Climate Heresy

The compulsory caveat

2011-03-10T17:35:00.003Z

I've just been emailed the below press release by NASA - what striking is the now compulsory caveat at the end.

...
Regardless of the eventual connections to be established between the solid Earth and climate, Dickey said the solid Earth's impacts on climate are still dwarfed by the much larger effects of human-produced greenhouse gases. "The solid Earth plays a role, but the ultimate solution to addressing climate change remains in our hands," she concluded.
...

If you read the links you'll see that this is just unnecessary - and yet strangely compulsory these days as Man's guilt for changes in global warming is matter of faith not reason.

NASA Study Goes to Earth's Core for Climate Insights

The full version of this story with accompanying images is at:
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2011-074&cid=release_2011-074

The latest evidence of the dominant role humans play in changing Earth's climate comes not from observations of Earth's ocean, atmosphere or land surface, but from deep within its molten core.

Scientists have long known that the length of an Earth day - the time it takes for Earth to make one full rotation - fluctuates around a 24-hour average. Over the course of a year, the length of a day varies by about 1 millisecond, getting longer in the winter and shorter in the summer. These seasonal changes in Earth's length of day are driven by exchanges of energy between the solid Earth and fluid motions of Earth's atmosphere (blowing winds and changes in atmospheric pressure) and its ocean. Scientists can measure these small changes in Earth's rotation using astronomical observations and very precise geodetic techniques.

But the length of an Earth day also fluctuates over much longer timescales, such as interannual (two to 10 years), decadal (approximately 10 years), or those lasting multiple decades or even longer. A dominant longer timescale mode that ranges from 65 to 80 years was observed to change the length of day by approximately 4 milliseconds at the beginning of the 20th century.

These longer fluctuations are too large to be explained by the motions of Earth's atmosphere and ocean. Instead, they're due to the flow of liquid iron within Earth's outer core, where Earth's magnetic field originates. This fluid interacts with Earth's mantle to affect Earth's rotation. While scientists cannot observe these flows directly, they can deduce their movements by observing Earth's magnetic field at the surface. Previous studies have shown that this flow of liquid iron in Earth's outer core oscillates, in waves of motion that last for decades with timescales that correspond closely to long-duration variations in Earth's length of day.

Still other studies have observed a link between the long-duration variations in Earth's length of day and fluctuations of up to 0.2 degrees Celsius (0.4 degree Fahrenheit) in Earth's long-term global average surface air temperature.

So how might all three of these variables - Earth's rotation, movements in Earth's core (formally known as the core angular momentum) and global surface air temperature - be related? That's what researchers Jean Dickey and Steven Marcus of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif., and colleague Olivier de Viron of the Universite Paris Diderot and Institut de Physique du Globe de Paris in France, set out to discover in a first-of-its-kind study.

The scientists mapped existing data from a model of fluid movements within Earth's core and data on yearly averaged length-of-day observations against two time series of observed annual global average surface temperature: one from NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies in New York that extends back to 1880, and another from the United Kingdom's Met Office that extends back to 1860. Since total air temperature is composed of two components - temperature changes that occur naturally and those caused by human activities - the researchers used results from computer climate models of Earth's atmosphere and ocean to account for temperature changes due to human activities. These human-produced temperature changes were then subtracted from the total observed temperature records to generate corrected temperature records.

The researchers found that the uncorrected temperature data correlated strongly with data on movements of Earth's core and Earth's length of day until about 1930. They then began to diverge substantially: that is, global surface air temperatures continued to increase, but without corresponding changes in Earth's length of day or movements of Earth's core. This divergence corresponds with a well-documented, robust global warming trend that has been widely attributed to increased levels of human-produced greenhouse gases.

But an examination of the corrected temperature record yielded a different result: the corrected temperature record remained strongly correlated with both Earth's length of day and movements of Earth's core throughout the entire temperature data series. The researchers performed robust tests to confirm the statistical significance of their results.

"Our research demonstrates that, for the past 160 years, decadal and longer-period changes in atmospheric temperature correspond to changes in Earth's length of day if we remove the very significant effect of atmospheric warming attributed to the buildup of greenhouse gases due to mankind's enterprise," said Dickey. "Our study implies that human influences on climate during the past 80 years mask the natural balance that exists among Earth's rotation, the core angular momentum and the temperature at Earth's surface."

So what mechanism is driving these correlations? Dickey said scientists aren't sure yet, but she offered some hypotheses.

Since scientists know air temperature can't affect movements of Earth's core or Earth's length of day to the extent observed, one possibility is the movements of Earth's core might disturb Earth's magnetic shielding of charged-particle (i.e., cosmic ray) fluxes that have been hypothesized to affect the formation of clouds. This could affect how much of the sun's energy is reflected back to space and how much is absorbed by our planet. Other possibilities are that some other core process could be having a more indirect effect on climate, or that an external (e.g. solar) process affects the core and climate simultaneously.

Regardless of the eventual connections to be established between the solid Earth and climate, Dickey said the solid Earth's impacts on climate are still dwarfed by the much larger effects of human-produced greenhouse gases. "The solid Earth plays a role, but the ultimate solution to addressing climate change remains in our hands," she concluded.

Study results were published recently in the Journal of Climate.

For more information, see: http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/features.cfm?feature=2420 and
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/features.cfm?feature=15 .

Has it all been a waste of time and effort ?

2011-01-19T09:25:00.002Z

Some scientists are saying that CO₂ quantities being doubled will mean a rise of only 1.64'C - when the UN target is to keep it below 2'C. So job done - no need to destroy our economy and let pensioers freeze in fuel poverty to save the planet and promote hard left agenda wrapped in green paper then.

The basis of the argument is that the models are wrong.

Wow - who would have thought it.

Remember the man made climate change disaster movement basis its arguments on unproven and incomplete computer models that also try to model non-linear processes with strong feedbacks which are hard to quantify. To those of us in the computer modelling business this means they have no idea and should come straight with the public on this point.

Damaging allergations about Warmism and Science

2010-10-09T21:41:00.000+01:00

Damaging allegations about Warmism and Science:

This is what worries me about the ever extreme expressions of the Warmist movement - that eventually it is science that will be damaged for a generation.

Yes this is a blog

2010-10-05T16:00:00.003+01:00

I've been having a bit of difficulty getting Technorati to register this blog.

I have to say I think it might be the subject rather than the content that's giving the problem ... if there's another reason please let me know in comments ( after all this is a blog you know ).

What they say is:

Climate Heresy

http://climateheresy.blogspot.com/
Sep 11, 2010. This site does not appear to be a blog or news site. Technorati does not support claiming of forums, product catalogs, and the like. You can review our site quality guidelines at http://technorati.com/blog-quality-guidelines-faq/

Banned by Technorati

2010-09-14T16:35:00.003+01:00

Its not through lack of trying - they didn't like my site description initially, and have now come to this conclusion.

You have to wonder if its not the subject that's the problem for them ...

Cheating Warmists

2010-09-11T19:44:00.001+01:00

The truth is getting lost in the Amazon - Telegraph mobile This article tells how the best sellers on climate change list has been censured to prevent people learning about the full scientific debate.

This attempt to censor the debate is just another worrying expression of the Warmists 'the science is settled' lie. (We now know it isn't and we were deliberately deceived.)

Published with Blogger-droid v1.5.9

Prince Charles baffled

2010-09-10T13:17:00.001+01:00

Prince Charles baffled by 'extraordinary' climate change scepticism - Telegraph mobile

This perhaps says more about him than anyone else ....

Published with Blogger-droid v1.5.8

Technorati admin

2010-09-06T15:38:00.001+01:00

748MXJ9VFHJW

Uncertainty over Ice loss rates in Greenland and Western Antarctica

2010-09-06T14:52:00.001+01:00

TU Delft - Melting rate icecaps Greenland and Western Antarctica lower than expected - what's interesting here is the discussion of modeling issues. Issues the public is not encouraged to think about with the 'science being settled' and all ....

Published with Blogger-droid v1.5.8

Quotes fon AGW from emminent scientitsts

2010-07-26T11:12:00.002+01:00

This post over at Watt's up with that is worth a read ...

Scepticism is the basis of science. Which may explain why the Warmists assertion based approach has caused so much embarrassment.

Further news on the Warmist's new line of defence

2010-07-24T23:16:00.001+01:00

Christopher Booker is worth reading as he reminds a tired and broke world of some of the Warmists tricks that have been played recently .... See here in the Daily Telegraph.

The new certainty

2010-06-28T13:58:00.007+01:00

Its all been a bit quiet here - as I've blogged on other interests over on my Man in a Shed blog.

But Warmism hasn't gone away and it now has a new form.

I'll call it "the new certainty".

The aim is to reassert access to the special privileged position Warmism had when "the science is was settled". That position that allows billions of pounds to be spent ( or wasted ) just because the warmists demand it. It also allows there mainly left wing co-travellers to establish the mechanisms of command and control they have been unable to achieve by democratic means.

The new tactics - probably coordinated somewhere as the former ones were - are as follows:

1) Admit debate is good, and scepticism is good science. ( See how reasonable we really are ).
2) Say a few bad words were used in "some emails" but that investigations have shown that nothing bad was meant by it. ( Don't for goodness sake mention the code or the systematic distortions in the base data. )
3) Now everyone can see how reasonable we warmists are - hit them with the certainty (_{Just don't let them know how little of the overall picture it covers}). CO₂ is a greenhouse gas ( shock horror ). Then add a simple experiment to show members of the general public ( preferably Top Gear petrol heads ) it acting as a green house gas. (Do not mention the facts the experiment has vastly higher concentrations of CO₂ or that water vapour is a vastly higher contributor to the green house effect.)
4) Don't even bother with the issues about computer modelling and the unknown unknown's.
5) Hint at dark motives for the ~~evil~~ deniers - are they not in the pay of the ~~evil~~ oil companies ?

And there we have the new climate change requires world socialism and the destruction of western economies kit ready to issue to shallow journalists.

PS Although the UK TV documentary on climate change on Panorama, which I suspect will use this new line, was last night I haven't had a chance to watch it yet. Will get back when I have.

The first UK professional body to go sceptical

2010-03-02T17:01:00.006Z

The UK's Institute of Physics (IoP) has broken ranks and suggested that a wider enquiry is needed into the "settled science" of climate change. ( IoP submission available here ).

This has happened at the UK Parliamentary enquiry into the emails and computer code ( journalists - please remember the code ! ) leaked from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia ( American TV Journalists you might want to get some help on pronouncing Anglia based on what I've heard on you tube clips etc ).

Bit by bit the Warmist edifice based on "The Settled Science" is falling down.

The only question is when UK politics will catch up.

See:

The First Post : ‘Something rotten’ at the core of climate science

The Register : UK Physicists on Climategate - Intolerance, sub prime stats, wider enquiry needed

Computer modelling shows its limits

2010-02-27T22:36:00.002Z

I'm just watching KGMB Hawaii New Now as it looks like the predicted Tsunami from the Chile earth quake has come in around the time predicted, but in a much different profile than predicted.

Of course Hawaii has put on an impressive emergency response for the potential wave(s) to strike, but people don't like making massive preparations with no large waves resulting. ( There were in fact some very impressive tidal type surges ).

But of course the models have failed in the sense of the accuracy of their wave height prediction.

There is a representative explaining this now in terms of the simplicity of the models for generating the Tsunami and the need to be conservative. He's of course entirely right. And the correct and responsible actions have been taken, even if in the end they weren't needed.

However what it does show is the limitations of computer models.

A lesson for all those predictions on climate change issues.

The scare stories keep on coming

2010-02-22T15:23:00.003Z

I guess we have journalists to thank for some of this - but the same themes keep getting recycled.

Today's its climate instability due to methane hydrates and trapped methane in permafrost.

Its often hidden away that the Warmist campaigners require climate instability to make their wild predictions come about.

However the historical ( which means geological ) evidence for this suggests the opposite, that our climate is internally stable. ( All bets are off if the Sun increases / reduces its output ).

The truth is they don't know, but they won't be adding that to any iPhone apps...

Climate scepticism on the verge of crossing a threshold and going mainstream

2010-01-11T12:27:00.004Z

This article in Smazidata, cited by James Delingpole in his blog today (read here ), shows that climate scepticism is closing on on the Warmist establishment rapidly.

This week the warmists have been forced to role out the - its weather not climate - argument to explain why nearly everyone in the Northern hemisphere is so bloody cold right now.

Just the argument they avoided making over hurricane's and warm days over the last few years. ( Indeed UK govt advice of Warmism suggest that government bodies have "experts" ready to jump up in front of camera for any unusual weather event to claim it climate change ).

The big question in the UK is which of the main UK political parties will break ranks with the Warmist religion first ?

Burt Rutan on #AGW

2010-01-04T15:29:00.002Z

The three main base data sources for climate data

2009-12-08T09:30:00.004Z

From "Watts up with That":

The three global temperature records are usually called CRU, GISS, and GHCN. Both GISS and CRU, however, get almost all of their raw data from GHCN. All three produce very similar global historical temperature records from the raw data.

We know that CRU weren't impressed with GISS due to urban heat island effect not being taken properly into account ( is this the case ? Need to check ).

So that leaves only one thread left - GHCN.

Time to look them over.....

Peter Lilley on climate gate

2009-12-02T10:15:00.002Z

Peter Lilley on Russia Today, telling us what we don't get to see him on the BBC saying.

Peter Lilley on climategate - as not seen on the BBC

2009-12-02T10:15:00.000Z

Man in a Shed: Peter Lilley on climategate - as not seen on the BBC

2009-12-02T10:14:00.001Z

Man in a Shed: Peter Lilley on climategate - as not seen on the BBC

2009-12-02T10:14:00.000Z

Man in a Shed: Peter Lilley on climategate - as not seen on the BBC

Why the science isn't settled

2009-12-01T12:12:00.002Z

Richard Lindzen gives a very useful outline of why he thinks the science on anthological global warming being forced by CO₂ isn't settled in the Wall Street Journal here.

What if the data is unreliable ?

2009-11-25T17:41:00.002Z

How can the world commit to drastic courses of action, just after a world recession when it seems the science isn't settled at all ?

Read: Patrick Michaels and "The Dog Ate Global Warming" - which came out before the CRU hack and #climategate.

Given how much is claimed to rely of "fighting global warming" why isn't't the evidence and its supporting arguments made in the open ?

2009-11-24T10:17:00.000Z

Given how much is claimed to rely of "fighting global warming" why isn't't the evidence and its supporting arguments made in the open ?

Opening statement

2009-11-21T20:01:00.000Z

This blog is part of a new project I'm thinking of starting about the climate change debate.

I've been becoming increasing concerned and worried about the political nature of the debate, and the absence of scientific debate at a political level.

I've moved position from being very concerned about global warming to becoming a sceptic, but you have to live what you preach and any good sceptic should be interested in the evidence.

So I'm starting my journey to understand what I can about the subject.

Who knows how far it will go - a long way or around the corner.

I'm a busy man, who doesn't really have the time for the political blogging I do, but we'll see. Maybe progress will be very slow.