Useful graphs regarding sea ice

I came upon what appears to be a good report on sea ice. To the right is what concerns many, if concern is the right word; it may be the graph is undeniable proof that my car is a bad boy.

(Both graphs go to 2008, but state the max range is 2000. Who knows what that means? Probably, some precise scientist missed the title.)

The NYT ARTICLE has an impressive automated representation of sea ice (and water) in the north. Not a bad report, taken with a pound of salt. Recall, the author is a journalist giving his impression with some data included.

Below is the point I keep raising. If you use the same logic in antarctica that is used in the arctic, then we are having serious cooling problem. The trend is much stronger.





I do not understand the myopia. I guess the farther from New York, the less important is the location on the earth.

Of course, the piece being a NYT article the reported says "most" are convinced humans are "partly" causing the warming. That sort of party line, non-science, non-journalism is to be expected. Pep talks work when speaking to your team.

Are we also partly the cause of a global cooling? Or, should the use of "climate change" now be mandatory and we are partly responsible for that, whatever it is supposed to mean. Imagine: no climate change is the correct natural phenomenon. Oh, too narrow? Then any macro changes from 1990 -2005 is something to fix, since clearly that era is the standard of the earth.

A U.S. parks' (I guess it is the Dept. of Interior) handout now in use (co-ventured with NASA, our Hansen friend at work,) spends your tax payer's money saying, over and over, that global warming is real. If so, why keep saying it over and over? Why keep saying the Bush people are getting in the way of the truth of global warming? The politics is clear.

Then, the piece switches to global change in mid-thought. I guess some people really are so stupid as to be herded about, mooing on cue. If you want billions of dollars for PR and massive changes in the law, you should be able to hold onto your assumption, if not explain it.

A side thought - there really is a serious concern over the glib use of catch phrases global warming and climate change. The are not the same. Change would include warming, I suppose, but that is the only relation.

Since "warming" seems a dubious trend, as time goes on, the gentle shift to "change" is disingenuous. Like a magician switching a prop. Still, when I point this out and expect my dialectic partner to gush, "Oh, you are right and I am wrong," this does not happen. Rather, I get a look like I am speaking in tongues. These are honest, smart people, not the spin meisters of today. I could understand someone reworking their ideas using new data, but to stare blankly is curious. Also, they do not argue, just stare like they are avoiding someone who will bite them.

I recently wrote about volcanic activity near Greenland, melting the ice. Here are a few other tidbits.

Arctic Volcanoes Found Active at Unprecedented Depths
Kimberly Johnson
for National Geographic News
June 26, 2008
Buried under thick ice and frigid water, volcanic explosions are shaking the Arctic Ocean... {not a report of recent known activity, just the idea of volcanoes.}

This article did not mention NASA was helping with the funding the study. A Canadian version of the story is more complete, since Canadians actually read. At one point:

The scientists say the heat released by the explosions is not contributing to the melting of the Arctic ice, but Sohn says the huge volumes of CO2 gas that belched out of the undersea volcanoes likely contributed to rising concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. How much, he couldn't say....

Still, I am still partly melting the arctic and freezing the antarctic.

HERE is a page noting two active volcanoes in the arctic, but the data is freeze dried. At least, we know there have been documented past eruptions that cracked the ice. A bit more, mentioning the tectonic plates activity under the arctic.

Volcanic eruptions reshape Arctic ocean floor: study
Wed Jun 25, 4:13 PM ET
PARIS (AFP) - Recent massive volcanoes have risen from the ocean floor deep under the Arctic ice cap, spewing plumes of fragmented magma into the sea, scientists who filmed the aftermath reported Wednesday.

The eruptions -- as big as the one that buried Pompei -- took place in 1999 along the Gakkel Ridge, an underwater mountain chain snaking 1,800 kilometres (1,100 miles) from the northern tip of Greenland to Siberia.

Scientists suspected even at the time that a simultaneous series of earthquakes were linked to these volcanic spasms.

But when a team led of scientists led by Robert Sohn of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in Massachusetts finally got a first-ever glimpse of the ocean floor 4,000 meters (13,000 feet) beneath the Arctic pack ice, they were astonished....

I have noted many times the massive increase in under water eruptions in the past few years, but no one seems to echo this factor as it does not fit the target conclusion.

Something is going on, but what? Some say the poles will move, others point to global wobble (which I think may be my fault), and so on. When you go past Al Gore's birth, you find our planet has a wide variation in activity, temperature, etc. To look at a 1999 graph and postulate the future is the height of arrogance, especially when peers gently commented the math was in error, a kind chastisement for a contrived basis of a political movement.

As Ira Gershwin advised about popular stories: "It ain' t nes'assarily so." Things are a bit more complex than poorly constructed induction posits, especially when the conclusion is a target, not a result.

Hansen - this time its global warming, er, change

The graph on the right is from Dr. Lindzer, MIT, who expressed the inner ticking of the various stats re global temperature. I used this one rather than HERE because I couldn't download the colorful one.

Two weeks ago the AlGorythmists dragged out Dr. Hansen of NASA, whom I have mentioned previously, to berate anyone not believing in global warming. I have a news report about this circus below. I didn't publish this, then, as he is becoming boring.

So, we stupid people should be arrested, etc., for not "believing" Dr. Hansen personal view, which he calls an intuition, that we are all going to die of warming - soon. Oh no, its too late. Oh my GOD!

We have to believe him he works for the government, not some prestigious college or company. (By the way, his attacks on Bush are, well, mad, as the President has accepted Hansen's position. This belies his true intentions, as well as Bush's oddities and the media's lack of reportage.) We need to subject ourselves to the geniuses in D.C.

He indeed may be proven on the right side this time, but a broken clock is right twice a day.

Hanson was part of the NASA hysteria over 30 years ago shouting about how our stupidity is bringing the new ice age. The great virtue of the left is it is never burdened by memory or facts. Let me quote a nifty introductory, recent article:

NASA scientist James E. Hansen, who has publicly criticized the Bush administration for dragging its feet on climate change and labeled skeptics of man-made global warming as distracting "court jesters," appears in a 1971 Washington Post article that warns of an impending ice age within 50 years....

I know you may not like the article or its source, so you can go pay for the original article, as noted in the free article, lest you be tricked by the evil people in charge. The initial defense was that he just wrote the software used by NASA. What sort of answer is that? Did he publish a rejection of the, now, rejected conclusion. Terence (of Rome) said "silence is deemed consent." We say, "see which way the wind is blowing."

If you poke around, you will see Hansen has received 1.25 million dollars in awards for his wonderful actions in the past few years. Not bad for a bureaucrat. It pays to work with Al Gore.

In 1981, on the other hand, Hansen wrote global warming had just started, now that he no longer had to use N.A. data. That is, the prior view appeared wrong. (Source is NASA puff piece about Hansen, who is in charge of puff pieces, but it refers to an actual publication, so I will guess there is something to it.) Nice spin - now I have the real facts! Doesn't this bother you? Kafka would understand, as would George Orwell.

What is interesting is that the first assessment may be right.

Of note, the projected increase of warmth by Hansen with all his new data, missed the last decade - bigtime. See Lindzen's graph above. If you find Hansen's predictions, which I am too bored to look for, the slope is some 50 degrees, so far this century, so he was only 50 degrees off. In Hansen's world, we are submerging.

A Lindzen graph you may want to see arrived with a note at a blog.

A note from Richard Lindzen on statistically significant warming: 11-03-2008

Yesterday, in response to the thread on “3 of 4 global metrics show nearly flat temperature anomaly in the last decade” I got a short note from MIT’s Richard Lindzen along with a graph. I asked if I could post it, and he graciously agreed: (go see it.)

Look at the attached. There has been no warming since 1997 and no
statistically significant warming since 1995. Why bother with the
arguments about an El Nino anomaly in 1998? (Incidentally, the red
fuzz represents the error ‘bars’.)

Best wishes,

Dick

==================================================
Richard S. Lindzen
Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Sciences
MIT Cambridge, MA 02139

======

Recent story from The Guardian

· Testimony to US Congress will also criticise lobbyists
· 'Revolutionary' policies needed to tackle crisis

Ed Pilkington in New York
The Guardian, Monday June 23, 2008
Article history

James Hansen, one of the world's leading climate scientists, will today call for the chief executives of large fossil fuel companies to be put on trial for high crimes against humanity and nature, accusing them of actively spreading doubt about global warming in the same way that tobacco companies blurred the links between smoking and cancer.


Hansen will use the symbolically charged 20th anniversary of his groundbreaking speech (pdf) to the US Congress - in which he was among the first to sound the alarm over the reality of global warming - to argue that radical steps need to be taken immediately if the "perfect storm" of irreversible climate change is not to become inevitable.

Speaking before Congress again, he will accuse the chief executive officers of companies such as ExxonMobil and Peabody Energy of being fully aware of the disinformation about climate change they are spreading.

In an interview with the Guardian he said: "When you are in that kind of position, as the CEO of one the primary players who have been putting out misinformation even via organisations that affect what gets into school textbooks, then I think that's a crime." {What?}

He is also considering personally targeting members of Congress who have a poor track record on climate change in the coming November elections. He will campaign to have several of them unseated. {Don't we have laws about civil servants entering politics or is that just regarding those on the right?}

Hansen's speech to Congress on June 23 1988 is seen as a seminal moment in bringing the threat of global warming to the public's attention. (I love this, they treated public as singular, let me thing about that.) At a time when most scientists were still hesitant to speak out, he said the evidence of the greenhouse gas effect was 99% certain, adding "it is time to stop waffling".

He will tell the House select committee on energy independence and global warming this afternoon that he is now 99% certain that the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has already risen beyond the safe level...{So, why bring it up?}

His sharpest words are reserved for the special interests he blames for public confusion about the nature of the global warming threat. "The problem is not political will, it's the alligator shoes - the lobbyists. It's the fact that money talks in Washington, and that democracy is not working the way it's intended to work."..

His sharpest words are reserved for the special interests he blames for public confusion about the nature of the global warming threat. "The problem is not political will, it's the alligator shoes - the lobbyists. It's the fact that money talks in Washington, and that democracy is not working the way it's intended to work."....

I guess we are to infer that all lobbyists with alligator shoes only urge against global warming and that the green movement has no traction because the alligator men's shoes are talking money, which would get my attention.

Further, one can easily infer, Dr. Hansen thinks we have a democracy. You know, the form of government where the mob yells down the opposition and does what it want. His mob isn't able to kill off their opposition - yet.

If Dr. Hansen will tell you how smart he is, we should expect he can speak English. I don't see having to interpret what the Wizard of NASA is trying to say. This is not a barroom argument. (I recall Frank Sullivan's "The Cliche Expert," which you will never find, but I recommend.) Anyway, I am sure he has a high federal job level and is looking forward to his pension.

The Hidden Agenda - You

(At right is Fabian H. G. Wells)

Take note that, so far, Congress has refused to permit drilling off our shore, again, even while other nations drill here.  The Democrats and Republicans on the subcommittee kept to the party line, so the rejection was 9 t0 6. 

Oil officials feel that if the bill passes, that alone will decrease gas by 25%, merely because of the reduction of fear. Leftists say, that is what they want, "We can't afford cheap gas."  The silly believe that logic and they elect many of their ilk. Of course, oil officials who want to lower prices must be disbelieved. Right?

Think about the philosophies at work these day. Then, think about all the energy the government produces and all the inventive moves it makes. I wish I grew corn.

Congressman John Peterson, who is the guy who actually knows what he is talking about, is leading the effort. He points out that next week a larger committee meets on the matter. The last bill was approved last year by the House because Democrats crossed party lines.  He doesn't know if the same thing will happen. 

You can Google this matter and find the arguments.  Fox (you know the outfit Obama and Hilary said were the best at objectively covering them)  has a report HERE. 

The one argument that scares me is from the "NO" Congress people whose decisions are based upon their ideas such as they don't think the oil companies will make money or it will take too long. [Recall JFK said we wold be on the moon in 10 years.]  Like the Fabians/Marxists, they didn't bother themselves with logic, law, or economics because they were the smart people whose ideas should govern all.  They don't bother with the details and all rules are deductive from their wisdom, not inductive from the people. Or, worse, yet, depend upon the tussle of the marketplace. 

No one seems to notice this "NO" activity is central planning, the system that killed the Soviet Union. Briefly, the Constitution does not provide for Congress to act in this manner. Period. If the people who are supposed to represent us are defying the rule book, there is only one action that will stop them.  Vote :"None of the above." 

We should not engage them on facts, just get them out regardless of the social welfare they promise locally.  Don't vote for the lesser of two evils. That is the game we can't win. They are pushers offering a free taste.  You only discuss facts with those who talk in the same language. McCain is sure the right will vote for him out of thorough fear of Obama.  This is not how parties are supposed to present themselves. He is probably right, but perhaps conservative and those who understandf linear logic should just vote none of the above, anyway.

No one comments there is a "NO" anytime a solution is being pursued. The NO is justified by irrational comments and the goof balls repeat these idea.  The ultimate goal is destruction, not alternative energy. 

Congress hasn't funded its own enlightened alternative energy programs.  If we figured out how to convert water to H, we will be told we can't destroy the environment by using water and adding O2 to the air.   You can't engage this with logic, as logic is not the point.  If you say, "OK, we will run our economy on changes in smell, the left will say global smell is already disturbed. Like I say, stop arguing. We are too close to the cliff.  Vote, None of the Above.

If you disagree and think the ends justify the means, then you may as well agree you are a Marxist or Fabian engaged in the displacement of the United States. Si?  If you win, I will write to you from China or Russia, where capitalism is now respected.  You know, the countries drilling off our shores. 

Fabian Society note: HERE 

If this bill is stopped, then it is clear the left has just about won and you had better get out from under your mortgage and start growing food crops  As the cartoon's say: The end is coming. This is about the destruction of our system, not being green.  I hope you can discern the reality that the mob is being led over the cliff while smiling and chanting.  This is new problem, not another challenge; this is destruction from within.  

Up until now, truckers have been eating the fuel cost.  This will end soon. You will not be able to afford your life - very soon.  We are not a tiny, parochial Europe. We like fresh grape juice and are used to getting it. 

Who can afford this Brave New World?  People like the Kennedies, Kerries, Pelosies, Bushes, etc. Gore is set and Edwards lives quite well in a carbon nightmare. The Clintons and Obamas got theirs. Even John McCain is so disconnected, he offered anyone $50 and hour, to show how we need Mexicans, to pick crops in Arizona.  

My idea is we don't fall for slick words from the self-righteous. Don't get distracted by the make-believe parties.  If you look at the numbers of Kyoto, which I didn't so I am using hearsay here, then by its own numbers if the Accord were fully followed, we would have gained 6 days, before we all die, I guess.  (The big Kyoto's promoters have not really followed the Accord, but they enjoy posturing.) You didn't think the true agenda was clean air, I hope.  Those who run the agenda have different plans, but they all agree the U.S., religion, self-reliance, and the traditional family are the enemies.  

Be afraid you may get what you want, comrade.

Earth's temperature

I think the delete button in a link field published this prematurely.  I was going to flesh it out for tomorrow, but I figure I should send it out now.  In addition, I am not sure I did not make the graphs unreadable, in the meantime, so you can check back to the prior email, if I did.  Sorry for the rush job, but I will still take tomorrow off.

Click on the title for a detailed chat about the earth's temperature.   What I found interesting is that observers are a bit peeved that NASA keeps changing the earth's prior numbers, as well as overstate current numbers.  Below are two graphs claiming to represent the same date from the same NASA. 

This is important to pay attention to.  If you look at NASA for anytime, with a suspicious eye, you start to see this guy Hanson, ther NASA spkesman/scientist, promotes himself and is a political advocate at NASA, not an administrator.  I have noticed him spinning for years; he says things which are not what NASA studies and data show, like it is freaking cold in Antartica.  Click here for Little Green Footballs on him.

Anyway, read the article from Britain for some background, which Hanson would not give you. To many Europeans, the earth has not been getting warmer since 1998 and won't start again until 2015.   Have you noticed the shifting language in the U.S.to "Global Change" from "Global Warming."  (Told you about thisa year ago.) I get tired of moving targets.  However, it is wiser to complain of something that is normal, so you can't be off. I am collecting money to stop air density changes. 

Do we spend hundreds of billions of dollars on a program based upon the following?  Take your pick of the same data.

1999 2007

      

WANTED: New Candidates (Must be qualified)

The Canadian spy network reported in.  Irene sent along a piece from conservative sources that could be the Clintons' secret weapon.  (Oh, yes, Irene got her U.S. citizenship back from the pawn shop.)

The big poop is, rather than the Countrywide/Fannie Mae fat-cat friends scandal or Chicago convicted slum lord friend scandal or the church racist friends scandal, there is some question as to whether Obama qualifies to be president of the U.S. under the naturalization clause, as modified by the continuously moving statues.  

Obama has not released his Birth Certificate and there is hearsay about a murky past, which should be normal for most of us.  Nonetheless, it appears his mother did not stay in the U.S. long enough for him to be "naturalized" even if he were born in Hawaii.

Had a friend who child was born in England in the 80's and the kid has to have a Green Card. As I recall, FDR was born in Canada, but that was OK , then. What a weird system.  (Oops, I am not sure Canada actually existed then or the province had signed on.  This is all very confusing.)

Similarly, there is question about McCain, who was born in Panama. His argument being that he was born on a base, I believe, in a protectorate.  Hmmm. 

The Obama matter could be the other shoe dropping, if it is a cognizable matter.  No way around the pre-conditions even if Florida votes for you.  I have been anticipating the big shoe scandal and could not believe Mrs. Clinton went all the way through the primaries for no reason. 

For my part, I hope McCain is unable to run, although we should have a strong Democrat like John in the race, although a Republican would be interesting. Like Obama, he is the product of timing and media support.  

Maybe we can all get do overs.   In any event, I refuse to be drafted, unless I get an upfront bonus.

-----

PS.  As I noted in an email re this blog, the comment quoted from Styne was his quoting a reader and it was a wise-crack, not my preaching.  I just point out the facts as best I can find them.

Terse insight?

My friends, we live in the greatest nation in the history of the world. I hope you’ll join with me as we try to change it.

(Mark Styne reader prepared this terse Obama speech. Styne's comments are here. )

Gas numbers

It might help, about what you may wonder, if we take a look at gasoline use in the U.S.

At this page you will see New York is #2 in LOW use. It is far less than other states. We use 293 gallons per person whereas Mass. uses 459! Our tree hugging friends in VT are 454 and the worst states are OK and Wy coming in at 615. While there are all manner of reasons for this and all manner of ways to attack the use of gas, it may be useful to get a feel for the whole picture.

A barrel results in 20 gallons of gas, plus other stuff. So, in NY we use 15 barrels per person.

The graph shows our EXPORTS in distillates. I have to figure that one out. The DOE says Latin America wanted more diesel. Still, if we are sending off so much stuff, why not sell it here? Could be simple market ease to send it off from off shore. More mystery.

Here are some numbers from DOE. The use of gasoline, in gross, from 2002 - 2007 (x 1,000). Not too bad an increase, actually, but when you are pushing the peak curve, any increase is top heavy.

2002

8,848

8,935

9,105

9,159

9,253

9,290

I can't find this year's numbers, which was the thing that sparked my interest. I was wondering if our market reacts at these prices by driving less. Any help would be well received. NPR says this year the US person has used .5% LESS gas, according to DOE numbers I didn't find. Assuming this is correct, this is good news, but still modest. The real numbers may be much higher, or, at least, I hope so.

Me, I use acetone and top oil in the gas. Try it, just don't drink it. You should get 10-20% better results, but it could be a placebo (i.e. we are more conscious of habits). I am actually looking into a bicycle and I bet part of the subconscious backdrop is driving even less than normal. Every little bit helps - vote with your wheels.

Mr. Kunstler may be right, people will start moving back to cities to drive less - not a bad thing unless you own real estate in the suburbs.

CNN has an interesting article about how cheap our gas is, from their commie world view.