Just let me say this once. Categorically and with finality.
No US government agency or program should be allowed to exist and propagate for more than 20 years. No agency or person in government should expect employment for 20 years or life.
Without such expectation all of our lives will be richer and better.
The political ramifications of agencies and persons with continued expected employment funded by our tax dollars is a clear detriment to us all. Eventually and inevitably, bureaus and bureaucrats have agendas that are most assuredly not in the public interest.
While the 'crats at NASA are dithering over repair of a divot in the heat shield of the shuttle caused mostly by an EPA mandated (forced) change in regulations regarding the use of freon the SSA and the IRS come up with reasons that illegals can't be properly dealt with.
I'm just sayin'--any federal agency with initials that have existed and employed careerist workers for over 20 years need to go away and new and better ideas need to be employed.
From The TimesAnd real scientists:
August 17, 2007
Blogger forces Nasa to admit global warming figures error
Lewis Smith, Environment Reporter
Nasa officials have admitted that for the past seven years they have used the wrong temperature statistics to assess global warming trends.
The mistake was spotted by a blogger, and forced Nasa to declare that last year was only the fourth-hottest year on record in the United States, rather than the third hottest.
Climate scientists were insistent yesterday that the flawed data had a negligible effect on global warming statistics, and none at all on the overall warming trend.
The figures related to temperature readings in the US, which scientists at the Nasa Goddard Institute of Space Science had neglected to adjust to be compatible with other readings. The changes meant that, on average, Nasa’s figures on US temperatures since 2000 had been too high by up to 0.15C (0.27F).
James Hansen, the director of the Goddard Institute, maintained that while the flawed data had skewed figures “noticeably” for the past seven years, the corrected figures left evidence of long-term warming intact.
Other scientists hit back at global warming sceptics by pointing out that the error applied to only 48 states of the US, with Alaska and Hawaii excluded, and was negligible in its impact.
Moreover, they argued, it had no impact at all on the rankings of the hottest years when looked at globally rather than in the US, which accounts for only 2 per cent of the Earth’s surface.
David Parker, of the Met Office Hadley Centre, said of the effect on global averages: “The effect is so small that you couldn’t see it on a graph. They were of the order of a thousandth of a degree. It really has no impact.”
Further adjustments were made to the US data this year to take into account new information and new interpretations of how it should be adjusted. This meant that 1934 took over from 1998 as the hottest year on record in the US, and 1921 moved into third place above 2006.
Reto Ruedy, of the Goddard Institute, said that the differences between 1934 and 1998 were so slight that it was likely that they would swap positions again as information is analysed anew.
Paul Simons, Times Weatherman, writes:
There is nothing unique to the US about this. We have had to make exactly the same adjustment in the UK. For instance, the weather station at Kew Gardens was once a rural idyll, but is now firmly planted in the heat of West London.
The temperature adjustments that have been made to the US data are almost insignificant for the global temperature records. The US adjustments amount to 0.15 per cent of yearly average temperatures over the past six years. But the US land surface is only 2 per cent of the world land area, so the effect on global records is negligible.
But global warming is real and it is definitely happening – the Earth’s temperature this July was the seventh warmest July on record, June was the third warmest and January and April were the second hottest for the first six months of the year across the globe.
August 17, 2007
Climate Change Chaos
Filed under: Climate Forcings, Solar —
Climate scientists have known for many years that the energy output from the Sun varies and believe it or not, when the Sun is putting out more energy, the Earth heats up and when the Sun cools down, so does the Earth. What appears to be so simple is actually much more complex as the Sun can vary its output differentially in the various portions of the electromagnetic spectrum. For example, the Sun can actually increase its production of gamma rays while decreasing the level of infrared emission, and these patterns of energy output can reveal themselves quite differently in terms of response of Earth’s climate.
Nonetheless, over the past century, the correlation between solar irradiance (in Watts per square meter) and the planetary temperature anomaly (in °C) is highly statistically significant; the Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient is 0.51 and is beyond the 0.99 level of statistical confidence (see below). The line on the plot basically represents a simple statistical linear “model” that predicts the planetary temperature anomaly given a specific output level of the Sun. For every year we could examine the difference between the observed temperature anomaly and the predicted anomaly given solar output – the difference (observed – predicted) is called the residual which should have a mean of zero over the study period. The residuals should fluctuate from year to year, and they should behave in a random fashion.
Scatterplot of annual solar irradiance values (in Watts per square meter) and the annual global near-surface temperature anomalies (in °C) over the period 1910-2003 (from Balling and Sen Roy, 2005)
August 14, 2007
The Iris Opens Again?
Filed under: Climate Models, Climate Forcings —
Back in 2001, Richard Lindzen and colleagues made quite a stir in the climate community when they published a paper in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society in which they describe having possibly identified an “adaptive infrared iris” that opens and closes to keep the earth’s temperature fairly steady even in light of increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. It was proposed to work something like this—when the temperature in the tropical oceans begins to warm up, it causes in increase in the amount of low-level water clouds and an even greater decrease in total coverage of high-altitude ice clouds. Since ice clouds are net warmers (that is, they trap more outgoing longwave radiation (heat) than they reflect away incoming shortwave (solar) radiation) and water clouds are (generally) net coolers (reflecting back to space more incoming solar shortwave radiation than they absorb outgoing longwave radiation), more of the latter and a lot less of the former leads to a net cooling, and the temperatures of the tropical oceans decrease. However, cooler tropical ocean temperatures lead to less low-level (water) clouds and more high altitude ice clouds. This configuration tends to lead to a net radiation increase and to higher temperatures. And the cycle starts over again. Lindzen’s moniker “adaptive infrared iris” refers to the mechanism in which the tropical ice cloud cover opens and closes in response to tropical ocean temperatures to allow more heat to escape to space when the oceans are warm and less heat to escape to space when the oceans are relatively cool (much like the iris of an eye which opens and closes in response to varying light levels to try to maintain a constant level falling on the retina). Lindzen et al. proposed that the iris acts as a global thermostat that will keep the earth’s temperatures from rising very far even as atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases increase.
The Role of Greenland in Sea Level Rise: A Summary of the Current Literature
Written by Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide & Global Change
Monday, 06 August 2007
"Hence, we can be thankful that whatever the rest of the Northern Hemisphere may be doing, the part that holds the lion's share of the hemisphere's ice has been cooling for the past half-century, and at a very significant rate, making it ever more unlikely that its horde of frozen water will be released to the world's oceans to raise havoc with global sea level any time soon."
The Greenland ice sheet would appear to have experienced no net loss of mass over the last decade for which data are available. Quite to the contrary, in fact, it was likely host to a net accumulation of ice, which Zwally et al. found to be producing a 0.03 ± 0.01 mm/year decline in sea-level.
In the 24 March 2006 issue of Science, a number of commentaries heralded accelerating discharges of glacial ice from Greenland and Antarctica, while dispensing dire warnings of an imminent large, rapid and accelerating sea-level rise (Bindschadler, 2006; Joughin, 2006; Kerr, 2006; Kennedy and Hanson, 2006). This distressing news was based largely on three reports published in the same issue (Ekstrom et al., 2006; Otto-Bliesner et al., 2006; Overpeck et al., 2006), wherein the unnerving phenomena were attributed to anthropogenic-induced global warming, which is widely claimed to be due primarily to increases in the air's CO2 content that are believed to be driven by the burning of ever increasing quantities of fossil fuels such as coal, gas and oil. But does all of this make any sense?
Consider the report of Ekstrom et al., who studied "glacial earthquakes" caused by sudden sliding motions of glaciers on Greenland. Over the period Jan 1993 to Oct 2005, they determined that (1) all of the best-recorded quakes were associated with major outlet glaciers on the east and west coasts of Greenland between approximately 65 and 76°N latitude, (2) "a clear increase in the number of events is seen starting in 2002," and (3) "to date in 2005, twice as many events have been detected as in any year before 2002."
With respect to the reason for the recent increase in glacial activity on Greenland, Clayton Sandell of ABC News (23 March 2006) quoted Ekstrom as saying "I think it is very hard not to associate this with global warming," which sentiment appears to be shared by almost all of the authors of the seven Science articles. Unwilling to join in that conclusion, however, was Joughin, who in the very same issue presented histories of summer temperature at four coastal Greenland stations located within the same latitude range as the sites of the glacial earthquakes, which histories suggest that it was warmer in this region back in the 1930s than it was over the period of Ekstrom et al.'s analysis.
Based on these data, Joughin concluded that the recent warming in Greenland "is too short to determine whether it is an anthropogenic effect or natural variability," a position that is supported - and in some cases even more rigorously - by numerous scientists who have researched the issue, as noted in the following brief synopses of some of their studies.
There is more. Much more.
For over a decade now of following the GW story and the proposed 'actions' such as Kyoto, I have come to believe that this has become the one world socialist movement's main weapon among many others (national health being another).
That 'dumbed down' populaces in the US and Europe are true believers doesn't negate the scientific evidence that climate changes are natural in origin.
Wide-scale suicide? OK--you first.