In a recent letter to the Edmonton Journal, George Witt made a number of claims about NASA’s global temperature data program. Many were incorrect, some were insulting and all were unsubstantiated. They warrant a response.
1) Witt finds it interesting that NASA released its 2010 report before year end, suggesting they did so because of the UN Climate conference taking place in Cancun.
There is no conspiracy here. Since about the late 1700s meteorologist have been defining the seasons in groups of three whole months with winter, in the northern hemisphere, beginning on December 1, spring on March 1, and so on, making November 30 the meteorological year end.
2) Citing The Journal, Witt says that NASA used “only 30 odd sites to determine Canada’s 2009 temperature.”
In an e-mail to me about Witt’s letter, Dr. Reto Ruedy, the person in charge of analyzing monthly mean data at NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies [GISS] says, “We never determined Canada’s temperature. We only combine monthly mean temperature anomalies which indicate how much warmer or colder a particular month is than normal.”
3) Witt is dismayed that there are only 3,000 world surface temperature monitoring sites in use today, when prior to the ‘60s there were over 7,000. He feels this makes it very difficult to compare results. “
Dr. Ruedy disagrees. “The number of additional station data in the Sputnik era did not significantly impact the margin of error of our estimates. Using only the 2 to 3,000 stations that are still reporting today, we get estimates that are statistically indistinguishable from our current estimates….”
In a Q&A article on an NASA website, Dr. Gavin Schmidt, a GISS climate researcher, says much the same: “Global weather services gather far more data than we need. To get the structure of the monthly or yearly temperature changes over the United States, for example, you’d need just a handful of stations, but there are actually some 1,100 of them. You could throw out 50 percent of the station data or more, and you’d get basically the same answers.”
4) Witt says that the GISS scientists, by “massaging” the data and selecting “preferred sites,” have corrupted the original “raw data.”
Ruedy dismisses this statement. “Since I have no idea what the author means by ‘raw data’ the rest of his article is meaningless. We download the monthly mean data from public access sites on the web, and that is exactly how close we get to the ‘raw data.’
When asked about manipulating data, Dr. Schmidt said, “That's completely inaccurate. We do an analysis of the publicly available data that’s collected by other groups. “
5) According to Witt says NASA refuses to release its raw data.
“All of the data is available to the public for download,” says Dr. Schmidt, “as are the computer programs used to analyze it. One of the reasons the GISS numbers are used and quoted so widely by scientists is that the process is completely open to outside scrutiny.”
Says Dr. Ruedy, “The claim that we refuse to release data – data we ourselves obtained from the public domain – is absurd, or more likely pure slander.”
NASA surface temperture data and the related programs are availabe at http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/.
December 22, 2010
November 16, 2010
Whose Watch Was It?
In the November 6 edition of Doonesbury the George W. Bush character, represented as a battered helmet, lists TARP, the subprime mortgage fix he signed into law, as one of the most difficult decisions of his presidency. Not because he agreed to bail out the banks but because people might remember the bailout as his idea and as a result not blame the democrats.
“But hey, worked out,” says the helmet.
Worked out indeed. And now to the long list of those that have forgotten that George W. was in charge during the bailout we can add Gary Lamphier, business columnist of the Edmonton Journal.
“The crooks … got away with murder on Obama’s watch,” says Lamphier in a recent column about the 2008 financial crisis. (See “Documentary explores how Wall St. ruined economy,” The Journal, Nov.9.)
Obama's watch?
Check the record, Mr. Lamphier. On September 18, 2008, U.S. Secretary of the Treasury Henry Paulson and Chairman of the Federal Reserve Ben Bernanke approach senior House and Senate representatives and with big hats in hand ask for $700 billion dollars. Congress and the Senate comply and on October 3 President George W. Bush signs off on the deal. The first $350 billion arrived October 3, 2008, the second on January 15, 2009. President Barack Obama was elected on November 4, 2008, and inaugurated on January 20, 2009.
Any column that tries to pin the responsibility of the 2008 financial crisis onto President Obama without saying a word about Preseident Bush's involvement isn’t worth the price of a share in a collapsed investment bank.
What a sorry state when the comics section gives us a better read on the financial crisis than the business section.
“But hey, worked out,” says the helmet.
Worked out indeed. And now to the long list of those that have forgotten that George W. was in charge during the bailout we can add Gary Lamphier, business columnist of the Edmonton Journal.
“The crooks … got away with murder on Obama’s watch,” says Lamphier in a recent column about the 2008 financial crisis. (See “Documentary explores how Wall St. ruined economy,” The Journal, Nov.9.)
Obama's watch?
Check the record, Mr. Lamphier. On September 18, 2008, U.S. Secretary of the Treasury Henry Paulson and Chairman of the Federal Reserve Ben Bernanke approach senior House and Senate representatives and with big hats in hand ask for $700 billion dollars. Congress and the Senate comply and on October 3 President George W. Bush signs off on the deal. The first $350 billion arrived October 3, 2008, the second on January 15, 2009. President Barack Obama was elected on November 4, 2008, and inaugurated on January 20, 2009.
Any column that tries to pin the responsibility of the 2008 financial crisis onto President Obama without saying a word about Preseident Bush's involvement isn’t worth the price of a share in a collapsed investment bank.
What a sorry state when the comics section gives us a better read on the financial crisis than the business section.
November 10, 2010
Pricing and Subsidizing Fossil Fuels
What we as consumers pay for coal, gas and oil fails to take into account the damage burning these fuels does to our health, our environment, and our climate. None of these costs are factored into the price of these fuels, and rather than remedy that with a price on carbon, the Harper government chooses instead to unload these costs onto future generations. That in itself is reprehensible
But apparently, when it comes to fossil fuels, unfair pricing is not enough for this government. They have to subsidize these industries. In effect pay them to do their dirty work. Encourage them to diminish our health, to foul our environment, to disrupt our climate.
According to International Institute for Sustainable Development (see Fossil Fuels - At What Cost) federal government subsidies and tax breaks to the fossil fuel industry are well over a billion dollars a year. And while the rest of the G20 is attemting to reduce their subsides, Mr. Harper stands firm.
According to International Institute for Sustainable Development (see Fossil Fuels - At What Cost) federal government subsidies and tax breaks to the fossil fuel industry are well over a billion dollars a year. And while the rest of the G20 is attemting to reduce their subsides, Mr. Harper stands firm.
So this is what we get from a government that yammers on about the free market and cutting taxes: unfair pricing and enormous subsidies.
If the Harper government feels so strongly about the free market, then they should ensure that the price for fossil fuels takes into account all the costs. And if they feel so strongly about cutting taxes, then they should eliminate the fossil fuel subsidies.
October 10, 2010
One Simple Act
The Government of Alberta is currently running a campaign telling us that simple acts added up together can have a big impact on the environment. Don't believe it.
Simple acts like installing energy-efficient lights, planting trees, taking shorter showers, repairing leaky taps, and such are all worth doing, but simple acts like these will not overcome the damage we are doing to the environment. No matter how many of us adopt these practices.
To bring about any kind of improvement, we have to put a price on carbon—a carbon tax, a cap and trade or some combination of the two. This is absolutely essential, if only to pay for what burning fossil fuels is doing to our health, the environment and the climate. This cost is not factored into the price we pay for these fuels, and that is an injustice that the “free” market and governments around the world continue to ignore.
So here’s my suggestion. Log on to onesimpleact.alberta.ca and follow the links to the One Simple Act page. Go directly to section 2 and write in your pledge to demonstrate support for a price on carbon.
If enough of us made this our simple act, then we'd see an impact on environment.
Simple acts like installing energy-efficient lights, planting trees, taking shorter showers, repairing leaky taps, and such are all worth doing, but simple acts like these will not overcome the damage we are doing to the environment. No matter how many of us adopt these practices.
To bring about any kind of improvement, we have to put a price on carbon—a carbon tax, a cap and trade or some combination of the two. This is absolutely essential, if only to pay for what burning fossil fuels is doing to our health, the environment and the climate. This cost is not factored into the price we pay for these fuels, and that is an injustice that the “free” market and governments around the world continue to ignore.
So here’s my suggestion. Log on to onesimpleact.alberta.ca and follow the links to the One Simple Act page. Go directly to section 2 and write in your pledge to demonstrate support for a price on carbon.
If enough of us made this our simple act, then we'd see an impact on environment.
September 6, 2010
Tell your Children
Re: “B.C. carbon-tax risk paying off,” The Journal, July 28.
Dr. James Hansen, director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies and one of the first scientists to draw the world’s attention to global warming, says that if the world is serious about addressing the problem, it has to reduce its atmospheric level of carbon dioxide to 350 parts per million.
We are currently at 390 ppm. Clearly, we have a tough task ahead of ourselves.
To meet the 350 target, Dr. Hansen recommends a carbon tax, or as he calls it “a fee-and-dividend,” in which “100 percent of the money collected from the fossil fuel companies at the mine or well is distributed uniformly to the public.”
Hansen recognizes that a carbon tax on its own will not get the world to 350. So in addition to a tax, he advises that we cut our coal emissions in half by 2020 and eliminate them by 2030, and leave all unconventional fossil fuels such as tar sands, shale oil, and methane hydrates, “which are as dirty and polluting as coal” in the ground.
But that’s not all.
Convinced that renewable forms of energy will not meet the world’s energy requirements, once we phase out coal, Hansen asks that we reconsider nuclear, not the nuclear plants of the Three Mile or Chernobyl variety, but the fourth generation plants sometimes referred to as “fast reactors,” which are supposedly much more efficient fuel users than first, second and third generation reactors.
In any case, if we seriously want to do something about global warming, then Hansen’s plan strikes me as the best of the lot, by a long shot.
If we are not serious about global warming, then we have to understand that our indifference will turn planet Earth into another Venus, where, because of its atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide, surface temperatures average about 450 degrees Celsius.
Whatever your position on global warming, be sure to state it clearly--through your words and your actions--to your children and your grand children. Future generations will want to know what you did about the problem at a time when the world understood the severity of it and had a chance to do something about it.
Dr. James Hansen, director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies and one of the first scientists to draw the world’s attention to global warming, says that if the world is serious about addressing the problem, it has to reduce its atmospheric level of carbon dioxide to 350 parts per million.
We are currently at 390 ppm. Clearly, we have a tough task ahead of ourselves.
To meet the 350 target, Dr. Hansen recommends a carbon tax, or as he calls it “a fee-and-dividend,” in which “100 percent of the money collected from the fossil fuel companies at the mine or well is distributed uniformly to the public.”
Hansen recognizes that a carbon tax on its own will not get the world to 350. So in addition to a tax, he advises that we cut our coal emissions in half by 2020 and eliminate them by 2030, and leave all unconventional fossil fuels such as tar sands, shale oil, and methane hydrates, “which are as dirty and polluting as coal” in the ground.
But that’s not all.
Convinced that renewable forms of energy will not meet the world’s energy requirements, once we phase out coal, Hansen asks that we reconsider nuclear, not the nuclear plants of the Three Mile or Chernobyl variety, but the fourth generation plants sometimes referred to as “fast reactors,” which are supposedly much more efficient fuel users than first, second and third generation reactors.
In any case, if we seriously want to do something about global warming, then Hansen’s plan strikes me as the best of the lot, by a long shot.
If we are not serious about global warming, then we have to understand that our indifference will turn planet Earth into another Venus, where, because of its atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide, surface temperatures average about 450 degrees Celsius.
Whatever your position on global warming, be sure to state it clearly--through your words and your actions--to your children and your grand children. Future generations will want to know what you did about the problem at a time when the world understood the severity of it and had a chance to do something about it.
August 14, 2010
The Term Tar Sands
Oilsands consultant, Andrew Martin suggests that the “Blair Report,” Sidney Blair’s 1951 report on the Alberta Bituminous Sands, “determined” that the tarry, sandy substance found in abundance in the north east of our province should be called oil sands and not tar sands, a term Martin says is “unacceptable to government, universities, geologists, and industry.” (See “Greenpeace would do well to come to the table,” The Edmonton Journal, August 9, 2010.)
If Blair made such a pronouncement, I failed to see it in a quick page-by-page scan of the document. I did note that he doesn’t call the tarry, sandy substance tar sands, but neither does he call it oil sands. He calls it bituminous sands, which is hardly surprising since the actual name of the report is “The Development of the Alberta Bituminous Sands.”
There’s no question that the Alberta government prefers the term oil sands. In defending its position the government says “Oil sands is a more accurate term because bitumen is a substance that contains oily sand,” and that “It makes sense to describe the resource as oil sands because oil is what is finally derived from the bitumen.” (By which logic we should call cucumbers pickles and eggs omelettes.)
But the government is much more tolerant of the term tar sands than Martin let’s on. In a 2008 document entitled Alberta’s Oil Sands: Resourceful, Responsible there’s the following: “Regardless of the name, oil sands and tar sands describe the same thing.”
Furthermore, do those who perceive the term tar sands as a pejorative understand that none other than Karl Clark, the man regarded by many as the father of the oil sands industry, used the term and continued to do so long after the Blair report appeared? In one of the last letters Clark ever wrote--15 years after the Blair report appeared--he reminisces with an old friend: “Working at the tar sand problem has been good fun throughout. The part I remember most is the early years when you and I were together on the river and in the laboratory.” And to whom is he writing this? None other than his old friend and colleague Sid Blair--yes, he of the Blair report.
So to say the term tar sands is incorrect, unacceptable, and pejorative and to cite the Blair Report as support for this position, as Martin does, is at the very least, well, incorrect and unacceptable.
If Blair made such a pronouncement, I failed to see it in a quick page-by-page scan of the document. I did note that he doesn’t call the tarry, sandy substance tar sands, but neither does he call it oil sands. He calls it bituminous sands, which is hardly surprising since the actual name of the report is “The Development of the Alberta Bituminous Sands.”
There’s no question that the Alberta government prefers the term oil sands. In defending its position the government says “Oil sands is a more accurate term because bitumen is a substance that contains oily sand,” and that “It makes sense to describe the resource as oil sands because oil is what is finally derived from the bitumen.” (By which logic we should call cucumbers pickles and eggs omelettes.)
But the government is much more tolerant of the term tar sands than Martin let’s on. In a 2008 document entitled Alberta’s Oil Sands: Resourceful, Responsible there’s the following: “Regardless of the name, oil sands and tar sands describe the same thing.”
Furthermore, do those who perceive the term tar sands as a pejorative understand that none other than Karl Clark, the man regarded by many as the father of the oil sands industry, used the term and continued to do so long after the Blair report appeared? In one of the last letters Clark ever wrote--15 years after the Blair report appeared--he reminisces with an old friend: “Working at the tar sand problem has been good fun throughout. The part I remember most is the early years when you and I were together on the river and in the laboratory.” And to whom is he writing this? None other than his old friend and colleague Sid Blair--yes, he of the Blair report.
So to say the term tar sands is incorrect, unacceptable, and pejorative and to cite the Blair Report as support for this position, as Martin does, is at the very least, well, incorrect and unacceptable.
June 1, 2010
Connections
In an Edmonton Journal editorial on driving there is the following statement: “People drive in cities like Edmonton because the combination of cost and convenience makes it more attractive to them . . . than the alternative.” See “Driving isn’t like junk food,” The Journal, May 20, 2010.
Who can deny the claim? Of course, in cities like Edmonton, the combination of cost and convenience makes driving more attractive than the alternative. That’s because we’ve loaded the dice and shaved the deck in the driver’s favour.
In cities like Edmonton, wherever life’s journey takes us, we expect the roads to be smooth, the fuel cheap, and the parking free; yet the cost of it all, whether we are aware of it or not, unfairly subsidized and the ramifications—a persistent cough, suburban sprawl, polluted skies, degraded landscapes, oiled oceans, political turmoil, a warming globe—ignored.
There is a connection here.
I contend that if all the costs are taken into account, driving would be the least attractive mode of transport in cities like Edmonton.
Happy motoring.
Who can deny the claim? Of course, in cities like Edmonton, the combination of cost and convenience makes driving more attractive than the alternative. That’s because we’ve loaded the dice and shaved the deck in the driver’s favour.
In cities like Edmonton, wherever life’s journey takes us, we expect the roads to be smooth, the fuel cheap, and the parking free; yet the cost of it all, whether we are aware of it or not, unfairly subsidized and the ramifications—a persistent cough, suburban sprawl, polluted skies, degraded landscapes, oiled oceans, political turmoil, a warming globe—ignored.
There is a connection here.
I contend that if all the costs are taken into account, driving would be the least attractive mode of transport in cities like Edmonton.
Happy motoring.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)