The Ostrich Head

A quick look at Climate Change, global warming, actual science

...and threats to the Consensus that Climate Change is real and that carbon dioxide is creating global warming

 

Because without Consensus, scientific conclusions could be subject to public scrutiny.

 

While Al Gore isn't quite ready to turn in his Nobel Prize for Global Warming, there has been a recent major setback:

 

              The earth has cooled down.

 

Ok, so it's now "Climate Change" but the data still shows the earth is warming up and is at its hottest since the Jurassic era right?  Um... this chart doesn't seem to agree with that...

This isn't some prank chart from the coal lobby.  This is the ACTUAL chart form the IPCC's 1990 report.  Clearly, this didn't make the headlines.  So they reinterpreted the data to create this one 11 years later:

 

So, the same data shows that the earth is now much warmer than it was when Vikings settled Greenland.  So why aren't crops growing on Greenland now?  Because it's still too bloody cold.

You may wonder how they got this chart.  Here's an example of the data they used from northern Siberia covering the last 4,000 years:

 

There isn't much of a trend other than the fact that the magnitude of temperature swings seems to have declined in the past 100 years -- obviously not good headline material for climate change. 

So, what to do? 

Well, like any good scientist, you'll get data from hundreds of different sources, correlate it, manipulate it, magnify it, selectively include it, and -- if you have half a brain -- cover your tracks.

Here's a good example of data collected from tree rings.  The guys who made the chart for the IPCC's 2001 report clearly had PhDs in bullshit and are probably being scouted for the Department of Labor's Bureau of Statistics:

 
 

Obviously, the suggestion that the earth is cooling even with all that "greenhouse gas" being emitted isn't very useful.  So from mid century the tree ring data was thrown out and actual measured data was used instead.

Funnily enough, the temperatures measured by thermometers actually rose over the past 50 years.  The fact that 92% of these thermometers  in the US and 41% worldwide are located at airports --  where traffic is up over 5,000% and surrounding areas built up -- was conveniently ignored.

Ok... so that's for temperature... and "Six degrees could change the earth."  What claptrap.  Then there's a few other goodies that found their way into the IPCC's report:

·        The glaciers in the Himalayas will melt by 2035,     

·        40% of the Amazon rainforest will be destroyed in the next 30 years,

·        With the oceans rising at 1990 rates, Tuvulu will sink beneath the ocean within 50 years,

·        The frequency of storms over the past 30 years has increased dramatically.

·        The average ocean temperature is rising

Here's a lesson on how to create these dramatic statements from real facts, with deletions in red and insertions in blue:

·        The glaciers in the Himalayas will melt by 20350, according to a hiking magazine

·        40% of the Amazon rainforest will be destroyed in the next 30 years by loggers, according to the World Wildlife Fund.

·        With the oceans rising at 1990 rates, Tuvulu would will sink beneath the ocean within 50 years, but at today's slowing rates it will probably take centuries.

·        The frequency of storms over the past 30 years has decreased, but reporting on them has increased dramatically.

·        A five year study of ocean temperatures has shown that the average ocean temperature is cooling rather than rising

 

Ok.  So that sorts out the headline grabbing stuff that gets the report onto Fox News.  Now, the more important thing is creating a carbon trading industry and selling the idea that CO2 is bad. 

The very basis of any decent carbon trading industry is the idea that CO2 is like uranium or mercury -- it stays resident and dangerous for decades. 

A quick search of the database showed that 35 previous studies had incorrectly found that the maximum time CO2 resides in the atmosphere is less than 15 years, with the average just 8 years.

Obviously, more work was needed.

The IPCC commissioned a new study which broke new ground in terms of the scope, the expense, and the manipulation of data.  Suddenly, CO2 doesn't get recycled every 8 years.  It now takes 100 years.  Holy climate change Batman!  Call up the FDA and get it classified as a Level 3 Health Hazard. 

 
 

WARNING: if you do come into contact with this level 3 health hazard through, say, breathing, here's what you should do (copied and pasted from the New Jersey Department of Health carbon dioxide factsheet:

Eye contact: Immediately flush with large amounts of water for at least 15 minutes, lifting upper and lower lids.  Remove contact lenses, if worn, while flushing.  Seek medical attention.

Skin Contact: Quicly remove contaminated clothing.  Immediately wash contaminated skin with large amounts of water. 

Inhalation: Remove the person from exposure.  Begin rescue breathing (using universal precautions) if breathing has stopped and CPR if heart action has stopped.  Transfer promptly to a medical facility.

Incidentally, carbon monoxide -- which actually IS a hazardous and dangerous gas -- only gets a 2.3 on the health hazard rankings!

 

So, now we have "climate change", shocking facts being caused by climate change, huge amounts of CO2 being emitted, and an expensive study showing that the Level 3 Hazardous Gas remains in the atmosphere for 100 years.  Damn we're doing well.  All we need now is to prove that the increase in atmospheric CO2 is what's actually causing global warming as measured by all those overheated thermometers at airports.  This sounds difficult to prove, but there's actually a pretty simple methodology to apply here:

Call it a greenhouse gas.  And GREENHOUSE GASES CAUSE GLOBAL WARMING.  Repeat it enough times and you'll begin to think that greenhouse gases cause global warming.  Go on.  Give it a try.  It's hugely scientific (this was so successful that the US government did the same thing for 9/11 and Iraq).

Of course, we could try to reduce emissions of the three main greenhouse gases:

·        Nitrogen

·        Oxygen

·        Water vapour

But I suppose we have to start with what's possible.

All that's needed now is for the governments of the world to set up Departments of Climate Change!

Only joking.  No government's THAT ridiculous.  Nor wasteful.

 

Cheers,

 

Peter.

 

 

 

  
  
 

The idiocy of government sponsored energy savings

I’m visiting my parents’ place in Melbourne and was hit by the garish colour of fluorescent bulbs everywhere.  What the hell happened?

It seems that the Australian government, in its enduring wisdom, is offering a cash rebate if you swap your old power hungry incandescent light bulbs with hideous power efficient ones.

As with every bold government initiative, this one has created new employment digging holes and filling them in.

My parents were visited by a pair of Indians from one of the new companies that swap out your incandescent bulbs for fluoro spirals, take your old light bulbs, and claim the cash from the government.  My parents lost all their friendly 2,300K lighting and are now subject to 6,500K lighting, which is so bad that it makes normal fluorescent strip lighting seem super friendly. 

The company cleverly visited during the brightest daylight hours, so when my parents checked the lighting it seemed fine. 

Evening came as a total shock.

They now have to try to buy a bunch of new incandescent bulbs to replace the repulsive fluorescent spirals.  Better be quick too... they are flying off the shelves and not being replaced because they are soon to be outlawed.

Imagine that?  A black market for lightbulbs!

The net result of the government action is that a Chinese company has sold a bunch of cheap light bulbs to Australia, unemployed underpaid Indian electricians got a few hours of pointless work (yes, you got that right: ONLY certified electricians are allowed to be involved in the difficult and dangerous employment of light bulb changing), and new demand has been created for incandescent bulbs. 

What scares me here is that this is probably one of the best and most successful programs the government has ever wasted tax payer money on. 

In the US, where there seems to be even more stupidity and less oversight it must be going out of control.

I used to look down on people who tried to avoid their civic duty of paying tax to fund worthwhile government programs (not that I have ever paid tax), but over the years they have gained my full respect. 

To change the subject completely, does anyone want some 14 watt 6,500K spirals?  I’ll be heading back to Bangkok with a bag full.

Cheers,

Peter.