ClimateChangeDispatch posted “Global Warming and Plate Climatology Theory” on 7 October 2014. The posting was written by James Edward Kamis, a Geologist who says he believes there is a probable connection between Geology and Climate. He begins this discussion of his theory by saying:
“The Sun, quite obviously, is the first order driver of Earth’s climate, but a much neglected second order driver can contribute significantly to short-term variations. The theory proposed herein is that periods of active Earth tectonism can be correlated to periods of active climate change and climate related events.
Increased global tectonic activity equates to more faulting and crustal plate movement, which leads to more global heat release from faults, fractures and volcanoes that are more active.
Altered heat input equates to climate change.
This posting is a reblog of Anthony Watts posting on his site “WattsUpWithThat?”
The issue here is that NOAA, undoubtedly to assist the COP21 Paris meeting participants, manipulated their global temperature record to in an attempt to show that the 18+years of no significant warming (“the pause”) had not really occurred.
Now 300 scientists have sent a letter to Representative Lamar Smith saying that NOAA did not follow the Data Quality Act. This, along with Smiths subpoenas of email communications from those people in NOAA who manipulated the temperature record, hopefully with out the perpetrators of this scam.
Watts Up With That?
The following letter has been sent to Chairman of the House Science Committee, Lamar Smith, regarding NOAA’s “pause buster” data shenanigans that we highlighted back in the summer of 2015.
The issue is with bad data, as Dr. Pat Michaels Dr. Richard Lindzen, and Dr. Chip Knappenberger observed related to the switch from buckets on a rope to engine water inlets for measuring sea surface temperature:
“As has been acknowledged by numerous scientists, the engine intake data are clearly contaminated by heat conduction from the structure, and as such, never intended for scientific use,” “Adjusting good data upward to match bad data seems questionable.”
I’ll say. As Bob Tisdale and I wrote back in June:
“If we subtract the ERSST.v3b (old) data from the new ERSST.v4 data, Figure 11, we can see that that is exactly what NOAA did.”
“It’s the same story all over again; the adjustments go…
View original post 531 more words
In 2004, a paper by Dr Richard Feely and Dr Christopher Sabine was published that purports to show that as the atmospheric CO2 increases, the oceans become acidified (1). In 2010, Dr Feely made a presentation to the US Congress where he used this graph to illustrate the reduction of seawater pH. It is reported to be widely used as a reference.
The graph is shown below:
The question that one researcher asked, when he saw the chart was-Why the pH readings, in Feely’s chart, began in 1988?; which was surprising, as instrumental ocean pH data have been measured for more than 100 years — since the invention of the glass electrode pH (GEPH) meter.
Marrita Noon’s posting “What if Obama’s climate change is based on pHraud?” relates the story of this researcher’s observations:
Using the Sonny Bono’s song title seems right because the Freedom Of Information Act (FOI) revealed the New York Times’ the manipulation efforts to get a really scary story about “Acidification of the Oceans”. And the FOI has shot it down.
Late last year, the Times posted an Op-Ed “Our Deadened, Carbon-Soaked Seas” timed to appear prior to the Second Ocean Conference where “ocean acidification (OA)” would be discussed. The authors of the piece were Richard W. Spinrad, a chief scientist of the U.S. NOAA and Ian Boyd, a chief scientific adviser to the British government.
The cartoon image accompanying the NY Times posting, shown below, is not too subtle.
(Art work by Alex Doherty)
After it was posted, Steve Milloy, proprietor of Junkscience.com, wanted to know more. This is what he did in his words:
”Curious, I submitted a Freedom of Information Act request to NOAA for the e-mail related to the development and publication of the op-ed. I received 443 pages of e-mail in return.
First, the op-ed was actually written by NOAA staff Madelyn Applebaum, not Spinrad or Boyd. The purpose was to tout NOAA not inform the public about ocean acidification.”
Because global temperatures were not responding to increasing atmospheric CO2, the warmers began looking for new narratives to use to frighten the public into giving them more money. The oceans were thought to be a good target. To explain why global temperatures were only inching up, they jumped on the theory that the heat was being trapped in the ocean. Just like that, the “heat” decided to go into the ocean and not warm the atmosphere. The logic of that proposition was viewed as somewhat problematic, to say the least.
Another narrative was to say that the ocean was being made acidic and that would have a devastating effect on sea life. This narrative, acidification of the ocean, had been around for a number of years. But it needed some spicing up. Former head of NOAA, Jane Lubchenco, referred to ocean “acidification” as global warming’s “equally evil twin.”
Here is a look at the German renewable energy program. The NoTricksZone is a site that covers German media and reports it in English. The site is managed by Pierre Goselin and he recently posted “Two Great Destructive Lies German Leaders Refuse To Abandon”. The first of the two “lies” relates performance of wind and solar systems and it is that:
“German renewable energies sun and wind are a success!”
The prior posting, “Some Background Regarding An El Nino” began like this: “Currently, the weather is being strongly affected by an El Nino. El Nino is but one part of a weather/climate system known as the El Nino Southern Oscillation (ENSO). There are three phases of ENSO — El Nino, La Nina and Neutral. ENSO is important because of its ability to change the global atmospheric circulation, which in turn, influences temperature and precipitation across the globe. The global atmospheric circulation is called the Walker
This posting examines the Walker Circulation.(I have seen both cycle and circulation used but much of my sourcing for this posting uses Circulation.)
First lets talk about high and low pressure centers. Fair weather generally accompanies a high-pressure center while clouds and precipitation generally accompany a low-pressure center. Low-pressure centers are formed by a hot surface. For example, the hot Pacific Ocean water that is driven to the Maritime Continent by the trade winds along the equator. The air is hot and moisture laden and as it rises, it cools and the moisture becomes rain. It reaches high-level winds that drive it to the west or east. This air is now dry and cool. It begins to fall forming a high-pressure center. The air in the high-pressure center begins to flow toward the low pressure center residing above the hot seawater located in the Maritime Continent. Along the way it begins to warm and pick up moisture and then rise. This completes the circulation.