Are 10,000 Siberian weather readings missing since 1990?

"Elmer Beauregard" of website M4GW has an interesting twist on the temperature reading reliability debate at - Ooops - We forgot Siberia

He claims that temperature readings since 1990 are skewed because the split up of the Soviet Union reduced the number of reporting stations from 15,000 to 5,000. Now this is a very interesting concept. I wonder if it is true?

Can weather station experts answer this question please?

Stop Global Warming - Tell your kids to SHUT THE FRIDGE!

Sitting at my computer reading about climate change/ global warming myths (what else?) I turned around to see my son with both the fridge and freezer doors open staring inside in a trance.

Why is it that kids do that?

My first thought was of all the extra heat being pumped into the house (and when it is 28oC and 97% humidity, one doesn't need any more) from the fridge motor.

Then it occurred to me....

How many kids around the world do the same thing? Tell your kids to stop staring into open fridges or the world will end.


GRRRRRRRRRR!

A good read - Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1,500 Years

A friend lent me a book over the Christmas/ New Year break which I found to be fascinating reading."Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1,500 Years" was written by S. Fred Singer and Dennis T. Avery in 2007 with an updated edition published in 2008.

There is so much material in this book. If you have doubts about whether global warming or climate change are man-made, you will find this book a real eye opener. Although this book is written by scientists, it is written with a minimum of jargon so that any reasonably educated adult can understand. The authors are undoubtedly deniers of the man made climate change argument. The theme of this book is that there is a solar/ celestial cycle which recurs roughly every 1,500 years and that these influences are much stronger than anything man has done to this planet.

Slowing of Coral Growth in Great Barrier Reef

Today's newspaper articles on a paper published in Science state that the scientists attribute the declining rate of growth of a particular type of coral to climate change and increasing acidity in the ocean due to greater absorption of CO2.

The abstract of the article Declining Coral Calcification on the Great Barrier Reef states:

The causes of the decline remain unknown; however, this study suggests that increasing temperature stress and a declining saturation state of seawater aragonite may be diminishing the ability of GBR corals to deposit calcium carbonate.

The scientists Glenn De'ath, Janice M. Lough, Katharina E. Fabricius of the Australian Institute of Marine Science report that their data suggests that the decrease in calcification of 14.2% since 1990 is unprecedented in the past 400 years.

Aragonite is CaCO3 - a form of calcium carbonate. It makes sense that this is important to coral growth. But what might be reducing the saturation of aragonite in seawater around the Great Barrier Reef? On further research I found that CO2 reacts with H2O and CaCO3 to make Ca and H2CO3 - carbonic acid! Aha - so that is why the oceans are becoming more acidic.



So what happened to corals much more than 400 years ago? The Earth was at least as warm, some say warmer, in the Medieval times. Coral was around then, so how did it cope? Maybe the answer is in slower growth, not killing. The coral is growing more slowly, but will recover again when the temperatures reduce with the next Little Ice Age. What is happening with coral in other locations around the world?

What will happen/ has happened to coral when the planet cools?

Coral seems to be pretty resilient. It has survived Crown of Thorns plagues, bleaching episodes and massive quantities of superphosphate washing out of Queensland rivers. I would like to see more studies of what has happened to corals over time with other unfavourable events.

As for the scientists claim that this is due to global warming from man-made CO2 (as at least one stated on camera), I didn't see any reference to their proof that CO2 is increasing in the atmosphere due to man made causes, nor that this is causing global warming.

All that can be concluded is (possibly) that the rate of growth of one type of coral in the Great Barrier Reef has been slower recently than it has in the past.

Am I correct in understanding that the coral is STILL GROWING, just 14.2% more slowly?

Global Warming Not Measured Since 1995

The Facts and Arts website has posted No significant Global Warming since 1995 by Jahl R. Ahlbeck, an academic in Finland.

This article includes graphs of two different methods for measuring the Earth's temperature - one in the lower atmosphere and the other at ground level. Although these show different absolute temperatures and different trends over time, since 1995 they both show a similar trend - little or no temperature increase. The author states he selected 1995 as there have been no major volcanic eruptions since then which would skew the temperature with a cooling effect.

So why, if CO2 increases cause temperature increases, and atmospheric CO2 has continued to increase over this time, haven't temperatures continued to noticeably increase?

The answer - man made CO2 is NOT influencing the Earth's temperature!

Is Global Warming a Northern Hemisphere thing?

An illustration in the IPCC report "Summary for Policymakers" based on the fourth Assessment Report "Climate Change 2007" shows a very interesting pattern.

(I'll need to print the page and scan it in - sorry for the delay.)

Refer to page 4 where there is a diagram of the world showing changes in surface temperatures from 1970 to 2004. There is a clear gradient in the degree of temperature change from the Arctic region with up to +3.5o C (increase) to -1o C (DECREASE!) in areas close to the Antarctic in the southern hemisphere.

Why is this? (If you know, please post a comment.)

It is also interesting that over 90% of the "Observed Data Series" for both physical and biological systems are for the Northern Hemisphere.

So, what about these options?

• There is greater land mass in the northern hemisphere. But doesn't the land heat and cool faster than the sea?
• There have been more temperature readings taken in the northern hemisphere and the southern hemisphere temperature data isn't as complete.
• There is a change in the position of the northern hemisphere relative to the southern hemisphere in relation to the sun in the long term cycle of the Earth's orbit.
• There is more industry in the northern hemisphere and temperature change is localised to a greater extent than global.
• Changes in the Earth's magnetic field has caused some particles (which absorb heat such as water vapour) to concentrate more in areas north of the Equator.
• The scientists obtained temperature increase readings in the northern hemisphere more easily than in the southern hemisphere, so they have concentrated on studying those areas.
• There are more politicians in the northern hemisphere (sorry - I couldn't resist that one!)
• The readings which didn't support the Global Warming theory were filtered out.

Interesting, but the illustration covers only a 34 year period. I did enough science at school to know that climatic trends span much greater time periods than that.

Also, the report talks about "average" surface temperature change. If more readings are taken in the northern hemisphere land masses close to cities, then doesn't that make the "average" data skew towards those areas, and not give a picture of the globe overall? That's what I had thought they meant by "average" temperature change up until I saw this illustration. Now I need to find out what data points they used for this average, and how many readings were taken from each.

Concern - Average means average of the data received, not average in global coverage.

Another noteworthy point is that very few of the "Observed Data Readings" are in countries which the United Nation's Millenium Development Goals aim to assist. Hmmmm - that could be worthy of a blog post all on it's own!

Interesting, but not conclusive. I'll keep reading................