Tuesday, September 28, 2010

Temperature Trends at Different Latitudes

Gord Miller has responded to my challenge of his claim that Canada is showing a faster increase in average temperature than the rest of the world.

This is his reply:

I have reviewed the letter from Richard Wakefield, and have found nothing in it
to change my observation in the September 22nd article you published that global
warming is occurring faster on average in Ontario than in the rest of the

I am not the only one to hold this view. I am sending you a graph published by the National Aeronautics and Space Agency in the United States which clearly shows
that, over the decades, global warming has been proceeding at a higher rate at
much higher latitudes, as in Ontario. A NASA map, also attached, shows the
temperature anomaly patterns for the three warmest years on record; note the
pattern of rapid warming at higher latitudes in North America.

Closer to home, the Ministry of Natural Resources published a study in 2007,
"The Known and Potential Effects of Climate Change on Biodiversity in Ontario’s
Terrestrial Ecosystems" and on page 2 the authors wrote...

"Although the average annual global temperature warmed about 0.74°C during
the past century (IPCC 2007), the warming trend in Canada was double the
world average. However, the warming was not uniform across the country. For
example, average annual temperature increased about 2.0°C in northwestern
British Columbia and the Kluane region of the Yukon Territory, 1.2°C in
southcentral Canada, and was unchanged in Atlantic Canada over the same
period (Environment Canada 2006)."

The Natural Resources study clearly uses more up-to-date climatological
data than the Meteorological Service of Canada study cited by Richard Wakefield.
But even the study he cited does not support his thesis. The study states in
fact "Annual mean temperature has warmed an average of 0.98C in southern Canada
over the last century" and "The causes of different spatial and temporaltrends,
such as increase atmospheric greenhouse gases and natural climate variability,
cannot be addressed by a study of this nature."

I hope this
information is helpful
Gord Miller, Environmental Commissioner of Ontario

These are the graphs he presented:

Wow, look at that rapid increase for us here in the north! We're DOOMED!


It makes me wonder some times. What do we have in the northern latitudes that they don't have in the tropics? Think carefully....

Don't know?


We have winters, where is gets real cold. Tropics don't have a winter. So since our winters are becoming less cold, but the summers not as hot, which is increasing our average, then yes, our average would be increasing faster than the tropics!

Of course, we see the problem with these graphs that Miller is accepting as gospel for global warming. They are AVERAGES! Not measurements of actual temps. Miller needs to look at the full range of temperatures throughout the year, as presented in this blog, to see that that average is a meaningless number without the context from which that average is calculated.

Second point. Southern Hemisphere and tropical temperature data is very very poor and spotty. Mid Africans didn't record temperature since 1900s. People in the southern part of South America didn't take daily temperature readings since 1900. Even Australian temperature readings are spotty at best.

So to rely on such incomplete data, to pin an entire economy on such incomplete data, is reckless.

I don't care which people or which organizations stand behind their myth (argument from authority), all that counts in science is evidence. And that evidence does not support that the planet is heating up.

Monday, September 27, 2010

Long-term temperature readings disprove man-made global warming

From: http://antigreen.blogspot.com/2010/09/what-do-we-see-when-we-use-three.html

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. 13th Session of AWG-KP and 11th Session of AWG-LCA, 2 to 7 August 2010 in Bonn/Germany. Contribution by EIKE (Europaisches Institut fuer Klima und Energie).

Press Conference:Long-term temperature readings disprove man-made global warming
by Dipl.-Geol. Dr. Friedrich-Karl Ewert, Bad Driburg/Germany, Mail: ewert.fk@t-online.de)


Temperature readings permit us to portray temperatures in the past and to correlate their development with influencing factors in order to check whether scenarios figured out for the future might be realistic - or not. For instance: the IPCC's postulation that anthropogenic CO2 will cause within the forthcoming decades a tremendous global warming cannot be true if already now worldwide cooling is taking place in spite of ongoing emissions.

It is surprising that temperature readings carried out during the 18th and 19th century have not yet been considered although they are available from 1701 onwards as monthly and annual averages in wetterzentrale.de [The German Weather Bureau].

The author evaluated data from 46 stations worldwide and generated temperature curves with their trend-lines. They were used to ascertain the annual change rates of the temperature variations. These changes do not confirm the wide-spread conviction of a global climate change but identify merely rather small temperature variations. They yielded a slight warming in approx. two thirds of several regions but likewise a slight cooling in the others.

The positive experience gained with this first evaluation motivated one to determine the trends of NASA-temperature curves from 776 stations located all over the world. Stations established already in 1880 were preferably analysed. It became evident that warming within the pre-industrial age also occurred faster than nowadays. Invariable trends or even cooling were diagnosed for 74% of all stations, although with differences from continent to continent. These trends superimpose periodical temperature variations of second order and regional differences. Only 18.8% of the stations recorded warming, of which a substantial portion belongs still to the category of urban development since only very few and very clear cases were assigned to the Urban Heat Island Effect. Contrary to computer based scenarios - and hence contrary to what is generally believed -- anthropogenic CO2 is meaningless because its influence is not recognizable.

Of course this result complies with the basic laws of physics and is not really surprising.

The summer of 2010, the "hottest" on record -- NOT!

Of course you are going to hear this over and over, and over, and.... 2010 is the hottest year in Canada and we are doomed because of runaway global warming.

Indeed, in Southern Ontario we had a rather hot summer, had the AC on for several weeks, last year not at all. Gee, have I been wrong? (other than central Canada was the coolest and wettest in decades, we will check that later)

Wanna bet?
Station 4333, Ottawa. The red line at the top is the maximum daily temps from 1900-2009. The blue line is the minimum daily temps for the same period. The grey line is the average daily temp and the oranges are the upper and lower standard deviations.

The black line is the max daily temps for 2010 so far. The late winter and mid spring shows up above the upper standard deviation, there is even a record breaking day. But the summer is well within the standard deviations. Making 2010's max daily temps nothing unusual.

This time the back line is the average. If this was a normal year, that black line should track either side evenly along the grey line. It's higher in those days where the max was high at the beginning of the year, but in the summer it tracks exactly right on the century average.

And this black line is the minimum daily temp.

The winter saw min temps this year higher than the century average. Otherwise, nothing unusual afterwards. Sure was good for the heating bills!

Finally, the number of days above 30C.

Nope nothing usual there. Note the heartbeat like pattern. One year few days above 30C, the next year more, and then back to few again. 2010 has 22 days above 30C, where as the summer of 1955 had 42. Clearly prior to 1920 had far more years with days above 30C than today.
So, Gord Miller, explain how you come to the conclusion that 2010 is the "hottest" year and proves global warming. Go ahead, defend your position.

Wednesday, September 22, 2010

Example of misuse of data

Ontario on front line of climate change

Gord Miller

Environmental Commissioner of Ontario

Ontarians got a taste of what climate change is like this summer, and most of us didn’t worry about it, as we enjoyed the hot, sunny days, uninterrupted by rain.

But in my annual report released today, I maintain there are storm clouds gathering on the horizon. Due to our latitude, global warming is occurring faster in Ontario than the global average; while the average temperature around the world went up by 0.75 degrees Celsius in the past century, average temperatures in south-central Canada increased by an average 1.2 degrees Celsius.

Most experts predict this warming will accelerate. And if you take into account the lowlands of Hudson’s Bay, it could speed up even more. There’s a vast expanse of wetland peat in the lowlands, composed of centuries of decayed vegetation. A shift in the water table could release methane and carbon dioxide, both of them greenhouse gases. The province’s Expert Panel on Climate Change Adaption has warned: “Losing that carbon to the atmosphere as GHG’s is a risk of global proportions.”

All of this threatens to dramatically alter the landscape of the province, wiping out familiar plant and animal species, and introducing alien species that have never been seen here before.

The first signs of this change are already literally posted outside Long Point and Rondeau Provincial Parks. They warn campers and visitors about deer ticks, a species of pest Ontarians haven’t had to worry about before, because the ticks couldn’t survive Ontario’s frigid winters.

However, warmer winters have brought the deer ticks north, and with them an increase in the incidence of Lyme disease. There were predictions they would spread throughout all of southern Ontario by the end of this decade, but these are already outdated. Deer ticks testing positive for Lyme disease were found in Thunder Bay this summer.

The ecology of Ontario will be radically reshaped by a profound territorial shift in the province’s climate zones. The weather that people now enjoy in southern Ontario will move 500 kilometres to the north by the end of the century. Take the mild climates of Toronto, London or Windsor and think about what will happen when they shift to Marathon, Wawa and Thunder Bay: Warmer and drier conditions will wreak havoc in what is already a fire-prone forest; grasslands will overtake parts of what is now the northern boreal forest.

Many of Ontario’s animal species are not going to be able to survive the province’s shift to warmer temperatures. The biggest casualties are likely to be Ontario’s polar bears. The 900 to 1,000 polar bears that currently live in Hudson’s Bay will likely be gone from the province in 45 years due to decreases in sea ice. Moose are threatened as well; increasing numbers are expected to die from hypothermia when snow in northern Ontario is replaced by freezing rain.
Further south, the warmer temperatures will mean an increase in the range of white-tailed deer, which are already a problem for many farmers. The change in climate could also cause shorter hibernation periods for black bears, producing a mismatch in the available food supply when they emerge. The bears could face another food shortage, months later, due to berry crop failures. Even species such as opossums, which were historically restricted to the southern United States, are already present in Ontario due to recent milder winter temperatures.

And the Great Lakes could end up being the not-so-Great Lakes. Water levels of the four lower Great Lakes are expected to drop by as much as 115 centimetres over the next four decades. The water that’s left will be warmer, changing the range and abundance of fish. The habitat of the province’s lake trout will shrink by almost a third by the end of this century.

The magnitude of these threats cries out for action on a number of fronts. In Ontario, for instance, there is no law that specifically requires the government to conserve the province’s biodiversity, let alone monitor it. More fundamentally, the problems posed by global warming undermine the credibility of the reigning conservation philosophy of “sustainable growth,” which promised that we could continue to grow without degrading the environment or harming future generations.

People everywhere now need to embrace a new definition of conservation. If that happens, we can reduce the impact on plant and animal species that will come with climate change.

The new conservation ethic must take into account the cumulative impact of our activities, use a precautionary approach every time a decision is made, and ensure we don’t penalize future generations. There is no alternative to this; we must make do with less, and use what we have more wisely. Because this is not a choice, but a reality imposed on us, on our children and on our children’s children, by the world we have created.

About Me

jrwakefield (at) mcswiz (dot) com