Wednesday, December 17, 2008


Well There's Your Problem, Right There in Siberia

Here is the NYT supporting the hysterical AP story earlier this week. Look at eastern Siberia on the map provided by NASA GISS. It's supposed to have been in the past 12 months, at least 2 and a half degrees C warmer than "normal." I don't believe it. Here is some background about the problems GISS has had issuing accurate surface measurements, and it's refusal to vouch for the accuracy of the Siberian data. Here are more reliable satellite measurements from RSS and UAH. It's certainly not that toasty now in Yakutsk, for example.

Some 'scientists' seem to be cooking the books to support their near religion regarding anthropogenic global warming and it's getting ever more difficult to believe it's an innocent mistake.
UPDATE: Here is more on the subject:

The NASA, NOAA and Hadley data bases are seriously contaminated and the agencies are intentionally ignoring the issues as they are agenda driven with inflated budgets because of the alleged global warming.

NOAA has actually gone as far as to pull out the urbanization (urban heat island or UHI) adjustment from the US data and there is very little to no urban adjustment made to the global data based on the flawed papers by Peterson and Parker which suggest UHI has little effect on global trends. Ignored are the many other papers from some of the worlds best climatologists worldwide that suggest it produces significant contamination.

Add to that the fact that more than 2/3rds of the world’s stations (most rural) have dropped out and or are often missing monthly data, 69% of the first nearly 600 US stations evaluated by Anthony Watts surface are poor or very poorly sited with only 4% meeting official standards and no changes were made for the known biases of new instrumentation.

Not less than half a dozen peer reviewed papers have suggested the warming is exaggerated by up to 50%.

Not the stuff for slavish acceptance of anything these agencies say.



So is the permafrost melting or not?

It is about a degree warmer since 1880 so there may well be some melting of the permafrost here and there. I don't ignore the contrary evidence, I just don't leap to unsustainable conclusions from it.
3 items.

Melting permafrost disrupts transportation b/c everything is built on it.

Melting permafrost eleases huge ammounts of C02 into the atmosphere.

Global warming may be like discussing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Read David Quammen's "Planet of Weeds."
You can find it @ www.churchof

Our problem may well lie in other types of global degradation resulting in cascading extinctions.

They figure out who's been goofin' w/ th ebeesd yet?

You sent me the weeds article. Very good. I saw a list of the recently extinct and didn't recognize one of them. Are they 'replaced' by the thousand new species recently found along the Mekong? The bees are getting a virus and weakening and dying outside the hive one by one so no one finds the bodies, or so one guy said.

The Mekong species were there all along so no, they don't replace the extinct ones.

If a species we are unaware of goes extinct...?
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?