What Are We To Do Now?

[sixpacktr]

Check out this article, from the Sydney Morning Herald...

Imagine if the American government agency responsible for temperature records had announced a fortnight ago that it had overestimated annual temperatures since the year 2000. Imagine if, at the time of correcting this error, the hottest year on record was mysteriously altered from 1998 to 1934. Imagine further that if you considered the 10 hottest years on record after these corrections, the hottest decade changed from the 1990s to the 1930s.

Would that change your views on global warming? It should, because climate change theory says increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere raises the temperature. Yet the hot 1930s was hardly a decade of carbon-spewing industrial growth.

Well, all these things have happened. NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies calculates the average US temperature figures. It does this by processing data from land measurement sites. Earlier this year a Canadian mathematician named Steve McIntyre approached the institute and pointed out an error in its more recent calculations. Figures since 2000 had been inflated by about 0.15 of a degree celsius.

The institute thanked him and on August 7 quietly changed these figures, and some of the rankings on its list of the hottest years on record, which extends back to 1880. It did this without any public acknowledgment of the changes.

The Goddard Institute is a major supporter of the climate change orthodoxy, and the discovery that it got one of the central data sets of global warming science and debate wrong is embarrassing and disturbing.

Previously, McIntyre, along with the economist Ross McKitrick, had demolished the so-called "hockey stick" chart used in the third report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The graph incorrectly portrayed the history of the Earth's average temperature over the past millennium as essentially unchanged until a steep climb in the 20th century. This made a modest rise in temperature appear far more unusual than it really was.

The two men had difficulty gaining access to the data and methodologies used in creating the hockey stick, a difficulty facing many who want to question the most basic research on which the science of climate change rests. It was McIntyre's continuing interest in such basic questions, pursued publicly at his blog climateaudit.org, that led him to look at the problematic siting of many US land weather stations (see photos of them at the website SurfaceStations.org) and how the data they produce is processed.

Strange as it might seem in a scientific field that spends some $6.4 billion a year on often abstruse research and computer modelling, the integrity of the basic temperature data is emerging as a serious problem. The Goddard Institute claims to correct data from poorly sited stations, but McIntyre says it refused to tell him how it does this in sufficient detail for him to check its results. When he obtained some of the raw data from specific sites and compared it with the processed temperatures created by the institute, he found problems. In one case data from a good site, at the Grand Canyon, had been changed to make the 1930s colder than they were.

Across the Atlantic, the British mathematician Douglas Keenan has claimed that two important academic papers on the reliability of Chinese weather stations are wrong. This is a major issue because one of the papers is cited by the IPCC to support its position that measurement errors owing to urbanisation and the "heat island effect" - which makes cities warmer than their surroundings - are insignificant. Keenan claims to have discovered that some of the Chinese stations have been moved a lot. One, for example, had five different locations from 1954 to 1983, over a distance of 41 kilometres. This makes the data largely useless.

It took several years to gain access to the information needed to reveal this fault with the papers, because the academics involved refused to release it. Keenan finally obtained it by the creative means of using Britain's Freedom of Information Act, on the grounds that an academic who had the information was a public servant.

The climate change establishment is represented by the website realclimate.org. Its response to McIntyre's success in getting the Goddard Institute to reduce US temperature figures for the period since 2000 has been to say that the implication for global averages is imperceptible, since the US is only a very small fraction of the global area. Strictly speaking this is correct, although America's figures are more important than its land area might indicate because they go back so far in an unbroken line, which is fairly unusual.

Since the break-up of the USSR, the number of weather stations in the world has declined by half. Many of them used to be in cold areas. The scientists who compile global averages presumably try to take this into account - although in light of some of the above stories you have to wonder just how well they succeed.

Whatever the scientific implications of McIntyre's revelation, the rhetorical one is huge. America is the centre of the global debate on climate change. No longer will Americans or anyone else be able to say the hottest year on record in their great nation was 1998. Looking at the new top 10, it's hard to see any signs of global warming. The ranking, starting from the hottest year, goes: 1934, 1998, 1921, 2006, 1931, 1999, 1953, 1990, 1938, 1939.

It's a sad thought, but maybe we and our weather are not as unusual as some want to believe.[/b]

Wow, so before Pres Bush was even a glimmer in his daddy's eye the earth was warmer than now??

[Doctor Steuss]

This makes no sense:

Imagine if the American government agency responsible for temperature records had announced a fortnight ago that it had overestimated annual temperatures since the year 2000. Imagine if, at the time of correcting this error, the hottest year on record was mysteriously altered from 1998 to 1934. Imagine further that if you considered the 10 hottest years on record after these corrections, the hottest decade changed from the 1990s to the 1930s.[/b]

If an error had begun starting with the year 2000, this would not effect 1998, nor the 1990s for that matter.

[Elphaba]

Check out this article, from the Sydney Morning Herald...

Wow, so before Pres Bush was even a glimmer in his daddy's eye the earth was warmer than now??
[/b]

The 1934 hottest year record only applies to the United States. It does not apply to the globe.

Since global warming is the real issue, 1998 remains tied with 2005 as the hottest years on record.

According to an article in the The Los Angeles Times:

"A slight adjustment to U.S. temperature records has bumped 1998 as the hottest year in the country's history and made the Dust Bowl year of 1934 the new record holder, according to NASA.

"But the re-ranking did not affect global records, and 1998 remains tied with 2005 as the hottest year on record, climatologist Gavin A. Schmidt of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York said Tuesday.

"The data adjustment changes "the inconsequential bragging rights for certain years in the U.S.," he said. But "global warming is a global issue, and the global numbers show that there is no question that the last five to 10 years have been the hottest period of the last century."

Hottest Year in United States Record

Elphaba

[gabelpa]

I don't think it matters, we should be looking after the Earth God gave us no matter what is happening to it - I feel that is a covenant I have made with him.

-Charley

[the Ogre]

I don't think it matters, we should be looking after the Earth God gave us no matter what is happening to it - I feel that is a covenant I have made with him.

-Charley
[/b]

I agree with this. I think the pattern of nay-saying by American conservatives is much like the three monkeys or the claim and proclaim evangelicals who deny just to deny. The actuality of increasing planet temperatures, not recognizing it, and doing nothing will be one of the ways that humanity destroys itself when it has the ability to do something. I think we aught to be doing what we can to improve the environment of the entire planet. As the leading producer of pollution, the US should be up and doing instead of putting a bag over our heads and still claiming to see fine.

Are we the only polluters? No, but we are the worse especially when we are the ones who are capable of doing something about it.

[Elphaba]

<div class='quotemain'>
I don't think it matters, we should be looking after the Earth God gave us no matter what is happening to it - I feel that is a covenant I have made with him.

-Charley
[/b]

I agree with this. I think the pattern of nay-saying by American conservatives is much like the three monkeys or the claim and proclaim evangelicals who deny just to deny. The actuality of increasing planet temperatures, not recognizing it, and doing nothing will be one of the ways that humanity destroys itself when it has the ability to do something. I think we aught to be doing what we can to improve the environment of the entire planet. As the leading producer of pollution, the US should be up and doing instead of putting a bag over our heads and still claiming to see fine.

Are we the only polluters? No, but we are the worse especially when we are the ones who are capable of doing something about it.[/b][/quote]Hi Aaron,

I agree with everything you said. I just wanted to point out, however, that China is, I believe, the major polluter on the planet. It is really horrible there.

I take your point, though, that the U.S. could be doing so much more than it is.

Elphaba

[Annabelli]

According to the "green house affect", we are producing much heat from the use of air conditioning and refrigeration. Vehicle usage which has been a great concern and has greatly been improved is becoming a secondary concern. Home usage of air conditioning and refrigeration are not nearly the concern as is the usage of these units in industrial use such as producing electricity.

The laws of physical nature replenishes the earth's environmental structure and we do not have the means to justify or alter the course of such action.

We do know that living the gospel is the only means of Salvation from those things that bring us concern.

[BenRaines]

World's 10 Worst Pollution Spots

NEW YORK, New York, October 18, 2006 (ENS) - The world's 10 most polluted places threaten the health of more than 10 million people in eight countries, according to a report released today by a U.S. environmental action group. Three of the most polluted sites are in Russia, the report said, with the remaining seven located in China, Dominican Republic, India, Kyrgyzstan, Peru, Ukraine and Zambia.

The report was released by the Blacksmith Institute and compiled by a team of international environment and health experts, including researchers from Johns Hopkins University, Mt. Sinai Medical Center and City University of New York.

"A key criterion in the selection process was the nature of the pollutant," said Richard Fuller, director of Blacksmith Institute. "The biggest culprits are heavy metals - such as lead, chromium and mercury - and long-lasting chemicals - such as the `persistent organic pollutants.' That's because a particular concern of all these cases is the accumulating and long lasting burden building up in the environment and in the bodies of the people most directly affected.



Another article. World Health Organization is probably a US front for misleading information.



<H3 class=post-title>WHO: The Best and Worst Countries on Environment </H3>A recent report by WHO put together data from 192 countries to determine the health and environmental risk to its citizens. The study looked at air and water pollution, farming practices, noise pollution, climate change, the ecosystem, UV radiation and hazards involved with the workplace.

Here’s what they found:

- Worst countries: Angola, Burkina Faso, Mali and Afghanistan

- Best countries: Iceland, Israel, Italy, Germany, Spain, France, Britain and the US

- In 23 countries, 10 percent of deaths are blamed on unsafe water and indoor air pollution

- Low income countries suffer more than high income countries, losing 20 times more healthy years per person each year.

- All countries are affected by environmental health factors.

[the Ogre]

I agree with everything you said. I just wanted to point out, however, that China is, I believe, the major polluter on the planet. It is really horrible there.
[/b]

El,

I suffered through eight yellow winds from Gobe Samak and I can say that China is a major polluter as is the rest of Asia. There is a river in South Korea that glows in the dark with the pollutants dumped into it from companies that export primarily to us. My understanding is that the US still far outstrips China as to the production of water and airborne pollutants, but I may be wrong.

The next thing about this pollution is that most of it is from industry that targets the American market, so indirectly we are still the ones generating this pollution, we just outsourced it.

After living in Asia for so long though I know they are amazingly defensive and refuse to change until we do. They also will not change unless the American market forces them to. Profits are where the Asian rice bowl is and those profits all come from us. When we decide to require change through market strength then Asia will change. This requires us to change. Not changing makes us culpable in the destruction of the only home we have.

(Edited)
Ben: I like the work you have done. You obviously know more then I do. This however does not change the fact most of the pollution produced by these nations comes from trying to serve the demands of the combined American and European markets.

Aaron the Ogre

[Elphaba]

World's 10 Worst Pollution Spots

NEW YORK, New York, October 18, 2006 (ENS) - The world's 10 most polluted places threaten the health of more than 10 million people in eight countries, according to a report released today by a U.S. environmental action group. Three of the most polluted sites are in Russia, the report said, with the remaining seven located in China, Dominican Republic, India, Kyrgyzstan, Peru, Ukraine and Zambia.

The report was released by the Blacksmith Institute and compiled by a team of international environment and health experts, including researchers from Johns Hopkins University, Mt. Sinai Medical Center and City University of New York.

"A key criterion in the selection process was the nature of the pollutant," said Richard Fuller, director of Blacksmith Institute. "The biggest culprits are heavy metals - such as lead, chromium and mercury - and long-lasting chemicals - such as the `persistent organic pollutants.' That's because a particular concern of all these cases is the accumulating and long lasting burden building up in the environment and in the bodies of the people most directly affected.



Another article. World Health Organization is probably a US front for misleading information.



<H3 class=post-title>WHO: The Best and Worst Countries on Environment </H3>A recent report by WHO put together data from 192 countries to determine the health and environmental risk to its citizens. The study looked at air and water pollution, farming practices, noise pollution, climate change, the ecosystem, UV radiation and hazards involved with the workplace.

Here’s what they found:

- Worst countries: Angola, Burkina Faso, Mali and Afghanistan

- Best countries: Iceland, Israel, Italy, Germany, Spain, France, Britain and the US

- In 23 countries, 10 percent of deaths are blamed on unsafe water and indoor air pollution

- Low income countries suffer more than high income countries, losing 20 times more healthy years per person each year.

- All countries are affected by environmental health factors.
[/b]

Hi Ben,

So the WHO didn't even list China? That is strange.

Elphaba