dennislmay

The Junk Science of Climate Change

Recommended Posts

Dennis wrote:

. . . scares . . .

end quote

Do you mean scores?

I mean science "scares" - hysteria being stirred up for political gain.

Dennis

And financial gain.

Regarding the incentives for dishonest science in support of politically advantageous scares, I think the start of the progressive skewing of research in politicized directions can be dated to the big push following Sputnik to catch up to the Russians in the U.S. space program.

An historically interesting juxtaposition of timing:

Sputnik 1 was launched October 4, 1957. Atlas Shrugged's official publication date was October 10, 1957.

Ellen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dennis wrote: . . . scares . . . end quote Do you mean scores?
I mean science "scares" - hysteria being stirred up for political gain. Dennis
And financial gain. Regarding the incentives for dishonest science in support of politically advantageous scares, I think the start of the progressive skewing of research in politicized directions can be dated to the big push following Sputnik to catch up to the Russians in the U.S. space program. An historically interesting juxtaposition of timing: Sputnik 1 was launched October 4, 1957. Atlas Shrugged's official publication date was October 10, 1957. Ellen

It is one of those historical ironies that essentially all of the German advances in rocketry came from the work of the US rocketman Goddard, then both Russia and the USA imported that back from Germany while Goddard had starved for funding in earlier years.

I do wish to keep the Ozone and Climate Change debate first on fundamental science before going on to the myrid other issues which are more easily understood. Proponents would like the debate to remain over conclusions and data taken supporting conclusions and not the fundamental science done or not done. If the debate is actually allowed to go to the fundamentals the proponent's intellectual claim of superiority is in jeopardy - which would create a crisis. The proponents have been fortunate that most of the public and most of the scientific community have settled for high level debate of conclusions [management summary] and almost no effort or public discussion has occured concerning bedrock level experiments and what is required at minimum to claim a scientific process or make claims based in science.

Ba'al Chatzaf makes the fundamental point that we are talking about highly non-linear chaotic progresses - both in the Ozone Hole and in Climate Change. What is and is not science must be understood in that context.

Dennis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This was in a NY Times yesterday on DOT EARTH, a blog by Andrew Rivkin and it discusses the exposure and resignation of a water scientist, Peter Gleick:

dotearth_main.png

February 22, 2012, 12:42 pm

More on Peter Gleick and the Heartland Files

By ANDREW C. REVKIN

7:37 p.m. | Updated |

Here’s a short followup on the sad saga of Peter Gleick, the water and climate analyst who admitted using a false identity to obtain files that provided a detailed picture of the finances and plans of the anti-regulatory Heartland Institute.

First, I will not retract the post I wrote on Gleick’s confession, as demanded by climate campaigner Joe Romm in a piece yesterday on Heartland, Gleick and me. You can read his long screed or simply read this distillation from a post by David Appell on Quark Soup:

They’re worse (meaning Heartland) ~1500 words

Gleick was wrong: 27 words

Journalist scum! ~1000 words

I’ve known Gleick as a source and acquaintance since I first quoted him in 1988, which made it very hard to write the piece on Monday. I will acknowledge that certain phrases, written in haste, were overstated. Gleick’s reputation and credibility are seriously damaged, not necessarily in ruins or destroyed.

Nonetheless, the real-world ramifications of his actions are already playing out in his withdrawal from the board of the National Center for Science Education and his withdrawal last week from the chairmanship of the the American Geophysical Union task force on scientific ethics. In a statement yesterday, the organization’s president, Michael McPhaden, said this: Read more…

Peter Gleick Admits to Deception in Obtaining Heartland Climate Files By ANDREW C. REVKIN

Peter H. Gleick, a water and climate analyst who has been studying aspects of global warming for more than two decades, in recent years became an aggressive critic of organizations and individuals casting doubt on the seriousness of greenhouse-driven climate change. He used blogs, congressional testimony, group letters and other means to make his case.

Now, Gleick has admitted to an act that leaves his reputation in ruins* and threatens to undercut the cause he spent so much time pursuing. His summary, just published on his blog at Huffington Post, speaks for itself. You can read his short statement below with a couple of thoughts from me:

The Origin of the Heartland Documents

Peter Gleick

Since the release in mid-February of a series of documents related to the internal strategy of the Heartland Institute to cast doubt on climate science, there has been extensive speculation about the origin of the documents and intense discussion about what they reveal. Given the need for reliance on facts in the public climate debate, I am issuing the following statement.

At the beginning of 2012, I received an anonymous document in the mail describing what appeared to be details of the Heartland Institute’s climate program strategy. It contained information about their funders and the Institute’s apparent efforts to muddy public understanding about climate science and policy. I do not know the source of that original document but assumed it was sent to me because of my past exchanges with Heartland and because I was named in it.

Given the potential impact however, I attempted to confirm the accuracy of the information in this document. In an effort to do so, and in a serious lapse of my own and professional judgment and ethics, I solicited and received additional materials directly from the Heartland Institute under someone else’s name. The materials the Heartland Institute sent to me confirmed many of the facts in the original document, including especially their 2012 fundraising strategy and budget. I forwarded, anonymously, the documents I had received to a set of journalists and experts working on climate issues. I can explicitly confirm, as can the Heartland Institute, that the documents they emailed to me are identical to the documents that have been made public. I made no changes or alterations of any kind to any of the Heartland Institute documents or to the original anonymous communication.

I will not comment on the substance or implications of the materials; others have and are doing so. I only note that the scientific understanding of the reality and risks of climate change is strong, compelling, and increasingly disturbing, and a rational public debate is desperately needed. My judgment was blinded by my frustration with the ongoing efforts — often anonymous, well-funded, and coordinated — to attack climate science and scientists and prevent this debate, and by the lack of transparency of the organizations involved. Nevertheless I deeply regret my own actions in this case. I offer my personal apologies to all those affected.

The Heartland Institute had already signaled that it plans to seek charges and civil action against the person who extracted its documents under a false identity. Foreshadowing today’s events, on Friday, Ross Kaminsky, a senior fellow and former board member at Heartland, posted a piece on the American Spectator site naming Gleick as an “obvious suspect.” Now they have their man.

I won’t speculate on how the legal aspects of this story might play out.

Another question, of course, is who wrote the climate strategy document that Gleick now says was mailed to him. His admitted acts of deception in acquiring the cache of authentic Heartland documents surely will sustain suspicion that he created the summary, which Heartland’s leadership insists is fake.

One way or the other, Gleick’s use of deception in pursuit of his cause after years of calling out climate deception has destroyed* his credibility and harmed others. (Some of the released documents contain information about Heartland employees that has no bearing on the climate fight.) That is his personal tragedy and shame (and I’m sure devastating for his colleagues, friends and family).

The broader tragedy is that his decision to go to such extremes in his fight with Heartland has greatly set back any prospects of the country having the “rational public debate” that he wrote — correctly — is so desperately needed.

===============================

Fascinating, apparently these ideologues will stop at nothing.

Adam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another question, of course, is who wrote the climate strategy document that Gleick now says was mailed to him. His admitted acts of deception in acquiring the cache of authentic Heartland documents surely will sustain suspicion that he created the summary, which Heartland’s leadership insists is fake.

For more on the likelihood that Gleick forged a key document -- one that drastically overstates contributions by the Koch Brothers to Heartland, among other deceptions -- see Megan McArdle's article in The Atlantic:

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/02/peter-gleick-confesses-to-obtaining-heartland-documents-under-false-pretenses/253395/

Ghs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another question, of course, is who wrote the climate strategy document that Gleick now says was mailed to him. His admitted acts of deception in acquiring the cache of authentic Heartland documents surely will sustain suspicion that he created the summary, which Heartland’s leadership insists is fake.

For more on the likelihood that Gleick forged a key document -- one that drastically overstates contributions by the Koch Brothers to Heartland, among other deceptions -- see Megan McArdle's article in The Atlantic:

http://www.theatlant...etenses/253395/

Ghs

I saw that George at the bottom of the blog.

Truly despicable crew.

I am reading Mark Levin's Ameritopia. I think you would enjoy it. He introduces the Scottish enlightenment thinkers to a broad swath of Americans.

Adam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another question, of course, is who wrote the climate strategy document that Gleick now says was mailed to him. His admitted acts of deception in acquiring the cache of authentic Heartland documents surely will sustain suspicion that he created the summary, which Heartland’s leadership insists is fake.

For more on the likelihood that Gleick forged a key document -- one that drastically overstates contributions by the Koch Brothers to Heartland, among other deceptions -- see Megan McArdle's article in The Atlantic:

http://www.theatlant...etenses/253395/

Ghs

Reminds me of the forgery work of Dan Rather. For those of you who never heard Air Force military intelligence had dirt on Rather going back to the 1960's - a radical working for non-American interests behind the scenes so his forgery work was no surprise to those in the military who knew his past.

None of this should surprise anyone. There is no science behind the science of climate change. The non-linear chaotic nature of what they are trying to model requires magnitudes more research and data than they have acquired to date. Even if they had the data and the models the kinds of long range projections they have claimed contain so many variable parameters all they can speak of is probabilities within their model. Factors outside of their model - the sun, cosmic rays on cloud formation, and orbital mechanics all play significant roles.

Follow the money - $100 trillion or more in wealth redistribution is the plan by whatever means necessary. Cutting off the debate and declaring it settled is entirely political and against the fundamentals of science. I suggest proponents take a short course in hydrodynamic modeling then tell me they can model the Earths climate and CO2. I call bullshit.

Dennis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Follow the money - $100 trillion or more in wealth redistribution is the plan by whatever means necessary. Cutting off the debate and declaring it settled is entirely political and against the fundamentals of science. I suggest proponents take a short course in hydrodynamic modeling then tell me they can model the Earths climate and CO2. I call bullshit.

Dennis

Just a simple example. Take a well lubricated triple compound pendulum and pull it back for wide angle swinging. We do not have the math that will predict its motion today, even after all the fancy quantum and relativistic theories. We still cannot touch a compound pendulum swinging at wide angles. The compound pendulum is strictly a classical toy. A few toys like the compound pendulum should teach the "climatologists" a little humility.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Follow the money - $100 trillion or more in wealth redistribution is the plan by whatever means necessary. Cutting off the debate and declaring it settled is entirely political and against the fundamentals of science. I suggest proponents take a short course in hydrodynamic modeling then tell me they can model the Earths climate and CO2. I call bullshit.

Dennis

Just a simple example. Take a well lubricated triple compound pendulum and pull it back for wide angle swinging. We do not have the math that will predict its motion today, even after all the fancy quantum and relativistic theories. We still cannot touch a compound pendulum swinging at wide angles. The compound pendulum is strictly a classical toy. A few toys like the compound pendulum should teach the "climatologists" a little humility.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Any popularization on chaotic theory at the undergraduate level should throw up a million red flags about the nature of climate modeling. As you say you don't have to go any further than the mechanics of a pendulum to demonstrate the folly of what they are claiming.

Dennis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Follow the money - $100 trillion or more in wealth redistribution is the plan by whatever means necessary. Cutting off the debate and declaring it settled is entirely political and against the fundamentals of science. I suggest proponents take a short course in hydrodynamic modeling then tell me they can model the Earths climate and CO2. I call bullshit.

Following the money:

Bonuses given after raises at Solyndra

Worker incentive paid during bankruptcy

By Jim McElhatton

-

The Washington Times

Wednesday, February 22, 2012<p class="column c160 left mb max">

energy-loans_reps_s160x102.jpg?991312792cc578325eeebc9395ba55821d3d208dFILE - This May 24, 2010 file photo show the exterior of Solyndra Inc. in Fremont, Calif. (AP Photo/Paul Sakuma

WILMINGTON, Del. — Several of the nearly two dozen employees at bankrupt solar panel maker Solyndra LLC who were approved for bonuses Wednesday had months earlier received pay raises as high as 70 percent, a fact the company never disclosed in its request for bonus cash.

The company's bankruptcy attorneys sought permission for the bonuses in a court hearing, arguing that the extra cash is needed to keep key employees from fleeing only to be replaced by more expensive outside consultants.

With little chance of stable employment and officials moving to liquidate assets, the workers needed to wind down the company have little incentive to stay, the Solyndra attorneys argued.

But an attorney for fired Solyndra workers railed against the plan, saying several of the proposed bonus recipients had received significant salary increases even after the company went bankrupt.

The disclosure drew sharp criticism from U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Mary Walrath, who called it "shocking" that the company had not disclosed the pay raises in its bonus request.

Solyndra attorney Bruce Grohsgal defended not including that information in the bonus request, saying the raises were given as part of the company's ordinary course of business since the employees had taken on more responsibilities.

"There was no thought we were hiding something," he said.

He also said the employee who received a 70 percent raise was earning less than $70,000 in base salary but had taken on many new responsibilities.

Solyndra sought the bonuses weeks ago, raising the ire of Republican members of Congress who called on the Obama administration to oppose the extra payments. The Justice Department filed no opposition to the request.

While disturbed at what she called a lack of disclosure, Judge Walrath approved the bonuses after learning that a creditors committee did not object after negotiating a lower payout than the nearly half-million dollars first sought.

She said she also took into account the testimony of a compensation specialist who said that the bonuses were in line with market rates.

The names of the bonus recipients were not disclosed.

In the reduced bonus plan, 20 employees would received no more than $368,5000 combined. Fifteen of the 20 bonus recipients earned salaries of $100,000 or more.

But Scott Leonhardt, a lawyer representing fired employees, said several of the employees had also received hefty bonus payments in the year before the bankruptcy.

Two others in line to receive bonuses had months earlier received pay raises, after the bankruptcy, that raised their salaries by more than 50 percent, he said.

Solyndra's chief reorganization officer, R. Todd Neilson, testified that the bonus plan was his idea, a move that was made after Solyndra lost its executive vice president, Ben Bierman. He quit to take another job, Mr. Neilson said.

Mr. Neilson said the bonus money would provide incentives for key employees, mostly in engineering and finance, to stay with the company. He said none of the employees was in top management or had any control over Solyndra.

But Mr. Leonhardt said the company's liquidation wouldn't benefit anyone other than "insiders" such as Argonaut Ventures and bankruptcy professionals.

Argonaut is the investment arm of a charitable foundation headed by Oklahoma businessman George Kaiser, who was a fundraiser for Barack Obama during the 2008 presidential campaign.

Under the previous bonus plan, one employee was eligible for up to $50,000 in extra cash, but now the maximum bonus payout is $30,000. In explaining why the names of the employees were not included in bankruptcy filings, Mr. Grohsgal cited privacy reasons and concern that they could be harassed.

He said the proposed bonuses were "fairly modest" incentives and that the decision to provide earlier raises was based on "normal business practices." He said the employees were assuming greater responsibilities and had been promoted. He also defended the decision not to disclose the pay raises in the motion for bonuses, but said there was no attempt at hiding any information.

He said the figures had already been provided to a creditors committee.

Asked if he thought about seeking court approval for the earlier pay raises, Mr. Neilson, who has been a restructuring officer in other bankruptcy cases, said the decision varies from case to case.

"Under certain conditions I would, under certain other conditions I wouldn't," he said.

=============================================

And no one has been indicted and no one is going to prison.

Looks like a perfect crime, right out in the open for all to see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.stltoday....32e0aea048.html

Green Energy doesn't pass the smell test here in Missouri either. Oh sure inside connections had nothing

to do with it - yeah right.

Dennis

Dennis:

I love the state of Missouri. But the "Carnyhans" have been running their political peep show for much too long. It was nice to see Congressman Skelton taken out last year, but a lot of work still remains.

Adam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.stltoday....32e0aea048.html

Green Energy doesn't pass the smell test here in Missouri either. Oh sure inside connections had nothing

to do with it - yeah right.

Dennis

Dennis:

I love the state of Missouri. But the "Carnyhans" have been running their political peep show for much too long. It was nice to see Congressman Skelton taken out last year, but a lot of work still remains.

Adam

Of the 5 states I have lived in for long periods of time Missouri is middle of the pack for corruption. I would say Nebraska was the least corrupt, Iowa 2nd, Missouri 3rd, Florida 4th and Ohio by far the most corrupt during the times I lived there. Of states I have been in for short periods of time Alabama seems to have severe economic issues but I didn't directly observe corruption, Texas and New Mexico have obvious crime issues but again I didn't directly see corruption. Oklahoma seems to have lots of factory work going on which is a good sign. Of places I've only visited for short times - Baltimore was plain scary, Washington DC - the same, New Jersey wall to wall pawn shops, Toronto - 30-35 years behind the times, San Francisco - all hype no substance, Chicago - like a bigger version of St. Louis good and bad, South Dakota - like Nebraska only with air so fresh you should have to pay for it.

Dennis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dennis:

If it any consolation, New York is certainly in the top three (3) nationally, with Suffolk County at the end of Long Island being one of the top two (2) most corrupt counties in America. It is constantly fighting with Cook County in the Land of Lincoln.

When I moved to our four (4) bedroom colonial, circular staircase/driveway and 20x40 in ground pool, I thought it was going to be heaven. Then I realized that the powers to be had raised corruption to a high art.

NJ is pretty competitive in the corruption department.

Virginia, Pennsylvania and Florida were kinda middle of the pack.

Those are the states that I spent enough time in to make judgments.

I completely agree that Baltimore and D.C. are uniquely bizarre places.

Adam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dennis:

If it any consolation, New York is certainly in the top three (3) nationally, with Suffolk County at the end of Long Island being one of the top two (2) most corrupt counties in America. It is constantly fighting with Cook County in the Land of Lincoln.

When I moved to our four (4) bedroom colonial, circular staircase/driveway and 20x40 in ground pool, I thought it was going to be heaven. Then I realized that the powers to be had raised corruption to a high art.

NJ is pretty competitive in the corruption department.

Virginia, Pennsylvania and Florida were kinda middle of the pack.

Those are the states that I spent enough time in to make judgments.

I completely agree that Baltimore and D.C. are uniquely bizarre places.

Adam

Corruption can happen anywhere but when it is locally persistent over more than a generation there are real problems. The part of Missouri I live in used to be very corrupt when I first moved here. Over time the corruption has decreased noticeably - now only slightly worse than Nebraska - I cannot say the same statewide. St. Louis appears to be extremely corrupt. Locally the departure of 3-4 corrupt officials - one in particular - started the ball rolling to further reduce corruption. There seems to be a critical mass of corruption which once reached everyone throws up their hands and gives up trying to fight it. Among many other issues if we don't start serious efforts to fight corruption in this country we will soon find ourselves unable to.

Dennis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dennis wrote:

Among many other issues if we don't start serious efforts to fight corruption in this country we will soon find ourselves unable to.

end quote

I agree. Corruption on the County level is insidious. Zoning and Environmental regulations lead to exemptions – for a price. More laws equals more hands out for a bribe. Look what has happened in Russia. It is a true thug-ocacy. In third world countries everyone expects baksheesh, which is a gratuity for just doing their job. We are better than that. Rick Santorum’s crusade for family values is on the right track. Don’t be scared of that.

Peter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dennis wrote:

Among many other issues if we don't start serious efforts to fight corruption in this country we will soon find ourselves unable to.

end quote

I agree. Corruption on the County level is insidious. Zoning and Environmental regulations lead to exemptions – for a price. More laws equals more hands out for a bribe. Look what has happened in Russia. It is a true thug-ocacy. In third world countries everyone expects baksheesh, which is a gratuity for just doing their job. We are better than that. Rick Santorum’s crusade for family values is on the right track. Don’t be scared of that.

Peter

Ron Paul is like a half crazy great uncle I had - also a doctor.

Rick Santorum is a near clone of relatives on my mom's side of the family - both in looks and beliefs.

I have no issue with him because I know his kind very well. A safe choice but not sure he can stand

up to the attacks that are coming.

I don't have a good family analogy for the others.

Newt used to be a teacher at the War College - but that was a very long time ago during a time

when the military was not nearly as professional as it was later on. Newt seems to have a

Napoleon complex. He is smart and a strategic thinker but not nearly as smart as he thinks he is.

His positions in government were not the kind to expose him to the best and brightest who might

compete with him intellectually. This leads to a false self portrait.

Romney is so generic it is scary. You can't be that generic without trying. Glenn Beck hinted today that Romney has the inner Jew of being a Mormon. You do what it takes to not be attacked because you know it is coming so you try to get along. Not an appropriate approach in a time of crisis.

Obama is at heart a Maoist revolutionary. A third generation Marxist on both sides of the family steeped in Black Liberation Theology and Islamic Fascism. There is little wonder that his political roots include terrorists and Islamic radicals. Not sure the nation will survive another term without civil war/world war/great depression having him as president.

Running Eric Holder out of the Justice Department needs to be priority one if corruption in the Obama administration is ever to be addressed.

Dennis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dennis wrote:

Romney is so generic it is scary. You can't be that generic without trying. Glenn Beck hinted today that Romney has the inner Jew of being a Mormon. You do what it takes to not be attacked because you know it is coming so you try to get along. Not an appropriate approach in a time of crisis.

end quote

That is very insightful. The ones I know are hard to rile. You can’t bait them about their religion. They get along. They even got along with the Indians in the 1800’s. They are diplomatic like former candidate and Chinese ambassador John Huntsman.

Is even headed prudence a liability? Maybe not. I always worried that if John McCain became President he would be the Cowboy that Ronald Reagan was accused of but was not. A President Chris Christie would bombard the world’s leaders with harsh criticism and the press and late night comedy TV would have a good old time with his blunt temper tantrums. Still, I would enjoy that if he didn’t become an embarrassment.

I see Santorum and the Press have caught on about the alliance between Ron Paul and Mitt Romney. They think that means Ron Paul is a possible VP candidate. I am not so sure. There are principled differences between Rick and Ron that don’t exist between Mitt and Ron. I still think the VP candidate is Rand Paul.

You mentioned that bag of mostly dirt, Eric Holder. I want to see a full HUAC investigation of Obama and his administration.

Peter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I always worried that if John McCain became President he would be the Cowboy that Ronald Reagan was accused of but was not.

For those of you who knew me me on Atlantis_II you might recall me saying that John McCain was the most dangerous man in American politics [at the time] early in George W's term. He is mental and without principles. The perfect RINO capable of screwing things up for good. I did not vote for him nor could I ever.

You mentioned that bag of mostly dirt, Eric Holder. I want to see a full HUAC investigation of Obama and his administration.

Corruption in this nation can never be seriously addressed as long as high ranking politicians, the media, and famous people are immune. I am in favor of declaring war in any conflict precisely because it would allow rooting out traitors and corruption. Something not done since WWII [and there were traitors who got away with it].

Dennis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OOPS - "I was wrong!"....So now can we have all the global warming money back?

He added that other environmental commentators, such as former vice president Al Gore, are also guilty of exaggerating their arguments.
The admission comes as a devastating blow to proponents of climate change who regard Lovelock as a powerful figurehead.
Five years ago, he had claimed: 'Before this century is over billions of us will die and the few breeding pairs of people that
survive will be in the Arctic where the climate remains tolerable.'
But in an interview with
msnbc.com
,
he admitted:
'I made a mistake.'

Read more: http://www.dailymail...l#ixzz1t7PJMbJR

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

print_it.gif

feldcamp1_M.jpg spacer.gif

Camping on blue ice

Checking CryoSat reveals rising Antarctic blue ice

29 March 2012

Field measurements in the spectacular blue ice region of Antarctica not only provide confidence in the accuracy of ESA’s CryoSat mission, but have also shown that this part of the ice sheet has increased in height.

Making sure that CryoSat is delivering accurate data to work out precisely how the thickness of Earth’s ice is changing is a continuing effort, and one that takes teams of scientists to some of the harshest environments on the planet.

These particular campaigns were carried out on a desolate plateau known as the blue ice region, which lies on the edge of Antarctica. As its name suggests, this unique region features a vast expanse of polished blue ice, devoid of snow.

spacer.gif

antarctic_campaign_map_small,0.jpg

Blue ice region in Antarctica

It is precisely this lack of snow and unusual icy surface that makes the region very useful for determining the accuracy of CryoSat’s radar altimeter.

The lack of snow in this part of Antarctica means that radar signals emitted by CryoSat’s altimeter bounce straight off the glistening ice and back to the satellite.

The height of the ice is then determined from the difference in time between the signal being emitted and received.

Since ice is usually covered by a layer of snow, the signal normally has to penetrate this top layer before reaching the ice – a fact that might influence CryoSat’s measurements of ice height.

AntarcticCampaignTrendDrawing_small,0.jpgspacer.gif

Change in blue ice height

Measurements from the hard shiny surface of the blue ice are therefore extremely valuable for checking against CryoSat’s data.

While the field experiments are designed for validation purposes, the analysis of measurements from two campaigns in 2008–09 and 2010–11 has shown some surprising results: it reveals that this part of Antarctica actually increased in height by an average of 9 cm between the two periods.

Scientists from the Technical University (TU) of Dresden braved extreme weather to map subtle changes in the height of the ice over 2500 sq km. The measurements were taken on the ground with sophisticated GPS equipment towed by snowmobiles.

spacer.gif

kinematik2_small,0.jpg

Desolate blue ice

Scientists from the Alfred Wegner Institute also took measurements from an aircraft with an instrument that simulates CryoSat’s radar altimeter.

After analysis of the data collected in the campaigns, and the fact that other datasets going back 20 years are available, the scientists determined changes in the height of the ice for three different periods.

In 1991–2000, there was a drop of about 5 cm, a trend that continued in 2000–08. However, the third period in 2008–10 shows this unexpected rise.

Reinhard Dietrick from TU Dresden said, “This interesting result showing the reversal in height is thanks to the campaigns before the launch of CryoSat in 2010.

“The results are, of course, preliminary but with this reversal in mind, it would be very interesting to see if the increase in height remains in the future.”

<a href="http://www.esa.int/esaCP/SEMT6UGY50H_index_1.html#subhead4">CryoSat_Key_Visual_Final_S.jpgspacer.gif

ESA's ice mission

At the other end of the planet, another campaign dedicated to CryoSat is taking off this week. Teams from ESA, NASA, Europe and Canada are now converging in the high Arctic to take measurements from the ice and from the air as CryoSat orbits above. Launched almost exactly two years ago, CryoSat is dedicated to monitoring changes in the thickness of marine ice floating in the polar oceans and variations in the thickness of the vast ice sheets that cover Greenland and Antarctica to improve our understanding of the links between ice and climate.

http://www.esa.int/esaCP/SEMU55NW91H_index_0.html <<<<Additional article from orbital satellite which confirms that the ice sheet is doing fine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fascinating, apparently these ideologues will stop at nothing.
Another question, of course, is who wrote the climate strategy document that Gleick now says was mailed to him. His admitted acts of deception in acquiring the cache of authentic Heartland documents surely will sustain suspicion that he created the summary, which Heartland’s leadership insists is fake.

For more on the likelihood that Gleick forged a key document -- one that drastically overstates contributions by the Koch Brothers to Heartland, among other deceptions -- see Megan McArdle's article in The Atlantic:

http://www.theatlant...etenses/253395/

McCardle's speculation is unconvincing -- the summary document ('strategy memo') that Heartland said was grossly incorrect is, um, not grossly incorrect**, thus obviating McCardle's one-eyed stab at document analysis.

In any case, the meat of the documents that are plainly acknowledged as authentic tell the story of an institute driven by concerns other than science. The news of its internal policy from the Board level was devastating to its purpose and its purse: these revelations were not news to the 'climate hysterics' on the AGWA side, who had long looked at Heartland with some dismay, but the news was also surprising to its funders. Added to its zany PR campaign failure ... and, well, not good for the Denial HQ.

Since the last entries in this thread by Adam and George pertaining to Heartland, the effect of the leaked documents on the Institute appear striking. Last week the Guardian reported that financial issues may prevent future Heartland climate conferences, quoting its honcho:

From http://www.guardian....ard-controversy

The ultra-conservative Heartland Institute admitted it was in financial crisis on Wednesday, with the flight of corporate donors making it difficult to pay staff or cover the costs of its annual conference aimed at debunking climate science.

In a speech at the close of this year's climate conference, Heartland's president, Joseph Bast, acknowledged that a provocative ad campaigncomparing believers in human-made climate change to psychopaths had exacted a heavy cost.

However, Bast also attributed Heartland's current problems to his weakness in financial management.

"These conferences are expensive, and I'm not a good fundraiser so as a result I don't raise enough money to cover them. We really scramble to make payroll as a result to cover these expenses," Bast said.

"If you can afford to make a contribution please do. If you know someone, if you've got a rich uncle or somebody in the family or somebody that you work with, please give them a call and ask them if they would consider making a tax-deductible contribution to the Heartland Institute."

The organisation has lost at least $825,000 in funds from corporate donors although Heartland also claims to have attracted 800 new small donors. Heartland also came in for bruising criticism from its own allies – a number of whom faulted Bast for failing to consult Heartland's colleagues or board members about the ads in advance.

Among ultra-conservative activists, the billboard controversy has shaken confidence in Heartland's ability to serve as the hub of the climate contrarian network. It has also raised doubts about Bast's leadership. Bast is listed on Heartland's website as its earliest employee. His wife is also employed at Heartland.

But Heartland was facing a cash crunch even before the Gleick expose.

Nine employees were due to be laid or take pay cuts in 2011, according to the budget documents obtained by Gleick.

This year's conference was a drastically shrunken version of earlier Heartland gatherings, which attracted up to 800 attendees and ran several concurrent sessions. Those events were also lucrative for Heartland, accounting for half of its non-fundraising events revenue, according to documents obtained through deception by the scientist Peter Gleick.

At this year's gathering in Chicago, fewer than 170 turned up for the gala opening banquet, and the conference only managed to eke out one session at a time, and brought in relatively few outside speakers.

And the only member of Congress to attend this year, conservative Republican Jim Sensenbrenner, used his speech to criticise Heartland for the billboard.

"We can continue to win these debates out of the strength of our arguments without recourse to unsavoury tactics that only serve to distract from our message," he said. "Let's not get off message."

Heartland initially had not even planned to hold a conference. But after the organisation was shaken last February by the internet sting exposing its donor list and fundraising strategy, Heartland changed its mind.

However, Bast said Heartland may stop putting on the conferences. "I hope to see you at a future conference, but at this point we have no plans to do another."

Leo-blog--The-Heartland-I-007.jpg

______________

** Original analysis quoted from Desmogblog: http://www.desmogblog.com/evaluation-shows-faked-heartland-climate-strategy-memo-authentic

Edited by william.scherk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1930s photos show Greenland glaciers retreating faster than today

But nobody thought it was a big deal

By Lewis PageGet more from this author

Posted in Science, 2nd June 2012 09:07 GMT

Free whitepaper – Enabling Datacenter and Cloud Service Management for Mid-Tier Enterprises

Recently unearthed photographs taken by Danish explorers in the 1930s show glaciers in Greenland retreating faster than they are today, according to researchers.

rasmussen_greenland_explorers.jpg

We're not worried about rising sea levels. Well, we are in a seaplane.

The photos in question were taken by the seventh Thule Expedition to Greenland led by Dr Knud Rasmussen in 1932. The explorers were equipped with a seaplane, which they used to take aerial snaps of glaciers along the Arctic island's coasts.

After the expedition returned the photographs were used to make maps and charts of the area, then placed in archives in Denmark where they lay forgotten for decades. Then, in recent years, international researchers trying to find information on the history of the Greenland glaciers stumbled across them.

Taken together the pictures show clearly that glaciers in the region were melting even faster in the 1930s than they are today, according to Professor Jason Box, who works at the Byrd Polar Research Center at Ohio State uni.

There's much scientific interest in the Greenland ice sheet, as unlike most of the Arctic ice cap it sits on land: thus if it were to melt, serious sea level rises could occur (though the latest research says that this doesn't appear to be on the cards).

It's difficult to know exactly what's happening to the Greenland ice in total and very different estimates have been produced in recent times. However Professor Box says that many glaciers along the coasts have started retreating in the past decade.

It now appears that the glaciers were retreating even faster eighty years ago: but nobody worried about it, and the ice subsequently came back again. Box theorises that this is likely to be because of sulphur pollution released into the atmosphere by humans, especially by burning coal and fuel oils. This is known to have a cooling effect.

Unfortunately atmospheric sulphur emissions also cause other things such as acid rain, and as a result rich Western nations cracked down on sulphates in the 1960s. Prof Box believes that this led to warming from the 1970s onward, which has now led to the glaciers retreating since around 2000.

Other scientists have said recently that late-20th-century temperature rises in the Arctic may result largely from clean-air legislation intended to deal with acid rain: some have even gone so far as to suggest that rapid coal- and diesel-fuelled industrialisation in China is serving to prevent further warming right now.

Still other scientists, differing with Prof Box, offer another picture altogether of Arctic temperatures, in which there were peaks both in the 1930s and 1950s and cooling until the 1990s: and in which the warming trend which resulted in the melting seen by Rasmussen's expedition actually started as early as 1840, before the industrial revolution and human-driven carbon emission had even got rolling. In that scenario, variations in the Sun seem to have much more weight than is generally accepted by today's climatologists.

At any rate, the new information from the old Danish pictures adds some more data to the subject. The new study by Box and his co-authors is published by Nature Geoscience, here. ®

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Too much information for my poor brain. How I would like a credible

uber-view above all over-views: short of becoming a self-made expert on GW,

it seems it won't be forthcoming.

What really interests me is the polarization of opinion, and why?

Why does one set of people 'want' there to be man-made global warming?

Why does another 'want' there not to be?

Absorbing ideologies and psychologies at play. (Plus bucket-loads of money.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...