FARMERS ALMANAC More Reliable Than Warming Climate Models

THANKS to my friend Terry Donze for sending this...

See linked Comments, including this prescient quote from President Eisenhower's Farewell Address:

Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.

The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded.

Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.

Dwight David Eisenhower (1961)


http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/022114-690857-farmers-almanac-more-accurate-than-climate-models.htm#disqus_thread

 

Bad Science: It turns out that a 200-year-old publication for farmers beats climate-change scientists in predicting this year's harsh winter as the lowly caterpillar beats supercomputers that can't even predict the past.

Last fall, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Climate Prediction Center (CPC) predicted above-normal temperatures from November through January across much of the continental U.S. The Farmers' Almanac, first published in 1818, predicted a bitterly cold, snowy winter.

The Maine-based Farmers' Almanac's still-secret methodology includes variables such as planetary positions, sunspots, lunar cycles and tidal action. It claims an 80% accuracy rate, surely better than those who obsess over fossil fuels and CO2.

The winter has stayed cold in 2014, and snowfall and snow cover are way above average. USA Today reported on Feb. 14 that there was snow on the ground in part of every state except Florida. That includes Hawaii.

"Sometimes trying to figure out why something happened is as hard as making the forecast of what will happen," CPC Acting Director Mike Halpert said in a Feb. 14 interview. Such uncertainty is what we are supposed to be basing our industrial and economic policy on.

As Bloomberg notes, the CPC underestimated the "mammoth December cold wave, which brought snow to Dallas and chilled partiers in Times Square on New Year's Eve." The Almanac didn't, though Caleb Weatherbee, its prognosticator, apologized for being a few days off on two of the season's biggest storms.

The CPC seems to have completely missed the "polar vortex" that swept down and caused every state except Florida to experience snowfall and brought about 4,406 record low temperatures across the U.S. in January, along with 1,073 record snowfalls.

As John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, has noted, global temperatures collected in five official databases confirm that there's been no statistically significant global warming for the past 17 years — contradicting the predictions made by 73 computer models cited in the United Nations' latest (wrong) global warming report.

In recent years we've seen predictions of snowless winters, an ice-free Arctic, and island nations disappearing under the rising seas. We've also seen climate expeditions stick in ice that wasn't supposed to be there and polar bear populations rising.

Maybe Al Gore should check the Farmers' Almanac.

FORMER NASA SCIENTISTS BLAST AGW

Posted by James Craig Green from Anthony Watts' website, Watts Up With That?

Advocates of the AGW (anthropogenic global warming) hypothesis will not be pleased to see the following letter and list of signatures, which have been a long time coming. Thanks to my friend Terry Donze for forwarding this, to Anthony Watts and Alan Cheetham for their excellent websites and the Heartland Institute for its tireless efforts to promote honesty and sanity in science.

My previous UPDATED ARTICLE on the subject of AGW described the excellent work of Anthony Watts and Alan  Cheetham, prior to the current NASA blockbuster shown below.


March 28, 2012

The Honorable Charles Bolden, Jr.
NASA Administrator
NASA Headquarters
Washington, D.C. 20546-0001

Dear Charlie,


We, the undersigned, respectfully request that NASA and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) refrain from including unproven remarks in public releases and websites. We believe the claims by NASA and GISS, that man-made carbon dioxide is having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are not substantiated, especially when considering thousands of years of empirical data. With hundreds of well-known climate scientists and tens of thousands of other scientists publicly declaring their disbelief in the catastrophic forecasts, coming particularly from the GISS leadership, it is clear that the science is NOT settled.

The unbridled advocacy of CO2 being the major cause of climate change is unbecoming of NASA’s history of making an objective assessment of all available scientific data prior to making decisions or public statements.

As former NASA employees, we feel that NASA’s advocacy of an extreme position, prior to a thorough study of the possible overwhelming impact of natural climate drivers is inappropriate. We request that NASA refrain from including unproven and unsupported remarks in its future releases and websites on this subject. At risk is damage to the exemplary reputation of NASA, NASA’s current or former scientists and employees, and even the reputation of science itself.

For additional information regarding the science behind our concern, we recommend that you contact Harrison Schmitt or Walter Cunningham, or others they can recommend to you.

Thank you for considering this request.


Sincerely,

(Attached signatures)

CC: Mr. John Grunsfeld, Associate Administrator for Science

CC: Ass Mr. Chris Scolese, Director, Goddard Space Flight Center

Ref: Letter to NASA Administrator Charles Bolden, dated 3-26-12, regarding a request for NASA to refrain from making unsubstantiated claims that human produced CO2 is having a catastrophic impact on climate change.

/s/ Jack Barneburg, Jack – JSC, Space Shuttle Structures, Engineering Directorate, 34 years

/s/ Larry Bell – JSC, Mgr. Crew Systems Div., Engineering Directorate, 32 years

/s/ Dr. Donald Bogard – JSC, Principal Investigator, Science Directorate, 41 years

/s/ Jerry C. Bostick – JSC, Principal Investigator, Science Directorate, 23 years

/s/ Dr. Phillip K. Chapman – JSC, Scientist – astronaut, 5 years

/s/ Michael F. Collins, JSC, Chief, Flight Design and Dynamics Division, MOD, 41 years

/s/ Dr. Kenneth Cox – JSC, Chief Flight Dynamics Div., Engr. Directorate, 40 years

/s/ Walter Cunningham – JSC, Astronaut, Apollo 7, 8 years

/s/ Dr. Donald M. Curry – JSC, Mgr. Shuttle Leading Edge, Thermal Protection Sys., Engr. Dir., 44 years

/s/ Leroy Day – Hdq. Deputy Director, Space Shuttle Program, 19 years

/s/ Dr. Henry P. Decell, Jr. – JSC, Chief, Theory & Analysis Office, 5 years

/s/Charles F. Deiterich – JSC, Mgr., Flight Operations Integration, MOD, 30 years

/s/ Dr. Harold Doiron – JSC, Chairman, Shuttle Pogo Prevention Panel, 16 years

/s/ Charles Duke – JSC, Astronaut, Apollo 16, 10 years

/s/ Anita Gale

/s/ Grace Germany – JSC, Program Analyst, 35 years

/s/ Ed Gibson – JSC, Astronaut Skylab 4, 14 years

/s/ Richard Gordon – JSC, Astronaut, Gemini Xi, Apollo 12, 9 years

/s/ Gerald C. Griffin – JSC, Apollo Flight Director, and Director of Johnson Space Center, 22 years

/s/ Thomas M. Grubbs – JSC, Chief, Aircraft Maintenance and Engineering Branch, 31 years

/s/ Thomas J. Harmon

/s/ David W. Heath – JSC, Reentry Specialist, MOD, 30 years

/s/ Miguel A. Hernandez, Jr. – JSC, Flight crew training and operations, 3 years

/s/ James R. Roundtree – JSC Branch Chief, 26 years

/s/ Enoch Jones – JSC, Mgr. SE&I, Shuttle Program Office, 26 years

/s/ Dr. Joseph Kerwin – JSC, Astronaut, Skylab 2, Director of Space and Life Sciences, 22 years

/s/ Jack Knight – JSC, Chief, Advanced Operations and Development Division, MOD, 40 years

/s/ Dr. Christopher C. Kraft – JSC, Apollo Flight Director and Director of Johnson Space Center, 24 years

/s/ Paul C. Kramer – JSC, Ass.t for Planning Aeroscience and Flight Mechanics Div., Egr. Dir., 34 years

/s/ Alex (Skip) Larsen

/s/ Dr. Lubert Leger – JSC, Ass’t. Chief Materials Division, Engr. Directorate, 30 years

/s/ Dr. Humbolt C. Mandell – JSC, Mgr. Shuttle Program Control and Advance Programs, 40 years

/s/ Donald K. McCutchen – JSC, Project Engineer – Space Shuttle and ISS Program Offices, 33 years

/s/ Thomas L. (Tom) Moser – Hdq. Dep. Assoc. Admin. & Director, Space Station Program, 28 years

/s/ Dr. George Mueller – Hdq., Assoc. Adm., Office of Space Flight, 6 years

/s/ Tom Ohesorge

/s/ James Peacock – JSC, Apollo and Shuttle Program Office, 21 years

/s/ Richard McFarland – JSC, Mgr. Motion Simulators, 28 years

/s/ Joseph E. Rogers – JSC, Chief, Structures and Dynamics Branch, Engr. Directorate,40 years

/s/ Bernard J. Rosenbaum – JSC, Chief Engineer, Propulsion and Power Division, Engr. Dir., 48 years

/s/ Dr. Harrison (Jack) Schmitt – JSC, Astronaut Apollo 17, 10 years

/s/ Gerard C. Shows – JSC, Asst. Manager, Quality Assurance, 30 years

/s/ Kenneth Suit – JSC, Ass’t Mgr., Systems Integration, Space Shuttle, 37 years

/s/ Robert F. Thompson – JSC, Program Manager, Space Shuttle, 44 years/s/ Frank Van Renesselaer – Hdq., Mgr. Shuttle Solid Rocket Boosters, 15 years

/s/ Dr. James Visentine – JSC Materials Branch, Engineering Directorate, 30 years

/s/ Manfred (Dutch) von Ehrenfried – JSC, Flight Controller; Mercury, Gemini & Apollo, MOD, 10 years

/s/ George Weisskopf – JSC, Avionics Systems Division, Engineering Dir., 40 years

/s/ Al Worden – JSC, Astronaut, Apollo 15, 9 years

/s/ Thomas (Tom) Wysmuller – JSC, Meteorologist, 5 years

UPDATED AGW SKEPTIC'S CASE

by James Craig Green
(with links to Alan Cheetham and Anthony Watts websites)


For several years now, I have been researching, discussing and writing about the issue of man-caused (anthropogenic) global warming, or AGW.

Early on, I tried to maintain my objectivity, but the vast conspiracy and duplicity of governments' climate scientists (refusing public records requests), the self-serving politics of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), major media and even several (formerly respectable) professional societies have poisoned too many people with their self-serving and dogmatic assertions that:

1. Global warming during the last several decades has been primarily caused by human activity,

2. Only so-called "climate scientists" self-selected by the IPCC and its supporters have the credentials to publicly opine on the issue, despite their not being allowed to write the IPCC's "Summary for Policymakers" in each of their major reports, routinely published months before the release of technical reports.

3. Skeptics are hacks for oil companies and other polluters who profit from covering up the truth, and

4. The earth will experience an unprecedented warming, never before seen, unless drastic measures are taken immediately by the governments of the world to prevent catastrophic warming that will destroy the human economy as it currently exists.



Fortunately, several prominent climate skeptics (who deny that humans are the primary cause of recent warming) have compiled scientific and other information on websites and in many books that show the failure of the IPCC and its minions to prove their case. Astonishingly, the IPCC's incredibly shoddy and politicized work, including hijacking scientific societies and publications (such as Nature, National Geographic and Scientific American magazines), has been covered up by one of the most dishonest disinformation campaigns in more than a generation.

Enter my heroes Alan Cheetham and Anthony Watts.


I was first attracted to Alan Cheetham's global warming website several years ago because of its detail, excellent writing and voluminous data with graphs, tables and broad scope addressing AGW issues. I have referred to Alan's site many times in email correspondence and articles of my own. Here is his website, chock-full of scientific detail on a variety of technical issues:

http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/

Alan's "Simplified Nutshell" page has also been available for years:
http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/GW_SimplifiedNutshell.htm

In case you didn't know, all IPCC reports depend on a single assumption, that has no basis in reality -- that increases in CO2 warming should be multiplied several times and assumed to apply directly to water vapor, the most dominant greenhouse gas. CO2 comprises only about 1 part in 2400 of the atmosphere, even at today's elevated levels. The earth has been warming since the Little Ice Age from the mid 1700's, when the Thames River in London was frozen, as was the Hudson River in New York during the American Revolution. In other words, the earth had already been warming for two centuries before today's global warming became a "prime time" political issue.


I have more recently been following Anthony Watts' site, "Watts Up With That?" (The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change)
In particular, his latest article as of this date is shown in the link below. It summarizes what I think is the achilles' heel of all IPCC work -- the unproven and dogmatic assumpion that human effects which may cause increased global warming from carbon emmisions should be multiplied several times as a "positive feedback" to the most dominant greenhouse gas, which is water vapor.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/26/the-skeptics-case/

This article, with a handful of excellent graphs, explains the criticism of the IPCC's shoddy work and the case for the skeptic's position, using the most recent data and well-documented data sources.

It is the best focused explanation, with sufficient data, I have found to demonstrate the IPCC's failure to model reality for the last three decades. It focuses on the weakest, but most important link in the IPCC chain, which is the unfounded assumption that warming from CO2 can and should be multiplied and applied to water vapor. Without this assumption, IPCC models fail dramatically to even suggest, much less prove, their case.