Watts Up With That?

Lon Glazner, a fellow blogger and local electronics engineer made some comments about my post on the NASA/CSU study on California temperatures. Well that got me started...so below are Lon's comments and my reply along with a fun technical challenge. For those of you that read this blog, but disagree with my views, I invite you to read this carefully.

Anthony,

Lon

I'm innately familiar with National Semi's LM34 and it's accuracy problems. One of my early jobs at my university as a research assistant was to create remote electronic weather stations. I soon learned how inaccurate many electronic devices can be in temperature measurement.

The problem with the National Weather Service temperature data sets (and world data sets too) is that they are full of biases and errors that I'm not sure have been accurately accounted for. People such as Jim Price, from CSUC who is on the IPCC say they have been, yet nobody has shown me any hard evidence of such. I'd be a lot less skeptical if I could see how the IPCC accounted for temperature measurement biases. But they won't share.

Some people that I try to explain this to accuse me of splitting hairs. But these bias problems in temperature measurement are quite real.

What works against my arguments about the difficulty in getting accurate temperature records is the everyday simplicity of temperature and its common measurement. We live by temperature, we have it reported constantly, we all have thermometers at home, we measure our childrens fevers with thermometers, we barbeque with thermometers.

Measuring temperature is easy right? You just stick the thermometer in whatever gas, liquid, or solid you want to measure the temperature of and voila' there it is. People tend to think of thermometers as perfect devices. Some very expensive calibrated thermometers, are close to perfect, especially when taking measurements in a closed system, like a fermenatation vat at Sierra Nevada.

But in an open system in our atmosphere, there are many many more biases that can affect the measurement within a few inches or feet of the thermometer. Here's just a few:

- Reflected sunlight from nearby building or objects
- Re-radiated infrared from nearby cement or asphalt surfaces or the ground itself (which is why airports make terrible places for temperature measurement)
- The structure that the thermometer is mounted to, can conduct heat to the thermometer

Now add to that:

- Accuracy of the thermometer itself
- Linearity of the thermometer over its measurement range
- Long term repeatability of the thermometer's accuracy
- Long term repeatability of the thermometer's linearity

And then we have urban effects such as:

- Localized vegetatation removal or addition over time
- Localized building changes over time
- Localized asphalt or concrete surfaces addition or removal

And finally within the global temperature records data set we find instances of:

- Changing the location of the weather station and/or its thermometer
- Changing the thermometer itself at some point - i.e. repair/replace
- Changing the thermometer type, from mercury, to electronic (thats been done at thousands of weather stations worldwide)
- Variations in temperature measurement devices from country to country, even though the World Meteorological Organization has specifications, they are not always followed.
- Changes in thermometer shelter, different types of paint over time, all which have different absorptive and reflective properties.
- Changes in the observer recording the temperature, some may round up, others round down numbers. BTW for about 75 years, all temperature records were manually recorded.

Ok with all these biases and possible errors that you have to account for to make long term temperature measurement reflect the true temperature of the location, can you be absolutely sure of the data integrity? Especially when you are looking for trends that may be 1 degree or less over 50-100 years? I can tell you that I've looked at these climatological data sets, and NONE of them come with a calibration record for the thermometer, or even a description of the make/model used at that location. There are notations in the records that say things like "station relocated to accomodate construction" or "thermometer replaced" which can give clues to the data integrity possibly changing but the climate researcher is left to make a judgement call on the viability of the data without anything to gauge the sensor or its local environment.

Or lets try a thought experiment Lon, you've been commissioned by the IPCC to make a new thermometer for use around the world at climate measurement stations. As an electrical engineer, could you design an air temperature thermometer that is:

- Linear to within 0.1% over a temperature range of -20F to 120F
- Accurate to within 0.1 degree F over that same range
- Repeatable in linearity and accuracy defined above for a period of 20 years. Or even 10 years.
- Identical withing the specs above, so that if one fails, it can be immediately swapped with another one from parts stock with no worry about introducing bias

Ok there's your challenge. Could you do it?

Posted by Anthony Watts at 01:14 AM | Permalink | Comments (31)

I don't know why I'm posting this other than its how I feel today.

Posted by Anthony Watts at 10:47 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

An airliner traveling from Chile to New Zealand early today was in for an near miss from something you wouldn't expect.

Flaming space debris — the remains of a Russian satellite — came hurtling
back to Earth not far from a passenger jet on its way to Auckland, New Zealand.
Here's further proof for the growing concern of the increasing amounts of space junk orbiting our planet. From the article: 'The pilot of a Lan Chile Airbus A340 ... notified air traffic controllers at Auckland Oceanic Center after seeing flaming space junk hurtling across the sky just five nautical miles in front of and behind his plane...'

Yikes!

Posted by Anthony Watts at 09:34 PM | Permalink

Image: Average temperatures warmed in nearly all parts of California between 1950 to 2000. Image credit: NASA/JPL/Cal State L.A Click for Larger Image

Average temperatures in California rose almost one degree Celsius (nearly two degrees Fahrenheit) during the second half of the 20th century, with urban areas leading the trend to warmer conditions, according to a new study by scientists at NASA and California State University, Los Angeles. Results of the study appeared in the journal Climate Research.

But 50 years of temperature trends hardly proves anything relevant about climate change, other than its gotten warmer in the past fifty years. 50 years in terms of our planet and the suns processes is a blink. I have to think that because NASA chose to co-author this paper with researchers at California State University, that some of the statewide "global warming as man-made problem bias" crept into the thinking for the purpose of this paper, i.e. "we need another study to show that its getting hotter so action is justified".

What is troubling about this study is that many of California's historical climatological stations, when done on a 100 year trend, rather than a 50 year trend, show a net cooling over the period, or a reversal of trend. The northern Sacramento Valley has very few reporting stations that go back 100 years, so I only have 4 data points, but it makes me wonder just what data the NASA/CSU study used to come to the conclusion that our area has warmed 1.1 degrees F over the last 50 years.

I've prepared some side-by-side graphs below of Sacramento Valley stations to illustrate that point:

My data source: U.S. Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) Data Set

Yet the NASA/CSU paper claims "The only area to cool was a narrow band of the state's mainly rural northeast interior". None of the stations above are in that area, but are in the North Sacramento Valley.

Even odder than that, cold and snowy Mt. Shasta, where you'd expect to hear about depleted snowpack, it's melting glacier on the side of the mountain, and other "signatures" of "global warming" shows a significant drop in temperatures over the last 50 years. yet the NASA/CSU study for that area concludes that a 2.1 degree F rise in temperature occurred.

Granted a few data points don't equal a complete study, but the fact that I've been able to find and plot in a couple of hours, several places that don't match the trends in the NASA/CSU study calls their methodology into question. Note the cities I used are all small rural cities, but the NASA/CSU study plotted major, medium, and minor cities in California to draw their conclusions. From their own paper they admit that the areas that have grown the most have shown the greatest temperature increases:

Southern California had the highest rates of warming, while the NE Interior Basins division experienced cooling. Large urban sites showed rates over twice those for the state, for the mean maximum temperatures, and over 5 times the state’s mean rate for the minimum temperatures. Average temperatures increased significantly in nearly 54 percent of the stations studied, with human-produced changes in land use seen as the most likely cause. The largest temperature increases were seen in the state's urban areas, led by Southern California and the San Francisco Bay area, particularly for minimum temperatures.

For example, look at Pasadena, CA once a small city itself, but in the last 100 years it became a dot in the sea of the second largest American City, Los Angeles. It's temperature trend, unsurprisingly, is sharply upward, for both the 50 and 100 year trends. Its drowning in a sea of asphalt and concrete, is it any wonder it shows a temperature increase?

The inescapable conclusion is that the NASA/CSU study is plotting the effects of urban heat islands, and applying that trend to the entire landmass of California to reach the conclusions they have mapped onto the state map of temperature trend they present.

A simple filtering based on urban growth factors would yield a temperature map with a far different result.

To their credit though, they recognize this fact: "If we assume global warming affects all regions of the state, then the small increases our study found in rural stations can be an estimate of this general warming over land. Larger increases would therefore be due to local or regional changes in land surface use due to human activities."

For the most part, "urban warming" has dwarfed "global warming" in its magnitude, a fact that is lost on some who look at temperature data from weather stations worldwide and treat them all equally in the quest to prove a theory.

Posted by Anthony Watts at 08:26 PM | Permalink | Comments (4)

For all those folks worried that a cell phone tower at the Elks Lodge or Hooker Oak Park is going to give rise to a legion of cancer ridden mutants, here's another study that says "not likely"

March 26, 2007 (Reuters) --

Cell phone use does not appear to be associated with an increased risk of glioma, the most common type of brain tumor, according to a new study.

"Public concern has been expressed about the possible adverse health effects of mobile telephones, mainly related to [brain] tumors," Dr. Anna Lahkola, a researcher at the Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority in Helsinki, and colleagues explain in the International Journal of Cancer.

The researchers examined the relationship between mobile phone use and risk of glioma by studying 1,521 glioma patients and 3,301 controls.

The vast majority of both groups reported using cell phones. Overall, 92% of glioma patients and 94% of controls reported using mobile phones.

Overall, there was no evidence of increased glioma risk related to regular mobile phone use.

There were no significant associations observed with duration of use, years since first use, cumulative number of calls or cumulative hours of use.

No increased glioma risk was observed when analog and digital phones were analyzed separately.

There was, however, a trend toward increased risk of glioma in people who used a cell phone for more than 10 years exclusively on one side of the head, which was on the same side as the tumor. The association reached "borderline statistical significance."

"This may be due either to chance or causal effect or information bias, i.e., overreporting of mobile phone use on the affected side by the cases with brain tumors," the investigators wrote

Posted by Anthony Watts at 07:37 AM | Permalink

I just completed my first meeting of the City of Chico Sustainability Task Force today and here are a few observations.

First, it seemed to be pretty well rounded, we had public and private sector, business, building industry, CSUC, and regular citizens represented by the 15 appointees.

Second, so far the focus seems to be doing things better, more efficiently, and at less cost. I'm all for that.

Third, everybody seemed to get along, no shouting matches or fistfights broke out.

While the group is still feeling their way, I expect that given the makeup of it, we'll get some useful suggestions and ideas from it that may very well get implemented as policy someday. I was worried that we might have a group of folks who were so focused on the goal of "green" that we'd see odd policy come from it like our famously silly nuclear weapons ban in the city limits.

I'll keep you posted. I have a few ideas of my own that I'll discuss here.

Some folks ask me how I can be against the idea of man-made global warming but for alternate energy. Its simple really, if its more efficient, pollutes less (on any venue) has no social cost, and has a lower operating cost, I'm for it. Mostly I'm for alternate energy becuase California has essentially legislated out the ability to build any traditional forms of energy generation, such as coal, hydro, and nuclear. That leaves wind, solar, and conservation as the future of energy in California. whether you beleive in man-made global warming or not, our future energy needs have to come from some source, so we'd better get started now. If they have beneficial side effects, all the better.

One thing I'm not for is a carbon credits/trading programs. I think the whole idea is simply a cop out and designed to benefit the few that setup these programs. See why in this post.

Posted by Anthony Watts at 05:45 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

Image above: Dubbed the "Swan" this X-ray image shows massive energy releases from the sun's magnetic field, even while we are at the solar minimum in between sunspots cycles.

Last week, on the same day Al Gore was giving testimony to congress on made-made CO2 being the sole cause of Global Warming, NASA called a press conference in Washington DC to announce some spectacular new findings about the sun. Of course everybody in the press was so busy covering Gore's big day, there was hadly any mention of what NASA announced.

What they announced was that a new X-ray imaging satellite called HINODE, launched in September 2006, has seen the first images that explain one of the biggest mysteries of the sun: why the corona is hotter than the suns surface. Magnetic reconnection seems to be the key, and these images go a long ways towards proving the theory.

But even more importantly, scientists expected to see a very quiet sun with the new x-ray imager, since we are at solar minimum right now. NASA announced we'd reached solar min on March 6th. The fact that the HINODE scientists saw huge explosive energy bursts even while the surface of the sun is nearly devoid of sunspots tells them that the suns magnetic field is still tremendously active. The suns magnetic field has been getting more active for the past hundred years, coincidentally at the same time CO2 on earth has been increasing along with the global mean temperature.

But it seems that coincidence makes CO2 a Red Herring.

The linkage between changes in the suns magnetic field and earths climate has been well documented. Global temps closely track solar cycles as measured by sunspot intensity. Sunpots are proxy indicators of changes in the suns magnetic field. The Danish Meteorological Institute first reported the correlation in a study going back centuries. Historic data reveal that whenever the sun got more active, the earth heated up, and vice versa. The best correlation was the Maunder Minimum.

But until now, we could not see energy being transported away from the sun via its magentic field, which is why many in the environmental community doubt the role of the sun in climate change. We couldn't visualize the sun's magnetic output. This new tool is going to open a whole new era of understanding how the sun works, and more importantly how changes on the sun link to climate changes on earth.

Of course I'm sure Mr. Gore will find a way to explain this away, since we can't have any new science getting in the way of a "consensus" and a "debate thats over".

Inconveniently, NASA also announced last week a new study that shows a clear sun-earth linkage in records kept by Eqyptians of the Nile river, rainfall, and auroral activity which is a direct indicator of solar activity. It seems the sun-earth climate linkage has been around way before SUV's.

So what's easier to believe as the cause of climate change? That a trace gas called CO2 that has increased on earth from about 280 PPM to 380 PPM in the last 100 years is the cause, or that the giant nuclear fireball a thousand times bigger than earth a mere 8 light-minutes away has been getting more active during the same period is the reason?

Posted by Anthony Watts at 08:49 PM | Permalink | Comments (9)

Whew! It has been a busy week, with lots of things to report. So rather than making a blog entry for each one I thought I'd condense them all into one entry with links.

The emphasis this week seems to be on the sun, and the fact that maybe its really the sun which has been driving climate change after all. That's what I've been saying for years, because its just unrealistic to ignore the largest and single most important contributor to our planets energy balance and to only focus on made-made CO2 and nothing else.

Here are some headlines and links to the reports:

Former Tennessee Senator Fred Thompson comes out against Gore - cites the sun - from the National Review

Sun Blamed for Warming of Earth and Other Worlds - from LiveScience

Gore testifies on Global Warming before congress - video from C-SPAN - free RealPlayer required, download here

Greenlands Ice pack measured accurately, shown to be shrinking, but alternate cause suspected - from NASA

NASA Finds Sun-Climate Connection in Old Nile Records - Pharoahs apparently made some accurate records

Sun's Output Increasing in Possible Trend Fueling Global Warming - From a Duke University paper and Space.com
 

Biggest solar storm in fify years is expected - from NASA

Posted by Anthony Watts at 02:04 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

In the UK Channel 4 produced a new documentary titled:
The Great Global Warming Swindle This is well worth watching, especially if you've ever doubted the veracity of such claims, no matter which side you find yourself on.

Through interviews with prize-winning climate experts and others, this masterful documentary explains the origins of global warming alarmism; factually addresses claims of man-made global climate change; exposes the motivations of organizations, scientists and activists sounding the alarm; and explains why it’s been extremely difficult, if not downright career killing, for scientists to question global warming orthodoxy publicly.

While presenting hard facts, it is artfully done, making it watchable for the layman and scientist alike.

You can watch the video here. Its about 75 minutes. You can press the Play button and Pause button if you need a break. If the video player below doesn't work, here is a direct link

Posted by Anthony Watts at 09:45 AM | Permalink | Comments (3)

Today I had to do a round trip drive to San Jose to inspect some video transmission equipment and back to Chico all in a few hours. Coming back, I was in stop and go traffic coming across the Benicia-Martinez Bridge (which is being rebuilt)which carries I-680 across Suisun Bay and had a fair amount of time to look at the Ghost Fleet kept by the Navy there.

Officially known as the National Defense Reserve Fleet (NDRF) they have all sorts of ships there including the WWII battleship USS Iowa, merchant ships, and an aircraft carrier. There are also some WWI steam ships there too, many in a state of decay.

I was reminded of a boat trip I took down the Delta a few years ago where I got up close and personal with these ships. Some were impressive, others downright spooky. I also remeber finding the crossing of the old Sacramento Northern Electric Railway which went all the way to Chico, and up the Esplande. I'll tell that story another time.

In the meantime here are some pictures and links of the Ghost Fleet.

Several destroyers and merchant ships, plus a tug.

The USS Iowa BattleShip BB61, soon to be moved to Stockton for restoration and display

Another view of the USS Iowa

Carrier USS New Orleans and merchant ships

Posted by Anthony Watts at 12:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (2)

From the "You might want to check the weather forecast before you start out" department:

I'm sorry, but I just have to laugh at this one. There's just too much hilarious irony. Our polar bear thinks its funny too.

From an article in the American Thinker, and a news report from ABC News

[Regarding] the collapse of the Bancroft-Arnesen polar expedition on Monday. The expedition was a stunt (a harsh word, I know, but the only one that's appropriate) intended to dramatize the effect of warming on the Arctic. The two trekkers, Ann Bancroft and Liv Arnesen, planned to walk 530 miles from Canada to the Pole, swimming across rifts in the ice created by warming. Well, the rifts turned out not to exist, and the project had to be called off after only a few miles when Arnesen was threatened with frostbite. It appears that warming has a way to go - outside temperatures were hitting a hundred below zero at night. Bancroft and Arnesen returned little the worse for wear. "One of things we see with global warming," their expedition organizer Ann Atwood said by way of explanation, "is unpredictability." Uhh... right.

[Bloggers note: I nor any other meteorologist can predict next weeks weather 100% accurately, so what makes them think they can predict 20-50 years ahead with utmost certainty?

Here's what they said at the outset: "Because global warming impacts the polar regions first and most dramatically, the changes in the Arctic are a lens into what the rest of the world may experience in the future, unless changes are made swiftly."]

From a press release sent by the expedition to schools that were following online:

"The goal of this expedition is to help you learn more about global warming; we realize that it is ironic that frostbite and the cold temperatures contributed to our return. But, please know that global warming is real, and with it can come extreme unpredictable changes in temperature. Evidence abounds within this region and in our few days here we already observed some of its evidence."

[Bloggers note: No evidence of GW in the arctic was presented on their website that I can find though they did manage to post a single photo of the expedition in progress.

[Article from the American Thinker continued...]

Meanwhile, the Telegraph, the UK's major center-right paper (Across Europe, you can publish those without anyone collapsing into hysteria. They still do some things better), reveals that Timothy Ball, a Canadian climatologist who appeared in the British anti-Gore documentary "The Great Global Warming Swindle", has received death threats in response to his defiance of the consensus. An anonymous e-mail message told him that "...if he continued to speak out, he would not live to see further global warming."

This is probably the tip of the iceberg (so to speak). There have no doubt been many such incidents where the scientists threatened have chosen not to call attention to it. The Greens, after all, are the movement that has produced such tolerant and openminded groups as Earth First! and the Earth Liberation Front. We may yet see people physically attacked for their stance on warming.

Which will mean, of course, that the Greens will have utterly failed, as occurred previously with overpopulation, nuclear winter, and the coming ice age. The Greens have long believed that all they need to do is convince the elites and the media and then the rest of us will follow like so many sheep. If we keep very quiet about it, maybe they'll fail to figure it out, and continue wasting their time on empty stunts, death threats, and star turns by the Saint of Nashville.

Now there's an idea... why not have Al Gore walk to the North Pole? Even I'd pay good money to see that.

Posted by Anthony Watts at 01:20 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

This week researchers announced that a solar storm is coming — the most intense solar maximum in fifty years. The prediction comes from a team led by Mausumi Dikpati of the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR). "The next sunspot cycle will be 30% to 50% stronger than the previous one," she says. If correct, the years ahead could produce a burst of solar activity second only to the historic Solar Max of 1958. Solar Cycle 24 will be the biggest in modern history.

Dikpati's forecast puts Solar Max at 2012. Hathaway believes it will arrive sooner, in 2010 or 2011.

Translation: it going to get hotter on earth during this period.

At the same time, researchers are showing evidence that the next solar cycle 25 is likely to be very weak.

Translation: It will get cooler on earth starting around 2017-2018 and beyond.

Posted by Anthony Watts at 11:32 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

I'm not usually a fan of food additive scares, as I find a lot of the "science" driving them to be somewhat emotionally based rather than factually based. For example, one of the urban legends surrounding this topic can be found here. Be sure to read the whole article before you retch.

I like to point out that we have the safest and most nutritious food supply in the history of mankind right now, but we also have a lot of bad choices available. Its when the good choices start to become problematic that I get concerned.

Food coloring, specifically Red Dye number 40 is found in so many things, that its often hard to know if its in a food unless you read the fine print on the product label. For example, today I found out that EGGO waffles have Red#40 in them. It was a complete surprise. There are hundreds of other foods that you wouldn't suspect that have it too.

I have two small children, and my wife has found that Red Dye 40 can lead to behavioral problems in young children. I was skeptical at first, but when we removed all foods and snacks containing Red 40 from our son's diet, we began to see a marked change towards the mellow, easy going child he used to be.

It works. Here is an article from teachers.net for you to read if you have an interest in this issue.

Posted by Anthony Watts at 06:18 PM | Permalink | Comments (25)

Jessica Gresko at the Associated Press reports:

Certain hurricane forecasts could be up to 16 percent less accurate if a key weather satellite that is already beyond its expected life span fails, the National Hurricane Center's new director said Friday in calling for hundreds of millions of dollars in new funding for expanded research and predictions.

Bill Proenza also told The Associated Press in a wide-ranging interview that ties between global warming and increased hurricane strength seemed a "natural linkage." But he cautioned that other weather conditions currently play a larger part in determining the strength and number of hurricanes.

One of Proenza's immediate concerns is the so-called "QuikScat" weather satellite, which lets forecasters measure basics such as wind speed. Replacing it would take at least four years even if the estimated $400 million cost were available immediately, he said.

It is currently in its seventh year of operation and was expected to last five, Proenza said, and it is only a matter of time until it fails.

Without the satellite providing key data, Proenza said, both two- and three-day forecasts of a storm's path would be affected. The two-day forecast could be 10 percent worse; the three-day one could be affected up to 16 percent, Proenza said.

That would mean longer stretches of coastline would have to be placed under warnings, and more people than necessary would have to evacuate.

Average track errors last year were about 100 miles on two-day forecasts and 150 miles on three-day predictions. Track errors have been cut in half over the past 15 years. Losing QuikScat could erode some of those gains, Proenza said, adding he did not know of any plans to replace it.

Posted by Anthony Watts at 09:57 AM | Permalink

This from the "fun things you can do with compressed gas" department:

Now I've seen everything. Tata, India's largest automotive manufacturer, has developed a car that runs on compressed air, gets a range of 125-185 miles per tank, and a tank costs about $3 to fill up.. er..blow up.

The car will cost about $7,300 and has a top speed of 68mph. About once every 35,000 miles you have to change the oil (1 liter of vegetable oil). Initial plans are to produce 3,000 cars per year. Using compressed air to store potential energy is not only efficient, it's pollution free while its driving. Of course there's still energy used in making compressed air, and some polution may be created during that process, buts its lower than burning fuel carried with the vehicle.

More here from Gizmag: http://www.gizmag.com/go/7000/

No word yet on what it sounds like going down the road.

Posted by Anthony Watts at 08:35 PM | Permalink | Comments (4)

I figured for my 100th entry, I'd make it a big one. Especially in light of the fact that a recent editorial in the ChicoBeat said that I'm completely wrong. Now if I'm wrong, and I see compelling and undisputable evidence (not models or projections) that man made CO2 is the culprit and nothing else, I'll be happy to stand up in the middle of city plaza and announce "I was wrong".I expect I'll know the answer by about January to March 2018, when its expected that solar cycle 24 will be over, and temperatures on earth are postulated to drop. The year end world climate summaries will be published then. Assuming I'm still around, I'll likely sound off in City Plaza one way or another. By then we'll have some shade.

In the meantime, tell me how I'm doing. I don't hear from a lot of you whom I know are reading. Sound off, good or bad.

What I thought I'd do this time around is post some news and opinions that aren't mine related to the subject. These come from science and technology blogs, forums, and newsletters that I subscribe to.

First let's start with this headline that's been circulating for the past few days:

"This winter is the warmest on record worldwide."

That's from a press release from NOAA
and there are many new articles about it with essentially the same
headline. Here's one from The Weather Channel,

Worldwide winter warmest on record

Here is the original
press release from
NOAA and their title says: "NOAA
SAYS U.S. WINTER TEMPERATURE NEAR AVERAGE" and that's followed by the subtitle "Global
December-February Temperature Warmest on Record"

Hmmm. I have
to wonder. Which is it? and WHY do they essentially cancel each other out? No
worries though, the press will go with the more sensational headline, which is
exactly what AP did.

And here's what the report said about the USA:
"The
winter temperature for the contiguous United States (based on preliminary data)
was 33.6 degrees F (0.9 degrees C). The 20th century average is 33.0 degrees F
(0.6 degrees C). Statewide temperatures were warmer than average from Florida to
Maine and from Michigan to Montana. Cooler-than-average temperatures occurred in
the southern Plains and areas of the Southwest."

and this:

"The combined
global land and ocean surface temperature was the sixth warmest on record in
February, but a record warm January helped push the winter (December-February)
to its highest value since records began in 1880 (1.30 degrees F/0.72 degrees C
above the 20th century mean). El Niño conditions contributed to the season’s
record warmth, but the episode rapidly weakened in February, as ocean
temperatures in the central equatorial Pacific cooled more than 0.5 degrees
F/0.3 degrees C and were near average for the month."

But, but, its THE
WARMEST WINTER ON RECORD ! We must do something scream the news stories and
blogs. Never mind El Nino is listed as the cause.

some comments:

From Slashdot:
"The [news stories] are an excellent example of such unscientific hype. Linking
last winter to global warming is pure speculation that does nothing to promote
rational discussion about global warming. A mild winter might indeed be a result
of global warming or it could be just a peak in some other climatic cycle that
we don't fully understand. Here in New Zealand, we have just had a very cool
summer, following on from a very cool winter. Where's some of that global
warming stuff? Could have used it at the beach!



To think that we (as a human race) have a very good understanding of long-term
climatic processes is just arrogance. We have models which we are always
refining, but they will always just be speculation. We look back mockingly at
how ignorant some scientists were 40 years ago (eg. during the 1960s many/most
geologists did not accept tectonic plate theory). It is silly to think that
people forty years from now won't be doing the same about us. That should be
particularly true of climatic modelling. There is no robust equation for
climate. People essentially just sit down and tweak the models until they get
the results they expect, then use them to generate best case and worst case
analysis. That folks, is hardly science."

From
Huffington Post:

In the New BBC
special regarding global warming, one very great point is made.



A man gets in his car and turns on the engine and ponders his effect on the
climate of the earth while completely ignoring the giant nuclear fireball
thousands of times the size of the earth a mere eight light-minutes away.



No one denies that the earth is getting warmer, we just disagree as to the
cause.

From Canada
Free Press:

Gore Funding Plan For "A New World Order"

If your employer began paying you 80 cents on the dollar, but, not to worry, the other 20 cents was going to support "good causes", thereby giving you value instead of capital, would you be pleased?

If not, you won't like what Al Gore has been quietly planning along with his Global Warming initiative. He and others are working to achieve that very thing and to bring it about in a manner which doesn't give you a vote in which values your dollars end up supporting.

 

From Michael Crichton’s Website:

Imagine that there is a new scientific theory that warns of an impending crisis, and points to a way out.

This theory quickly draws support from leading scientists, politicians and celebrities around the world. Research is funded by distinguished philanthropies, and carried out at prestigious universities. The crisis is reported frequently in the media. The science is taught in college and high school classrooms.

I don’t mean global warming. I’m talking about another theory, which rose to prominence a century ago.

Its supporters included Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, and Winston Churchill. It was approved by Supreme Court justices Oliver Wendell Holmes and Louis Brandeis, who ruled in its favor. The famous names who supported it included Alexander Graham Bell, inventor of the telephone; activist Margaret Sanger; botanist Luther Burbank; Leland Stanford, founder of Stanford University; the novelist H. G. Wells; the playwright George Bernard Shaw; and hundreds of others. Nobel Prize winners gave support. Research was backed by the Carnegie and Rockefeller Foundations. The Cold Springs Harbor Institute was built to carry out this research, but important work was also done at Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford and Johns Hopkins. Legislation to address the crisis was passed in states from New York to California.

These efforts had the support of the National Academy of Sciences, the American Medical Association, and the National Research Council. It was said that if Jesus were alive, he would have supported this effort.

All in all, the research, legislation and molding of public opinion surrounding the theory went on for almost half a century. Those who opposed the theory were shouted down and called reactionary, blind to reality, or just plain ignorant. But in hindsight, what is surprising is that so few people objected.

Today, we know that this famous theory that gained so much support was actually pseudoscience. The crisis it claimed was nonexistent. And the actions taken in the name of theory were morally and criminally wrong. Ultimately, they led to the deaths of millions of people.

The theory was eugenics, and its history is so dreadful —- and, to those who were caught up in it, so embarrassing —- that it is now rarely discussed. But it is a story that should be well known to every citizen, so that its horrors are not repeated.

For those who don't know:
eugenics is a social philosophy which advocates the improvement of human hereditary traits through various forms of intervention. The purported goals have variously been to create healthier, more intelligent people, save society's resources, and lessen human suffering. Earlier proposed means of achieving these goals focused on selective breeding, while modern ones focus on prenatal testing and screening, genetic counseling, birth control, in vitro fertilization, and genetic engineering. Opponents argue that eugenics is immoral and is based on, or is itself, pseudoscience.

See any similarities
or relevance? Ok, flame away folks...



 

Posted by Anthony Watts at 06:35 AM | Permalink | Comments (7)

No I'm not asking you to fill in the blank, but I am asking you to notice that at this time, there are no sunspots on the sun at all. This piucture above shows the face of the sun for St Patricks day.

Contrast this to just a few weeks ago, when sunspot 930 (shown below) erupted with a massive X class solar flare, the largest in years. It just goes to show you how volatile our sun is and how small we are in the face oif its massive energy.

You can check www.spaceweather.com for details on the current state of the sun, the solar wind, and the geomagnetic field.

Posted by Anthony Watts at 12:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (2)

Last Saturday I took a brief diversion from a long business trip to attend the air show at NAF El Centro as the guest of former navy pilot Vance Parker. NAF El Centro is the winter training base for the Blue Angels. Several people from Chico who share the same morning coffee table at Bidwell Perk made the trip. Vance was a gracious host, getting us all passes to the VIP tent.

Vance also managed to put us on the tarmac after the show, second in line behind a 3-star general, for a photo with the pilots and the FA-18 flown by the team commander. In attendance were left to right Dave Raven, Mike Effords, myself, Tim Colbie, Michael Moran, Jim Ledgerwood, (kneeling) Vance Parker and Mark Stapleton, plus Tom Dwyer (not pictured-AWOL).

The show was spectacular, the weather fine, and the beer cold. It was a day of pure heaven. Thanks Vance.

Even with all that, my best memory of the show had to do with a 2 year old little boy. He and his mom were at the VIP tent and dad was off doing duty. There were a couple of older boys who were playing with FA-18 models and the little boy kept trying to join in but he had no toy. His mom didn't bring anything to keep him occupied and he spent his time trying to fit in with the other boys. So, knowing that feeling, I decided I'd hoof it the 1/4 mile back to the hangars where the concessions were, and pickup a toy airplane, and one for my own son too.

The smile on that little boys face when I gave it to him was far brighter than the Blue Angels at that moment.

Posted by Anthony Watts at 11:59 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

There's an article in this issue of the Chico Beat about my views on global warming. You can read it here:
http://www.chicobeat.com/?q=in_denial

I knew going into it that they'd probably be critical of my views, but that's what honest debate is all about. My tipoff was Josh Indar's comment to me that "I'm surprised that you returned my call". I learned a long time ago that even if you don't like what the press is going to write about you, you should always be available and up front.

What really surprised me though was that they felt threatened enough by what I had to say to dedicate a complete editorial to it. http://chicobeat.com/?q=watts_is_wrong

And even more surprising was this missive: " We feel the need to say that this week because we've already heard protests from a local climate expert, who we asked to counter Watts in this issue. The expert declined because, he said that printing Watts' views will only encourage him, lending him a credibility he doesn't deserve."

Hmmm. Why is it that those whom have opposing views feel the need to posture this way? I find it telling that those whom say "the debate is over" related to "man made global warming" just shut out anything or anybody that might have another view. It is disengenuous when they do that. It also makes those who like to dig deeper mistrustful of the agenda. If I'm wrong, prove it with facts and logic, don't just refuse on your own basis of superiority.

I appreciate the Chico Beat taking the time to interview me and print my views, even if they disagree with them.

On the downside, there are a number of abbreviated words and misspellings in the article along with a couple of factual errors related to Edward Teller. I'm quoted as saying he was on the Atomic Energy Commission Board in the 80's. The agency was dissolved in 1975 and merged with the Department of Energy.

I'm pretty certain I said Teller was on the AEC in the 60's. I've asked them to fix that.

On the upside they gave me some kudos for my work locally on solar power. Thanks.

I think in the interview I've given an honest, factual, and pragmatic account of why I think the way I do. But in the editorial, I'm said to be a victim of my own "cultural bias". Translation: "Since he's a conservative, he can't possibly think for himself, so he must simply be regurgitating a mantra". It will be interesting to see how many "culturally biased" letters appear in the Beat saying all sorts of things that may not be, um, nice.

Posted by Anthony Watts at 01:39 PM | Permalink | Comments (9)

Yesterday while driving north on Highway 99 from Bakerfield, I passed a Union Pacific freight train. To my surprise, it was quite long, I counted over 120 cars. When I got to the engines I saw something I don't usually see, Eight UP SD70 diesels pulling the load. They had this configured to go over the Sierra Nevada obviously.

I love trains, they've been a part of my familiy for nearly 100 years. My grandfather made steam locomotives and my dad created a steam train ride that he took around to carnivals and church socials and gave children rides. One of my happeiest memories was sitting behind my dad in the coal tender car as we chugged along. Yes I was a carnie briefly as a kid.

Back to present. So as I pulled ahead of it a few miles, I spotted an overpass for farm machinery that I could pull off on and take a picture. Then further ahead I snapped some others. These were taken near the town of Pixley, and just south of Fresno.

My son William delighted in them. Others are below. Enjoy.

Posted by Anthony Watts at 06:57 AM | Permalink

Ok, everybody's favorite modern boogeyman, the Internal Combustion Engine, has been blamed for everything from global warming, to wars over oil, to baby booms caused by backseats in 57 Chevy's.

There's been a lot of pushing, and rightly so, to make the beast more efficient given gasoline prices, smog, and the looming CO2 hysteria. That time may be at hand. A new engine design could significantly improve fuel efficiency for cars and SUVs, at a fraction of the cost of today's hybrid technology.

From an article in MIT's Technology Review, where researchers at the Sloan Automotive Lab describe how they can dramatically boost engine output and efficiency by preventing pre-ignition, or "knock." How they do it:

"Both turbocharging and direct injection are preexisting technologies, and neither looks particularly impressive... by combining them, and augmenting them with a novel way to use a small amount of ethanol, Cohn and his colleagues have created a design that they believe could triple the power of a test engine."

Smaller, better, more fuel efficient, with less emissions. It all sounds promising. Of course, Popular Science Magazine used to claim in the 50's that we'd all be driving flying cars by now, and that never happened. So lets take this with a grain of salt.

But I think this one could actually make it to market. The idea they've implemented actually works, so its a matter of getting automakers to adopt it. The technology will add about $1000 to the cost of the engine, but its still far less expensive than hybrid technology, and there's no replacement or disposal problem of batteries. If technology leads the way, making the choices available and sensible, manufacturers and consumers will follow.

Posted by Anthony Watts at 05:20 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Viacom has filed a $1,000,000,000.00 lawsuit for 'massive intentional copyright infringement' against Google over YouTube video clips. '"YouTube's strategy has been to avoid taking proactive steps to curtail the infringement on its site," Viacom said in a statement. "Their business model, which is based on building traffic and selling advertising off of unlicensed content, is clearly illegal and is in obvious conflict with copyright laws.'

This makes me wonder, will the legal hassles spread to those who post YouTube content on their own websites? Blogger Dan NT uses YouTube a lot on his blog Bullfight, and I think almost every seasoned blogger on NorcalBlogs.com has used it, me included.

Since Norcalblogs.com is run by ER owner Media News Group which could be perceived to have deep pockets, I think I'll just leave YouTube out of the blogging loop. Everybody is lawsuit happy these days, in fact we may see a "lawsuit futures" next to pork bellies on the Chicago Stock Exchange soon.

Posted by Anthony Watts at 05:12 AM | Permalink

Ok I'll bet the first word that went through your mind was "Tasker" right?

Even though our own local and vocal anonymous blog commenter can sometimes raise some ire, this story is not about him. It is however about the blogs, journalism, and anonymity.

Network World did an op-ed piece on blogging and anonymity and how a newspaper in Florida reacted. At issue was a local blogger whom was ridiculing a local politician, even going so far to take out newspaper ads. But it begged the question "was this a political group"? When a political group spends money to influence voters, they are required by law to post the group name information in the ad, file with the Fair Political Practices Commission, and make regular reports on monetary donations and expenditures. Candidates for office are required to do the same.

Locally, we had a similar case in 2004, when two local school trustees, Rick Anderson and Steve O'Bryan were running for re-election. Of course there were the usual scores of letters to the editor, pro and con, but one local activist whom felt that O'Bryans and Andersons vote on the Sloan debacle was wrong, went even further. That activist then proceeded to take out a number of intensely critical ads in the ER. You may remember them, they were headed by a graphic with a clear blue eye being seen through a magnifying glass.

The ads were not attributed to a PAC or even an individual, which raised quite a few eyebrows and some inquiries with the FPPC. The purchaser of the ads, Dan Irving, finally admitted ownership in a letter to the editor.

There were also some bogus letters to the editor that got printed, praising Sloan and critical of the school board that made it past the usual checks. Actually there were quite a number of anonymous and/or falsely signed letters, emails, and phone messages that went on during that time. I often wondered how supporters think such things could possibly do any good, as they are inevitably found out. Sometimes its quite surprising, othertimes expected. Emails in particular are easy to track, since they show the originating IP address, which can be tracked all the way back to the DSL or cable modem used in the persons home, or business.

So just how far should anonymity be protected? Or should it be protected at all? We have our daily dose of anonymous worst case journalism called "Tell It to the ER" which does have a modicum of editing...but still there are times when groups or individuals are attacked, with no accountability to those that make the comments.

A recent letter to the editor by ER North State Voices columnist Ron Reed suggests that its time to get rid of "Tell it to the ER" after a recent Tell It comment in poor taste about the all volunteer Butte County Search and Rescue prompted some ire that a worthy organization would be attacked without knowing whom is doing it.

Personally, I give "Tell It" less creedence than gossip. Maybe its time to rethink it.

Posted by Anthony Watts at 07:26 AM | Permalink | Comments (2)

As a kid, science was my big deal. Science fairs were even bigger. In my senior year of high school, I made my grand project, a 10MEV cyclotron. It weighed about 1200 pounds, was made mostly of iron plate, and used my dads welder to power its magnetic coils. I won the statewide science fair in Indiana, and went on to the national science fair. Particle accelerators are big, powerful and complex machines. While I don't know about you, I find them lots of fun. Nuclear physics was my destiny, or so I thought. But a computer glitch in the university financial aids office started me on the path of being a meteorologist, but thats another story.

So it was with some joy that I saw a couple of guys made a photo and video1 video2 tour of the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center (SLAC) which you actually cross over when driving on I-280 in the bay area.

As the world longest yet straightest object, it is a place I've always wanted to visit, if only to be able to run towards the vanishing point and feel like I'm getting nowhere fast.

Posted by Anthony Watts at 05:01 AM | Permalink

In general, Hollywood filmmakers follow the laws of physics because they have no other choice. It’s just when they cheat with special effects that we seem to forget how the physical world really works.

1. Those Exploding Cars

When you’re watching an action flick, all it takes is a crash, or maybe a stream of leaky gasoline that acts like a fuse, and suddenly, bang! You see a terrific explosion that’s complete and violent. But gasoline doesn’t explode unless mixed with about 93% air. Gas-induced car explosions were discovered on film relatively recently (you don’t see them in the old black-and-white movies), and now audiences just take them for granted. In general, there’s no need to rush out of a crashed car, risking injury, because you fear an imminent explosion – it’s probably not gonna happen.

2. Sound that Moves at the Speed of Light

Hollywood always gets this one wrong. On film, thunder doesn’t follow lightning (as in real life, because sound is slower); they occur simultaneously. Similarly, a distant volcano erupts, and the blast is heard immediately rather than five seconds later for each mile. Explosions on the battlefield go boom right away, no matter how far away spectators are. Even a small thing, like the crack of a baseball player’s bat, is simultaneous with ball contact, unlike at a real game.

3. Everything is Illuminated: The Myth of Radioactivity

Film would have you believe that radioactivity is contagious and makes you glow in the dark. Where did this idea come from? The Simpsons? Perhaps, but the truth is that the most common forms of radioactivity will make you radioactive only if the radioactive particles stick on you. Radioactivity is not contagious. If a person is exposed to the radioactive neutrons from a nuclear reactor, then he can become slightly radioactive, but he certainly won’t glow. And because radioactive things emit light only when they run into phosphor – like the coating on the inner surface of a TV tube – you don’t really need to worry.

4. Shotgun Blasts and Kung Fu Kicks Make Targets Fly across the Room

With the string of new kung fu films out (they run the gamut from The Matrix to Charlie’s Angels), you just can’t escape the small matter of bad physics. Yeah, the action scenes look great and all, but in reality momentum is conserved, such that every action has an equal and opposite reaction. So, when you see a gal kick someone across the room, technically, the kicker (or holder of a gun) must fly across the room in the opposite direction – unless she has a back against the wall.

5. Legends of the Fall

We aren’t surprised when the cartoon character Wile. E. Coyote runs off a cliff and is suspended there momentarily before he falls. But in the movies, buses and cars shouldn’t be able to jump across gaps in bridges, even if they go heavy on the accelerator. The fact is, a vehicle will fall even if it’s moving at a high speed. During the 1989 San Francisco earthquake, a driver saw a gap in the bridge too late, and probably inspired by the movies, accelerated to try to make it across. Unfortunately, the laws of physics were not suspended, and he fell into the hole and crashed on the other side. Movies with special effects should come with a warning: “Laws of physics are violated in this movie. Don’t try these stunts at home.”

6. The Sounds of Science

All across the silver screen, you’ll catch people screaming as their car flies in slow motion across the gap in the bridge. The problem, though, is that their voices don’t change. In reality, if you slow down motion by a factor of two, the frequency of all sounds should drop by an octave. Women will sound like men, and men will sound like Henry Kissinger. Sound is an oscillation of the air. Middle C, for example, is 256 vibrations per second. If time is slowed down, there are fewer cycles per second, and the resulting sound is lower in pitch.

7. Shell Shock! Exploding Artillery Shells that Blow Straight Up

In movies, shells tend to kill only the person standing directly over them. It seems like a waste of artillery, since – if you believe the movies – each shell can’t kill more than a single rifle bullet can. But in real life, artillery shells blow out in all directions, killing people all over. Movie directors like to have their actors running through a field of such shells, but they don’t want their actors killed, so they arrange for underground explosions in holes that blow straight up, missing anyone who’s more than 5 feet away.

8. The Sparking Bullet

Sparking bullets are relatively recent invention in movie special effects. The gimmick provides a way of letting the audience know that the bullet just barely missed its target. In real life, sparks do occur when you scrape steel or other hard metals on hard surfaces (such as brick) because little pieces of brittle materials are heated to glow and fly off. The problem here is that bullets are generally made of lead because it’s dense and soft, and you don’t want the bullets scarring the steel of the gun barrel. Ever notice that no sparks fly from the front of the gun? That’s because you’re seeing lead bullets.

9. Sound Travels in Space

This is the granddaddy of all scientific complaints about space movies. For instance, in space the hero shouldn’t be able to shout out instructions to the other astronauts from a spot several yards away. The movie Aliens corrected this misimpression with its tagline: “In space, nobody can hear you scream.” And it’s true. Sound is the vibration of air, and it’s sensed when the air makes your eardrums vibrate. But try to forget this rule as soon as possible; it’ll wreck a good many movies for you.

10. Oscars can go to Films that don't have good science in them

Posted by Anthony Watts at 10:44 PM | Permalink | Comments (6)

Recently it was revealed that Al Gore has a large “carbon footprint” and that he setup a corporation and as CEO that allows him to assuage guilt over that large footprint by purchasing carbon credits from himself. He later invests that money in green technology companies and the profits from those stocks return to his company.

I planned to write a harsh rebuttal but as I was eating breakfast I realized something; the man is a genius. No wonder columnist Maureen Dowd calls him the “Goreacle”.

My lovely wife and I are dieting, but I realize now that we don’t need to after all. Following Gores lead, I propose a website called waste-watchers.com which will offer us the ability to purchase “dieting credits” so that we don’t actually have to change eating habits. But unlike Gore, who doesn’t allow his corporation to sell carbon credits to the public, I’ll make this website available to everyone.

Here’s a sample of “calorie credits” you can buy: Big Mac alone, 576 calories, $5. Add supersize fries and milkshake, 1720 calories, $20. Ice cream bar, 330 calories $3, Nachos with cheese, 900 calories, $9.

Simply logon the website, make your “calorie credit” purchase, and you’ll be able to eat these foods while still maintaining your calorie count guilt free.

Humorous absurdities aside, the point is that if you want to change anything, it requires real work and physical change, not accounting tricks. Honest leadership here is more incumbent on Gore than anyone, and his failure is revealing.

Posted by Anthony Watts at 10:27 AM | Permalink | Comments (4)

National Geographic reports that simultaneous warming on Earth and Mars suggests that our planet's recent climate changes might have a natural — and not a human-induced — cause. Mars, it appears, has also been experiencing milder temperatures in recent years.

In 2005 data from NASA's Mars Global Surveyor and Odyssey missions revealed that the carbon dioxide 'ice caps' near Mars's south pole had been diminishing for three summers in a row.

Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of the St. Petersburg's Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia, says the Mars data is evidence that the current global warming on Earth is being caused by changes in the sun. "The long-term increase in solar irradiance is heating both Earth and Mars," he said.

Abdussamatov's work, however, has not been well received by other climate scientists.

Why, I'm SHOCKED

Posted by Anthony Watts at 12:15 AM | Permalink