| Wednesday,
December 9, 2009 Air Force Confirms Use Of
"Beast Of Kandahar" Drone.
AFP <http://mailview.custombriefings.com/
mailview.aspx?m=2009120901aiaa&r=
2980593-585e&l=00f-c3b&t=c> (12/9) reports the US Air Force on
Tuesday "confirmed for the first time that it is flying a stealth unmanned
aircraft known as the 'Beast of Kandahar,' a drone spotted in photos and
shrouded in secrecy." The RQ-170 Sentinel, developed by Lockheed Martin, is
designed "to provide reconnaissance and surveillance support to forward
deployed combat forces," the Air Force said in "a brief statement." AFP
notes that "aviation experts dubbed the drone the 'Beast of Kandahar' after
photographs emerged earlier this year showing the mysterious aircraft in
southern Afghanistan in 2007." Then earlier this week, "a blog in the French
newspaper Liberation published another photo...feeding speculation among
aviation watchers about the classified drone."
=============
: Still Confused?
"I'm still confused over how fudged data is making the
glaciers receed, sea levels rise, spring to come early, and why the birds of
the south are suddenly filling local forests."
But thats just it, none of these are true, lets start
with the first point and go through them one by one, shall we?
Fudged data, I wouldn't call it fudged, in fact, it is
legally criminal now, since withholding data when there is a freedom of
information request is a criminal offense. In fact, if you look here
http://wattsupwiththat.com/
2009/12/06/american-thinker-understanding-
climategates-hidden-decline/#more-13783 , you can see that the
whole hockey stick graph that started this whole warming thing is not even
based on actual tempuratures at all, the tree data it was based off of
differed from the actual tempurature data, showing that the whole hockey
stick graph does not actually show what the tempurature was really like back
before actual thermometers existed. it is, in fact, a fake. Note also that
the IPCC 1990 graph showed the MWP, then did not show it at all later, yet
we can see here that it did in fact exist
http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/mwpp.php (from every
continent), thus we see further proof that the hockey stick graph, and thus
the whole idea of Global Warming, uh, I mean "Climate Change" (we're
supposed to say that now instead) never existed. The current climate is
nothing unusual. If you want even more fudged data, check this out as well
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/08/
the-smoking-gun-at-darwin-zero/#more-13818 , and I could come up
with a lot more like that, here's a start
http://wattsupwiththat.com/climategate/ .
"Glaciers receed", well, that's easy, simply report on
those glaciers in some areas of the world that are receding (which could
have to do with percipitaion patterns as well as tempurature, see here
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/05/02/
new-zealand-glacier-findings-upset-climate-theory/ ), while
stricktly ignoring those in other areas (even close by) that are growing,
like these
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/11/27
/glaciers-in-norway-alaska-growing-again/ In Norway and Alaska.
Make it dramatic and emotional, "we're all gonna die!" sort of thing. The
trick in propaganda isn't so much what you say, it's what you do not say,
and show all kinds of emotionally laden pictures, make it "telereal" (an old
word that means they won't believe it unless they see it). After all, you
can always find a melting glacier somewhere (in summer). This also shows why
the current push from congress to penalize news sources outside of the
mainstream press is going on, the press has been tamed and reports only on
what the masters desire to be reported, once those other sources are
squashed, all you will ever hear about will be the melting glaciers and
never the growing ones.
Sea levels rise, um, nope, seems to have stopped since
2006, pretty much flat now, see here
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/06/
sea-level-graphs-from-uc-and-some-perspectives/ , all you ever
hear is all the horrible things that might happen if sea level rises, with
emotianal emphesis on how horrible they are, and no one looking on whether
it is actually happening or not. All that sea level rised caused by melting
ice caps, right, well, they're not, see here
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/17/
revealed-antarctic-ice-growing-not-shrinking/ ,but what about the
arctic, see here
http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/
cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=12&fd=01
&fy=2007&sm=12&sd=01&sy=2009 and here
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/17/
the-antarctic-wilkins-ice-shelf-collapse-
media-recycles-photos-and-storylines-from-previous-years/ , so
much for ice caps. Besides, it's been rising at an avarage of 3mm a year,
that's all (except lately) for centuries, no acceleration in its rise has
been seen, shouldn't it have been by now? I mean, WHEN'S IT GONNA HAPPEN?
Spring to come early, nope, see here
http://wattsupwiththat.com/
2009/04/05/global-warming-and-the-early-spring/ , one can always
find some local spot where spring is earlier than somewhere else as well,
thats called weather.
Birds, in some cases more cherry picking of data, on
others, like the robin story, a flat out, bald faced lie, see below:
“Robins: With global warming, robins, the harbinger of spring for many
Canadians, have been spotted for the first time in Arctic areas, where the
Inuit had no name for the birds.”
Thanks to Dr. Pat Michaels, From World Climate Report:
“The article that caught our eye was titled “The
Naming of Birds by Nunamiut Eskimo” by Laurence Irving of the Arctic Health
Research Center of the U.S. Public Health Service in Anchorage, Alaska. It
appeared in the March 1953 (Vol. 6, pp. 35-43) issue of the aptly-named
journal Arctic (…) Irving’s list is the Nunamiut Eskimo word for ‘robin.’
For those interested it is “Koyapigaktoruk”—apparently a derivative of the
sound of the robin’s song. Irving designates the robin’s status in the
region as “NM” for “nesting” and “migrant.”
AND
“Further, in his article Irving refers to an earlier
compilation of Eskimo names for birds, “The most complete list of Eskimo
bird names for this part of Alaska so far published” that can be found in
the book My Life with the Eskimo by V. Stefansson published in 1913. As it
so happens, the contents of this book are accessible through Amazon.com. If
you visit the link
http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/1417923954# , and enter the search
term “robin” and read the contents of page 493, you will see a description
of where robins have been sighted in the Canadian Arctic prior (obviously)
to 1913, including along the far northern coast. Accompanying these location
descriptions are the word for ‘robin’ in several other Eskimo tongues,
including (phonetically) “Kre-ku-ak’tu-yok” (Mackenzie Eskimo) and
“Shab’wak” (Alaskan Eskimo).
So, as it turns out, there are plenty of Eskimo words
for robin that have existed for a long time and in languages that are spread
among bands of Inuit all across the North American Arctic—and it is all
plain to see with only a few clicks of the mouse along the information
superhighway of the internet.”
So...what about that fudged data again?
Legatus
I do believe that it's time to renew the debates,
not just on blogs. In particular, the authenticity of the data including
the operations used to generate it needs to be discussed.
==
: EPA
Jerry,
Having started the day with temperatures near zero and
3" of fresh snow in Denver, flown to Nashville over solid cloud cover and
some of the highest cloud tops I've ever flown over, driven from there to
Huntsville in an inches/hour rain with wind gusts up to 60 mph, and returned
home to note (our old friend
www.solarcycle24.com) that we're back to 16 days without a
sunspot, I have one thing to say to our friends in the EPA and their finding
regarding carbon dioxide:
I urge everyone to write their Congressperson and
Senators to support some version of the following resolution:
Resolved: Notwithstanding any United States federal
agency or judicial findings regarding carbon dioxide or other so-called
"greenhouse gases," the Senate (or House) hereby resolves that no agency
funding, either direct or indirect, shall be applied to regulation of such
gases, nor shall any such regulation have any force of law, in the absence
of legislation which formally imposes, defines, and restricts such
regulation.
The DATA are unequivocal: global warming is a HOAX.
Sincerely,
J
(I have to sign this one; it's too important for the
future of the world.)
You may have to sign it, but I don't think I have
to publish the name. I'll leave that up to you. This is from a PhD in hard
sciences.
It is clear enough that the "consensus" isn't so
thorough that the panic justifies bypassing Congress to allow the
Administration to seize control of a huge part of the economy to avert the
coming doom.
==
Medieval warming and tree rings
Dear Sir:
In 1947 I visited a museum (Wells Fargo, possibly?) in
Los Angeles and at the end of one room was an enormous slice taken from the
butt of a Redwood tree. The exhibit included a time line starting somewhere
well before the birth of Christ. It has always seemed to me that there are
far to many variables - temperature, moisture, nutrient availability, stress
from disease, infestation, even the size of the subject tree relative to the
surrounding forest, to place much faith in the historical relationship of
climate to the width of a tree ring. If the exhibit is still open to the
public however, anyone in the area should be able to check and see for
themselves some actual tree ring evidence covering the past 2,000 years or
so.
Very truly yours, Paul Bloom
==
A subscriber writes
North Pole ice
Jerry P:
"We know there had to be less ice at the North Pole in Viking times. "
Well that is a reasonable hypothesis, but not a known fact. The problem
could be the Gulf Stream and circumpolar currents which did or did not bring
warmer currents to the area the Vikings settled. As I read the literature on
the topic, thermohaline effects are not well understood and this means that
the locus and magnitude of the sinking of heavier saline water is not
exactly understood. I would submit that weaker effects would allow the
warmer current to close on the Greenland mass before cooling and sinking.
Modeling the oceans is more important than modeling the atmosphere as the
oceans control the net climate not the atmosphere.
CBS
Well, we have no evidence that the Gulf Stream
ever got up around Greenland and Iceland, and it almost certainly was not
there during the Viking times. Perhaps it accounts for Vineland and the
Greenland dairy farms, but an alternate hypothesis of Thor and Odin can
account for it too. I suppose the wandering Gulf Stream theory is
considerably more likely, but a large number times a very small number is
generally not very large even so.
As you say we don't know much about ocean
currents and temperature changes. If we did we could predict el Nino
events, which we can't. But the Gulf Stream seems pretty stable.
On that score: what is the temperature of the
sea? I can go off the coast of Florida and get 10 different values in 20
miles at the same depth and latitude. Which one do I use as "the
temperature off Florida"? Now consider that question write large and tell
me the temperature of the ocean.
In any event there is considerably more evidence
of a general Medieval Warm in Viking times than just the Greenland data;
and given that the Earth was warmer then, should we not predict less North
Polar ice? It's not my specialty, but I do read history books, and I think
I can rely on crop records at least as much as tree rings. Of course I'm
not trying to predict to a fraction of a degree. Just "a lot warmer" and
"a lot colder" are about all I can get from history; I am not convinced
that the more "accurate" numbers are accurate to fractions of a degree, or
even to a degree F. Perhaps I am deluded; but I don't get a lot of
comfort from the answers I get to these questions.
Thanks.
==
Michael Flynn on Cooked Data
This is from another conference, published with
Flynn's permission:
In reply to:
I'm still confused over how
fudged data is making the glaciers receed, sea levels rise, spring to come
early, and why the birds of the south are suddenly filling local forests.
Mike Flynn says
the "fudged data" doesn't mean any of that. It's not
that the earth is not warming. It has been, for several centuries now. The
debate among scientists is whether it is doing so for mostly natural or
mostly man-made reasons. There is also debate over whether anything and
everything that happens *during* a warming happens *because* of the warming.
To your list add the northward advance of "tropical" diseases, the increase
in the number of hurricanes, every summer heat wave, the polar bears, etc.
a) But many of the glaciers have been receding since
George Washington's time. Others are stable or even advancing. Kilimanjaro
lost more than half its surface ice *between 1890 and 1936* with a slower
rate of loss since then -- but due to a shift to a drier climate, not an
increase in temperature. Malaria was a major cause of death in the building
of the TransCanadian Railway in the 19th cent., and yellow fever and malaria
regularly ravaged such "tropical" cities as Philadelpia in the 18th cent. We
didn't hear much about increased hurricanes this past year. The Arctic was
relatively ice-free a few years ago, just as it was in the 1940s and at
other times, but this was primarily because of an occasional shift in the
ocean currents and the ice has returned in the last three years. I have even
heard it said that animals can shift habitats for many different reasons.
Back in the early 70's, the southward migration of armadillos was cited as
proof of cooling. And around here the Canadian geese don't seem inclined to
return to Canada. Some polar bear populations are increasing or remaining
stable; two are declining - from hunting. There may be more things in heaven
and earth than are dreamt of yet in our philosophy, or even in our computer
models.
The above ties into the Duesberg Debate as follows:
physicists had falsified heliocentrism because the theory predicted visible
parallax among the fixed stars, and none could be observed. Ergo (saith
Archimedes) heliocentrism is disproven. Of course, the reason turned out to
be that the stars were much farther away than scientists thought. (Companus
of Novara put the outer edge of the Saturnian sphere at 73,383,747 miles.)
The hypothesis was really {heliocentrism AND the assumed stellar distances}
implied {visible parallax}. The lack of parallax falsified one OR the other.
Because the distance to the celestial sphere was well attested by apparent
magnitudes and diameters, it seemed a safe bet. This is called the Duhem
Thesis and it's why there can never be a "crucial experiment."
b) Temperatures have been increasing since the end of
the Little Ice Age, when the sun began ramping up toward Grand Max. On top
of this trend is overlaid the 50-60 year Multi-Decadal Oscillation.
Currently, the MDO has crested and temperatures since the El Nino peak of
1998 have been i) higher than previously and b) flat to declining. That is
the nature of crests. Russian astrophysicists have predicted that this
decline will persist until about 2030. Dr. Trenberth called the failure of
the computer models to account for this "lack of warming" a "travesty." It
seems Y = f(X1, X2, ..., Xn) and should have been Y = f(X1, X2, ..., Xn,
Xn+1,... Xn+k)
c) The prior commitment to man-made reasons led to a
determination to "get rid of the medieval warm period." (As I read in a
disturbing article about fifteen years ago. At the time, the recipient of
the email did not want his name revealed for grant-eligibility reasons, and
so the goal statement was dismissed.) The way to eliminate the MWP was to
define medieval temps downward by using "reconstructed" temperatures from
selected tree ring series. (When other tree ring series were used, the
Medieval Warm period reappears. It also appears world-wide in research of
752 scientists from 45 countries. And while medieval annalists did not know
about thermometers, they did know when the ice melted or the rivers froze.
There were broadleaf trees in Scandanavia.) When I was a quality engineer, I
was generally suspicious when a manager announced ahead of time what he
wants to find and then he finds it.
d) Unfortunately, the tree ring data after 1960
diverged from the thermometer temperatures. The tree rings indicated a
decline in while the thermometer temps increased. Any competent quality
engineer could have told them that different methods of measurement will
generally produce different results. To "hide the decline" in the tree ring
data, they simply tossed the post-1960 data and replaced them with
thermometer data. This would be like plotting tensile strengths of heats of
steel reconstructed from the Rockwell hardness of the ingots poured; and
then, for the most recent heats, replacing that with actual tensile test
results on rolled sheet. This is always illegitimate technique unless it is
highlighted prominently, the reasons explained, and consideration is given
to whether the correlation still holds. (The Rockwell/tensile correlation
depends on the alloy of the steel. The tree ring/temperature correlation
depends on the species of the tree, the soil, the drainage, the direction of
the drainage, overshadowing by taller trees, and whether a deer dumped a
load of dung on the ground several yards away, and other stuff.)
e) That the reconstructed temps diverged from
thermometer temps after 1960 calls into question the validity of the
correlation that was used to make the reconstructions. If they didn't match
post-1960, why suppose they matched in 1660 or 1360? But instead of
investigating to determine the "assignable cause," which might have
unearthed either a metrology problem or a new nugget of scientific fact,
they elected to "hide the decline." Seems to me that post-1960 is just when
urban heat island effects would have started overtaking thermometers
originally placed outside the urban areas. Other possible metrology issues
involve the way the raw data is "homogenized."
Anyhow, the problem is not the warming, per se; but
the concerted effort to bury the MWP so as to accentuate the present-day
warming and obscure the obviously natural aspect of the older warming phase.
The current inflection point is more worrisome than the one after the
1930/40s high temps. Then, it was simply the downturn of the MDO (and the
possibly related lengthening of the solar cycle). The current slump in solar
activity seems deeper and some have claimed the beginning of another Dalton
or even a Maunder Minimum. It's way too early to tell. If it is - and some
Russian scientists seem to think it is - it will make Global Cooling of the
50s-70s seem like a summer day.
__ "Data! Give me data! I can't make bricks without
straw!" -- Sherlock Holmes in "The Copper Beeches."
My remedy to all this is to find more data, and
to fund contrarians: if they can be refuted we can feel better about
spending trillions on remedies. And if what's coming is ice rather then
warm, it would be well to know that.
==
Australian Conservative parties see through the con
on Global Warming.
G'day Jerry,
You might find this interesting. In Australia we've
had to put up with a government that was insisting that Global Warming was
settled and "deniers" were worse then Holocaust deniers. They even conned
the leader of the opposition into going along with a massive new tax that
would double the average houshold power bill, not to mention the costs on
everything else. The result was a revolt in the party room and a new leader
on the conservative side of politics. (The conservative side of politcs in
Australia are the Liberals, don't ask)
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/
opinion/sharp-righht-turn-reunites-coalition
-on-the-road-to-salvation/story-e6frg6zo-1225807893456
Hopefully we'll now start to have a bit of sanity
injected into things and a bit of rebellion against the new religion that is
being forced down our throats by the watermelons (Green outside but red in
the middle).
Regards, Chris Papalia.
============
"Unpopular with whom?"
Jerry,
Could Paul be suffering from a problem similar to
Pauline Kael, late movie critic of the New York Times, who is reported to
have said after the 1972 Presidential Election, " I can't understand how
Nixon won, I don't know a single person who voted for him.
As Paul said, "almost everyone I talk to..."
Bob Holmes
==========
Coup
Jerry,
I am glad you picked up on the EPA. I was even more
glad to see that someone finally called this move for what it is, The
President's Coup made in the UK and the EU.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/
geraldwarner/100019206/climategate-
barack-obamas-rule-by-epa-decree
-is-a-coup-detat-against-congress-made-in-britain/
-- PDAB,
Josh
==
Coppenhagen and TSA
Well, Lord Monckton threatened a House of Lords
investigation if they did not produce a copy of this so-called treaty. He
got the copy and found that they plan to create 700 more bureaucracies, not
bureaucrats, entire bureaucracies that you will have to pay for that will
run even more aspects of your life. Then, the bomb shell came. You may
recall that developed nations were selling this plan to underdeveloped
nations by saying that, basically, the U.N. would rob the rich nations and
give that money to the poor nations.
Now remember, this is the same IMF and World Bank that
sent economic hitmen such as Perkins in and paid corrupt leaders to NOT pay
back the loanshark rate (30%+) loans given to those nations. This caused
those nations to default, and under terms of the loan transfer their
infrastructure--and basically the entire country--into IMF and World Bank
receivership. Imagine their horror when they get the addendum to the
Copenhagen Summit, and realize that they are duped once more!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/
2009/dec/08/copenhagen-
climate-summit-disarray-danish-text
Stateside, TSA screws up yet again! The jobs program
for losers / bailout for the airline companies really did it this time. They
published their security procedures and sensitive information online. Ever
wondered what a Senators ID card looks like? Ever wondered what CIA
credentials look like? Well, now you can see thanx to TSA!
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/massive-
tsa-security-breach-agency-secrets/story?id=9280503
Manual here:
http://a.abcnews.go.com/images/
Blotter/ht_tsa_screening_2_091208.pdf
See CIA credentials here:
http://a.abcnews.go.com/images/Blotter
/ht_tsa_screening_2_091208.pdf#page=58
Sleep well tonight! ooooooooops militant ignorance and
compound stupidity strike again!
-- PDAB,
Josh
"Men stumble over the truth from time to time, but
most pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing happened." —Winston
Churchill
“The opinion of ten thousand men is of no value if
none of them know anything about the subject.” —Marcus Aurelius
==
What climate scientists
believe about climate change:
http://coast.gkss.de/staff/storch/pdf/CliSci2008.pdf
There’s a lot of fascinating stuff here. Short summary
– a pretty good consensus and a lot more dissent than anyone is admitting.
mkr
What it shows is that the consensus is not nearly
overwhelming enough to justify spending trillions without more discussion.
The debate is not over, the science is not established, and it is not
certain; and this is pretty clear from the article. It takes a while to
read this. It's worth the time if you are interested in this.
==
"Cooked" climate data
Jerry:
You (and your readers) may wish to click on over to
this link:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/
12/08/the-smoking-gun-at-darwin-zero/ It's a lengthy piece, with
lots of charts, and I'm not prepared to take the time to compose an adequate
summary here.
Willis Eisenbach spends some time looking at how raw
climate data has been adjusted. If what he presents is true, I can see why
some people might be more than a little suspicious of the methods used to
cook the raw data.
.............Karl Lembke
One reason why I think it justified to inquire
about how the "confirmation" of Arrhenius observation is "confirmed" or
denied. It's very hard to determine just what is happening other than the
gross levels of "did the Hudson freeze" and "when do you plant spring
crops" and "when did the birds come back from flying south?" Those
questions won't get you fraction of a degree accuracy, but I am beginning
to think nothing else will either. We need the data --and they haven't got
it.
Over the periods when we sort of know, the
warming trend is not so obvious.
==============
TOP
CURRENT
VIEW Wednesday
|
