number of editors. [B]The responsible one for this is a well-known skeptic in NZ. He has let a few papers through by Michaels and Gray in the past. I've had words with Hans von Storch about this, but got nowhere.

Another thing to discuss in Nice !

Cheers

Phil



NOPE, skeptics need to try to publish because they won't be allowed to. And then when they are denied access to publishing, they are then criticized for not publishing. Phil Jones even went so far as to try to talk to an editor about not publishing anything skeptical. This isn't how science is suposed to work.

Summer Warming and Airconditioning

I have had a friend who is a believer in anthropogenic global warming tell me that if air conditioners were affecting the temperature record, we should see the summer season be warmer than the winter. I have a slight variation on this. One hundred years ago, we didn't have air conditioners. That gave me the idea to measure the trend of the daily temperatures over the history of some of the southern weather stations, the part of the country which has the most air conditioner fans.

The picture above shows precisely the effect one would expect of airconditioning. Over the past century in Gainesville, Georgia, the daily temperature trend has risen faster in the summer than in the winter--consistent with a thermometer next to an air conditioning coil.

200 kyr of 1000+ ppm CO2 Won't Melt Antarctica

I was really interested to see that in the geologic record there is excellent evidence for the survival of the Antarctic ice sheets in a world of 1000 ppm, and that those ice sheets survived for 200,000 years at those CO2 levels. This, is totally contrary to all the hoopla about how Antarctica is about to melt into the sea--next week and kill all those Bangladeshi's who, without the help and guidance of those comfortable Western global warming hysteriacs, would be too stupid to move out of the way.

I ran across the following in Nature about the time when the Antarctic ice sheets first grew. This occurred 33.6 to 33.5 million years ago as the CO2 content of the atmosphere dropped below ~750-850 ppm of CO2.

"First, they conclude that the slow temperature decline recorded by oxygen isotopes was concomitant with a decline of atmospheric CO2 from about 1,100 p.p.m.v. to a threshold concentration of about 750 p.p.m.v., at which the main phase of Antarctic ice-cap growth was initiated. This finding confirms model predictions that - contrary to what might be expected - the initiation and the rapid expansion of the Antarctic ice sheet occurred about 33.5 million years ago at levels of atmospheric CO2 that were more than twice the present -day value. Pearson et al. propose that the Antarctic glaciation was preconditioned by the global cooling associated with the decline of atmospheric CO2, But the glaciation really started only when Earth's orbital parameters, which change periodically, favoured the process." Damien Lemarchand, "Early Survival of Antarctic Ice," Nature, 461(2009): 1065



Similar statements to that above have appeared in the literature, but when you look at these, notice that the Antarctican glaciation began 33.6 million years ago.

"Oligocene epoch (-33.6 million years ago), followed by the onset of northern-hemispheric glacial cycles in the late Pliocene epoch, about 31 million years later'. . . . We show that the CO2 threshold below which glaciation occurs in the Northern Hemisphere (-280 p.p.m.v.) is much lower than that for Antarctica (-750 p.p.m.v.). " Robert M. DeConto, et al, “Thresholds for Cenozoic Bipolar Glaciation,” Nature, 445(2008), p. 652

"Between the Oligocene and mid-Miocene, 11 to 35 million years ago, values averaged 600 ppm, get if we extend into the Late Eocene, we see levels possibly up to 2,000 ppm. This reflects a major decrease starting in the Eocene and coinciding with the development of widespread Antarctic glaciation in the earliest Oligocene. An Eocene-Oligocene boundary fall in pC02 is supported by climate models, which indicate that large-scale Antarctic glaciation cannot occur with pC02 values above -850 ppm."Jane Whaley, “The Azolla Story: Climate Change and Arctic Hydrocarbons,” Geo Expro, 4(2007):4:66-72, p. 70-71

I was intrigued by the claim that one must be below 750 ppm CO2 in order to have Antarctican glaciation. At first glance, it seemed to me that the opposite is also likely true, that it wouldn't melt until we passed that CO2 level. But quite logically, if one thinks about it, my first thought was wrong. Once formed, it takes even higher CO2 levels to melt it (because of albedo issues--the amount of light reflected from the ice).


"The authors' second conclusion is that, although the newly formed ice cap may have shrunk somewhat, it largely survived a subsequent and rapid recovery of atmospheric CO2 back to levels of 1,000 p.p.m.v. or more."Damien Lemarchand, "Early Survival of Antarctic Ice," Nature, 461(2009): 1065

If you go look at the article you will see a couple of things. First, the rebound of CO2 was up to 1125 ppm, yet the Antarctican ice didn't melt. It didn't melt even with 200,000 years of above 1000 ppm CO2 levels. You will see that interesting fact in the following picture from that article, which I modified to show some interesting features.




Notice that the red bar that I put on the CO2 curve showing how long the earth was above 1000 ppm CO2. I copied that bar and placed it on the X-axis to show that the earth spent 200,000 years above 1000 ppm yet the Antarctic ice cap didn't melt. The authors say

"We also find a sharp Pco2 increase after maximum ice growth as the global carbon cycle adjusted to the presence of a large ice cap and there was a nonlinear hysteresis effect as the ice cap withstood this transient Pco2 atm rise." Paul N. Pearson et al, "Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Through the Eocene-Oligocene Climate Transition," Nature 461(2009), p. 1112

Two hundred thousand years is TRANSIENT????? Not by my definition. I am transient, living less than 100 years; glaciers are permanent if they last 200,000 years. Modern mankind has only been on earth for 160,000 years.


Now, we are a long long way away from 1000 ppm CO2. And even after we get there, the Antarctic ice sheet will not melt for at least another 200,000 years. Because of this, all this screaming about Antarctic ice shelves melting because of CO2 is just so much hooey. Fear-mongering sells newspapers and makes people willing to give up their freedom to anyone who will save them from the boogeyman. Anthropologists tell us that anatomically modern Homo sapiens has been on earth for 160,000 years. Thus even with 1000 ppm of CO2 for all that time, we would still be able to view the Antarctic ice sheets that was on earth when the earliest modern human appeared. Clearly the ice sheets are far far more stable than the screaming meemies today think. The science clearly says that Antarctia won't melt in our life-time,and thus, one must conclude that all of this hysteria-spreading is for the purpose of getting you to give them your tax dollars to solve a problem that doesn't exist.

In Order to Save the Planet We Killed the Birds

A friend emailed me tonight to point out that Spain was getting 50% of its electricity from wind power. That made me recall an article I had seen a month or so ago. it suggested that there was a problem, but I couldn't recall what it was (having an old brain is like having a car without a motor). Like many, my friend, not to mention yours truly, is skeptical of global warming, but also is fearful of running out of oil. We have discussed both over the months. We will need a new energy source.

I searched my database and found that I had not made notes on that Spanish wind turbine problem. I wasn't sure what journal (I take many) it was to be found in. So, I searched. Bingo. I found it, and it tells a sad story of the lack of foresight amongst the greens.

Here is the anthropogenic global warming logic. In order to save the planet, we must go to green energy sources, wind, solar, geothermal, hydrological. That, it is said, will remove CO2 from the atmosphere and save us from the hellish heat they predict. So far so good (except the impact of CO2 is 1/5 (source) of what they claim, but other than that... going green is ok with me).

But it isn't OK with the vultures, bats or other birds. A recent study of Egyptian vultures in Spain showed that the wind farms are going to drive the vulture extinct. (source). But it isn't just vultures.

Bats too seem to love to collide with wind power turbines. (source). It also seems that the air pressure drop behind the turbines, busts up the delicate lungs of the bats.


And then there are the condors that wind turbines are killing--via collision.
(source)

Yep, going green to save the planet means vultures, condors and bats must die. Ain't saving the planet nice?


The problem with the greens is that they can't seem to think one step beyond where they are. They want to get rid of CO2 and urge going to wind power. But then, they didn't think about what those rotating blades would do to the flying wild life. It is an abysmal lack of foresight on their part.

Saving the Bangladeshi's

While debating global warming, I am often told that if we don't do something we will drown the Bangladeshi people. That of course presumes that they are so stupid as to stand still while the ocean waters cover them--which says something about the lunacy and condescension of the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) advocates. But that aside. I want to assure the AGW folk that I am not scheming to drown the Bangladeshi's as rapidly as possible. But it is always phrased that way, as if all of us GW critics just love the sound of the gurgle as the last Bangladeshi gives up his last breath. What hooey and political nonsense.

The Wall Street Journal had an article which talked about the view of global warming from Bangladesh. It concerned Mr. Begum. Mrs. Begum's husband earns $44 a month. They have no savings and they can't afford school for their children or the $4 to go to the health care clinic if they get sick. (This is why we need to get their economies going to fix the health care) She cooks her food next to an open sewer (how appetizing). Her village has had lots of politiicans coming to visit to see what they could do to save the Bangladeshi's from global warming. Her life never changes. These heartless people come, see and go away doing nothing for her life. When they explained what global warming was, she said:




"Mrs. Begum's biggest challenge is not what the sea level may do in five or 10 decades. She has a more modest request: "It would be a heaven's gift if a proper drainage system could be arranged in this area where all the drains are covered and do not overflow."

. ...
"For Mrs. Begum, the choice is simple. After global warming was explained to her, she said: "When my kids haven't got enough to eat, I don't think global warming will be an issue I will be thinking about."Bjorn Lomborg, "Global Warming as Seen from Bangladesh," Wall Street Journal, Nov. 9, 2009, p. A17

A guy with whom I have been debating asked me how I intended to fix the environmental and health problems. I wrote this which is consistent with the above.

The solution will require two things, energy and the recognition that CO2 is not the problem AGW folk think it is. Let's look at the socieities which have low air pollution and good environmental laws. They are the Western wealthy countries. You want clean air, you have to give the third world, economies that actually grow to make them wealthy enough so they will both care about the environment and have the money to fix it. Wealth would solve that problem. Poor people in poor economies don't care about the environment. They want food.

Environmentalists want fewer children on earth. What countries are having fewer children? Well, it is the rich western countries. As incomes rise women have fewer children. That would solve that problem.

What socieites have good healthcare? Why once again, it is the wealthy western nations. If you want to fix the third world health problems you need to get their economies growing so that they can have the money to get to health care.

Remember this as people tell you what is good for the Bangladeshi's, as if someone sitting comfortably in a comfortable western home knows what is good for the poor Bangladeshi's.

More snow this year than last.

Snow takes cold weather to exist. I have commented in this blog about the dearth of sunspots and noted that the lack of sunspots means that the sun puts out less energy. This year, so far, has had far fewer sunspots than last year and we have more snow on the ground this year than last. The two pictures show it.

The picture below shows how unusual the behavior of the sun is. We should, by all accounts be approaching solar maximum. Instead we are still in a period of declining solar activity. Cold weather is what we should expect. Every time in history that the sun has had fewer sunspots had resulted in a cooler world.

Cap and Trade's $1760/family tax hike

Won't you just love getting a 2-3% pay cut? Yep, that is Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid's plan for you. These democrats are trying to push through this cap and trade legislation to tamp down the use of fossil fuel and encourage the building of solar and wind energy sources. Few people realize what will probably happen under this stupid bill.

The most important thing is that your costs for driving, for getting electricity, for buying anything transported to you will rise rapidly. Last March the Wall Street Journal wrote:

"The Congressional Budget Office -- Mr. Orszag's former roost -- estimates that the price hikes from a 15% cut in emissions would cost the average household in the bottom-income quintile about 3.3% of its after-tax income every year. That's about $680, not including the costs of reduced employment and output. The three middle quintiles would see their paychecks cut between $880 and $1,500, or 2.9% to 2.7% of income. The rich would pay 1.7%. Cap and trade is the ideal policy for every Beltway analyst who thinks the tax code is too progressive (all five of them)." "Who Pays for Cap and Trade? Wall Street Journal, March 9, 2009,p. A18

Yep, this is a tax on the poor, contrary to Obama's promise.

They also wrote:

"Coal provides more than half of U.S. electricity, and 25 states get more than 50% of their electricity from conventional coal-fired generation. In Ohio, it totals 86%, according to the Energy Information Administration. Ratepayers in Indiana (94%), Missouri (85%), New Mexico (80%), Pennsylvania (56%), West Virginia (98%) and Wyoming (95%) are going to get soaked." Who Pays for Cap and Trade? Wall Street Journal, March 9, 2009,p. A18

Now, when the Republicans tried to limit the damage this will have on the poor people, the Democrats killed every suggestion.

"During the brief few days in which the bill was debated in the House Energy Committee, Republicans offered three amendments: one to suspend the program if gas hit $5 a gallon; one to suspend the program if electricity prices rose 10% over 2009; and one to suspend the program if unemployment rates hit 15%. Democrats defeated all of them." "The Cap and Tax Fiction," JUNE 26, 2009, A12

One of the saddest things in this carbon cap and trade bill is the callousness with which the democrats kill every suggestion to lower the heavy burden. One way to lower the burden of energy costs is to increase the supply of energy, meaning letting us drill offshore for American oil. But the Democracts will have nothing to do with that. They don't want your energy costs to be low. In the following YouTube video, you can see Senator Salazar, now our Interior secretary, kill every suggestion to allow us to drill if energy becomes too costly. I guess Salazar doesn't really care about the poor, who won't be able to pay another $3.3% of their income and won't be able to pay for gas to go to work if the energy costs rise again.

Movie here. Watch the Democrat not care about how much you have to pay for gasoline

Now, Jake Tapper and Matt Jaffe report that the cost to the average family will be $1760 per year in costs. They get that from a memo leaked to a blogger which said that the cost would be between $100 and $200 billion dollars for the US to implement Cap and Trade. That works out to $1761/family.

Happy taxation. All for the purpose of solving a non-existent problem.

Does Pan Evaporation Indicate A Cooling World?

A friend, Chase Saunders, a man I have known since he was in the third grade when he and my third grade son became good friends, asked me about pan evaporation and why it was decreasing. Was it due to a reduction in the sun's irradiance? I did some quick research to find what the heck pan evaporation was. Basically you take a tank of water, put it outdoors and fill it up with water to a specified level. Then you measure how much water evaporates each day. And every day when you measure the evaporation, you re-fill it. If it rains, you take that into account and then remove water from the pan to bring it back to the appropriate level. Such measurements help farmers know how much irrigation they need to do to keep the crops alive. Pan evaporation measurements have been carried out for decades around the globe.

Now, one would expect that since hot water evaporates more quickly than cold water, that as the earth warms, the evaporation would increase. After all, if you put a pan on the stove and keep the water at 150 deg F it will evaporate faster than the room temperature pan kept over by the sink. So, why is it that pan evaporation over the globe has dropped over the past several decades?

The oldest article on this that I could find was from the third Nature magazine I have in my library. The following chart is published there.



You can see that the evaporation rate has been going down since 1945 yet the world has been warming--so the thermometers say. So is there other data showing the same thing? Yes, Australia shows the same thing.



Japan also shows a decrease in pan evaporation.



And all but one region of the US.



New Zealand:

" There were no sites showing statistically significant increases in pan evaporation. A rough indicative average for the decline in the pan evaporation rate across all 19 sites was about 2 mm a^−2 and was generally consistent with the previously reported declines of 2–4 mm a^−2 from the Northern Hemisphere and from Australia." MICHAEL L. RODERICK and GRAHAM D. FARQUHAR ," CHANGES IN NEW ZEALAND PAN EVAPORATION SINCE THE 1970s," Int. J. Climatol. 25: 2031–2039 (2005)

The -2 mm per year drop in evaporation reported above is not unusual.
This article, Michael L. Roderick, Michael T. Hobbins and Graham D. Farquhar "Pan Evaporation Trends and the Terrestrial Water Balance. I. Principles and Observations," Geography Compass 3/2 (2009): 746–760, has other declines in pan evaporation rates.

India -12 mm/year
China -2.8 to 3.9 mm/year
Thailand -10 mm/year
Turkey -24 mm/year
Canada -1 mm/year

Israel, Ireland, Kuwait, and the UK are the only places with increasing pan evaporation rates, but the UK and Ireland also have some studies showing declines. This decline is a widespread phenomenon and is contradictory to the expectations of global warming.

Roderick and Farquhar published an article in Science suggesting that these results could be explained by a 3% per decade drop in solar irradiance. Needless to say they admit that they have encountered scepticism over this claim. Their article can be found for non-subscribers to Science at this place.

The IPCC rejects any significant changes in solar irradiance.

The radiative forcing due to changes in solar irradiance for the period since 1750 is estimated to be about +0.3 Wm-2, most of which occurred during the first half of the 20th century. Since the late 1970s, satellite instruments have observed small oscillations due to the 11-year solar cycle. Mechanisms for the amplification of solar effects on climate have been proposed, but currently lack a rigorous theoretical or observational basis.
source

Nasa data shows no decline in solar irradiance over the past 35 years.




So, what other alternatives exist? Humidity is one. If the air is more humid it will slow evaporation. The problem is that this is ruled out for the following reason:

"However, this explanation for decreasing pan
evaporation is unsatisfactory for two reasons.
First, it only predicts changes in pan evaporation
in water-limited environments. The
problem is that some areas are not waterlimited,
and in wet environments the evaporation
from pans and the surrounding environment
have both declined.Michael L. Roderick and Graham D. Farquhar, "The Cause of Decreased Pan Evaporation over the Past 50 Years" Science, 298(2002), p. 1410

So, if humidity and a change in solar irradiance are ruled out as explanations for why it is harder to evaporate a pan of water today than 50 years ago, are there any other possibilities?

Yes, it is obvious from the pictures that Anthony Watts at this site that there are huge problems with the thermometer record. Also if you just take the raw data, it shows half a degree less of warming than the final edited GISS data does. Editing adds heat. The bias of the climatologists take in raw data showing a slight warming trend, and then turn out a final record that is warming by 1/2 deg C more. But that warming trend in the original data is probably mostly from the urban heat island effect.

The incompetence of the climatologists at measuring temperatures can be seen in any of my analyses of the temperature records between two closely spaced towns. Just look through my blog's archive to find them.





Most of the pan evaporation stations are in rural areas and the information is used to aid in irrigation decisions.



The thermometer record is often in cities where the temperatures are affected by urban heat and air conditioner exhaust fans. Maybe the explanation for the pan paradox is that the earth ISN'T warming but is really cooling. That too would explain why it is harder to evaporate a pan today than 50 years ago, contrary to the expectations of global warming. It would also fit into the general decline of temperature since the last deglaciation, as seen in the deuterium in the ice cores.



The earth has been cooling for 10,000 years. Maybe it still is.

Pontificating Biofuels

The eco-nuttery rampant in modern society involves almost everything we do. Some want us to eat our pets. Others want us to eat only human breast milk ice-cream (Can I have that milking job?) Others say we should use our food supply as a fuel. Corn-based ethanol, which will drain all the water out of our aquifers. Such are the unintended consequences of well-intentioned, but abysmally ignorant, solutions to problems that may not exist.

For decades these pontif wanna-be's have assured us that they know what they are talking about and now, years after the biofuel hype, they wake up and go "What? You mean a plant needs water to grow???" Yep, these are the genius's who are telling you what to do. But before we get to the water problem let's look at the mental problem.

At the heart of the environmental movement is the belief that a small cadre of individuals are smarter than all the rest of us. They always know what is best for us poor common people. They will take care of us. Rather than letting us live as equals, even as adults, they think that they are our superiors, having a superior knowledge that entitles them to tell the rest of us what to do. We are the children; they are the stern parents who must tell us the unfortunate news that we, but not they, have to eat our broccoli. One finds statements like Jacobson and Delucchi's in the literature, speaking of replacing oil, coal and natural gas with wind,water and solar energy:

"With extremely aggressive policies, all existing fossil-fuel capacity could theoretically be retired and replaced in the same period, but with more modest and likely policies full replacement may take 40 to 50 years. Either way, clear leadership is needed, or else nations will keep trying techologies promoted by industries rather than vetted by scientists." Mark Z. Jacobson and Mark A. Delucchi, "A Path to Sustainable Energy by 2030," Scientific American, November 2009, p. 65.

They, the scientists want to pontificate their solutions to us. They are the fount of all knowledge.

They also suggest that legistators should do what they, the scientists say, rather than what their constituents say.

"For their part, legislators crafting policy must find ways to resist lobbying by the entrenched energy industries." Mark Z. Jacobson and Mark A. Delucchi, "A Path to Sustainable Energy by 2030," Scientific American, November 2009, p. 64.

Those industries employ tens of thousands of constituents, and with the stroke of a pen, Jacobson and Delucchi, pontif wanna-be's, say their legislators should not listen to their constituents. This would deny those citizens their right to redress the government for grievances--something our constitution allows, at least up to this time.

Jacobson and Delucchi want to dictate solutions to our legislators rather than going to the hard work of convincing us that what they say is correct. They of course, ignore other scientists who know how impossible it is to generate the energy for our modern society by law. David Deming, a geophysicist at the University of Oklahoma said

"This is an absurd spectacle. Our advanced civilization is being systematically mismanaged by technologically illiterate lawyers responding to political pressures from irrational fanatics. Would someone please tell these people it is impossible to overturn the laws of thermodynamics?"
"We cannot improve our economy by artificially forcing people to use expensive, unreliable and inefficient energy sources. David Deming, "Global Warming Freeze?" The Washington Times, Dec 10, 2008. source

Dr. Deming, a person with whom I have communicated a couple of times, seems to mistakenly believe that logic is going to be a useful tool with fanatics. It isn't A recent article proclaimed the virtues of biofuels. Reading this one thinks that back aches and cancer might also be cured by using biofuels.

"Biofuels are liquid energy Version 2.0. Unlike their fossil fuel counterparts--the cadaverous remains of plants that died hundreds of millions of years ago--biofuels come from vegetation grown in the here and now. So they should offer a carbon-neutral energy source: Plants that become biofuels ideally consume more carbon dioxide during photosynthesis than they emit when processed and burned for power. Biofules make fossil fuels seem so last century, so quaintly carboniferous."
"And these new liquid fuels promise more than just carbon correctness. They offer a renewable, home-grown energy source, reducing the need for foreign oil. They present ways to heal an agricultural landscape hobbled by intensive fertilizer use. Biofuels could even help clean waterways, reduce air pollution, enhance wildlife habitats and increase biodiversity." Rachael Ehrenberg, The Biofuel Future," Science News, August 1, 2009, p. 25

Wow. Did you know that merely by turning corn into alcohol you can heal the land? But if you eat the corn you despoil the land? I never knew that until Rachael Ehrenberg informed me of it. Merely putting the corn in a distillery heals the land. I for one and doing my part by drinking as much ethanol as I can, mostly ethanol from Scotland.

I love Ehrenberg's use of 'cadaverous' describe petroleum as if ich, its dead. Don't touch. Biofuels also are cadaverous, since the plants are dead when the biofuel is made. But such emotional words are the main substance of the argument--petroleum is stinking rot but biofuels is perfume. I also love the word "ideally", which means she has not freaking clue whether biofuels do or don't sequester carbon.

Ehrenberg's enthusiasm is shared by our Energy Secretary, Steven Chu.

"For our economy, our security and our environment, we must free ourselves from foreign oil. We must depend not on the oilfields of the Middle East but on the farm fields of the Midwest and on our vast wind and solar resources here at home." Steven Chu, "Pulling the Plug on Oil", Newsweek, April 4, 2009
http://www.newsweek.com/id/192481

Chu continues:

Finally, we must move beyond oil because the science on global warming is clear and compelling: greenhouse-gas emissions, primarily from fossil fuels, have started to change our climate. We have a responsibility to future generations to reduce those emissions to spare our planet the worst of the possible effects.Steven Chu, "Pulling the Plug on Oil", Newsweek, April 4, 2009
http://www.newsweek.com/id/192481

Steven Chu is a great physicist who knows lots about his tiny tiny area, but very very very little about oil and gas and powering the world. His ignorant statements about energy (the kind that powers our society) scare the bejebbers out of me).

Lets look at his knowledge of oil.

"In fact, long before humans turned to oil for transportation, migrating birds were using a similar form of energy—stored oil in the form of body fat..." Steven Chu, "Pulling the Plug on Oil", Newsweek, April 4, 2009
http://www.newsweek.com/id/192481

So, body fat is the same as petroleum????? What utter chemical ignorance.

He also is ignorant of how we will not be capable of replacing petroleum with biofuels. He clearly hasn't run the numbers. There is no way we can supply 21 million barrels per day worth of energy from the US farm fields. This guy beleives his own BS. Here are the numbers that these pontif wanna-be's don't understand. In the U.S. we have approximately 950 million acres of farmland. We use that to feed ourselves. Bio-ethanol creates about 420 gallons per acre per year.source That would be 10 barrels of ethanol per year. But Ethanol has about 2/3 of the energy in a barrel of oil, so in fact that is about 6.6 barrels worth of oil energy. When one calculates how much acreage is needed to produce the biofuel equivalent of energy we use each day, it turns out that we need an additional 1.1 billion acres. The lower 48 has 1.9 billion acres, of which 950 million, roughly half, are farmland. So, if we want to continue eating, we need a total of 2.05 billion acres to maintain our current lifestyles using biofuels alone while at the same time eating. Since this is larger than the land in the US, I think we need to conquor Canada. Sorry my Canadian friends, you must sacrifice for the greater good.

The biofuel problem doesn't end at the US shores.

“Beginning with a world map showing land not yet built upon or cultivated, Nilsson progressively strips forests, deserts and other non-vegetated areas, mountains, protected areas, land with an unsuitable climate, and pastures needed for grazing. That leaves just 250 to 300 million hectares for growing biofuels, an area about the size of Argentina.”

“Even using a future generation of biofuel crops ˆwoody plants with large amounts of cellulose that enable more biomass to be converted to fuel-Nilsson calculates that it will take 290 million hectares to meet a tenth of the world's projected energy demands in 2030. But another 200 million hectares will be needed by then to feed an extra 2 to 3 billion people, with a further 25 million hectares absorbed by expanding timber and pulp industries.”

“So if biofuels expand as much as Nilsson anticipates, there will be no choice but to impinge upon land needed for growing food, or to destroy forests and other pristine areas like peat bogs. That would release carbon now stashed away in forests and peat soils (New Scientist, 1 December, p 50), turning biofuels into a major contributor to global warming. Fred Pearce and Peter Aldhous, “Death of the Biofuel Dream?” New Scientist,, Dec 15, 2007, p. 7

But, of course, the new pontifs know better than everyone else on the planet. "With appropriate carrots and sticks, biofuels could play a big role in the energy portfolio of the future," Ehrenberg writes in her article (ibid. p. 29). But watch out for those sticks, they will beat you into submission with them. Pontifs always need some kind of big stick.

Chu has a Nobel Prize in low temperature physics which seems to qualify him to make silly statements about energy, petroleum and bird fat. Unfortunately, no one has repealed the laws of logic and thermodynamics. We can not fuel our life-styles as these pontif wanna-be's say we can.

But to Chu, who has spent his life doing everything BUT energy, his silly words sound reasonable because he has drunk the Koolaid. He ignores the problems biofuels will raise. And this brings me to what started this rant.

This morning I opened this week's Science and saw Robert F. Service's article "Another Biofuels Drawback: The Demand for Irrigation." Science Oct 23, 2009, p. 516. His table says it all. The irrigation water required for biodiesel will suck the water from the land like a spider sucks the juices from a fly. Here are the liters per megawatt hour of energy required for various sources of energy. Below is an abridged chart. All I removed was the open cooling entries

Energy source..................Liters/Megawatt-hour
Petroleum Extraction.............10-40
Oil Refining.....................80-150
Oil Shale Surface Retorting......170-661
Natural Gas Power Plant cc*......230-30,300
Coal gasification................900
Nuclear power plant cc*..........950
Geothermal power plant...........1900-4200
Enhanced oil recovery............7600
Natural Gas Power Pland oc*......28,400-75,700
Nuclear power Plant oc*..........94,600-227,100
Corn ethanol irrigation..........2,270,000-8,670,000
Soybean biodiesal irrigation.....13,900,000-27,900,000

* oc= open cooling cycle, cc=closed cooling cycle.

Source:Robert F. Service "Another Biofuels Drawback: The Demand for Irrigation." Science Oct 23, 2009, p. 516

Get ready to drain all the water out of Nebraska, Iowa and Illinois, all for the purpose of saving the planet from that evil petroleum which just happens to be the most water efficent energy source we have but never mind that.

But, for all those arrogant pontif-wanna-be's, yes plants actually need water. As Pedro Alvarez says about biofuels need for water,

"It really means a greater potential for agricultural pollution of the waterways, eutrophication of the Gulf Coast, and a significant increase in water use, which may produce localized shortages," says Pedro Alvarez, an environmental engineer at Rice University in Houston, Texas." Robert F. Service "Another Biofuels Drawback: The Demand for Irrigation." Science Oct 23, 2009, p. 516

These arrogant pontifical wanna-be's know what is best for us and they will destroy the environment in order to prove it.

Wishing for Energy- It won't work

One of the dreams of the global warming crowd is carbon free energy. Being in the energy industry and knowing that oil is beginning to run out, I am always interested in what articles say about how we are going to get more energy. And I am always, always, disappointed by what I read.

This month's Scientific American has an artricle by Mark Z. Jacobson and Mark A. Delucchi, "A path to Sustainable Energy by 2030" Scientific American Nov 2009, p. 58-65. What I notice in articles which tell us how we are going to get off carbon is a constant use of worlds like "could", and "might". These words are used to 'solve' every problem.

"Photovoltaic cells rely on amorphous or crystalline silicon, cadmium telluride, or copper indium selenide and sulfide. Limited suplies of tellurium and indium could reduce the prospects for some types of thin-film solar cells, though not for all; the other types might be able to take up the slack.Large-scale production could be restricted by the silver that cells require, but finding ways to reduce the silver content could tackle that hurdle. Recycling parts for old cells could ameliorate material difficulties as well."
"Three components could pose challenges for building millions of electric vehicles: rare-earth metals for electric motors, lithium for lithium-ion batteries and platinum for fuel cells. More than half the world's lithium reserves lie in Bolivia and Chile. That concentration, combined with rapidly growing demand, could raise prices significantly. More problematic is the claim by meridian International Research that not enough economically recoverable lithium exists to build a global electric-vehicle ecnomy. Recycling could change the equation, but the economics of recycling depend in part on whether batteries are made with easy recyclablility in mind, an issue the industry is aware of. The long-term use of platinum also depends on recycling; current available reserves would sustain annual production of 20 million fuel-cell vehicles, along with existing industrial uses, for fewer than 100 years." Mark Z. Jacobson and Mark A. Delucchi, "A path to Sustainable Energy by 2030" Scientific American Nov 2009, p. 62

A couple of years ago an article discussing rare-earth resources claimed that we only have a 5-10 year supply of indium at current levels of usage.

"Take the metal gallium, which along with indium is used to make indium
gallium arsenide. This is the semiconducting material at the heart of a
new generation of solar cells that promise to be up to twice as
efficient as conventinal designs. Reserves of both metals are disputed,
but in a recent report Rene Kleljn, a chemist at Leiden University in
the Netherlands, concludes that current reserves 'wouldnot allow a
substantial contribution of these cells' to the future supply of solar
electricity. He estimates gallium and indium will probably contribute to
less than 1 percent of all future solar cells--a limitation imposed
purely by a lack of raw material." David Cohen, Earth Audit," New
Scientist May 26, 2007, p.35

Recycling won't help that. The same article noted that silver reserves are good for about another 15-20 years at current rates of usage. Yes, recycling will help, but it will stop massive solar conversions. One estimate said that to make a 5% contribution to electrical generation, 30% of the world's silver production would be consumed.source

When these authors claim that platinum will last for fewer than 100 years, that is not very forthcoming.

"Suppose that the 500 million vehicles estimated to be in use worldwide in 2000 were converted to fuel cell operation operating on pure hydrogen (i.e., no reforming of fuel needed), that the platinum requirement was 0.4 g/kW, that the average vehicle power was 75 kW, that the fuel cell life was 10 years with a 90% recycling rate, and that recycling achieved 50% recovery of the platinum content. The platinum stock-in-use for these vehicles would be 15 Gg. Maintaining this stock would require a flow of new metal into use of ~1 Gg per year. If all of the remaining lithospheric stock of platinum were devoted to operating a fleet of 500 million vehicles with fuel cells, the platinum resource in the lithosphere would sustain this fleet for ~15 years. There would be competition for this platinum for use in jewelry, stationary power fuel cells, industrial catalysts, and catalytic converters for motor vehicles still using petroleum fuel.
R.B. Gordon et al, “Metal Stocks and Sustainability,” PNAS v.103(2006):5:1213

How much would the price rise? The world simply doesn't have lots of platinum.

One of the things that these energy guys don't think about is the increasing amounts of energy required to refine the lower and lower quality ores of all types. In the 1930s, iron ores had 60% iron. Today it is 25%

"The hematite ore of the Mesabi Range in Minnesota contained 60 percent iron. But now it is depleted and society must use lower-quality taconite ore that has an iron content of about 25 percent. [ [5]]

The average energy content of a pound of coal dug in the US has dropped 14 percent since 1955. [ [6]]

In the 1950s, oil producers discovered about fifty barrels of oil for every barrel invested in drilling and pumping. Today, the figure is only about five for one. Sometime around 2005, that figure will become one for one. Under that latter scenario, even if the price of oil reaches $500 a barrel, it wouldn't be logical to look for new oil in the US because it would consume more energy than it would recover. [ [7]]http://www.dieoff.org/page175.htm#_edn6
Jay Hansen, Energy Magazine, Spring 1999,p.

“Figure 3-16 shows what mineral depletion looks like-gradually decreasing ore concentration. Figure 3-17 shows the consequence of depletion. As the amount of usable metal in the ore falls below 1 %, the amount of rock that must be mined, ground up, and treated per ton of product rises with astonishing speed. As the average grade of copper ore mined in Butte, Montana, fell from 30% to 0.5% the tailings produced per ton of copper rose from 3 tons to 200 tons. This rising curve of waste is closely paralleled by a rising curve of energy required to prooduce each ton of final material. Metal ore depletion hastens the rate of fossil fuel depletion.” Donella H. Meadows, Dennis L. Meadows, Jorgen Randers, Beyond the Limits, (Post Mills, VT: Chelsea Green Publishing Co., 1992), p. 84-85

Such realities require more and more energy.

Solving problems by wishful thinking, as is done in this article is not going to actually work but it feels so good saving the planet and even gets you an article in Scientific American.

Eat Your Dog and Cat

Having lived in China and having eaten dog, the above title is not something that repels me. I ate dog several times, including my last meal in China and found the meat to be quite sweet and tasty, especially in a stew. I looked for but didn't find, a place to serve kitty (I was told that they existed), so I missed the exquisite culinary delight of eating a feline, although my pet cat, shown above, is plumping up quite well. Sadly, I doubt I can find anywhere in the US to serve up a claw and claw dish (crab and kitty sounds yummy).

So what does this have to do with global warming? The latest scary story from the environmental hysteriacs is the environmental impact of your dog and cat. Feeding our pets, it seems uses energy and land all of which produce a carbon footprint. Yes, you are a guilty resource hog if you have a cat. New Scientist says it this way,

"According to the authors of the new book, Time to Eat the Dog, it takes 0.84 hectares of land to keep a medium-sized dog fed. In contrast, running a 4.6-litre Toyota Land Cruiser, including the energy required to construct the thing and drive it 10,000 kilometers a year requires 0.41 hectares. Dogs are not the only environmental sinners. The eco-footprint of a cat equates to that of a Volkswagen Golf."

"If that's troubling, there is an even more shocking comparision. In 2004, the average citizen of Vietnam had an ecological footprint of 0.76 hectares. For an Ethiopian, it was just 0.67 hectares. In a world where scarce resources are already hogged by the rich, can we really justify keeping pets that take more than some people?" Anonymous, "Cute, Fluffy and Horribly Greedy," New Scientist, Oct 24, 2009, p. 5

It seems that the editors of the New Scientist think we should all live the lives of the typical Ethiopian. While I have never figured out how my moving into a hut helps the Ethiopian move out of his, I know that the editors at New Scientist have it all figured out, they are scientists, after all and we can trust them. I can see the property values in their London neighborhoods falling as they dash to sell their houses and move into that oh-so-wonderful life in a thatched-roofed hut, never knowing where your next meal is coming from. How idyllic,living a life without medicine, roads or air conditioning (not to mention no deodorant) and no dental care. Yes, just imagine kissing your spouse with 30 years of accumulated morning mouth. What joy.

Speaking of joy, I would love to be there when they tell their wives and girl friends that they must now cohabit in a hut in Ethiopia, where they will swat away tse-tse flies, and fight off jackals and hyaenas. What joy shall fill the hearts of their wives and children. How grateful they will be to know that they no longer have a closet for their shoes while they save the planet. No more will they have to shop at Harrod's or walk past that gaudy Di and Dody memorial on their way to more boring, burdensome shopping to keep up with the Jones'. While I think the goal actually should be to give the Ethiopians the tools with which to raise their standard of living and join those plumpish, if hypocritically challenged, editors at New Scientist, no doubt the editor's spouses will see things differently than I and gladly move to Ethiopia, the ecological Eden, with its fresh air and sunshine.


John Barrett, a UK environmentalist, is quoted in the relevant article saying,

"Owning a dog really is quite an extravagance, mainly because of the carbon footrpint of meat," Kate Ravilious, "How Green is Your Pet?" New Scientist, Oct 24, 2009, p. 46

Yep, your pet is melting the glaciers. I always suspected as much. It isn't CO2 killing the planet, it is Fido, Tweety-pie, and Garfield. And they do it in more ways that you can imagine. If only we didn't have pets, the seas would drop and glaciers would return.

Poop-fest

The article referred to by the editors contains the following little guilt trip for you cat owners.

"Another major environmental problem in urban areas, is pet faeces. A study carried out in Nashville, Tennessee, indicated that it is a significant cause of high bacterial levels in local rivers and streams, particularly after heavy rain. As well as making the water unsafe to drink, high bacterial levels can starve waterways of oxygen and kill aquatic life."
"Cat excrement is particularly toxic. In 2002, it emerged that sea otters along the Californian coast are dying from a brain disease caused by Toxoplama gondii. The parasite, which is found in cat faeces, ends up in rivers and estuaries thanks to cat owners who flush their cat litter down the toilet or allow their cats to defecate outside. Dophins and whales are also affected." Kate Ravilious, "How Green is Your Pet?" New Scientist, Oct 24, 2009, p. 47.


Let's take the first paragraph first. Yes, if it weren't for your dogs dumping on your neighbor's yard as you walk him each morning, the lakes and streams all across America would be pristine pure and drinkable as they once were before man appeared on the planet. We could retire all those water treatment plants because there would be no bacteria in the waters, if only man with his best friend didn't bespoil them. The author of this article must know something about poop that the rest of us don't know. Apparently the poop of deer, bunny rabbits, birds, skunks, otter, coyotes, wolves and all sorts of other wild animals that defecate outdoors, contains zero bacteria. Shoot, we can use their bacteria-free poop to clean our kitchen counters. A good self-respecting deer would never allow a bacteria to be pooped out of his behind, deer being far too fastidious and sanitary for such garish behavior. And should the coyote dung chance to contain a single bacteria, it would, of course, NEVER wash down into the lakes or rivers. No, only pet poop causes high bacterial levels in the lakes and rivers, bacteria knowing that it is totally uncouth to flow into the rivers if it didn't come out the backside of a pet. Wild animals aren't and can't be the problem, you are. You and your bad-breath dog. I strongly suspect that if only Fido's mouth smelled better his poop would lack bacteria, so brush his teeth every day. And no doubt, the author of that article knows that fish poop is equally lacking in bacteria. Fish would never defecate outdoors either. They love the earth too much to do THAT! (Besides, it really is rude to poop in sight of other animals.).

I didn't mention cattle in the above discussion of poop-fest. The enviro-hysteriacs don't like cattle at all and would claim that their poop is worse than anything else. If only man hadn't gotten involved, bringing those germy cattle from Europe. The native grazers, the tens of millions of bison that roamed the plains before mankind arrived on this continent never engaged in outdoor defecation. We have heard the stories of bison herds taking days to pass a given point (before evil humans nearly killed them all). What those lines were were the lines for the loo. Like good Brits, they all qued up for the loo (several days away), and they all took their turns pooping indoors into proper facilities. Yep, that was clearly better than what cows do. Owning a ranch, I can tell you that even a small herd of bovines can produce quite a bacterial mess into which one will step if one is not careful. Maybe I should get some of those house-broken buffalo instead.

Now lets look at the cat problem. She blames the otter problem on cats, particularly on pet owners. Yep, you owners are the problem. There are .713 cats per household in the US. That means that there are 81 million household cats according to a formula found here.

That same formulation gives 250 million total cats, most are feral and are not pets. Given the 12 million households in California it means that that state has about 26 million cats. Of course, the enviro-hysteriacs don't mention the feces of the feral cats, who also defecate outdoors, due to their sad inability to learn the proper use of a toilet and their inability to carry 30 lb bags of Fresh Step back to their liter boxes in the woods. No, the fault is entirely with the pet owner; not the feral kitties, whose poop never contains Toxoplasma, a disease most certainly (if I am inferring from the article correctly) only of pet cats.

Another little fact that the article fails to tell its readers is that 10-20% of humans are infected with Toxoplasma. We don't get it from cats directly, or at least we don't most often get it from cats directly. We get it from eating raw meat or unwashed fruit. Now, given this, lets re-look at the Toxoplasma problem of the otters. If 15% of Californians are infected (given the general nutty-ness out there, I suspect it is more like 30%), then 5.5 million people are pooping Toxoplasma into the toilets (or are defecating outdoors), thus bringing this plague to the otters. I wouldn't rule out the possibility that during the night, millions of Californians are emerging into the dark to defecate outdoors, thus killing the otters. To solve this problem, I suggest that all the infected Californians no longer flush their toilets. Stop right now in order to save the earth! It is, after all your duty. It is such a small sacrifice that you make for the good of us all.

In honor of all you infected Californians who are sacrificing the flushing of their toilets so that the otters may live, I, too, shall make a sacrifice. I will eat my cat--for the good of the world, you understand, all for the saving of our planet.


HERE KITTY, KITTY. COME KITTY KITTY. ITS DINNER TIME!

Land vs Ocean temperatures

Every month, GISS publishes the latest horror in the continuing drama of the earth going to hell, or at least becoming Gehenna, if not hell itself. Yes, soon it will be so hot on earth that we will all be able to be sun burned merely by standing in the shade. Don't invest in Coppertone, it won't do you any good in this future world, which is really a return to the past. Herodotus, five centuries before the current era, thought that Africans were black because living so close to the sun burned them. Oh well so much for that piece of pseudo-science. Let's look at the prevalent pseudo science of today.

We are going to compare land, sea and satellite data to see how badly we measure the temperature. The data for the graphs below can be found atthis location.



What I have plotted above is the monthly global anomalies from Dec 1978 to the present. "What an odd time frame," you might say. Yes, it is, but it is the time over which the satellites data has been measured. Besides that, the chart is of the proper scale to see the details.

And what interesting details we see. The land is heating quicker than the sea is. [sarcastic mode on] I guess CO2 must only work over land, or work twice as efficiently over land than over the sea. [sarcastic mode off] In reality this is a clear sign that we are not measuring the land temperature correctly, and that its more rapid rise is not entirely due to CO2 but to urban heating.

But, lets play their ridiculous game of taking short periods of measurements and then projecting ridiculously far into the future while at the same time ruling out or ignoring natural cyclicity and only allowing monotonically increasing extrapolations. The oceans, according to the time period under study, are warming at 0.11 deg C per decade. The land is warming at 0.29 deg C per decade--approximately 3 times as fast as the oceans. By the logic of the hysteriacs, by the end of this century, the oceans will have warmed by 1.1 deg C and the land by 3 degrees. This will eventually make the lands warm enough that the winds will always blow offshore and we can use the winds generated by global warming to run our ecologically friendly wind turbines to generate our electricity. See what benefits we can derive from such a simple observation? See what benefit there is from warming the earth? :-)

The second detail to pay attention to is the rapid changes in land temperature. There are months in which the anomaly rises as much as 1.25 degrees over the entire land area of the globe and then drops as much as 1.37 degrees over the entire globe. What causes that? Does the land suddenly absorb more energy than it did last year at that time? Does the sun stop shining so that the land cools rapidly? This is more likely due to the turning on and off of heaters and air conditioners stationed nearby the global thermometer system on land. By comparison the oceans rise and fall on a monthly anomaly basis by only about 1/10th of a degree.

The third detail is the standard deviation of the land (.41 deg C) and the ocean (.13 deg C). The noisiness of the land data is 3 times that of the seas. This means that for a 95% confidence in a conclusion that the land has warmed, we must see more than 1.2 deg C warming. The trend line shows that since Dec 1978 we have warmed the land by .9 deg C--this is as much as the earth is said to have warmed over the past century. Clearly this is a problem and just as clearly the land's temperature rise is driving the rise in global temperature as measured by the thermometers. And clearly the fact that the land is rising 3x faster than the seas, most of the land's temperature rise is not due to CO2.

The astute reader will say that with a rapidly rising curve the standard deviation from the average might not be the best measurement of the noise and that the standard deviation from the trendline is what should be done. I did that and it makes the comparison worse. If I subtract the trendline from the land and ocean temperature series respectively, we find that the standard deviation away from the trend line is 0.08 deg C for the oceans and 0.32 deg C for the land. There is almost 4x more noise in the land data than in the seas when viewed in this fashion. Remember that the world is said to have warmed by .84 deg C over a century, yet the data for this period of time says that a 95% confidence bound is .96 deg C when the deviation is measured from the trend line.

Now lets compare the GISS with the satellite data. In the picture below you can see that the reported anomalies are almost always higher for the thermometer record.



Now, to compare these two different measurement systems, whose anomalies are differently based, I subtract from each series, the average value of that series and then plot the two together. That is shown below and at first glance one would think this is not a bad fit.



Now, in this form I will subtract the two series to see how closely the satellite and thermometer system can measure changes in temperature over this time period.



What you can see is that there is a lot of difference in the measurment of global temperature by these two methods. While the average temperature difference is 0.1 deg C, some months vary by as much as .43 deg C, or half the amount of purported warming. Clearly we are not very good at measuring the globe's temperature, yet we are going use this data to try to save the planet.

All the climate models are wrong!

The global warming hysteriacs have gained their worries from the output of global climate models. The models have become a proxy for actual observational data. If the models say the world will warm, no one looks out the window to actually see that the world is freezing. The world can't be freezing if the models say it is warming. There is an implicit belief that like the Bible, the models are infallible.

But then, along comes a study of the outgoing radiative flux --the heat leaving the earth--which shows that not all things are as the models say. Typical climate models say that as the world heats up, and thus heats the oceans less heat will escape to space. This leads people to talk about tipping points. If the feed backs to an increase in CO2 is positive then the climate system will be driven further and further from the present state, causing a tipping point.


"A number of sessions examined the frightening possibility that warming temperatures could trigger catastrophic tipping points, such as the loss of the Amazon rainforest through drought, which would create a vicious feedback. For example, modelers from the U.K.’s Met Office presented new data showing that even a global cessation of greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 could lead to a loss of up to 40% of the Amazon rainforest. “We thought we didn’t need to worry till we got to 3°C of warming,” says Pope (see graphic)." Eli Kintisch, "Projections of Climate Change Go From Bad to Worse, Scientists Report," Science, 323(2009), p.1546-1547

"The Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC) reports indicate that,
if concentrations of atmospheric carbon
dioxide continue to increase, other serious
impacts on human society (e.g., sea level
rise) will probably occur. Undoubtedly,
other tipping points or breakpoints are
looming at higher concentrations, such as 535
ppm atmospheric carbon dioxide.” John Cairns, Jr. “Assimilative Capacity Revisited” Asian J. Exp. Sci., Vol. 22, No. 2, 2008; 177-182, p. 178

The problem is that all of this talk about tipping points is based upon global climate models, which have become gospel. Don't look out the window; believe the models.

Now along comes Lindzen and Choi who point out that actual observation of the outgoing radiative heat flux increases as the sea surface temperature (SST) rises. In other words, as the sea's temperature rises, the amount of heat leaving the earth also rises.

Why is this important? Because all the climate models say the exact opposite. All the climate models say that as the sea surface temperature rises, the outgoing radiative heat flux declines. Observation, which is what science is supposed to be based upon, says something entirely different.

Below is a picture showing the Earth Radiation Budget Experiment (ERBE) observational relationship between sea surface temperature and outgoing flux. The relationship is positive. More SST heat, more outgoing flux. Notice the upper left picture. That is the actual observational data. All the other pictures are from cllimate models. Notice that the climate models don't match the observational data.




What does this mean? It means that science should not trust models. It should trust observational data. It means that computer models are just that--computer models. They aren't reality even if the hysteriacs try to say that they represent reality.

If the models miss a major negative feedback loop then their conclusions can't be correct. And if the conclusions are not correct, then we don't need to fix what ain't broken. We don't need to destroy the economy with carbon taxes in order to prevent what won't happen.

The IPCC says this about the climate sensitivity to additional CO2. The definition of climate sensitivity is in the first sentence below. The amount the IPCC claims is in the second sentence and is bolded.

"The equilibrium climate sensitivity is a measure of the
climate system response to sustained radiative forcing.
It is not a projection but is defined as the global average
surface warming following a doubling of carbon
dioxide concentrations. It is likely to be in the range
2°C to 4.5°C with a best estimate of about 3°C, and is
very unlikely to be less than 1.5°C. " IPCC, 2007: Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M.Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA., P. 12

Lindzen and Choi note

"For sensitivities less than 2[deg]C, the data readily distinguish
different sensitivities, and ERBE data appear to
demonstrate a climate sensitivity of about 0.5 [deg]
C which is
easily distinguished from sensitivities given by models." Lindzen, R. S., and Y.-S. Choi (2009), On the determination of climate feedbacks from ERBE data, Geophys. Res. Lett., 36, L16705 http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009GL039628.shtml, page 5

In other words, the sensitivity is 1/6th of what the global warming hysterical IPCC says it is. That means that we are not about to destroy the earth by more CO2.

A couple of months ago I posted a backward look at the sensitivity. I showed that the world is NOT warming as the IPCC expects.




Notice the two straighter lines are the 2 deg C and 5 deg C for a doubling of CO2. The actual temperature has not risen as the IPCC says and it has risen more closely to what the

1880-1930 Hot; 1950-2000 Cold. Extreme Temperature Records

As the world warms, we should expect that we should find more heat records as time goes on and more cold records early on. But this is not what is found. Let's go through the continents.

The hottest temperature in Africa happened at El Azizia, Libya in 1922. It was 136 deg F. Since then we have added about 100 parts per million of CO2 into the atmosphere--1/3 more CO2 than at that time. Yet, neither El Azizia nor any other spot in Africa has exceeded that temperature since. But we are supposed to be warming.

The coldest temperature in Africa didn't happen back when the world was cold. It happened Ifrane, Morocco in 1935 when the world, once again had more CO2 than it had in 1922. The temperature reached an amazing -11 F.

In Antarctica, the warmest temperature happened at Vandia Station in 1974. It was 59 F. In 1974 there was only 330 ppm of CO2. Today we have 385 ppm and that temperature has never been exceeded. Why doesn't CO2 work to warm the land after it gets into the atmosphere?

In Antarctica the coldest temperature happened at Vostok Station when it reached -129 F. This was in July 1983 when the atmosphere had about 342 ppm. More CO2 didn't keep the coldest temperature record on earth from happening.

Asia has the only record where the coldest temperature occurred before the hottest--something consistent with the thesis that the world is warming. All other continents reverse what should be expected.In Asia, the hottest temperature is 129 F at Tirat Tisvi, Israel in June 1942. The coldest record in Asia happened in Oimekon, /Verkhoyansk, Russia 1933 and 1892 respectively. That temperature was -90 F. Other than this, all other warm temperature records occur decades before the cold weather records.

Australia saw its hottest temperature at Cloncurry, Queensland in 1889. The temperature was 128 F. At that time the world had about 280 parts per million CO2 in the atmosphere. But when Australia saw its coldest day -9.4 F at Charlotte Pass in 1994, the world had 355 parts per million, 25% more CO2 than when the warm record was set.

Europe saw its hottest day in 1881 at Seville, Spain when the temperature rose to a blistering 122 F. One would think that there was a lot of CO2 in the atmosphere but in reality it was almost at the pre-industrial levels of 280 ppm. Interestingly after the world added CO2, the coldest day occured at Ust'Shchugor, Russia which reached a bone-chilling -67 F after 1950. That is all I can tell you because the weather records don't have a date. I know it was after 1950 because the temperature record starts in 1950 for Ust'Schchugor, Russia. In any event the coldest temperature occurred decades after the record warmth.

North America is similar. The hottest temperature occurred in July 1913 in Death Valley. The temperature was 134 deg F. In spite of over 100 ppm more of CO2, Death vally has yet to exceed that horrible temperature. One would think that with the increasing CO2 we should not see cold temperature records decades later, but at Snag, Yukon, Canada, the coldest North American temperature reached -84.4 F in 1947.
Yep, global warming at work for you.

Oceania, the area of the Pacific experienced its hottest temperature at Tuguegarao, Philippines when the temperature rose to 129 F in April 1912. But in spite of huge increases in CO2, the temperature has never risen above that old record. The coldest day in Oceania occurred at Mauna Kea Hawaii in 1947 when the temperature reached a low of 12 degrees in 1979.




South America is a bit unique in that the hottest day at Rivadavia, Argentina happened in 2005 when the temperature was 120 F. The coldest day occurred two years later in 2007 when Sarmiento, Argentina recorded a low of -27 F.

As you can see almost all of the cold weather records occur AFTER the hot weather records. This is precisely backwards to what global warming should predict. This is a failed prediction of global warming.