Words on Weather & Climate, by Craig James

February 18, 2010 // 0 Comments

  Climate Data Part 1 It seems as if every time someone digs up anything new about the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate change (IPCC), something ugly crawls out. For example, the Dutch Environmental Assessment Agency has recently discovered the IPCC incorrectly reported that 55% of that country was below sea level and would be flooded by increasing sea levels. The number should only be 20%. There have been many other revelations recently about the IPCC, the committee established to inform the world about climate change, but let’s move on to the two really important issues in climate change. Has this past decade been the warmest decade on record and have the global computer models been forecasting way too much warming? Let’s take a look at how the climate data is obtained and then used to construct this chart from NASA below, which shows global temperatures warming about 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit since 1880. I’ll start first with what is called the United States Historical Climate Network or USHCN. There are currently 1,221 reporting stations in this network with records going back into the late 1800s. A former television meteorologist by the name of Anthony Watts took on the enormous task of having all USHCN climate reporting stations surveyed to determine if they met the National Weather Service criteria for proper siting. Over 80% of the stations have now been studied and almost 90% of those stations failed to meet that criteria. The survey shows that nine out of every ten stations are likely reporting higher or rising temperatures because they are badly sited on or near tarmacs, next to buildings, on paved driveways and roads, in waste treatment plants, on rooftops, near air conditioner exhausts and more. You can read about the survey and see photos of some of the ridiculous locations of thermometers in this pdf:http://watsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/surfacestationsreport_spring09.pdf. One of my favorite examples is from The University of Arizona showing where the thermometer has recently been placed over pavement in a parking lot. It used to be over grass. Would you think this move might produce higher daytime temperatures? The thermometer shows warming but certainly not from Carbon Dioxide.   Poor current location of thermometers is just one of many problems. Since records began, most thermometers have […]

Words on Weather & Climate — January 28, 2010

January 28, 2010 // 0 Comments

IPCC gets it wrong by CRAIG JAMES According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) website, “The Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change is the leading body for the assessment of climate change, established by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) to provide the world with a clear scientific view on the current state of climate change and its potential environmental and socio-economic consequences.” Also, the IPCC “does not conduct any research nor does it monitor climate related data or parameters. Thousands of scientists from all over the world contribute to the work of the IPCC on a voluntary basis. Review is an essential part of the IPCC process, to ensure an objective and complete assessment of current information. Differing viewpoints existing within the scientific community are reflected in the IPCC reports.” However, new allegations have come to light that cast serious doubt on the integrity of the organization. The IPCC now faces new controversy for wrongly linking global warming to an increase in the number and severity of natural disasters such as hurricanes and floods. If you read my articles from a couple of weeks ago, you will remember I wrote that there is no evidence to support the view that global warming is causing an increase in the severity or frequency of storms. Many politicians have used the IPCC link to make statements such as President Obama’s “More powerful storms and floods threaten every continent.” It turns out that the information the IPCC used to make its report was never peer-reviewed or published, and when it was published, its conclusion was: ““We find insufficient evidence to claim a statistical relationship between global temperature increase and catastrophe losses.” However, the IPCC never retracted its claim and when several science reviewers protested to the IPCC that its claim was unsupported, they were ignored. One reviewer, Dr. Roger Pielke Jr., on his blog stated, “I do have to admit that if [the IPCC] is this sloppy and irresponsible in an area of climate change where I have expertise, why should I have confidence in the areas where I am not an expert?” Another contributor to the IPCC in this area resigned over the issue. Dr. Chris Landsea, a researcher from […]