UPDATE: CRU apparently been hacked – ..AGW HOAX revealed...

[HenkL]

All the issues above have been discussed over and over again, a whole bunch of them for some 20 years now, a lot of them have come around on this board also.

If someone thinks better reconstructions could be made, do it and publish it in the literature. But if you prefer graphs on blogs above published science, go ahead.

Have a very nice Sunday.

[Stormavoider]

All the issues above have been discussed over and over again, a whole bunch of them for some 20 years now, a lot of them have come around on this board also.

If someone thinks better reconstructions could be made, do it and publish it in the literature. But if you prefer graphs on blogs above published science, go ahead.

Have a very nice Sunday.

The issues have been discussed. The discussions have been venomously moderated. If data or theory was injected into this discussion that deviated from the corrupt peer reviewed garbage, it has been discarded as armature rantings. These injections have always been trashed with reference to these peer reviewed papers. NOW we know the peer review process is as corrupt as the data.

WAKE UP!

[Stormavoider]

All the issues above have been discussed over and over again, a whole bunch of them for some 20 years now, a lot of them have come around on this board also.

If someone thinks better reconstructions could be made, do it and publish it in the literature. But if you prefer graphs on blogs above published science, go ahead.

Have a very nice Sunday.

One more thing.

graphs on blogs = Actual data

published science = Proven corruption

[cycloneye]

The mainstream media is starting to get involved.I saw this morning one of the sunday talk shows (This Week on ABC) discussing in general terms about the Emails.

[vbhoutex]

The mainstream media is starting to get involved.I saw this morning one of the sunday talk shows (This Week on ABC) discussing in general terms about the Emails.

They need to be all over this as it is a major story!! It is not something that should just be talked about in passing.

[Cyclenall]

The mainstream media is starting to get involved.I saw this morning one of the sunday talk shows (This Week on ABC) discussing in general terms about the Emails.

What were they discussing specifically? What side did they take, the spin side or the honest side? I'm assuming the former .

I was watching the CTV news at 6:00 pm and the funniest thing came on first...climate change! Oh, and it wasn't on the emails, it was about an University of Guelph student traveling to Copenhagen to try and get her voice heard about wanting the PM to assume a more leadership role in the process. I'm stunned at the blatant media refusal to cover the more important news first. It would have been much more interesting to show the reaction of the girl to what happened regarding the hacked emails instead of assume nothing happened!

[Stormavoider]

If you have not seen "The Great Global Warming Swindle", you should.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6TqqWJugXzs

[cycloneye]

The mainstream media is starting to get involved.I saw this morning one of the sunday talk shows (This Week on ABC) discussing in general terms about the Emails.

What were they discussing specifically? What side did they take, the spin side or the honest side? I'm assuming the former .

I was watching the CTV news at 6:00 pm and the funniest thing came on first...climate change! Oh, and it wasn't on the emails, it was about an University of Guelph student traveling to Copenhagen to try and get her voice heard about wanting the PM to assume a more leadership role in the process. I'm stunned at the blatant media refusal to cover the more important news first. It would have been much more interesting to show the reaction of the girl to what happened regarding the hacked emails instead of assume nothing happened!

I found the transcript of ABC This Week sunday show on this theme.

STEPHANOPOULOS: And meanwhile, he is also going to be dealing with health care, right now on the floor of the Senate. He announced this week to Copenhagen to deal with climate change. And it comes at a time when the politics seem to be changing a little bit in this.

Let me show our latest ABC News/Washington Post poll. It shows whether people believe global warming is occurring. That number is going down. July 2008, 80 percent of the public; down to 72 percent now. And there's been a sort of a real partisanship. Look at Republicans, 74 percent believed global warming was occurring back in 2008. Now, a 20-point drop to 54 percent.

George, there has been a partinizing of this issue, and let me turn to one more complication we've had over the last week. This Climate Research Institute at East Anglia University, someone hacked into their e-mail account and showed a bunch of emails between scientists, which opponents of climate change legislation said proves that they are rigging the science and trying to hide information that runs counter to their theories.

WILL: It raises the question of -- we're being asked to wage trillions of dollars and substantially curtail freedom on climate models that are imperfect and unproven. And the consensus far from being as solid as they say it is, and the debate as over as they say it is. The e-mails indicate people are very nervous about suppressing criticism, gaming the peer review process for scholarly works and all the rest. One of the e-mails said it is a travesty, his word, it is a travesty that we cannot explain the fact that global warming has stopped. Well, they shouldn't be embarrassed about that. It's a complicated business, and that's why we shouldn't be (inaudible).

KRUGMAN: All those e-mails -- people have never seen what academic discussion looks like. There's not a single smoking gun in there. There's nothing in there. And the travesty is that people are not able to explain why the fact that 1988 was a very warm year doesn't actually mean that global warming has stopped. I mean, that's loose wording. Right? Everything is about -- we're really in the same situation as if there was one extremely warm day in April. And then people are saying, well, you see, May is cooler than April, there's no trend here. And that's what -- the travesty is how hard it has been to explain...

WILL: One of the emails, Paul, said he wished he could delete, get rid of the medieval warming period. That lasted 600 years...

KRUGMAN: It's not -- read -- this has all been explained. What he meant is they want to put a start on it. We have an end to it, we don't have a start on it. There's a lot of loose use of language when you're just talking among each other. And what (inaudible) really meant, deleting would be meant that, you know, we don't know when this thing started, because we don't have very good data back then. There weren't any weather stations. And that's what the context was.

DOWD: The interesting thing about this is, which goes back to our previous discussion is, and having done a lot of this polling during the Bush administration, which is when you give people a choice between improving the economy and jobs, and improving the environment, at times of economic prosperity, the numbers for improving environment go above jobs. At a time when there is a recession or at a time when there's a difficult in the economy, people say let's focus on this, let's not focus on the climate. The best route to passing climate change legislation is creating jobs and then (inaudible).

ROBERTS: But the difference between that kind of polling and what George just showed in our ABC poll is that -- is that people are not agreeing on the facts. It's not a question of asking about the legislation.

(CROSSTALK)

DOWD: If they want to go to a different position, they have a tendency to then doubt...

STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, that's what might be happening here, is people who are opposed to cap-and-trade are changing their minds on global warming.

(CROSSTALK)

SENOR: In June of this year, the House voted, close vote on cap-and-trade, 219:212 votes. One out of five congressional Democrats voted against the cap-and-trade bill. If that vote were held today, against the backdrop of this news, plus even worse economic numbers to Matt's point, I guarantee you...

(CROSSTALK)

(UNKNOWN): Nancy Pelosi was very clever to get that in her pocket when she could.

ROBERTS: But for the president to then be going to Copenhagen with all of this going on, becomes somewhat problematic for him, I think.

WILL: But what I was going to say there is that the United States pledges to reduce its carbon emissions 83 percent below the 2005. That will not even be seriously attempted, and here is why. That would mean we would have total carbon emissions equal to the United States in 1910, when there were 92 million Americans. Furthermore, our per-capita carbon emissions in 2050, when he says this is going to happen, when there's going to be 420 million Americans, would be on a per-capita basis what we had in 1875.

STEPHANOPOULOS: (inaudible) credibility problem as well. I mean, I think the issue is, I think the president had to go to Copenhagen. It was the only way to get the Indians and the Chinese to go as well. But, Paul, as he goes, he'll be making a commitment that he can't necessarily keep unless the Senate follows through.

(CROSSTALK)

KRUGMAN: Everyone understands that. And I just want to say, I'm surprised, George, that you lack faith in the power of the marketplace. All this cap-and-trade is about is putting a price on carbon emission, and people will do amazing things given a market incentive.

WILL: Speaking of the marketplace, the biggest industry in the world right now may be fighting climate change. There are billions, trillions of dollars on the table, and when you say, well, they are academics and they are scientists and they talk in funny ways -- academics are human beings, and the enormous incentive to get on the bandwagon on global warming, the financial incentive, the market driving this, is huge.

KRUGMAN: There is tremendously more money in being a skeptic than there is in being a supporter. It's so much easier, come on. You got the energy industry's behind it. There are 20 times as many believers as there are skeptics in the scientific community. They get almost equal time in the media.

(CROSSTALK)

WILL: Is there a larger venture capital firm in this country than the Energy Department of this government, which right now is sending out billions and billions of dollars in speculation on green energy?

ROBERTS: But I think that's something that the American people want. I mean, we want green jobs. We don't want to see those polar bears on those ice floes without any ice around them. All of that. I think, coming up with ways to have the energy that we use without causing global warming and polluting the air is something that is something desirable.

(CROSSTALK)

DOWD: I agree, the public wants that. But if Uncle Joe doesn't have a job, they say let's -- don't worry about the polar bears right now

[jinftl]

This is a long post, thanks to the always informative insights of Dr. Jeff Masters...per his discussion below, we are naive if we think science and politics have waited until the AGW debate to meet up for the first time...

From his blog this past week...


"In 1954, the tobacco industry realized it had a serious problem. Thirteen scientific studies had been published over the preceding five years linking smoking to lung cancer. With the public growing increasingly alarmed about the health effects of smoking, the tobacco industry had to move quickly to protect profits and stem the tide of increasingly worrisome scientific news. Big Tobacco turned to one the world's five largest public relations firms, Hill and Knowlton, to help out. Hill and Knowlton designed a brilliant Public Relations (PR) campaign to convince the public that smoking is not dangerous. They encouraged the tobacco industry to set up their own research organization, the Council for Tobacco Research (CTR), which would produce science favorable to the industry, emphasize doubt in all the science linking smoking to lung cancer, and question all independent research unfavorable to the tobacco industry. The CTR did a masterful job at this for decades, significantly delaying and reducing regulation of tobacco products.

George Washington University epidemiologist David Michaels, who is President Obama's nominee to head the Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA), wrote a meticulously researched 2008 book called, Doubt is Their Product: How Industry's Assault on Science Threatens Your Health. In the book, he wrote: "the industry understood that the public is in no position to distinguish good science from bad. Create doubt, uncertainty, and confusion. Throw mud at the anti-smoking research under the assumption that some of it is bound to stick. And buy time, lots of it, in the bargain". The title of Michaels' book comes from a 1969 memo from a tobacco company executive: "Doubt is our product since it is the best means of competing with the 'body of fact' that exists in the minds of the general public. It is also the means of establishing a controversy". Hill and Knowlton, on behalf of the tobacco industry, had founded the "Manufactured Doubt" industry.

The Manufactured Doubt industry grows up
As the success of Hill and Knowlton's brilliant Manufactured Doubt campaign became apparent, other industries manufacturing dangerous products hired the firm to design similar PR campaigns. In 1967, Hill and Knowlton helped asbestos industry giant Johns-Manville set up the Asbestos Information Association (AIA). The official-sounding AIA produced "sound science" that questioned the link between asbestos and lung diseases (asbestos currently kills 90,000 people per year, according to the World Health Organization). Manufacturers of lead, vinyl chloride, beryllium, and dioxin products also hired Hill and Knowlton to devise product defense strategies to combat the numerous scientific studies showing that their products were harmful to human health.

By the 1980s, the Manufactured Doubt industry gradually began to be dominated by more specialized "product defense" firms and free enterprise "think tanks". Michaels wrote in Doubt is Their Product about the specialized "product defense" firms: "Having cut their teeth manufacturing uncertainty for Big Tobacco, scientists at ChemRisk, the Weinberg Group, Exponent, Inc., and other consulting firms now battle the regulatory agencies on behalf of the manufacturers of benzene, beryllium, chromium, MTBE, perchlorates, phthalates, and virtually every other toxic chemical in the news today....Public health interests are beside the point. This is science for hire, period, and it is extremely lucrative".

Joining the specialized "product defense" firms were the so-called "think tanks". These front groups received funding from manufacturers of dangerous products and produced "sound science" in support of their funders' products, in the name of free enterprise and free markets. Think tanks such as the George C. Marshall Institute, Competitive Enterprise Institute, Heartland Institute, and Dr. Fred Singer's SEPP (Science and Environmental Policy Project) have all been active for decades in the Manufactured Doubt business, generating misleading science and false controversy to protect the profits of their clients who manufacture dangerous products.

The ozone hole battle
In 1975, the chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) industry realized it had a serious problem. The previous year, Sherry Rowland and Mario Molina, chemists at the University of California, Irvine, had published a scientific paper warning that human-generated CFCs could cause serious harm to Earth's protective ozone layer. They warned that the loss of ozone would significantly increase the amount of skin-damaging ultraviolet UV-B light reaching the surface, greatly increasing skin cancer and cataracts. The loss of stratospheric ozone could also significantly cool the stratosphere, potentially causing destructive climate change. Although no stratospheric ozone loss had been observed yet, CFCs should be banned, they said. The CFC industry hired Hill and Knowlton to fight back. As is essential in any Manufactured Doubt campaign, Hill and Knowlton found a respected scientist to lead the effort--noted British scientist Richard Scorer, a former editor of the International Journal of Air Pollution and author of several books on pollution. In 1975, Scorer went on a month-long PR tour, blasting Molina and Rowland, calling them "doomsayers", and remarking, "The only thing that has been accumulated so far is a number of theories." To complement Scorer's efforts, Hill and Knowlton unleashed their standard package of tricks learned from decades of serving the tobacco industry:

- Launch a public relations campaign disputing the evidence.

- Predict dire economic consequences, and ignore the cost benefits.

- Use non-peer reviewed scientific publications or industry-funded scientists who don't publish original peer-reviewed scientific work to support your point of view.

- Trumpet discredited scientific studies and myths supporting your point of view as scientific fact.

- Point to the substantial scientific uncertainty, and the certainty of economic loss if immediate action is taken.

- Use data from a local area to support your views, and ignore the global evidence.

- Disparage scientists, saying they are playing up uncertain predictions of doom in order to get research funding.

- Disparage environmentalists, claiming they are hyping environmental problems in order to further their ideological goals.

- Complain that it is unfair to require regulatory action in the U.S., as it would put the nation at an economic disadvantage compared to the rest of the world.

- Claim that more research is needed before action should be taken.

- Argue that it is less expensive to live with the effects.

The campaign worked, and CFC regulations were delayed many years, as Hill and Knowlton boasted in internal documents. The PR firm also took credit for keeping public opinion against buying CFC aerosols to a minimum, and helping change the editorial positions of many newspapers.

In the end, Hill and Knowlton's PR campaign casting doubt on the science of ozone depletion by CFCs turned out to have no merit. Molina and Rowland were awarded the Nobel Prize in 1995. The citation from the Nobel committee credited them with helping to deliver the Earth from a potential environmental disaster.

The battle over global warming
In 1988, the fossil fuel industry realized it had a serious problem. The summer of 1988 had shattered century-old records for heat and drought in the U.S., and NASA's Dr. James Hansen, one of the foremost climate scientists in the world, testified before Congress that human-caused global warming was partially to blame. A swelling number of scientific studies were warning of the threat posed by human-cause climate change, and that consumption of fossil fuels needed to slow down. Naturally, the fossil fuel industry fought back. They launched a massive PR campaign that continues to this day, led by the same think tanks that worked to discredit the ozone depletion theory. The George C. Marshall Institute, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, Heartland Institute, and Dr. Fred Singer's SEPP (Science and Environmental Policy Project) have all been key players in both fights, and there are numerous other think tanks involved. Many of the same experts who had worked hard to discredit the science of the well-established link between cigarette smoke and cancer, the danger the CFCs posed to the ozone layer, and the dangers to health posed by a whole host of toxic chemicals, were now hard at work to discredit the peer-reviewed science supporting human-caused climate change.

As is the case with any Manufactured Doubt campaign, a respected scientist was needed to lead the battle. One such scientist was Dr. Frederick Seitz, a physicist who in the 1960s chaired the organization many feel to be the most prestigious science organization in the world--the National Academy of Sciences. Seitz took a position as a paid consultant for R.J. Reynolds tobacco company beginning in 1978, so was well-versed in the art of Manufactured Doubt. According to the excellent new book, Climate Cover-up, written by desmogblog.com co-founder James Hoggan and Richard Littlemore, over a 10-year period Seitz was responsible for handing out $45 million in tobacco company money to researchers who overwhelmingly failed to link tobacco to anything the least bit negative. Seitz received over $900,000 in compensation for his efforts. He later became a founder of the George C. Marshall Institute, and used his old National Academy of Sciences affiliation to lend credibility to his attacks on global warming science until his death in 2008 at the age of ninety-six. It was Seitz who launched the "Oregon Petition", which contains the signatures of more than 34,000 scientists saying global warming is probably natural and not a crisis. The petition is a regular feature of the Manufactured Doubt campaign against human-caused global warming. The petition lists the "Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine" as its parent organization. According to Climate Cover-up, the Institute is a farm shed situated a couple of miles outside of Cave Junction, OR (population 17,000). The Institute lists seven faculty members, two of whom are dead, and has no ongoing research and no students. It publishes creationist-friendly homeschooler curriculums books on surviving nuclear war.

The petition was sent to scientists and was accompanied by a 12-page review printed in exactly the same style used for the prestigious journal, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. A letter from Seitz, who is prominently identified as a former National Academy of Sciences president, accompanied the petition and review. Naturally, many recipients took this to be an official National Academy of Sciences communication, and signed the petition as a result. The National Academy issued a statement in April 2008, clarifying that it had not issued the petition, and that its position on global warming was the opposite. The petition contains no contact information for the signers, making it impossible to verify. In its August 2006 issue, Scientific American presented its attempt to verify the petition. They found that the scientists were almost all people with undergraduate degrees, with no record of research and no expertise in climatology. Scientific American contacted a random sample of 26 of the 1,400 signatories claiming to have a Ph.D. in a climate related science. Eleven said they agreed with the petition, six said they would not sign the petition today, three did not remember the petition, one had died, and five did not respond.

I could say much more about the Manufactured Doubt campaign being waged against the science of climate change and global warming, but it would fill an entire book. In fact, it has, and I recommend reading Climate Cover-up to learn more. The main author, James Hoggan, owns a Canadian public relations firm, and is intimately familiar with how public relations campaigns work. Suffice to say, the Manufactured Doubt campaign against global warming--funded by the richest corporations in world history--is probably the most extensive and expensive such effort ever. We don't really know how much money the fossil fuel industry has pumped into its Manufactured Doubt campaign, since they don't have to tell us. The website exxonsecrets.org estimates that ExxonMobil alone spent $20 million between 1998 - 2007 on the effort. An analysis done by Desmogblog's Kevin Grandia done in January 2009 found that skeptical global warming content on the web had doubled over the past year. Someone is paying for all that content.

Lobbyists, not skeptical scientists
The history of the Manufactured Doubt industry provides clear lessons in evaluating the validity of their attacks on the published peer-reviewed climate change science. One should trust that the think tanks and allied "skeptic" bloggers such as Steve McIntyre of Climate Audit and Anthony Watts of Watts Up With That will give information designed to protect the profits of the fossil fuel industry. Yes, there are respected scientists with impressive credentials that these think tanks use to voice their views, but these scientists have given up their objectivity and are now working as lobbyists. I don't like to call them skeptics, because all good scientists should be skeptics. Rather, the think tanks scientists are contrarians, bent on discrediting an accepted body of published scientific research for the benefit of the richest and most powerful corporations in history. Virtually none of the "sound science" they are pushing would ever get published in a serious peer-reviewed scientific journal, and indeed the contrarians are not scientific researchers. They are lobbyists. Many of them seem to believe their tactics are justified, since they are fighting a righteous war against eco-freaks determined to trash the economy.

I will give a small amount of credit to some of their work, however. I have at times picked up some useful information from the contrarians, and have used it to temper my blogs to make them more balanced. For example, I no longer rely just on the National Climatic Data Center for my monthly climate summaries, but instead look at data from NASA and the UK HADCRU source as well. When the Hurricane Season of 2005 brought unfounded claims that global warming was to blame for Hurricane Katrina, and a rather flawed paper by researchers at Georgia Tech showing a large increase in global Category 4 and 5 hurricanes, I found myself agreeing with the contrarians' analysis of the matter, and my blogs at the time reflected this.

The contrarians and the hacked CRU emails
A hacker broke into an email server at the Climate Research Unit of the UK's University of East Anglia last week and posted ten years worth of private email exchanges between leading scientists who've published research linking humans to climate change. Naturally, the contrarians have seized upon this golden opportunity, and are working hard to discredit several of these scientists. You'll hear claims by some contrarians that the emails discovered invalidate the whole theory of human-caused global warming. Well, all I can say is, consider the source. We can trust the contrarians to say whatever is in the best interests of the fossil fuel industry. What I see when I read the various stolen emails and explanations posted at Realclimate.org is scientists acting as scientists--pursuing the truth. I can see no clear evidence that calls into question the scientific validity of the research done by the scientists victimized by the stolen emails. There is no sign of a conspiracy to alter data to fit a pre-conceived ideological view. Rather, I see dedicated scientists attempting to make the truth known in face of what is probably the world's most pervasive and best-funded disinformation campaign against science in history. Even if every bit of mud slung at these scientists were true, the body of scientific work supporting the theory of human-caused climate change--which spans hundreds of thousands of scientific papers written by tens of thousands of scientists in dozens of different scientific disciplines--is too vast to be budged by the flaws in the works of the three or four scientists being subject to the fiercest attacks.

Exaggerated claims by environmentalists
Climate change contrarians regularly complain about false and misleading claims made by ideologically-driven environmental groups regarding climate change, and the heavy lobbying these groups do to influence public opinion. Such efforts confuse the real science and make climate change seem more dangerous than it really is, the contrarians argue. To some extent, these concerns are valid. In particular, environmentalists are too quick to blame any perceived increase in hurricane activity on climate change, when such a link has yet to be proven. While Al Gore's movie mostly had good science, I thought he botched the treatment of hurricanes as well, and the movie looked too much like a campaign ad. In general, environmental groups present better science than the think tanks do, but you're still better off getting your climate information directly from the scientists doing the research, via the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report. Another good source is Bob Henson's Rough Guide to Climate Change, aimed at people with high-school level science backgrounds.

Let's look at the amount of money being spent on lobbying efforts by the fossil fuel industry compared to environmental groups to see their relative influence. According to Center for Public Integrity, there are currently 2,663 climate change lobbyists working on Capitol Hill. That's five lobbyists for every member of Congress. Climate lobbyists working for major industries outnumber those working for environmental, health, and alternative energy groups by more than seven to one. For the second quarter of 2009, here is a list compiled by the Center for Public Integrity of all the oil, gas, and coal mining groups that spent more than $100,000 on lobbying (this includes all lobbying, not just climate change lobbying):

Chevron $6,485,000
Exxon Mobil $4,657,000
BP America $4,270,000
ConocoPhillips $3,300,000
American Petroleum Institute $2,120,000
Marathon Oil Corporation $2,110,000
Peabody Investments Corp $1,110,000
Bituminous Coal Operators Association $980,000
Shell Oil Company $950,000
Arch Coal, Inc $940,000
Williams Companies $920,000
Flint Hills Resources $820,000
Occidental Petroleum Corporation $794,000
National Mining Association $770,000
American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity $714,000
Devon Energy $695,000
Sunoco $585,000
Independent Petroleum Association of America $434,000
Murphy Oil USA, Inc $430,000
Peabody Energy $420,000
Rio Tinto Services, Inc $394,000
America's Natural Gas Alliance $300,000
Interstate Natural Gas Association of America $290,000
El Paso Corporation $261,000
Spectra Energy $279,000
National Propane Gas Association $242,000
National Petrochemical & Refiners Association $240,000
Nexen, Inc $230,000
Denbury Resources $200,000
Nisource, Inc $180,000
Petroleum Marketers Association of America $170,000
Valero Energy Corporation $160,000
Bituminous Coal Operators Association $131,000
Natural Gas Supply Association $114,000
Tesoro Companies $119,000

Here are the environmental groups that spent more than $100,000:

Environmental Defense Action Fund $937,500
Nature Conservancy $650,000
Natural Resources Defense Council $277,000
Earthjustice Legal Defense Fund $243,000
National Parks and Conservation Association $175,000
Sierra Club $120,000
Defenders of Wildlife $120,000
Environmental Defense Fund $100,000

If you add it all up, the fossil fuel industry outspent the environmental groups by $36.8 million to $2.6 million in the second quarter, a factor of 14 to 1. To be fair, not all of that lobbying is climate change lobbying, but that affects both sets of numbers. The numbers don't even include lobbying money from other industries lobbying against climate change, such as the auto industry, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, etc.

Corporate profits vs. corporate social responsibility
I'm sure I've left the impression that I disapprove of what the Manufactured Doubt industry is doing. On the contrary, I believe that for the most part, the corporations involved have little choice under the law but to protect their profits by pursuing Manufactured Doubt campaigns, as long as they are legal. The law in all 50 U.S. states has a provision similar to Maine's section 716, "The directors and officers of a corporation shall exercise their powers and discharge their duties with a view to the interest of the corporation and of the shareholders". There is no clause at the end that adds, "...but not at the expense of the environment, human rights, the public safety, the communities in which the corporation operates, or the dignity of employees". The law makes a company's board of directors legally liable for "breach of fiduciary responsibility" if they knowingly manage a company in a way that reduces profits. Shareholders can and have sued companies for being overly socially responsible, and not paying enough attention to the bottom line. We can reward corporations that are managed in a socially responsible way with our business and give them incentives to act thusly, but there are limits to how far Corporate Socially Responsibility (CSR) can go. For example, car manufacturer Henry Ford was successfully sued by stockholders in 1919 for raising the minimum wage of his workers to $5 per day. The courts declared that, while Ford's humanitarian sentiments about his employees were nice, his business existed to make profits for its stockholders.

So, what is needed is a fundamental change to the laws regarding the purpose of a corporation, or new regulations forcing corporations to limit Manufactured Doubt campaigns. Legislation has been introduced in Minnesota to create a new section of law for an alternative kind of corporation, the SR (Socially Responsible) corporation, but it would be a long uphill battle to get such legislation passed in all 50 states. Increased regulation limiting Manufactured Doubt campaigns is possible to do for drugs and hazardous chemicals--Doubt is Their Product has some excellent suggestions on that, with the first principle being, "use the best science available; do not demand certainty where it does not and cannot exist". However, I think such legislation would be difficult to implement for environmental crises such as global warming. In the end, we're stuck with the current system, forced to make critical decisions affecting all of humanity in the face of the Frankenstein monster our corporate system of law has created--the most vigorous and well-funded disinformation campaign against science ever conducted.

Have a great Thanksgiving, everyone, and I'll be back Monday--the last day of hurricane season--with a review of the hurricane season of 2009.

Jeff Masters
http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMa ... rynum=1389

[Air Force Met]

All the issues above have been discussed over and over again, a whole bunch of them for some 20 years now, a lot of them have come around on this board also.

If someone thinks better reconstructions could be made, do it and publish it in the literature. But if you prefer graphs on blogs above published science, go ahead.

Have a very nice Sunday.

Yeah...graphs on blogs weren't from published papers (wrong). They were just a bunch of guys with crayons who decided to make their own temp graphs.

FYI...these images are from published papers. They are images from climate scientists (you know the ones...the other part of the "consensus"). Just because someone else has transposed them into a different format doesn't make them less valid.

Guess Schonweis will be surprised to learn that his graph (included) is just something he posted on a blog...and not from a peer reviewed paper he published in 1995. He is not the only one. His MWP and LIA estimates fit that of other "PUBLISHED" scientists...but don't let that fact stand in front of your agenda.

And...here is your published "science:" "If you want to do 'realistic CO2 effects studies, you must do sensitivity analyses bracketing possible trajectories. We do not and cannot not and must not prejudge what realistic CO2 trajectories are, as they are ultimatley a political decision."

Here is more of your "science" - "If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone."....which we know they did (and broke the law in the process)...but you don't have a problem with that because that is "science."

Here is your "science": - "I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is! Cheers - Phil”

Here is what they managed to "KEEP OUT": http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/1 ... rting.html

Guess none of these 450 peer reviewed papers reaches your "standard" of "science." So...in essence...you are no different than those people at the CRU. They WILLFULLY kept these peer reviewed papers out of IPCC reports because they went against their agenda. That's YOUR science. Guess all of these authors who reconstructed the temps during the last 1000 years...and they mirror what I posted...will be sad to learn they are nothing more than pajama bloggers.

So keep your ad hominem attacks. And yes...you attacked the people who published the graphs because they have different data and opinions. That is no different than what the AGW crowd at the CRU have done. ATTACK...NAMES...and peer review amongst yourselves. "Let me grade my own paper. Wow...I got a 100! Oh...and you can't see how I arrived at the hockey stick because...well...all the data was "lost." Yep...you will have to take our word for it that what we are giving you...in its modified form...is real.

"The data we used to derive all of this was accidently destroyed. " Yeah...that's your science.

So...OK...I will keep my blog graph because as I have shown...its worth more than anything coming out of the CRU. It has been peer reviewed...and not just by their buddies. The very FACT (and this you cannot deny if you have even one shred of decency) that these guys are barring them and their data from the peer review process and doing everything in their power to keep their peer reviewed data out of a supposedly UNBIASED IPCC report shows they are acting on agenda and not science.

If the guys at the CRU as lily white as you think they are...they would welcome opinions from all sides because they would have enough confidence in their data and theory to stack it up against anything.

People who feel the need to "knee-cap" their opponents usually know they can't win a fair fight.

[Air Force Met]

This seems very fitting to the CO2 conversation. Of course...it was only published by Geophysical Research Letters and later by NASA...and I got it off a blog...so I guess it isn't real science /sarc


http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/view.php?id=41400&src=eoa-manews
Controversial New Climate Change Data
November 10, 2009

New data show that the balance between the airborne and the absorbed fraction of carbon dioxide has stayed approximately constant since 1850, despite emissions of carbon dioxide having risen from about 2 billion tons a year in 1850 to 35 billion tons a year now.
This suggests that terrestrial ecosystems and the oceans have a much greater capacity to absorb CO2 than had been previously expected.
The results run contrary to a significant body of recent research which expects that the capacity of terrestrial ecosystems and the oceans to absorb CO2 should start to diminish as CO2 emissions increase, letting greenhouse gas levels skyrocket. Dr Wolfgang Knorr at the University of Bristol found that in fact the trend in the airborne fraction since 1850 has only been 0.7 ± 1.4% per decade, which is essentially zero.

AFM NOTE: HenkL Said "Mankind is releasing a lot of CO2 in the atmosphere, more then oceans and plants/trees can capture." Please see previous sentence.

The strength of the new study, published online in Geophysical Research Letters, is that it rests solely on measurements and statistical data, including historical records extracted from Antarctic ice, and does not rely on computations with complex climate models. [AFM Note-which are tinkered with...but the methods of tinkering are not released even when FOI requests are given]

This work is extremely important for climate change policy, because emission targets to be negotiated at the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen early next month have been based on projections that have a carbon free sink of already factored in. Some researchers have cautioned against this approach, pointing at evidence that suggests the sink has already started to decrease.
So is this good news for climate negotiations in Copenhagen? “Not necessarily”, says Knorr. “Like all studies of this kind, there are uncertainties in the data, so rather than relying on Nature to provide a free service, soaking up our waste carbon, we need to ascertain why the proportion being absorbed has not changed”.
Another result of the study is that emissions from deforestation might have been overestimated by between 18 and 75 per cent. This would agree with results published last week in Nature Geoscience by a team led by Guido van der Werf from VU University Amsterdam. They re-visited deforestation data and concluded that emissions have been overestimated by at least a factor of two.

[HenkL]

I am glad to see publications like those from Knorr and Van der Werf. That's exactly the way science has to go. Asking questions, investigating, publishing.
But don't give a opinion just by reading press releases. See for instance an interview with Knorr (see http://www.originalbristol.com/newscent ... hange-3552) that supports my writing "Mankind is releasing a lot of CO2 in the atmosphere, more then oceans and plants/trees can capture." And see the homepage of Van der Werf (http://www.falw.vu/~gwerf/index.html) to get a bit of nuance.

The graph AFM mentioned isn't the work of Schönwiese (that's his name). It clearly states 'after Dansgaard et al., 1969, and Schönwiese, 1995'. As far as I can tell, the graph was made and published on the internet by a person named David Archibald in 2007 ( http://www.warwickhughes.com/agri/pastandfuture2.pdf). So the sources of the graph were 38 and 12 years old at that time.
About this person David Archibald: "David Archibald is a scientist operating in the fields of cancer research, climate science, and oil exploration. In the cancer field, trials on a formulation he invented with professors from Purdue University, Indiana are currently underway at Queensland University. In oil exploration, he is operator of a number of exploration permits in the Canning Basin, Western Australia." (source: http://www.heartland.org/about/profiler ... 4DF38DBAEA).
He sure does publish: on the internet (see http://www.davidarchibald.info/).

About data: although CRU may have been 'destroyed' some old data, they still are available at national weather institutes. There are however restrictions on these data (see for instance: http://www.ecomet.eu/licenseconditions.htm#research, points 4 and 5). So you cannot blame CRU for not republishing the data.

[Air Force Met]

The graph AFM mentioned isn't the work of Schönwiese (that's his name). It clearly states 'after Dansgaard et al., 1969, and Schönwiese, 1995'. As far as I can tell, the graph was made and published on the internet by a person named David Archibald in 2007 ( http://www.warwickhughes.com/agri/pastandfuture2.pdf). So the sources of the graph were 38 and 12 years old at that time.
About this person David Archibald: "David Archibald is a scientist operating in the fields of cancer research, climate science, and oil exploration. In the cancer field, trials on a formulation he invented with professors from Purdue University, Indiana are currently underway at Queensland University. In oil exploration, he is operator of a number of exploration permits in the Canning Basin, Western Australia." (source: http://www.heartland.org/about/profiler ... 4DF38DBAEA).
He sure does publish: on the internet (see http://www.davidarchibald.info/).

Wrong. Now...it really doesn't matter who puts the graph together if the data is valid...although I can clearly see you are trying to discredit the creator of the graph itself because he is someone attached to big energy and must have some kind of agenda (right??? Right???). The graph is mostly taken from the 1990 and 1995 IPCC REPORTS!!! Before Mann got invovled with the data!

But...he did not create the data...he just redrew the graph to re-illustrate it.

Dansgaard, W. , et al., 1969, One Thousand Centuries of Climatic Record from Camp Century on the Greenland Ice Sheet, Science 17 Vol. 166. no. 3903.

Schönwiese, Christian, 1995, Klimaänderungenaten, Analysen, Prognosen.-224 S.ISBN: 978-3-540-59096-5.

Now this...from the WSJ. Its about the "Hockey Stick. Now...it is a correct graph by Mann or not. Yes or no?

"Mr. Mann's 1999 paper eliminated the Medieval warm period from the history books, with the result being the bottom graph you see here. It's a man-made global-warming evangelist's dream, with a nice, steady temperature oscillation that persists for centuries followed by a dramatic climb over the past century. In 2001, the IPCC replaced the first graph with the second in its third report on climate change, and since then it has cropped up all over the place. Al Gore uses it in his movie.

The trouble is that there's no reason to believe that Mr. Mann, or his "hockey stick" graph of global temperature changes, is right. Questions were raised about Mr. Mann's paper almost as soon as it was published. In 2003, two Canadians, Ross McKitrick and Steven McIntyre, published an article in a peer-reviewed journal showing that Mr. Mann's methodology could produce hockey sticks from even random, trendless data.

The report commissioned by the House Energy Committee, due to be released today, backs up and reinforces that conclusion. The three researchers -- Edward J. Wegman of George Mason University, David W. Scott of Rice University and Yasmin H. Said of Johns Hopkins University -- are not climatologists; they're statisticians. Their task was to look at Mr. Mann's methods from a statistical perspective and assess their validity. Their conclusion is that Mr. Mann's papers are plagued by basic statistical errors that call his conclusions into doubt. Further, Professor Wegman's report upholds the finding of Messrs. McIntyre and McKitrick that Mr. Mann's methodology is biased toward producing "hockey stick" shaped graphs.

Mr. Wegman and his co-authors are careful to point out that doubts about temperatures in the early part of the millennium do not call into question more-recent temperature increases. But as you can see looking at these two charts, it's all about context. In the first, the present falls easily within a range of natural historical variation. The bottom chart looks alarming and discontinuous with the past, which is why global-warming alarmists have adopted it so eagerly.

In addition to debunking the hockey stick, Mr. Wegman goes a step further in his report, attempting to answer why Mr. Mann's mistakes were not exposed by his fellow climatologists. Instead, it fell to two outsiders, Messrs. McIntyre and McKitrick, to uncover the errors.

Mr. Wegman brings to bear a technique called social-network analysis to examine the community of climate researchers. His conclusion is that the coterie of most frequently published climatologists is so insular and close-knit that no effective independent review of the work of Mr. Mann is likely. "As analyzed in our social network," Mr. Wegman writes, "there is a tightly knit group of individuals who passionately believe in their thesis." He continues: "However, our perception is that this group has a self-reinforcing feedback mechanism and, moreover, the work has been sufficiently politicized that they can hardly reassess their public positions without losing credibility."

In other words, climate research often more closely resembles a mutual-admiration society than a competitive and open-minded search for scientific knowledge. And Mr. Wegman's social-network graphs suggest that Mr. Mann himself -- and his hockey stick -- is at the center of that network.

Mr. Wegman's report was initially requested by the House Energy Committee because some lawmakers were concerned that major decisions about our economy could be made on the basis of the dubious research embodied in the hockey stick. Some of the more partisan scientists and journalists howled that this was an attempt at intimidation. But as Mr. Wegman's paper shows, Congress was right to worry; his conclusions make "consensus" look more like group-think. And the dismissive reaction of the climate-research establishment to the McIntyre-McKitrick critique of the hockey stick confirms that impression.




So much for peer review. Again...as I have said...its a club and if you are about science...you should be ashamed of them.

Since AGW'ers are all about graphs...here are some more.






Detailed temperature variations of the past 3,000 years (during recorded history), as determined from ocean sediment studies in the North Atlantic. [Keigwin, 1996] . Note the rapid variations, as well as the much warmer temperatures 1,000 and 2,500 years ago.


Solar activity, in terms of sunspot cycle length (broken line), shows a strong correlation with global temperatures (solid line) [Friis-Christensen and Lassen, 1991] . The author extended the correlation back to 1500 by using proxy data [Lassen and Friis-Christensen, 1995] .


Fig. 8 Warming trends since 1910, as observed by California stations. The top curve is for counties with populations of more than 1 million, the middle curve is for populations between 0.1 and 1 million, and the bottom curve for counties with less than 0.1 million inhabitants. Note the increased warming trend for populous counties, indicating an urban heat island effect [Goodridge, 1996].


After correcting for the urban heat island effect (UHI), the years around 1940 emerge as the warmest years of the century in both the US record (top) [Karl and Jones, 1989] and European record (bottom) [Balling, 1997].
More recent modeling experiments, however, indicate that the aerosol effect is minute and ascribe the lack of troposphere warming to a cooling trend of the stratosphere, presumed to be caused by an ongoing depletion of stratospheric ozone.


The blue line shows variations in global cloud cover collated by the International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project. The red line is the record of monthly variations in cosmic-ray counts at the Huancayo station.

Low-level clouds cover more than a quarter of the Earth's surface and exert a strong cooling effect on the surface. A 2% change in low clouds during a solar cycle will change the heat input to the Earth's surface by 1.2 watts per square metre (W/m2). This compares to the total warming of 1.4 W/m2 the IPCC cites in the 20th century. (The IPCC does not recognize the effect of the Sun and Cosmic rays, and attributes the warming to CO2.)



Peterson (2003) is an influential study cited by IPCC Fourth Assessment Report purporting to show that the urbanization effect is negligible.

The IPCC relied heavily on this flawed study, where Peterson states "no statistically significant impact of urbanization could be found in annual temperatures." However, Steve McIntyre using Peterson's data shows that "actual cities have a very substantial trend of over 2 deg C per century relative to the rural network - and this assumes that there are no problems with rural network - something that is obviously not true since there are undoubtedly microsite and other problems."

[brunota2003]

Okay, I realize I am not a "scientist", but I created a graph using Christmas Day highs for New Bern, NC from 1970 to 2008 in an effort to see if temperatures have risen significantly in the past 38 years (in an effort to recreate the end of the "hockey stick"). I realize that this graph only focuses on one city in eastern NC, but the results were quite interesting. I used the history on Wunderunderground, which dates back to 1970 through NWS data, and picked one day out of the year to represent each year. This day is December 25th, and the "average" for New Bern is 56 degrees, according to weatherunderground. My spreadsheet came out with an average of 54.05, so 56 is fairly close.

Also, the black bar is the linear equation produced by spreadsheet to best match the separate data points input into the graph. Notice the equation is actually a "downward" trend, NOT upwards, even though there are claims that the globe is warming. Once again, this graph only represents the last 38 years (the only archived data I have access to atm) and is only for ONE specific site in Eastern NC...New Bern.



The years are by ten, the temps are by 5*F, with one degree increments up the side. I did NOT leave any years out, regardless of whether it was an extremely cold or warm year.

The equation given by the spreadsheet is this:
y = -0.215x + 481.65


Now I shall do the same thing with the data from Nome, Alaska...that is about as rural as you can get!

[brunota2003]

I did the same thing with data from Nome, Alaska. The history on weatherunderground also goes back to only 1970, so once again the data span is for Christmas Day for the last 38 years, from 1970 to 2008.

I also played around with the equation function some, and found a running average, and I based it off of 5 year periods. Now, instead of just a linear line, there is a line that is fluctuating based off of the 5 year averages, giving more of a "trend" to it. I also did the same thing with the New Bern, NC graph, since I personally do not think a linear function is an entirely accurate assessment of the temperature trends.

New Bern, NC with the 5 yr trends (average temperature per spreadsheet is 54 degrees):


Nome, Alaska with the 5 yr trends (average temperature per spreadsheet is 16 degrees):


San Francisco, CA with the 5 yr trends (avg temp per spreadsheet is 53 degrees):


Orlando, FL with the 5 yr trends (avg temp per spreadsheet is 69 degrees):

[brunota2003]

I did another graph, this time for MCAS Cherry Point, NC...and this one dates all the way back to Christmas Day of 1945...once again, I only used the highs for Christmas Day (but if the temperatures were warming, it would still show up, even if you just constantly use one day a year, correct? You can detect a trend over a period of time.). This time, there is more data (25 more years, compared to the other graphs) to interpret, and for the 5 yr average line to play with. I also did averages for every 15 year period and came up with some interesting results...

15 year averages, as calculated by my spreadsheet:
1945-1960 = 53.5625
1961-1975 = 56
1976-1990 = 56.46667
1991-2005 = 49.6

Obviously I cannot do the three years for 2006-2008, if I did, the average would jump to 63.66667, which is not representative of the 15 years between 2006-2020, since 12 of those years haven't even occurred yet!

Instead, I decided to add the three years into the 15 year period of 1991-2005.
1991-2008 = 51.94444
1994-2008 (to keep the 15 year length, and just out of curiosity) = 52.2
So spin it however you wish, regardless, the overall 15 year temperatures at Cherry Point increased from 1945 until 1990, then decreased overall from 1990 to present, according to the "averaged" data. Does this mean anything? I dunno. I do know this, the climate center would throw a fit about me using data that has not been "verified" by the NWS, despite the fact it comes from a military airbase.


Cherry Point, NC graph:

[aerology]

I think there needs to be more diversity in the types of data sets that are being considered. Has any one looked at the changes in commercial and agricultural irrigation effects on soil temperatures, soil moisture levels, resultant specific heat of exposed soils, increased growth of tree in the great plains, (the Bison left no young trees behind when heavy snows, and freezing rain covered the grasses), ions trees inject into the atmosphere, dew point changes possibly from, field terraces and water way soil conservation actions, CRP set aside programs (these alone have caused a rapid rise in deer populations/car accidents), increases in farm ponds, and large reservoirs?

How can anyone expect to find meaningful trends, with all of the recent changes in the local environments, there has to be a better way to research the complex composite signals, and as soon as the moderators, and admin let me post some ideas, as to where to go from here I will. (Pending review of proposed comment.)

[HenkL]

Perhaps AFM also knows that the Dansgaard data is just ONE, in NW-Greenland. We do have some more these days, only some hundreds more.
The uppermost graph in the 'Climate Consensus' is from the first IPCC report in 1990. Actually, it is a graph from Lamb in 1982 re estimated Central England temperatures.

For more recent work, see:
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2009/200 ... etal_2.pdf
http://www.meteo.psu.edu/%7Emann/shared ... ence09.pdf

Both studies have uncertainties. So that's science.
I prefer them above home-brew graphics.

[Stormavoider]

Perhaps AFM also knows that the Dansgaard data is just ONE, in NW-Greenland. We do have some more these days, only some hundreds more.
The uppermost graph in the 'Climate Consensus' is from the first IPCC report in 1990. Actually, it is a graph from Lamb in 1982 re estimated Central England temperatures.

For more recent work, see:
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2009/200 ... etal_2.pdf
http://www.meteo.psu.edu/%7Emann/shared ... ence09.pdf

Both studies have uncertainties. So that's science.
I prefer them above home-brew graphics.

So, do you believe these "outfits" are free of the corruptive forces that led to CRU putting out LIES ???

[aerology]

What to do now, when the bull dust blows over?

I suggest we start by asking more questions, and finding additional answers to compare, to give us a greater gathering of knowledge, to evaluate the hypothesis skeptically, while figuring out better questions, to ask for the next set of trials.

Diversity of thought into additional areas of knowledge, gives a more rounded vision, allowing for the formation of more complex answers, and resultant better focused questions. If you can then present data, in a format that is visual enough, that it shows the balancing of several forces at work, as they really do, it would make finding the solution easier.

If we start with the studies of what works in climate forecasting, the Milankavitch cycles, and expand on what has turned out to be true about solar cycles according to Theodor Landscheidt, ( the only one to correctly forecast the long solar minimum we are passing through). The evidence points to the natural variability factors as being the effects of the rotation or the galaxy and the swirl imparted to the local area of the spiral arm we seem to reside in (Milankavich), and by the inertial dampening of the planets effects on the barycenter of the solar system, moves the sun's center of mass around as it tries to stay magnetically and gravitationally centered in the swirling magnetic fields, plasma, and dust clouds, and other stars joining us in this dance to the celestial music as it were.

(Landscheidt) Found the driving forces of the Inertial dampening of the system and defined it to the point of predictability, it only seems that that the next steps would be to analyze the effects of the interactions of the Inner planets, which have a rhythmic pattern to their orbital relationships, and their relations to the weather patterns they share. Most good discoveries come from the individuals who seek the truth with out consideration for the limited vision of the thundering herd mentality.

I have quietly undertaken the study of the relationships between the interactions of the Sun's magnetic fields borne on the solar wind, and it's interactions with the Earth's weather patterns to the point I have found the cyclic patterns of the shorter decade long durations, that show up as the natural background variances in the climate RAW data sets. Starting with the history of research into planetary motions and the Lunar declination,(the Earth / Moon system's response to the rotation of the magnetic poles of the sun. In order to find a natural analog to the patterns in the weather there were several things I had to consider.

The results of the analog cyclic pattern I discovered repeat with in a complex pattern of Inner planet harmonics, and outer planet longer term interferences that come round to the 172 year pattern Landscheidt discovered, so this is just the shorter period set of variables, that further define the limits, of the natural variables needed to be considered, along side the CO2 hypothesis, as the longer term/period parents (Milankivich and Landscheidt cycles) of these driving forces are valid. It would be in error if they were not considered and calculated into the filtering of the swings in the climate data, for forecasting longer terms into the future.

A sample of the cyclic pattern found in the meteorological database is presented as a composite of the past three cycles composited together and plotted onto maps for a 5 year period starting in 2008, and running to January of 2014, on a rough draft website I use to further define the shifts in the pattern from the past three to the current cycle, to continue learning about the details of the interactions.

http://www.aerology.com/national.aspx

The building of Stonehenge at the end of the last ice age, was done as the weather in the area was changing from tundra, to grasses and shrubs, in waves from the El nino effects at the time.

They began a study of the relationship between the Solar and Lunar declinational movement timing, found the lunar 18.6 year Mn minimum/maximum declinational cycle, the 19 year Metonic cycle where the moon is at the same phase and maximum declination on the same date every 19 years, and the 6585 day Saris cycle of eclipses.

From combining the annual seasonal effects of apparent solar declination, and the short term effects of the Lunar declinational movement. The Incas and Mayans understood repeating weather patterns well enough to build a thriving culture, that supported a much larger population, than the area currently barely supports in poverty.

Then along came the Conquistadors, that were assumed to be the gods foretold in prophecy, who took over and killed off the high priests and the learned class (because the Catholic priests with them were convinced, they were idolaters and heretics.) so all were lost that understood how the “Pagan religion” was able to grow that much food with little problems, by the timing of celebrations and festivals that the people partook of, in a joyous and productive mood.

The Mayan stone masons who were busy carving out the next stone block to carve another 300 years of calendar upon, were put to work mining gold to export back to Spain. So with the next stone block unfinished, and in the rough, still in the quarry the Mayan calendar comes to an end in 2012. Most of the population of the area was either killed in battles, or worked to death, while on cocaine to minimize food consumption, and mined gold for export by the false gods.

At home in Europe the Spanish inquisition sought to wipe out the fund of knowledge, (that went underground) about the interactions of the Solar and Lunar declinational movements and other sidereal stellar influences on people, and things in the natural world. As the result of mass killings, and book burnings much knowledge, and data history was lost.

Nicolas Copernicus, (19, February 1473 – 24 May 1543) and Nostradamus, (21 December, 1503 – 2 July 1566) Were around at about the same time and may have collaborated in person, or through a net work of underground friends. To give Nostradamus the idea to convert the data sets of past history sorted by geocentric astrology locations and positions, to a Heliocentric data base from which he drew his famous quatrains. There are many references to late night calculations, aside observations that may have given him his accuracy. Then along came Galileo Galilie , (15, February, 1564 – 8 January, 1642) with proof, that round moons circled round planets.

With the advent of good fast cheap computers, I was able to look at data sets ( although with considerably less coverage due to centuries of suppression,) and sort for Planetary and Lunar influences, and found that the Lunar declinational component, of the orbital movements, of the Moon, was responsible for the driving, of the Rossby Wave patterns, in sync with the lunar declinational tidal forces at work in the atmosphere.

How does this all work you ask? Well there is a magnetic field that surrounds the sun, and magnetic fields, that are invested in the body of the Galaxy. These large scale standing fields, interact to produce fluctuations in the strength of the fields felt upon the Earth as it moves in it's orbit.

The poles of the Earth are tilted to the axis of the solar system ~23 ½ degrees, giving us the changing seasons. The sun on the other hand is different it's axis of rotation is vertical, but the magnet poles are tilted ~12 degrees, so as it rotates on an average of 27.325 day period, the polarity of the magnetic fields felt via the solar wind, shifts from the result of the orientation determined by the position of the rotating magnetic poles of the sun.

The core of the moon has frozen, the mantle of the Earth is still molten, and a concentration of the magnetically permeable materials that make up the earth. These pulses of alternating North then South magnetic field shifts has been going on since before the Earth condensed into a planet and then was later struck by a Mars sized object (so the current theory goes), that splashed off most of the crust.

Most returned to the Earth, some was lost into interplanetary space, and some condensed into the moon. Somewhere in the process the center of mass of the moon gravitated toward the surface that faces the Earth, before it froze, causing that denser side to always face the Earth.

It is not the center of mass of the Earth that scribes the orbital path of the Earth about the sun but the center of mass of the composite Earth / moon barycenter that lies about 1,200 kilometers off of the center of mass of the Earth, always positioned between the center of the earth and the center of the Moon, that revolves around the Solar system barycenter. So as the Moon rotates around the earth to create the lunar light phases, the center of mass of the earth goes from inside to out side, around the common barycenter. As the Moon moves North / South in it's declination, the center of mass of the earth goes the opposite direction to counter balance, around their common barycenter that scribes the smooth ellipse of the orbit around the sun. So really the Earth makes 13 loops like a strung out spring every year.

The magnetic impulses in the solar wind has driven the Moon / Earth into the declinational dance that creates the tides in phase in the atmosphere, because of the pendulum type movement the Moon hangs at the extremes of declination almost three days with in a couple of degrees then makes a fast sweep across the equator at up to 7 to 9 degrees per day. At these culminations of declination movement the polarity of the solar wind peaks and reverses, causing a surge in the reversal of the ion flux generated as a result. Because of the combination of both peak of Meridian flow surge in the atmosphere, and reversal of ion charge gradient globally occurs at the same time like clock work most severe weather occurs at these times.

Because of the semi boundary conditions caused by mountain ranges, the Rockies, Andes, Urals, Alps, Himalayas, that resulted in topographical forcing into a four fold pattern of types of Jet stream patterns, I had to use not a 27.325 day period but a 109.3 day period to synchronize the lunar declinational patterns into the data to get clearer repeatability than the same data set filtered by Lunar phase alone.

There is a pattern of 6554 days where in the inner planets, Mars, Earth, Venus, and Mercury, make an even number of orbital revolutions, and return to almost the same relative position to the star field.

By adding 4 days to this period I get 6558 days the time it takes the Moon to have 240 declinational cycles of 27.325 days, so that by using 6558 days as a synchronization period I get the lunar Declination angle, lunar phase, perigee / apogee cycle, and the relative positions of the inner planets to align from the past three (6558 day) cycles well enough that the average of the temperatures, and the totals of the precipitations give a picture of the repeating pattern, from the last three to forecast the next almost 18 year long string of weather related events, with a better accuracy than the forecast available for three to five days from NOW from conventional NWS / NOAA sources.

So by looking at the periods of declinational movement and the four fold pattern of Rossby wave propagation, while maintaining the inner planet synchronization. I get all of these influences in sync to look almost the same, as the current conditions, even to periods of hail, and tornado production.

When the outer planets are added into the mix, they are out of phase in regard to the inner planet / Lunar patterns, and their influences are not in Sync with these background patterns. There are lines of magnetic force that connect each planet to the sun, and these revolve around with the planets naturally.

As the Earth's orbit takes it between these outer planets and the sun (at Synod conjunctions), the increase in magnetic fields carried via the solar wind, (to effect this outer planet coupling) is felt upon the Earth's magnetosphere, and results in a temporary increase in the pole to equator charge gradient then a discharge back to ambient levels (about a two week long up then down cycle time), how this interferes or combines with the “usual lunar / inner planet patterns” is determined by whether it is in, or out of phase with the background patterns.

During normal charge cycles more moisture is driven into the atmosphere carrying positive Ions, along the ITCZ, and in discharge cycle phases waves of free electrons, and negative ions are sent down from the poles into the mid-latitudes. Charge cycles inhibit precipitation amounts and discharge cycles produce increased precipitation amounts along existing frontal boundaries, due to changes in residual ion charge differences between the air masses.

There is a seasonal increase in magnetic fields coupled from the center of out galaxy to the sun that peaks in mid June (summer solstice), and then decreases till winter solstice. As the magnetic charging cycle associated with this build up in Northern hemisphere Spring, it brings on a bias for surges of positive ionized air masses, that produces surges of tornadoes in phase with the lunar declinational culminations, and other severe weather, will also be enhanced by Synod conjunctions with outer planets, by the same increases of positively charged ions. The closer the timing of the conjunction to a peak lunar culmination the sharper the spike of production, like cracking a whip.

During discharge phases from summer solstice through fall in general, tropical storms manifest as large scale discharge patterns to ring the moisture, heat, and excess ions out of the tropical air masses. Outer planets conjunctions at these times help to build moisture reserves in the atmosphere, during their ion charge contribution, and enhance storms to category 4 and 5 levels when in phase with their discharge phase influences.


From a viewpoint of how the assemblage of parts seamlessly fits together,the only thing you have to do, is to watch the (short but seemingly) endless stream of (every 15 minute) infrared and/or vapor satellite photos animated, (after fixing the jumping around of the originals, due to lack of foresight, that they might be useful some day), and synchronized by 27.32 days periods, to see the repeating cycles.

To set up five tiled windows, in the first show day #1 through #27 sequentially, then as they continue on in the same stream, the cycle of the first 27 days continues anew in window #2, synchronized by Lunar declination to #1. Till they spill over into window #3 stepping in phase with the other two, #4 the same idea gives you the four basic patterns of the Rossby wave 109.3 day cycle, of global circulation, that then repeat but seasonally shifted.

In window #5 then would be the first repeat of window #1 in the same phase of the same pattern, and should look a lot like window #1. As the progression through the total series, proceeds, when you get 6558 days into the five stacks, a 6th window opens and the original day #1 in window #1 opens as #1 in window #6. As the series progresses on, real data can be viewed, in the real interactions going on.

This would give you a look into the cyclic pattern that develops from the repetitive interaction of the inner planets, and tidal effects, caused by the Lunar declination, phase, perigee/ apogee cycles.

By adding a sliding ball, vertically moving up and down a +-30 degree scale bar (referenced from the Equator), on the side of each tile space, that shows the plot of the current Lunar declination for the time of each frame. Which will allow you to see the shifts in the Lunar declinational angle's effects, as the 18.6 Mn signal progresses.

By adding another slide bar of +-30 degrees (with the heliocentric synod conjunction with Earth, as the zero reference), at the top, of each tile you could view each outer planet as we pass them, as color coded discs labeled, J, S,U, N, shifting from left to right. From viewing this progression of the outer planets, the merit of their influences, can then be seen in the additional surges in ion flux as they go by. You can watch the changes in the normal background, of the global circulation driven by the moon and inner planets, affected by the outer planets.

By adding in the surface maps for the past historic temperatures, dew points, precipitation, types, and amounts, as overlays onto the IR/VAPOR photos, the patterns will be abundantly clear to 10 year old school kids. At the same time, generating a good long term forecast, set of analogs to base the models upon.

Once the amount of additional angular momentum, and the process of it's coming and goings can be clearly seen, it can then be measured, it's effects calculated, and incorporated into the climate models, as a real quantized feedback. thereby giving us a much better picture, of the interactions, of all of the parts of the puzzle.

All of the necessary data is in the archives, and free to use, to those that have the where with all, to assemble the real truth, be it inconvenient or not. I will probably spend the rest of my life, trying to do it alone, out of my own funds, as I have done so far.

For application in Quake sightings, and subsequent formulating hypothesis and developing forecast parameters, you could substitute, or add (if your video resolutions is good enough), intensity quantified dots on the surface of occurring quakes (play with color coded shift and fade out time, to see time shifts etc.) and a corresponding moving open circle, showing the moving location of the earth/moon center line.

something to think about,
Richard Holle