Arctic scientist under investigation

[gilliam]

JUNEAU, Alaska (AP) — A federal wildlife biologist whose observation in 2004 of presumably drowned polar bears in the Arctic helped to galvanize the global warming movement has been placed on administrative leave and is being investigated for scientific misconduct, possibly over the veracity of that article.

Charles Monnett, an Anchorage-based scientist with the U.S. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement, or BOEMRE, was told July 18 that he was being put on leave, pending results of an investigation into “integrity issues.” But he has not yet been informed by the inspector general’s office of specific charges or questions related to the scientific integrity of his work, said Jeff Ruch, executive director of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility.

On Thursday, Ruch’s watchdog group plans to file a complaint with the agency on Monnett’s behalf, asserting that Obama administration officials have “actively persecuted” him in violation of policy intended to protect scientists from political interference.

news.yahoo.com/apnewsbreak-arctic-scientist-under-investigation-082217993.html

 

[Monte_RCMS]

More people need to read this.

 

[AntalKalnoky]

One Scientist Allegedly exagerrating a couple of facts proves less than nothing. Beginning Global Warming has been totally Proven, every way. Only the USA is doing extremly little; Mercedes Benz and China have begun the New Big Business of Hydrogen Cars, Etc., Etc., Etc. Our decades old concept of ‘electric car’ has only short range, and is counterproductive economically and enviro-nmentally.

 

[qui_est_ce]

One Scientist Allegedly exagerrating a couple of facts proves less than nothing. Beginning Global Warming has been totally Proven, every way. Only the USA is doing extremly little; Mercedes Benz and China have begun the New Big Business of Hydrogen Cars, Etc., Etc., Etc. Our decades old concept of ‘electric car’ has only short range, and is counterproductive economically and enviro-nmentally.

But it is more than one scientist. In late 2009, the IPCC’s credibility was severely compromised when emails between top authors and editors revealed they were deliberately falsifying data and suppressing dissenting scientists.

In New Zealand, Kiwigate, revealed that climate scientists artificially adjusted raw temperature records to make it appear that warming trends were steeper the raw data alone suggested. Kiwi records show no warming during the 20th century, but after government sponsored climatologists had manipulated the data a warming trend of 1C appeared.

Just the tip of the proverbial iceberg.

 

[MugenOne]

oh, by the way, the world has more oil than previously thought.

One Scientist Allegedly exagerrating a couple of facts proves less than nothing. Beginning Global Warming has been totally Proven, every way. Only the USA is doing extremly little; Mercedes Benz and China have begun the New Big Business of Hydrogen Cars, Etc., Etc., Etc. Our decades old concept of ‘electric car’ has only short range, and is counterproductive economically and enviro-nmentally.

 

[JHow]

…Beginning Global Warming has been totally Proven, every way…

Guess that statement depends on what you mean by “global warming” and “proven”.

 

[kimmielittle]

Only the USA is doing extremly little;

If you mean that the USA hasn’t signed on to the Cap and Trade scheme…promoted to be able to turn the temperature down.

Yeppers!!

This will show you “Impact” results.

I will use IPCC’s own numbers. Which support man is the ONLY Driver of climate - a premise we know to be a lie.

First and foremost - Remember CO2 is not climate…it is gas. In other words, We can reduce the gas and not touch the Climate.

BUT say, I agree with you that CO2 drives climate AND we wanted to 'Mitigate" just 1C by reducing CO2. Here is what is required. That MAGIC number is 1,767,250.

And here is how we get that number: How much CO2 emissions are required to change the atmospheric concentration of CO2 by 1 part per million ppm ],

Then we’ll figure out how many ppms of CO2 it takes to raise the global temperature 1ºC. Then, we’ll have our answer.

Now we have what we need. It takes 14,138mmt of CO2 emissions to raise the atmospheric CO2 concentration by 1 ppm AND it takes 125 ppm to raise the global temperature 1ºC. So multiplying 14,138mmt/pmm by 125ppm /ºC gives us 1,767,250mmt /ºC.

Now, let’s apply this: Using IPCC numbers, again.

In the Waxman-Markey Climate Bill considered by Congress,
CO2 emissions from the U.S. in the year 2050 are proposed to be 83% less than they were in 2005.

In 2005, U.S. emissions were about 6,000 mmt,
So 83% below that would be 1,020mmt or a reduction of 4,980mmt CO2.
4,980 divided by 1,767,250 = 0.0028ºC per year.

In other words, even if the ENTIRE United States reduced its carbon dioxide emissions by 83% below current levels, it would only amount to a reduction of global warming of LESS than THREE-THOUSANDTHS of a ºC per year.

A number that is scientifically meaningless.

Of course, this is assuming CO2 is Climate Changes Driver…ignoring all other Natural drivers, As AGW does. We know that to ignore all other Natural drivers, we are premising a lie.

You are welcome to test my math

---

 

[gilliam]

One Scientist Allegedly exagerrating a couple of facts proves less than nothing…

He isn’t “just one scienist”

Monnett, who has coordinated much of the agency’s research on Arctic wildlife and ecology, has duties that include managing about $50 million worth of studies, ac
ording to the complaint, a copy of which was provided to The Associated Press.

…The article and presentations drew national attention and helped make the polar bear something of a poster child for the global warming movement. Al Gore’s mention of the polar bear in his documentary on climate change, “An Inconvenient Truth,” came up during investigators’ questioning of Gleason in January.
In May 2008, the U.S. classified the polar bear as a threatened species, the first with its survival at risk due to global warming.

news.yahoo.com/apnewsbreak-arctic-scientist-under-investigation-082217993.html

 

[gilliam]

blogs.news.com.au/images/uploads/floatypoley.gif “ursus bogus” fake image used in a Science magazine article - click for story

According to AP/Anchorage Daily News, he’s on leave pending results of investigation. It seems everywhere you look, there’s some sort of fakery going on with the polar bear issue. For example, the image at left [above], where magazine used this fake image to hype the issue.Science And of course, everyone remembers the scene from the 2005 Al Gore science fiction movie An Inconvenient Truth, where Gore had an animated clip of the polar bear in danger of drowning, trying to get onto a tiny ice flow made smaller, presumably by global warming. Gore cited this study about drowned polar bears.

wattsupwiththat.com/2011/07/28/al-gores-drowned-polar-bear-ait-source-under-investigation/

This 2008 World Climate Report essay shows why an investigation is needed:
Where Are All The Drowning Polar Bears?

The Interior Department just announced its decision to list the polar bear as “threatened” under the U.S Endangered Species Act (ESA). The justification behind the decision is that polar bears are highly dependent on sea ice in the Arctic for their livelihood—hunting, mating, birthing, family rearing, etc.—and thus if sea ice declines, so will the overall health of the species.

 

[kimmielittle]

Another example

Q. What is the central estimate of the anthropogenic global warming, in Celsius degrees, that would be forestalled by 2020 if a) Australia alone and b) the whole world cut carbon emissions stepwise until by 2020 they were 5% below today’s emissions?

Answer a). Australia accounts for (at most) 1.5% of global carbon emissions. A stepwise 5% cut by 2020 is an average 2.5% cut from now till then. CO2 concentration by 2020, taking the IPCC’s A2 scenario, will be 412 parts per million by volume, compared with 390 ppmv now. So Man will have added 22 ppmv by 2020, without any cuts in emissions. The CO2 concentration increase forestalled by almost a decade of cap-and-tax in Australia would thus be 2.5% of 1.5% of 22 ppmv, or 0.00825 ppmv. So in 2020 CO2 concentration would be 411.99175 ppmv instead of 412 ppmv…

So the proportionate change in CO2 concentration if the Commission and Ms. Gillard got their way would be 411.99175/412, or 0.99997998. The IPCC says warming or cooling, in Celsius degrees, is 3.7-5.7 times the logarithm of the proportionate change: central estimate 4.7. Also, it expects only 57% of manmade warming to occur by 2100: the rest would happen slowly and harmlessly over perhaps 1000 years.

So the warming forestalled by cutting Australia’s emissions would be 57% of 4.7 times the logarithm of 0.99997998: that is – wait for it, wait for it – a dizzying 0.00005 Celsius, or around one-twenty-thousandth of a Celsius degree. Your estimate of a thousandth of a degree was a 20-fold exaggeration – not that Flannery was ever going to tell you that, of course.

Answer b) . We do the same calculation for the whole world, thus:

2.5% of 22 ppmv = 0.55 ppmv. Warming forestalled by 2020 = 0.57 x 4.7 ln(412-0.55)/412] < 0.004 Celsius, or less than four one-thousandths of a Celsius degree, or around one-two-hundred-and-eightieth of a Celsius degree. And that at a cost of trillions.

Quote:A cautionary note: the warming forestalled will only be this big if the IPCC’s central estimate of the rate at which adding CO2 to the atmosphere causes warming is correct. However, it’s at least a twofold exaggeration and probably more like fourfold. So divide both the above answers by, say, 3 to get what will still probably be an overestimate of the warming forestalled.

 

[JHow]

Here is GISS data plot for Los Angeles station 1880-2011 after “cleaning/homgeneity adjustment”.

Is this evidence of global warming, or local warming, urbanization, or something else?

data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=425722950003&data_set=2&num_neighbors=1

 

[Orogeny]

One Scientist Allegedly exagerrating a couple of facts proves less than nothing.

What is less than nothing?

Beginning Global Warming has been totally Proven, every way.

Except scientifically. No such thing in science.

Peace

Tim

 

[iamrefreshed]

Humans are so arrogant.

4 billion years in the making and we think we know it all with a hundred years of sketchy data.

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

Humans are so arrogant.

4 billion years in the making and we think we know it all with a hundred years of sketchy data.

Quite true. Indeed.

 

[manualman]

Global warming CAN be proven. All you need to do is construct a model, predict 100 years worth of trends, then wait 100 years and see if your model was right.

Everything else is informed prognosticating. I work with hydrology models every day at work. I promise you, they cannot be considered “proof” of what will happen in a storm. Evidence, yes. Reasonable estimate, yes. Proof, no way.

 

[SamH]

Global warming CAN be proven. All you need to do is construct a model, predict 100 years worth of trends, then wait 100 years and see if your model was right.

Everything else is informed prognosticating. I work with hydrology models every day at work. I promise you, they cannot be considered “proof” of what will happen in a storm. Evidence, yes. Reasonable estimate, yes. Proof, no way.

We saw how the 10 and 20 year forcasts turned out.

Scientists are warning that some of **the Himalayan glaciers could vanish within ten years **because of global warming. A build-up of greenhouse gases is blamed for the meltdown, which could lead to drought and flooding in the region affecting millions of people. - The Birmingham Post (England) **July 26, 1999 **

One of the world’s leading climate experts warned of an underestimated threat posed by the buildup of greenhouse gases ’ an abrupt collapse of the ocean’s prevailing circulation system that could send temperatures across Europe plummeting in a span of 10 years. If that system shut down today, winter temperatures in the** North Atlantic region would fall by 20 or more degrees Fahrenheit within 10 years**. Dublin would acquire the climate of Spitsbergen, 600 miles north of the Arctic Circle. “The consequences could be devastating,” said Wallace S. Broecker, Newberry Professor of Earth and Environmental Sciences at Columbia University’s - Science Magazine** Dec 1, 1997 **

Today (in 1996) 25 million environmental refugees roam the globe, more than those pushed out for political, economic, or religious reasons. By 2010, this number will grow tenfold to 200 million. - The Heat is On -The High Stakes Battle Over Earth’s Threatened Climate - Ross Gelbspan - 1996

**The planet could face an “ecological and agricultural catastrophe” by the next decade **if global warming trends continue - Carl Sagan - Buffalo News **Oct. 15, 1990 **

By 2000, British and American oil will have dimished to a trickle…Ozone depletion and global warming threaten food shortages, but the wealthy North will enjoy a temporary reprieve by buying up the produce of the South. Unrest among the hungry and the ensuing political instability, will be contained by the North’s greater military might. A bleak future indeed, but an inevitable one unless we change the way we live…At present rates of exploitation there may be no rainforest left in 10 years. If measures are not taken immediately, the greenhouse effect may be unstoppable in 12 to 15 years. - 5000 Days to Save the Planet - Edward Goldsmith **1991 **

Some predictions for the next decade (1990’s) are not difficult to make… Americans may see the '80s migration to the Sun Belt reverse as a global warming trend rekindles interest in cooler climates. - Dallas Morning News **December 5th 1989 **

STUDY FORESEES 86 NEW POWER PLANTS TO COOL U.S. WHEN GLOBE GETS HOTTER: Global warming could force Americans to build 86 more power plants – at a cost of $110 billion – to keep all their air conditioners running 20 years from now, a new study says…Using computer models, researchers concluded that global warming would raise average annual temperatures nationwide two degrees by 2010, and the drain on power would require the building of 86 new midsize power plants - Associated Press **May 15, 1989 **

U.N. OFFICIAL PREDICTS DISASTER SAYS GREENHOUSE EFFECT COULD WIPE SOME NATIONS OFF MAP - entire nations could be wiped off the face of the earth by rising sea levels if global warming is not reversed by the year 2000. Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of “eco-refugees,” threatening political chaos, said Brown, director of the New York office of the U.N. Environment Program. He said governments have a 10-year window of opportunity to solve the greenhouse effect - Associated Press** June 30, 1989**

 

[manualman]

Exactly. So far all the climate models have correctly proven is rule #1 of computer modeling: Garbage in, garbage out.

Humans aren’t remotely advanced enough yet to comprehend global climate trends. CO2 might indeed be a real threat. But it is almost equally likely that 20 years from now, people will be chuckling at today’s predictions the same way we are at these ones.

Life is about evaluating priorities and directing your resources to the highest priority. Sometimes selecting the priority is hard and the consequences large if you are wrong. It is true that if the AGW guys are right and nothing is done, our kids will suffer for it. It is also true that if the AGW guys are wrong and we blow a massive chunk of humanity’s efforts into reducing CO2 levels to no benefit instead of conducting OTHER efforts, our kids will suffer for it.

Life’s full of tough choices. Some people broke their family budgets building Soviet-proof bomb shelters in their backyards in the 50’s. IMO, their logic was very similar to the AGW alarmists: they failed to consider the opportunity costs involved in guarding against Doomsday and were left looking foolish.

 

[JHow]

SamH: Did you find these exapmles somewhere, or did you collect them yourself?

I like journalism vs. science quotes. It happens with all kinds of things, for instance, Walter Reed and mosquito as disease vector, or Goddard and rocket-propulsion in a vaccuum. There are mainstream newspaper quotes castigating these ideas as loony when “everybody knows” that rockets won’t work if there is no atmosphere, and mosquitoes have nothing to do with germs, Pshaw! Newspeople should be more careful, but headlines sell.

 

[rlg94086]

What is less than nothing? Except scientifically. No such thing in science.

 

[SamH]

SamH: Did you find these exapmles somewhere, or did you collect them yourself?

100 years worth of scientific predictions - all wrong:

lowerwolfjaw.com/agw/quotes.htm

Some highlights:

“Fifth ice age is on the way……Human race will have to fight for its existence against cold.” – Los Angles Times October 23, 1912

The Arctic ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot… Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers, he declared, all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone… Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared. Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts, which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds. - Washington Post 11/2/1922

Scientist says Arctic ice will wipe out Canada, Professor Gregory of Yale University stated that “another world ice-epoch is due.” He was the American representative to the Pan-Pacific Science Congress and warned that North America would disappear as far south as the Great Lakes, and huge parts of Asia and Europe would be “wiped out.” – Chicago Tribune August 9, 1923

Greenland’s polar climate has moderated so consistently that communities of hunters have evolved into fishing villages. Sea mammals, vanishing from the west coast, have been replaced by codfish and other fish species in the area’s southern waters. - August 29, 1954

After a week of discussions on the causes of climate change, an assembly of specialists from several continents seems to have reached unanimous agreement on only one point: it is getting colder. - New York Times - January 30, 1961

It is now pretty clearly agreed that the CO2 content [in the atmosphere] will rise 25% by 2000. This could increase the average temperature near the earth’s surface by 7 degrees Fahrenheit. This in turn could raise the level of the sea by 10 feet. Goodbye New York. Goodbye Washington, for that matter.- - Presidential advisor Daniel Moynihan 1969

“(By 1995) somewhere between 75 and 85 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct.” Sen. Gaylord Nelson, quoting Dr. S. Dillon Ripley, Look magazine, April 1970.

An international team of specialists has concluded from eight indexes of climate that there is no end in sight to the cooling trend of the last 30 years, at least in the Northern Hemisphere. - New York Times - January 5, 1978