Sunday, January 31, 2010
Thursday, January 28, 2010
[Update: see Is Abilene Alone? below; and see this link for temperature graphs supporting the statements below.]
Is it possible to create something like global warming, using cold winters? Isn't global warming supposed to have the result that the globe is actually warming (hence the name)? This article shows how it was done.
It is said that figures don’t lie, but liars sure do figure. If an organization set out to stop the world from using oil and coal, plus natural gas if possible, an excellent way to do this would be to find a way to “prove” that the CO2 produced from burning such fossil fuels causes the entire planet to heat up at an alarming rate. The over-heated planet would experience great upheavals such as coastal flooding from rising sea levels, polar ice caps melting, increased number and strength of tropical cyclones (hurricanes), severe droughts but also floods, greater spread of terrible tropical diseases, and others. One would use temperature data, but would first massage the data just a bit to use “anomalies” instead of actual temperatures, where anomalies are the differences between actual temperatures and expected or “normal” temperatures. This is, by the way, an excellent way to “hide the decline,” but that is a topic for another post. Instead of displaying actual temperatures for thousands of towns and cities and rural areas and oceans, to minimize confusion one would combine all the anomaly data into a single line on a chart, such that the line shows a rapid increase during the past 25 to 30 years. This one chart would then be used in presentations world-wide, and in official publications, to persuade policy-makers to enact legislation and approve treaties to curb fossil fuel use. Sound familiar? It should. A number of organizations did this, among other things, to create a climate crisis. This article will show a portion of how that crisis was created, using nothing but a few cold winters. Can cold winters create a global warming crisis? That sounds counter-intuitive, or perhaps plain wrong. But, it can.
Why would anyone (or organization) want to do all the above, plus refuse to publish the underlying temperature records for the thousands of locations world-wide? If the underlying data showed that CO2 cannot be the cause of the warming, or if the warming was not really occurring, one would not want the underlying data published.
A Digression for Basic Statistics
A bit of a digression here, to discuss how a trend in temperatures can be determined. More basically, how a trend can be found for any set of data. This is very elementary statistics, found in almost every good statistics textbook and online in several places. The basic principle is the same as a teeter-totter, or see-saw on a playground. A see-saw has a horizontal board that is supported in the center, and each end goes up and down opposite the other end. The trend line is much like the horizontal board. Depending on the data, the trend may be up or down. The trend is also referred to as the slope of the line that best “fits” the data. In statistics-speak, the trend line is a straight line that minimizes the sum of the least squares of the differences, but that is beyond the scope of this article. If data is about the same over a given time frame, some data points higher and some lower, there is no trend up or down. This would be like balancing the see-saw with each end at the same level. (Figure 1).
Figure 1 (data with essentially no trend)
(click on figure for expanded view in new window)
Modern spreadsheet technology simplifies the trend-line calculation, such as Microsoft Excel ™. Figure 1 shows a formula Y = .0031x + …, this is the equation of the trend line, with 0.0031 the slope of the line, or the trend. This is very close to zero, or no trend either up or down.
Now, if one were to simply decrease the values of a few of the numbers at the lower left corner of the figure by a very small amount, such as shown in Figure 2, the trend line increases to 0.0357. Only eight data points were changed, out of 360 data points in the graph. (see circled portion) Yet, the slope of the trend line changed by almost a factor of twelve. The significance of this will be shown in a moment.
Figure 2 (data with lower temps circled)
(click on figure for expanded view in new window)
The data for Figure 1 and Figure 2 are taken from the Hadley Center’s Climatic Research Unit’s data that they voluntarily released into the internet, for Boise, Idaho, in the U.S.A (Boise is file 726810). The x-axis is in years, and the y-axis is degrees C for the average monthly temperature at Boise from 1940 to 1970. Boise was chosen for Figure 1 and Figure 2 because the period from 1940 to 1970 has almost zero trend.
The Abilene, Texas Data
The temperature trend for the last 25 years of the 20th century, plus the first nine years of the 21st, in Abilene, Texas, was upward at the rate of 0.0312 degrees C per year, or an alarming rate of 3.12 degrees C per century. (Figure 3). See the equation Y = 0.0312x - 44.031, where the value 0.0312 is the slope of the trend line.
Figure 3 (1975 – 2009 for Abilene with cold winters near 1980’s circled)
(click on figure for expanded view in new window)
The climate alarmists maintain that man’s emissions of CO2 caused such a rapid increase world-wide, and further increases in CO2 will create additional catastrophic global warming. Yet, the data for Abilene shows the same pattern from Figure 2 above, that is, much colder winter temperatures from 1976 to 1985, but not warmer summers. These colder temperatures are circled on Figure 3. These circled winter temperatures were not colder than those recorded since the 1880’s. The unique aspect is that several winters in succession were colder than normal. The succession of cold winters “tipped the see-saw” downward on the left, and upward on the right, thus creating the appearance of a rising temperature, or warming trend, when there clearly was none. The maximum summer temperatures for Abilene are no greater than for previous years, and the most recent winter temperatures are actually colder than several earlier periods during the previous 120 years (see Figure 4). As shown above in Figures 1 and 2, the trend line can be increased by a factor of twelve when data such as the colder winters around 1980 appear. The similarity between the lower left portions of Figure 2 and Figure 3 is apparent.
Figure 4 (full data for Abilene, Texas)
(click on figure for expanded view in new window)
No, the simple fact is that there is no warming in Abilene, but there were a few cold winters around 1980. And that is how the climate “scientists” “created” global warming where there is none (this is, at least, a part of the story).
Other parts of the false global warming story were told by E.M. Smith on his Chiefio blog. Smith shows how the temperature record was tampered with to produce an apparent warming: by adding thermometers in warm places, and deleting thermometers from cold places over the years. Joseph D’Aleo and Anthony Watts also published (free for download) a compendium of articles with references showing the tampering with the world’s temperature record.
Is Abilene Alone?
The false warming shown in Abilene, created by colder winters around 1980, would be easily dismissed if this had only happened at one site. But it happened in many, many locations. In the USA alone, and again using data from Hadley and their voluntarily released CRU3 data, this false warming occurred in at least 15 other towns and cities, including San Antonio, Texas; Oklahoma City, Oklahoma; Columbus, Ohio; Meridian, Mississippi; Cape Hatteras, North Carolina; New Orleans, Louisiana; Concordia and Dodge City, both in Kansas; Evansville, Indiana; Peoria, Illinois; Boise, Idaho; Des Moines, Iowa; Miami, Florida; Grand Junction, Colorado; and Montgomery, Alabama. There are sure to be others, however, I have not yet completed graphing all 80-plus locations in the USA data.
UPDATE 1: (January 30, 2010) Have finished analyzing 45 out of 87 cities/towns in the HadCRU3 data released onto the internet, just a bit more than 50 percent of the total. The results and conclusions that can be drawn from 50 percent of the data will not be far off from the final results, so here's a report now. I
am working on posting have posted graphs showing the temperature trends for each several of the cities, with more to follow. This will likely be in one or possibly several other posts with links in and to this post.
The Abilene effect is indeed prevalent across most of the USA, excepting the dry desert Southwest and far West coast. A series of cold winters from 1976 to 1985 created the illusion of global warming. The average trend, counting all 45 files analyzed thus far, for the 25 years from 1975 to 2000, is upward at 4.5 degrees C per century (0.045 degrees C per year). However, this is almost exactly matched by the upward trend from 1910 to 1940 of 4.1 degrees C per century (0.0409 degrees C per year). The intervening years, 1940 to 1970, show almost zero temperature change at -0.7 degrees C per century (-0.0070 degrees C per year).
The city with the greatest warming during 1975 to 2000 is Del Rio, Texas, with 8.8 degrees C per century. Next greatest is Columbus, Ohio (8.2 degrees C per century), followed by New York City, New York (7.8 degrees C per century).
However, Washington, D.C. had the greatest cooling during 1975 to 2000, at a rate of 9.7 degrees C per century. As shown earlier, Los Angeles, San Diego, and Eureka, all in California, also cooled during that 25 year period.
The conclusion remains valid, that CO2 is not the cause of either warming or cooling. What appears to be responsible for the temperature trends are fluctuations in winter temperatures, as summer temperatures do not change much for a given city over time. [end Update 1]
UPDATE 2: (Feb 4, 2010) The final results do not change much with all 87 U.S. cities completed, as expected. The upward trend from 1975 to 2000 is 4.0 degrees C per century, still matched by the rise from 1910 to 1940 of 4.3 degrees C per century. The 1940 to 1970 period remains flat at -0.5 degrees C per century.
Cities with rapid temperature increases from 1975 to 2000 also include Reno, Nevada at 9.0 degrees C per century, and Providence, Rhode Island at 9.7 degrees C per century.
Marquette, Michigan joined the list of rapidly cooling cities from 1975 to 2000, at 6.5 degrees C per century. [end update 2]
Conclusion: No Global Warming from CO2
The conclusion is clear: there is no global warming due to CO2 emissions into the atmosphere, but there is deliberate selection of a statistical quirk in the data for the final quarter of the 20th century. A few colder winters in the decade from 1976 to 1985 caused an increasing temperature trend. Climate scientists seized on this, coupled it with an increase in fossil fuel consumption during the same period, and declared fossil fuel burning (man’s activities) to be the cause of global warming due to increased CO2.
Don’t believe a word of it.
Roger E. Sowell, Esq.
Marina del Rey, California
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
Monday, January 25, 2010
"Benefits to California of Reducing GHG Emissions
Two separate and independent economic analyses show that significantly reducing California's global warming emissions is expected to create jobs and wealth in California.
Reduced GHG emissions by 2020 would result in a net increase of 83,000 jobs and $4 billion in income due primarily to reduced energy costs, says an analysis conducted by the University of California, Berkeley. More economic benefits of less GHG emissions are predicted.
According to the Union of Concerned Scientists, "Leading economists from UC found that eight policies can take the state over half way to meeting the 2020 reductions. These policies, such as cleaner standards for vehicles and capturing methane from landfills, can increase the Gross State Product by approximately $60 billion, and create over 20,000 new jobs." " [end of quote from ARB climate change website; note, "UC" is University of California; GHG is greenhouse gases]
Even if any of the above numbers were to be true (and that is a very big IF), the benefits, as stated, are miniscule in a state the size of California. For example, if income state-wide were to increase $4 billion annually in 2020, the money in each worker's pocket would be approximately $5 per week. ($4 billion per year, 16 million workers in California, is $250 per year per worker, and 52 weeks per year provides approximately $5 per week per worker). On this slim, very slim increase in spending - roughly two cups of fancy coffee per week - the entire economy is to be upended by AB 32.
The gain in employment is also very, very small when the entire California work force is considered. As above, the number of persons employed in California at the end of 2009 was approximately 16 million (source: California Employment Development Department, EDD). Adding 83,000 workers to a working force of 16 million represents an increase of 0.52 percent. As I write this, California is losing jobs at the rate of approximately 17,000 per month, and unemployment stands at 12.5 percent, one of the highest rates in the country.
The fact is that AB 32 creates a few jobs for government bureaucrats, for renewable energy design firms, for a small group of solar panel installers, and for a few workers who install renewable power plants such as wind farms and solar power plants. ARB states that the $5 per week per worker will also be spent on coffee, and that will create jobs for coffee shop employees. These are the green jobs.
The reality is that many businesses and industrial facilities will simply shut down rather than spend the huge sums to comply with AB 32. The cap and trade provision will require companies to pay approximately $20 to $30 per metric ton of CO2 emitted. That does not seem like so much, until one realizes that a single oil refinery will face a cap and trade bill of approximately $150 million per year. There are approximately 20 oil refineries in California. A 500 MW natural gas-fired power plant would face a cap and trade bill of approximately $70 million per year. There are many dozens of such power plants in California.
The tragedy of all this is, of course, that the "science" behind global warming due to greenhouse gases (which includes CO2 in the scientists' view) is completely false. Engineers such as Dr. Pierre Latour, and myself, have published on this, and have each made acclaimed speeches across the country on this topic. Recent developments (late 2009 and January, 2010) show that the supposed warming of the earth's average temperature in the 20th century was falsified, the peer review process was perverted, the temperature records themselves were adjusted and manipulated, and the IPCC report relied on questionable studies (not peer-reviewed, in fact, taken from general non-science magazines). The Wall Street Journal reported that the IPCC's alarmists predictions for melting glaciers in the Himalayan mountains was completely wrong (they are not melting), and the IPCC's statement that warming produces more intense storms and natural catastrophes (heat waves, droughts, etc) were also bunk. The IPCC authors clearly knew the truth, but published their outlandish claims anyway. (As an aside, one must wonder how long they thought they would hide the truth, especially in this era of the internet, and literally hundreds of millions of internet users world-wide. The ability to fact-check by millions of independent persons should give pause to those who seek to dis-inform.)
Examination of long-term temperature records for several small towns in the USA, and the three largest cities in California (San Francisco, Los Angeles, and San Diego) showed not only no warming, but rapid cooling during the past 20 to 30 years for Eureka, California, Los Angeles, California, and San Diego, California. In fact, if the trend in Eureka does not reverse soon, there will be an ice age in Eureka. The temperature in Eureka is dropping at an average rate of 15 degrees C per century, yet the average temperature is only 10 degrees C. Eurekans actually have nothing to worry about, as the temperatures oscillate up and down. Still, the recent sudden decline is interesting!
The science that we call Physics cannot do what the climate scientists claim for CO2. Physics is impartial, and when it works, it works in all places. One cannot have a valid physical phenomenon that works sometimes, or only in certain areas. For example, no matter where one builds a fire on the earth, the fire produces heat, the flames flicker upward away from the center of the earth, and the closer one approaches the fire, the more radiant heat is felt on the skin. Yet, CO2 is not warming Eureka, California, nor Los Angeles, nor Abilene, Texas. But something caused San Francisco to warm just a bit in the last 25 years of the 20th century. Furthermore, almost all of the cities show a steady and consistent temperature increase from 1910 to 1940. In fact, the temperature rise in those three decades is considerably greater than the rise from 1975 to 2005. Yet, we know that CO2 is much higher concentration in the atmosphere today compared to 1940. How, then, did the temperatures increase in the 1920s and 1930s without CO2 to help them along?
Indeed, the very foundations of AB 32 are shown not to be true, even though CO2 is increasing worldwide. The preface to the AB 32 statute states that more and more heat waves will occur in California, droughts will occur more often and with greater severity, sea levels will rise, and the snowpack will melt earlier each year producing water shortages, among other dire consequences. Yet, as mentioned above, the cities are cooling, some dramatically. Heat waves are not occurring as predicted. The drought is likely over, as the state has wave after wave of large storms bringing rain and snow. The calclim.dri.edu website shows the state has more than the average rainfall for this point in the water year, which would not occur during a drought. Sea levels off the coast of California are dropping, not rising as predicted. None of this should be true, if CO2 were in fact the cause of global warming as the IPCC scientists insist that it is. The facts rule, every time.
It is time to quit pretending that CO2 causes the earth's temperature to change, time to put aside the falsified IPCC reports with their non-peer-reviewed but agenda-driven conclusions, and time to stop AB 32 before California slips even further into the abyss of unemployment, state and local budget deficits, and all the other problems that will come as companies close their doors and move to other regions of the country and the world.
Roger E. Sowell, Esq.
Marina del Rey, California
Sunday, January 24, 2010
Saturday, January 23, 2010
Friday, January 22, 2010
Thursday, January 21, 2010
Saturday, January 16, 2010
In the never-ending debate over man’s role in increasing global temperatures, carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is claimed by the alarmists to be the culprit responsible for causing unstoppable warming. But is it? What does the temperature record show?
The temperature record is a complicated thing. Zero credibility is given (by many, including me) to the results of the major scientific organizations that purport to monitor the earth’s atmosphere and ocean temperatures, and for many very good reasons. One of those reasons is that the earth is too big, and too varied, and proceeds through too many hourly, daily and seasonal changes, for a global average temperature to have any meaning. Another is the below-mentioned data manipulation, still another is bad locations of measuring instruments. However, it is instructive to observe the temperature record from a single site, especially a site with many decades of temperature readings. Such sites are available to everyone via data published over the internet.
I chose several sites, all small towns in the USA, and examined the temperature records. The data is from the discredited Hadley Research Center’s CRU3 data set. Briefly, the Hadley Center is in England, and is the center of the "Climategate" scandal in which thousands of emails, computer program listings, and other documents were either deliberately leaked or hacked (no one is quite sure which) but in either case were published on the internet in November 2009. As part of Hadley Center’s response, many hundreds of temperature records were published. I downloaded the entire dataset for archiving and my own research purposes. I will refer to the dataset as CRU3.
A word about the discredited CRU3 data. Among the allegations leading to the charge of discredited data include deliberate falsification of data in order to show a warming trend over the last part of the 20th century. That warming trend is, according to the climate alarmists, due to CO2 placed into the atmosphere by man’s activities, primarily burning coal, oil, and natural gas but also from decomposing garbage in landfills. Even if the datasets are manipulated, and the data shows a warming where there is none, is it possible to find anything worthwhile from examining such datasets? I believe there is, as this article will demonstrate.
The premise that I started with is, if CO2 is responsible for warming the earth, then it should be based on physics and therefore must behave the same, no matter where on earth the behavior occurs. Physics is impartial. As some have expressed it, gravity works no matter where one stands on the earth. CO2, therefore, must cause warming wherever CO2 exists, not just in a few isolated areas. However, CO2 alone is not the cause, according to the climate alarmists. They hold that small increases in CO2 creates additional water vapor in the atmosphere, and that water vapor does the majority of the warming. Still, the effect must be the same in small towns as well as in big cities. Therefore, it will be possible to verify the premise, or falsify the premise, by examining the temperature records for small towns and big cities, all within the same hemisphere and roughly the same latitude. Hemispheres (north and south) have opposite seasons, and different latitudes have great variations in seasons, so those effects can be minimized.
In the CRU3 dataset, folder “72” contains 87 temperature files (or records), all in the USA. Some are large cities, including Miami (FL), Atlanta, San Antonio, El Paso, San Diego, Los Angeles, and San Francisco, among others. Others are small towns, including Ely (NV), Abilene (TX), and Meridian (MS), among many others.
Below in Figure 1 is the temperature record for Abilene, Texas, from 1886 to 2009, approximately 120 years. Abilene is dataset 722660 in the CRU3 dataset. The graph in Figure 1 was produced by copying the data into Microsoft Excel (TM) and performing simple graphing with trendline. The data is the monthly average temperatures for each year, which range roughly from 0 to 32 degrees C. The squiggly white line through the middle is a moving 12-month average. The solid black line through the middle is the linear trend line.