Danny Glover vindicated (well sort of)

Like many others I had a good laugh when actor Danny Glover suggested the earthquake in Haiti was caused by climate change.

Actually I'm taking his comments a little out of context - he says disasters like this are due to the collapse of Copenhagen - which is still about as stupid.  But it was unnecessary for him to mix the issue of Haiti with climate change.

Anyways, I was astonished to read the following article suggesting that it may be true - climate change did contribute to the Haiti earthquake.  Of course, it was natural climate change that occurred 10,000 years ago when the ice sheets melted.



Should we blame the sun for global warming?

Here's how it works: when huge ice sheets build up on land the weight of the ice compresses the land which in turn slows the drift of tectonic plates - the latter being responsible for earthquakes.  When the ice sheets of the last ice age melted it freed the plates to move around a bit more.  So, Danny Glover's half right; it was contributed to by climate change - just not human-made climate change.

If you take a look at the following GPS chart of continental drift you'll see that the Antarctic plate is going nowhere and appears anchored to the spot by the world's biggest ice sheets. (1, 2)

Greenland and Antarctica are pushed down by the weight of the huge ice sheets so much that much of the land is actually below sea level.



Another thing I've heard suggested about that earthquake is that US nukes did it as a test run for using bunker busting nukes on Iran.  To be honest that wouldn't surprise me, however Haiti is on three fault lines and so is prone to natural earthquakes without any assistance.  You can check out the fault lines with a Google Earth plugin or use this viewer:

Powered by Google Earth Hacks | More info about this file

NASA and the case of the incredible falling satellite

Well, it's been explained that Lindzen and Choi's July 2009 paper On the Determination of Climate Feedbacks was wrong because apparently the ERBE 2 satellite decayed in orbit from 1987 to 1993. Who would have known? NASA didn't according to them until 2006. Surprise, surprise the sudden realisation of the error just so happens to accentuate the runaway feedback postulated by the IPCC.  See, if the satellite gets closer to earth it measures more outgoing infra red heat radiation and so inflates the values measured requiring an "adjustment".  This "adjustment" cleverly detracts from the outgoing radiation as measured by Lindzen and Choi and so enhances the notion that all that nasty CO2 is trapping heat down here on earth and not escaping into outer space.

The above graph shows how NASA's whoopsy means that much less longwave (heat) radiation is escaping the earth and therefore staying here on earth to warm us.  Edition 2 is original data, edition 3 is the new "value added" data from NASA to explain to us that global warming is real.  Yes, I'm afraid the greenhouse effect is quite operational and ready to destroy planet earth...

It was raised by melty on Andrew Revkins Dotearth blog.  He gave these links: 1, 2, 3.



There are two main objections. One explored by Roy Spencer on the statistical method used to draw averages.  The second is that the satellite orbit decayed (link above).  It's not for me to judge the statistical merits of averaging the data.  But I find that the claim that the ERBE 2 satellite decayed in orbit without anyone knowing to be implausible. 



From NASA:

"As the altitude dropped over the 15-yr period, the Nonscanner WFOV instrument recorded a small steady increase in satellite altitude fluxes....It was recently discovered that the altitude correction was disabled in the case of a near-circular orbit and therefore did not apply to correct the average spacecraft altitude change that occurred later in the extended ERBS mission. The main effect of this altitude change is a small increase (0.6%) in both TOA outgoing longwave (LW) radiation and reflected shortwave (SW) radiation over the 15-yr period."

So, the algorithm didn't take the decay into account - seems completely unlikely, but what's more unlikely is that the decay itself wouldn't have been noticed earlier.  How could they not know the satellite was moving when altitude is a fundamental parameter of satellite navigation?  If the altitude decreased it would have to be matched by an increase in orbital velocity to compensate for the increased gravitational attraction.

Surely NASA is aware of these issues.  How much of a fool do they take us for?  Navigation must record every relevant parameter and beam them back to base.  They must have been aware of the decay in orbit.



Update 22 January 2009:



Using this orbit calulator the increase in tangential velocity required for a fall from 611 to 590km is 11.39 metres per second.

This extra velocity can be provided by the fall itself however it is complicated by the presence of a very slight atmosphere at that altitude.  This will combine with gravity to decay the orbit and eventually bring the satellite crashing down to earth.



At 590 km the atmosphere will be e^(590/7) = 2.484exp-37 bars.  This is 2.484exp-32 pascals.

On the 350 target

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PDubnFU3BXE

Apparently many persons in the environmental movement wish to cap CO2 at 350 parts per million in the earth's atmosphere.  It is presently at 389ppm.  They say it is at its highest level in 650,000 years.  Well, as I discussed on my summary page humans are not causing the CO2 increase (item 1) and can not control it.





Places like Realclimate say a slight reduction in the ratio of C13 to C12 is a fossil fuel signature because some deposits of oil and gas has more C12 than C13 in its composition when compared with the standard atmospheric ratio. Therefore when hydrocarbon resources are burned it releases slightly more C12 than C13 and alters the ratio found in the air. An increase in C12 has accompanied the overall increase of CO2 in air.  But as mentioned on my summary page the Russians and Ukrainians refute the claims of a uniform declination of dC13 in fossil reserves [1,2,3].  And Dr Roy Spencer has noted the distinct natural fingerprint on the Mauna Loa observations of CO2 rise and dC13 declination [1,2].

In the above two graphs first there is the inverse of the dC13 declination at Mauna Loa.  Second is the natural rise in CO2 as measured at the remote Mauna Loa Hawaii location.  Obviously the dC13 declination is not a fossil fuel signature but is highly correlated to the ocean CO2 signal measured at Mauna Loa. In other words the oceans are releasing the CO2 causing the recent rise from 1960 onwards.  It may again go down.

Carbon dioxide in fact varies up and down naturally just like everything else - temperature, moisture, weather etc.  It's all variable and it's all natural.



Random example of natural forcing: solar wind cycles.  The following is the correlation of land temps to solar wind:

We are told that CO2 levels are at their highest for 650,000 years thus creating the basis on which to hang other claims such as CO2 causes the warming. Example of faked CO2 graph from Wiki:

Discussion of this graph on wiki file talk includes the astute observation: "It is a violation of basic scientific principles to combine, on the same graph, data collected from Hawaii on CO2 levels with levels collected from Ice Cores on the other side of the planet. Not only do these different measurements likely measure different data, but they are likely incompatible as measures of Global CO2."



It is just like when Michael Mann used his Nature trick of adding in real temps to the tree proxy temps where it suited to hide the decline.





In truth CO2 has been as high as 500ppm or 600ppm in more recent times before and during industrialisation.

These papers summarise the science:  



http://www.anenglishmanscastle.com/180_years_accurate_Co2_Chemical_Methods.pdf

http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles%202008/Z_J_Climate_Report.pdf

http://www.warwickhughes.com/icecore/IceCoreSprg97.pdf

http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles%202007/20_1-2_CO2_Scandal.pdf

http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles%202007/True_CO2_Record.pdf

http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles%202007/Natural_Climate_Change.pdf

http://www.schillerinstitut.dk/what_makes_an_ice_age.pdf



http://www.biomind.de/nogreenhouse/daten/EE%2018-2_Beck.pdf

Due to effect of compression of ice, decay and the effect of boring it out Antarctic ice core proxies for past CO2 levels are distorted.

Zbigniew Jaworowski shows that CO2 levels have been not that different than today for thousands of years.  He makes a statement to the US Senate in 2004:



http://www.warwickhughes.com/icecore/





(also reprinted here: http://www.john-daly.com/zjiceco2.htm)

Tim Ball describes it in journalistic form in the Canada Free Press here:



Pre-industrial CO2 levels were about the same as today

[1,2]





Another version of the third graph in Tim Balls article is here:

(full size)



P.S. Obviously I disagree with the 350 cause but I got a laugh when they actually managed to get that sticker on Lord Monckton's back without him noticing.

Global Warming Foundation 2 Update

Thank you for your huge response to my Global Warming Foundation.  One generous benefactor donated  NZ$5,000.  By the time that was converted to AU$40 I was still able to purchase new equipment to take pictures of my neighbours as part of my CO2 monitoring program.

If my neighbours take a shower one minute too long I report it to the council as an infraction. They may hate me but sometimes the path of an environmentalist is a lonely one. Their children will thank me one day for saving the planet from evil CO2 even if they do hate me now and call me the neighbourhood pervert. These are the sacrifices we make for the environment.

I caught two of my neighbours frolicking just the other day - I mean wasting water.  The serious evidence here:

Seek, observe and record for later viewing is my Foundation's motto. Please give generously!

Global Warming Foundation

Hi all, it was great conversing with you sceptic people.  So many ideas and so much science. But recently I've made up my mind to see the light and come renounce my global warming scepticism.

So, alas, I'm afraid I won't be linking to scientific papers anymore.  I won't be looking at contrary evidence.  My new faith has made me realise these contrary opinions weren't peer reviewed.  It was wrong for me to look outside the IPCC.

Ever since I've come to believe in the consensus I have started my own global warming foundation.

Please give generously as it is supported by readers like you.  Memberships start for as little as $100.  Through your generous support I can go round to people's houses and look at them. A lot of uneducated right wing people don't understand the need for this.  I have applied for a permit as a UN inspector. Soon I will have powers to inspect homes in my community without a warrant.  I have already started to look in neighbours windows and fill out charts and tables for their light usage and so on. If I see a jogger running I immediately record it in my log as a CO2 violation. Please support me in this work.

Suspicious activities, possible CO2 infringement, people doing stuff:

People leaving lights on, class 2 infringement:

Man driving truck trying to deliver food to people, class 3 infringement:

Chinese man smoking cigarette, creating CO2:

You too can be an ecowarrior such as by using new iPhone application ecosnoop.  If you happen to  be caught photographing your neighbours properties and they complain turn the tables on them by telling them you are reporting on their environmental infractions and the UN climate police will be around to deal with them shortly.  Total dominance and force is the only way to deal with climate deniers, or as I like to call them, denialists.  Everyone knows the climate is changing and to deny that is stupid and conservative and right wing.

One part of my mind says: "but just because it's climate change it doesn't mean it's human made."  Ha!  But that was the old me.  I'm on a new path now.  I've been corrected.  Seen the error of my ways.

A path pioneered by George Soros, Maurice Strong, Ted Turner and John P Holdren.  I'm on a new green path to peace.  A world of peace cause there are a lot less people in it.

I am now an eco-warrior.

Now that I know that humans are the problem and not the cure - that humans are a cancer on the living Gaia - I know that it is time to eliminate them.  I can't help it if your right wing ways blind you to the fact.  Any educated person knows that population reduction is a must.   For a long time now the population has been going unabated.

Just think about all those people reproducing without a licence or state control.  They are not allowed to do that without our permission!  Think about India.  They are reproducing without state control.  This is bad for the environment.

Compare them to China.  In China there is a one child policy.  Sure, many people get around it if they know how to bribe the right official, and poor people don't stand a chance.  But that's where this whole global warming thing comes in handy for getting rid of human rights.  Just like in China: when a poor person has one child they are sterilised.  Both parents are immediately sterilised.  Of course humans don't deserve rights when they are the guilty ones who have harmed the earth through carbon dioxide global warming.  They exhale it the dirty buggers don't you know?  Festy sinning poison exhaling humans.  They are to be exterminated for their sins against mother earth.  Wretched humans are unnatural.  That is the lesson of Gaia capitalists don't understand.  They will feel the power of the state one day mark my words.  Death to all capitalists.  Viva le New World Order.  Seig heil la revolucion!