Tag Archives: NOAA

NOAA – PLUMEGATE -SEAFOODGATE

Suggested new NOAA logo

We now appear to have twin-sisters to Satellitegate (of which you can read about here, here, herehere, and here), that I’m dubbing Plumegate and Seafoodgate.

It appears NOAA wasn’t just content with covering up problems with their satellites such as kaput sensors, sensors relaying faulty data and new satellites being sent into space with missing sensors. We now have what appear to be more cover-ups courtesy of NOAA, and who knows who else might be involved? Perhaps BP? Perhaps Obama? I can’t say but it would not surprise me if either of them were in on this.

Per this article at Mother Jones we have reports of NOAA trying to suppress scientists (ala BP read here) by trying to cover up the oil plumes they claim are still floating around the gulf……

Speaking of the BP cover-up, there are two very important pieces of news today about the extent to which the real impacts of the disaster have been hidden. In the St. Petersburg Times, Craig Pittman has this scathing report on how the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration attempted to silence scientists who discovered the vast undersea plumes of dispersed oil in the Gulf:

The reaction that USF announcement received from the Coast Guard and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the federal agencies that sponsored their research: Shut up.

So, NOAA first tries to get USF to retract their report about the oil plumes and when that nefarious plan fails, they then proceed to try to talk them into keeping it a secret by not revealing it to the public. Per the article…..

Lubchenco confirmed Monday that her agency told USF and other academic institutions involved in the study of undersea plumes that they should hold off talking so openly about it. “What we asked for, was for people to stop speculating before they had a chance to analyze what they were finding,” Lubchenco said. “We think that’s in everybody’s interest. … We just wanted to try to make sure that we knew something before we speculated about it.”

Sounds like a lot of back-pedaling to me to cover up them trying to keep this out of the public eye so we’ll all thing everything is just wonderful in the Gulf of Mexico,  not to mention at NOAA, when it appears that is not the case. This isn’t the only nefarious thing that appears to be going on in the gulf either.  It appears we also have what I’ll call Seafoodgate.

There’s another extremely important piece out today, wherein the Associated Press documents how oil is already finding its way into the food web. Scientists are finding traces of oil in crab larvae:

The government said last week that three-quarters of the spilled oil has been removed or naturally dissipated from the water. But the crab larvae discovery was an ominous sign that crude had already infiltrated the Gulf’s vast food web — and could affect it for years to come.

Appears that we have yet another incident of government dishonesty. What I have been hearing on the news as of late is about how the seafood is just fine, the oil is gone, and y’all come on down to N’awlins and have some Shrimp Etouffee. This just doesn’t sound like it is an honest assessment of the situation to me.

I post this to again show how NOAA seems to have possibly caught a contagious disease called “Pinocchio Syndrome,” which causes what appear to be lies, cover-ups, ignoring facts, altering data, and other similar problems with the truth.

It seems like Ronald Reagan may have been thinking of the gulf oil spill when he said “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help.'” Terrifying indeed, because it appears this is coming true.

Source: Mother Earth

Comments Off on NOAA – PLUMEGATE -SEAFOODGATE

Filed under Co2 Insanity, Gulf Oil Spill, NOAA, Plumegate, pollution, Sattelitegate, Seafoodgate

Leading US Physicist Labels Satellitegate Scandal a ‘Catastrophe’

Launching wasted tax dollars into space?

Leading US Physicist Labels Satellitegate Scandal a ‘Catastrophe’ By: John O’Sullivan

Respected American physicist, Dr Charles R. Anderson has waded into the escalating Satellitegate controversy publishing a damning analysis on his blog.

In a fresh week of revelations when NOAA calls in their lawyers to handle the fallout, Anderson adds further fuel to the fire and fumes against NOAA, one of the four agencies charged with responsiblity for collating global climate temperatures. NOAA is now fighting a reargaurd legal defense to hold onto some semblance of credibility with growing evidence of systemic global warming data flaws by government climatologists.

NOAA Systemically Excised Data with ‘Poor Interpolations’

Anderson, a successful Materials Physicist with his own laboratory, has looked closely at the evidence uncovered on NOAA. He has been astonished to discover, “Both higher altitudes and higher latitudes have been systematically removed from the measured temperature record with very poor and biased interpolated results taking their place.”

Like other esteemed scientists, Anderson has been quick to spot sinister flaws in official temperatures across northern Lake Michigan as revealed in my earlier articles.

I had proven that the website operated by the Michigan State University had published ridiculously high surface water temperatures widely distributed over the lake many indicating super-boiling conditions. The fear is that these anomalies have been fed across the entire satellite dataset. The satellite that first ignited the fury is NOAA-16. But as we have since learned there are now five key satellites that have become either degraded or seriously compromised.

In his post Satellite Temperature Record Now Unreliable Anderson’s findings corroborate my own that NOAA sought to cover up the “sensor degradation” on their satellite, NOAA-16. The U.S. physicist agrees there may now be thousands of temperatures in the range of 415-604 degrees Fahrenheit automatically fed into computer climate models and contaminating climate models with a substantial warming bias. This may have gone on for a far longer period than the five years originally identified.

Anderson continues, “One has to marvel at either the scientific incompetence this reveals or the completely unethical behavior of NOAA and its paid researchers that is laid open before us.”

Indian Government Knew of Faults in 2004

I have further uncovered proof that the Indian government was long ago onto these faults, too. Researcher, Devendra Singh, tried and failed to draw attention to the increasing problems with the satellite as early as 2004 but his paper remained largely ignored outside of his native homeland.

Indian scientist, Singh reported that NOAA-16 started malfunctioning due to a scan motor problem that caused a ‘barcode’ appearance. Singh’s paper, ‘Performance of the NOAA-16 and AIRS temperature soundings over India’ exposed the satellite’s growing faults and identified three key errors that needed to be addressed.

Singh writes, “The first one is the instrument observation error. The second is caused by the differences in the observation time and location between the satellite and radiosonde. The third is sampling error due to atmospheric horizontal inhomogeneity of the field of view (FOV).” These from India thus endorse Dr. Anderson’s findings.

Photo of the barcode problem noted by Singh

NOAA Proven to have engaged in Long-term Cover Up

My investigations are increasingly proving that such data was flagged by non-NOAA agencies years ago, but NOAA declined to publish notice of the faults until the problem was publicized loudly and widely in my first ‘satellitegate’ article, US Government in Massive New Global Warming Scandal – NOAA Disgraced. Official explanations initially dismissed my findings. But then NOAA conceded my story was accurate in the face of the evidence.

My second article, shortly thereafter, exposed that a succession of record warm temperatures in recent years may be based on contaminated satellite readings. But NOAA spokesman, Program Coordinator, Chuck Pistis declined to clarify the extent of the satellite instrument problem or how long the fault might have gone undetected.

Thereafter, in my third article, Official: Satellite Failure Means Decade of Global Warming Data Doubtful we saw the smoking gun evidence of a cover up after examining the offending satellite’s AVHRR Subsystem Summary. The official summary shows no report of any ‘sensor degradation’ (NOAA’s admission) since its launch in September 2000.

Subsystem Summary Details Censored Between 2005-10

But even more sinister is the fact that the official online summary now only shows events recorded up to 2005. All subsequent notations, that was on NOAA’s web pages last week and showed entries inclusive to summer 2010, have now been removed. However, climatechangefraud.com is displaying a sample of the missing evidence copied before NOAA took down the revealing web pages after it entered into ‘damage limitation mode.’

As events have unfolded we are also learning that major systemic failures in the rest of the satellite global data-collecting network were also not reported. Such serious flaws affect up to five U.S satellites as reported in an excellent article by Susan Bohan here.

NOAA Tears Up its Own ‘ Data Transparency’ Policy

But rather than come clean NOAA has this week ordered their lawyers to circle the wagons.  Glenn Tallia, their Senior Counselor, wrote to advise me, “The data and associated website at issue are not NOAA’s but instead are those of the Michigan State Sea Grant program. Thus, we have referred your e-mail to the Michigan State Sea Grant program.”

Yes, Glenn, clearly the final data output was published by Michigan but the underlying fault is with your satellite!

With NOAA now hiding behind their attorneys we appear to see a contradiction of NOAA’s official pledge that “ The basic tenet of physical climate data management at NOAA is full and open data access” published in their document, NOAA/National Climatic Data Center Open Access to Physical Climate Data Policy December 2009.
Sadly, we may now be at the start of yet another protracted delay and concealment process that tarnished NASA’s and CRU’s reputations in Climategate. We saw in that scandal that for 3-7 years the US and the UK government agencies cynically and unlawfully stymied Freedom of Information requests (FOIA).

NASA’s disgrace was affirmed in March 2010 when they finally conceded that their data was in worse shape than the much-maligned Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the UK’s University of East Anglia. CRU’s Professor Phil Jones only escaped criminal prosecution by way of a technicality.
The attorney credited with successfully forcing NASA to come clean was Christopher Horner, senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute. Horner is now advising me as to how best to pursue a possible FOIA of my own against NOAA if they continue their obfuscation.

American Physicist Pick Out Key Issues

Meanwhile, back on his blog Anderson points to the key issues that NOAA tries to cover up. He refers to how Charles Pistis, Program Coordinator of the Michigan Sea Grant project, tried to pass off the dodgy data as being an accidental product of the satellite’s malfunction sensors taking readings off the top of clouds rather than the surface temperatures.

By contrast, Anderson cogently refutes this explanation showing that such bogus data was consistently of very high temperatures not associated with those detected from cloud tops. He advises it is fair to assume that NOAA were using this temperature anomaly to favorably hype a doomsaying agenda of ever-increasing temperatures that served the misinformation process of government propaganda.

As Pistis admitted, all such satellite data is fed automatically into records and apparently as long as it showed high enough temperatures to satisfy the catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (AGW) advocates of those numbers were not going to make careful scrutiny for at least half a decade.

Anderson bemoans, “One has to marvel at either the scientific incompetence this reveals or the completely unethical behavior of NOAA and its paid researchers that is laid open before us.”

“Charles Pistis has evaded the repeated question of whether the temperature measurement data from such satellites has gone into the NOAA temperature record. This sure suggests this is an awkward question to answer.”

Now Satellites NOAA-17 and 18 Suffer Calamities

While NOAA’s Nero fiddles ‘Rome’ continues to burn and the satellite network just keeps on falling apart. After NOAA-16 bit the dust last week NOAA-17 became rated ‘poor’ due to ‘scan motor degradation” while NOAA-18’s gyro’s are regarded by many now as good as dead. However, these satellites that each cross the U.S. twice per day at twelve-hour intervals are still giving “direct readout”(HRPT or APT) or central processing to customers. So please, NOAA, tell us – is this GIGO still being fed into official climate models?

NOAA-17 appears in even worse condition. On February 12 and 19 2010 NOAA-17 concedes it has “ AVHRR Scan Motor Degradation” with “Product(s) or Data Impacted.”

Beleaguered NOAA customers have been told, “direct readout users are going to have to deal with the missing data gaps as best they can.”

On August 9, 2010, NOAA 17 was listed as on ‘poor’ with scan motor problems and rising motor currents. NOAA admits, “Constant rephase by the MIRP was causing data dropouts on all the HRPT stream and APT and GAC derivatives. Auto re-phase has now been disabled and the resulting AVHRR products are almost all unusable.”

NOAA continues with tests on ‘17’ with a view to finding a solution. On page 53 we find that NOAA-17 has an inoperable AMSU Instrument.  The status for August 17, 2010 was RED (not operational) and NOAA is undertaking “urgent gyro tests on NOAA 18.” For further details see here. More evidence proving NOAA is running a “degrading” satellite network can be read here.

Dr. Anderson sums up saying; “It is now perfectly clear that there are no reliable worldwide temperature records and that we have little more than anecdotal information on the temperature history of the Earth.”

3 Comments

Filed under Co2 Insanity, John O'Sullivan, Legal, NASA, NOAA, Sattelitegate, Science

Satellitegate: Scientists Speak

GOES-8 Satellite that will be missing 14 sensors it should have to see if we have global warming or not

From John O’Sullivan, via Canada Free Press, we get further information on Satellitegate. Satellitegate refers to problems that have been discovered with old satellites, satellite data, and even problems with satellites that have yet to be launched. This evidently has caused lots of action about this at NASA, NOAA, GISS and elsewhere.

In his article titled “Top Scientists Speak out on the Satellitegate Scandal” you can read about how this being exposed has affected things and some opinions of some scientists. It appears that one satellite has been shuttered and datasets may be disappearing.

US Government admits global warming satellite sensors “degraded” – temperatures may be out by 10-15 degrees. Now five satellites in controversy. Top scientists speak out.

In an escalating row dubbed ‘Satellitegate’ further evidence proves NOAA knew of these faults for years. World’s top climate scientists and even prior governmental reports cite underfunding and misallocation as the trigger for spiraling satellite data calamities. Key flaws with five satellites undermines global data.

Most disturbing of all is that it took publication of my article last week to persuade the authorities to withdraw the errant NOAA-16 satellite from service. But as Dr. John Christy indicates, the real Satellitegate is not about one satellite. The scandal is endemic with comparable flaws across the entire network; the scandal is also that it took a tip off from a member of the public and the widespread broadcast of my article before one of the offending junk boxes, NOAA-16, got taken down.

If you want to read about the whole big and getting bigger all the time scandal here are the links to the other articles and posts about Satellitegate.

  • You can read the whole article at Canada Free Press here.
  • This link is to my post about John O’Sullivan’s article on thr 10-15 degree warming added by NOAA-16.
  • This link is to my first post about the article titled “Dimmer View of Earth” in the Contra Costa Times, by Susan Bohan.
  • This link is to John O’Sullivan’s original article at Climate Change Fraud.
  • This link is to my post about John O’Sullivan’s article about the 600+ degree city of Egg Harbor, Wisconsin.

Sources: John O’Sullivan, Canada Free Press, Climate Change Fraud

6 Comments

Filed under Climategate, Co2 Insanity, GISS, John O'Sullivan, NASA, NOAA, Sattelitegate, Science

NOAA’s 600 Degree City

Egg Harbor, Wisconsin?

According to some new data brought to light by John O’ Sullivan at Climate Change Fraud NOAA’s really been “cooking the books.” So much so that according to their  data the above photo should be what Egg Harbor, Wisconsin looks like. Perhaps they should change the name to Fried Egg Harbor? Read John’s article here.

Source: Climate Change Fraud

Comments Off on NOAA’s 600 Degree City

Filed under Climategate, Co2 Insanity, Global Warming, John O'Sullivan, NOAA

Satellite-gate

I periodically read about how wonderful and accurate the satellite data we get is compared to any other data.  I get the impression that many both sides of the global warming fence like the satellite data a lot. After reading this morning’s paper, I have to question that thought.

The photo is today’s headline from the front page of my local Sunday newspaper the Valley Times. Per the article, it seems we have problems with data coming from current satellites in orbit and we’ll have more problems with ones we haven’t even launched yet. Someone’s made a giant faux pas to say the least. Talk about “Houston, we have a problem” this is it.

These new satellites, if allowed to go “as is,” are tremendously handicapped. Sending them up in this condition could be likened to sending Ray Charles, or Stevie Wonder or Helen Keller into outer space to see what’s going on . To quote someone it’s called “read my lips, ain’t gonna happen.”

I about spit my coffee out when I opened up the paper and saw that this morning. Absolute astonishment is to say the least what my reaction was.

This is an extremely good article coming from a local newspaper and kudos to the author. This article is what I’d refer to as a “doozy.”

You can read the whole article by Susan Bohan here. I’d strongly suggest you do regardless if you’re a “warmer” or a “skeptic.” It is one of those very few things that both sides should agree is appalling. Why?

The way these satellites are being handicapped greatly reduces the ability to either side to prove or disprove global warming. This could be the bonifides required to end the argument one way or the other so we can all get on with our business of worrying about what to do to  or not about global warming. If disproved it would allow us to get on about the business, such as reducing pollution, providing more potable water and sanitary facilities for 3rd world countries, etc.

To summarize what left me with my mouth hanging open…..

  • The NPOESS (National Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite)will not have any sensors that measure the sun’s energy output on the 2nd and 4th satellites.
  • The GOES-R (Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite-R Series) has had 14 sensors cancelled. No data for cloud base height, ozone layer, ocean color, ocean turbidity and cloud imagery, snow cover, etc. Effectively neutered.
  • Landsat 7 (currently in orbit) is broken leaving data gaps. Scientists do not get all the information they should.
  • No sensor for movement of greenhouse gases and pollutants.
  • No sensor to monitor temperature changes on Earth over time.
  • They’re blaming who else but George W. Bush.
  • But per the article NOAA and DOD failed to try to get the funding to keep the eliminated sensors.
  • The sensor to measure how Earth’s temperature reacts to changes in Solar energy was cancelled by the Obama Administration at the end of June 2011.

Not having these satellites fully armed to collect all the proper data to help us understand what is happening with Earth’s weather, environment and the effect the Sun has on it, is what I would at a minimum, term gross negligence.

Regardless whether you believe in global warming or not, we should in this day and age be able to have the proper equipment orbiting the Earth. But no, we spend billions on handicapped satellites, which makes no sense whatsoever.

That the United Nations, most governments of the world, and all those involved in carbon trading schemes are salivating at the thought of taxing the snot out of all of us, redistributing wealth from rich to poor countries, making billions on carbon trading schemes, and having a one-world order fired up where we’ll all do the United Nations bidding just makes me more suspicious about sending up one-armed satellites.

That, in turn, makes me wonder if this was done as claimed for budgetary reasons? Is it pure stupidity? Or, is this a deliberate attempt to keep a shroud of secrecy around the fact that there isn’t any anthropogenic global warming?

What better way to keep those who genuflect at the altar of the Church of Global Warming continuing to “believe” in the gospel of the “Goracle” and permit them to levy carbon taxes. It’s classic religion! No one gets to see what’s on the other side, no factual information is put forth, we’re just supposed to believe and have faith that those running the Church of Global Warming say. Sorry Al, but you don’t even be close to being up on the pedestal with GOD, the Pope, Jesus, Buddha, Allah, et al.

It might be that someone is very afraid that if we start getting real accurate satellite data that it’s going to bust the AGW religious business and carbon trading schemes worldwide. I can’t see any other reason for eliminating the ability of these satellites to collect certain forms of data. If they believe global warming is true, one would think that they’d ensure these satellites would have every sensor known to man, plus a few more, so they could prove their point beyond a shadow of a doubt.

To add to my suspicions, it appears no one’s put up much of a fuss about this space  travesty either. Where’s Al Gore, James Hansen, Pachauri, et al? They seem stunningly silent about this, especially for such a group of true believers who are constantly contributing to the AGW din. It also seems interesting that Obama just recently eliminated one sensor they seem to have forgotten about with a seeming wave of the hand. Suspicious too, isn’t it?

A mere case of government stupidity? Budget problems? Or, a conspiracy? If the latter, I’d doubt anyone would be able to prove anything unless someone of enormous stature and involvement decided to blow the whistle or some evidence on the order of climategate is found. What’s going on sure makes me wonder about it though.

Either way it’s more CO2 Insanity.

Source: Valley Times/Contra Costa Times/Bay Area News Group

26 Comments

Filed under Co2 Insanity, Global Warming, Government, NASA, NOAA, Obama, Science, Weather

So,where’s all the hurricanes?

The Atlantic hurricane season began June 1, 2010 and runs until November 30, 2010. We’re 54 days into the season with not much happening.

Thus far, according to the National Hurricane Center we’ve had one hurricane (Alex), one named tropical storm  (Bonnie, which just fizzled out and apparently hasn’t caused any big problems for the Gulf oil spill like the media have been screaming), and one unnamed tropical depression (Tropical Depression Two).

This prompts my question “So, where’s all the hurricanes?” Normally I don’t think I would care all that much about how many hurricanes but for the predictions made earlier this year by Colorado State University and NOAA. Since we’ve had all the wild predictions about global warming causing more hurricanes, I’ve become interested.

From Colorado State University we got…..

They predict that 15 named tropical storms will form in the Atlantic Ocean, Caribbean Sea and Gulf of Mexico this year, of which 8 will become hurricanes. And of those eight, four are expected to be major hurricanes — Categories 3, 4 or 5 — with maximum wind speeds of 111 mph or greater.

From NOAA we got…..

The federal National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administrationcalled for an “active” to “extremely active” hurricane season this year. They predict anywhere from 14 to 23 named storms will form in the Atlantic Basin. Of those named storms, eight to 14 should become hurricanes, including three to seven “major” hurricanes with wind speeds above 111 mph.

They’ve never predicted a more prolific Atlantic hurricane season. So far their predictions don’t seem to be coming true.  I know we have awhile until hurricane season is over and things could change, but we’re certainly not off to a very good start prediction-wise.

Let’s see how CSU’s record stands for the 2009 Atlantic hurricane season.

As of June, 2009 they predicted 11 named storms, 5 hurricanes, and 2 major hurricanes  as you can see from the below originating with this PDF from CSU.

What we actually had in 2009, per NOAA here,  was 2 tropical depressions, 6 tropical storms and 3 hurricanes, you can see the storm track chart below.

So what did NOAA predict for the 20o9 Atlantic hurricane season?  You can see the below from their website here.

You can see for yourself their record for 2009 and make your own judgement.

I’m not going to predict anything, as I fail to see how you can do more than make an educated guess, regardless if you’re a scientist or not.  I remember most of my life complaining that being a weatherman was one of the few, if only professions where you can screw-up with regularity and still get your paycheck every week. Most of my life weather accuracy hasn’t been that important to me.

The shrill forecasts of global warming causing increased and larger hurricanes has stepped up the importance of their accuracy to me.  I now watch and wonder if they’re forecasts will be correct or not.

I do suppose that no matter what happens this Atlantic hurricane season, the “warmers” will be saying it’s caused by global warming.  Everything is, you know.

Sources: USA Today, NOAA, Colorado State University, CNN

Comments Off on So,where’s all the hurricanes?

Filed under Climategate, Co2 Insanity, Editor, Government, NASA, Science, Weather

Lake Tanganyika Warming – "Unprecedented" BS

It’s amazing how the “warmer” press and blogs latch on to silliness. They’ll hop on anything about global warming faster than the Lone Ranger jumps on his horse “Silver.” I did a Google search on “Africa’s Lake Tanganyika, Warming Fast Life Dying” the result shows as of now there are 66,600 search results on this headline and it hasn’t even been up but about 3 days. If it sounds like doom and gloom and it’s blamed upon global warming it really gets out there fast. What it really amounts to appears to be much ado about nothing, which is business as usual with the “warmer” crowd.

This is what happens when you send people from liberal Brown University, who conveniently come up with another scare-a-rama about global warming, in what appears to be another feeble “alarmist” attempt to counter climategate and all the other “gates” since. I originally found this article from Reuters  about how Lake Tanganyika has warmed while perusing things on the net.

Africa’s lake Tanganyika has heated up sharply over the past 90 years and is now warmer than at any time for at least 1,500 years, a scientific paper said on Sunday, adding that fish and wildlife are threatened.

Of course we have to tie this in with global warming and CO2.

Lead scientist on the project Jessica Tierney told Reuters the sharp rise in temperature coincided with rises in human emissions of greenhouse gases seen in the past century, so the study added to evidence that emissions are warming the planet.

And of course we have to use the warmista’s favorite word “unprecedented.”  “Coincided” seems odd, too, like they’re saying it could be mere coincidence, but it’s got to be caused by CO2 because it goes along with the CO2 Insanity agenda.

The results were published in Nature Geoscience on Sunday. (Link)

“Lake Tanganyika has experienced unprecedented warming in the last century,” a press release accompanying the paper said. “The warming likely is affecting valuable fish stocks upon which millions of people depend.”

The paper argues that recent rises in temperature are correlated with a loss of biological productivity in the lake, suggesting higher temperatures may be killing life.

“Lake Tanganyika has become warmer, increasingly stratified and less productive over the past 90 years,” the paper says.

Unprecedented temperatures and a … decrease in productivity can be attributed to (human) … global warming.”

See, they use words like “suggesting” and even use “unprecedented” twice. Note they link it to “human” (anthropogenic) global warming, too.  That’s a mighty big conclusion in my humble opinion, not to mention mighty convenient. So how much is this “unprecedented” temperature rise?

The rise in temperature over the past 90 years was about 0.9 degrees Celsius and was accompanied by a drop in algae volumes.

Note, I’m not questioning the temperature rise, or the algae drop, but I do question what’s causing it and if it’s “unprecedented” or not. I find the next line interesting as it makes it obvious they don’t really know what’s causing it.

But the paper admits that other factors, like overfishing, may be doing more harm than any warming.

What I simply can’t fathom about some scientist is why they publish things and act like they have proof positive when the reality is they don’t have all the facts to back up what they’re stating?  I really don’t have a problem with the facts of this paper, but I do have a big problem with them claiming it’s due to AGW. Now back to the “overfishing.”

Yes, “overfishing” could be an excellent reason there’s less fish.  Perhaps not the whole reason, but certainly a large factor, especially when you see the below on the population increase in the region over the previous 90 years, which explains why overfishing would be one of my top choices on why there are less fish.

Another factor would be the resulting pollution from the dramatic increase in population of the region.  This would lend itself handily in explaining problems with the lake. The reality is that what they’re actually saying is that they don’t know what the cause is.  I have to wonder if this was even peer-reviewed?

To start laying things out and get somewhat of a handle on what was gong on in Africa 90 years ago (1920), I find the following about population.  This is certainly not exact science, but I think it provides a good idea of what the population increase in this region has been since 1920. It’s dramatic enough that it should not be necessary to be splitting hairs over what the real increase was.  A few million people plus or minus wouldn’t make much of a difference considering the magnitude.

The country “Tanganyika” (a country in 1919), comprised of what is known today as Tanzania, Rwanda and Burundi, had a population of 3,500,000  in 1919, per this website. If you want a better idea of the population explosion in the region around Lake Tanganyika, the original “Tanganyika” was comprised of only part of the countries surrounding Lake Tanganyika.  In addition you have to add the Congo, Malawi and Zambia. For the sake of argument, lets say those additional three countries add another 3,500,000 people and make it an estimated total in 1919 of 7,00,000 people in the region surrounding Lake Tanganyika.

Total populations today, per the World Bank (as of 2008) are, Congo: 6,425,635, Tanzania: 42,483,923, Malawi: 14,846,182, Zambia: 12,620,219, Burundi: 8,074,254. The total is: 84,450,213, roughly 77,450,000 more people in the region surrounding Lake Tanganyika in the past 90 years. Now you can see the magnitude I referred to.  While not all this population lives immediately adjacent to the lake, I’d be willing to bet the increase in population around the lake was probably at least proportionate to the population increase in the entire region.

Please don’t tell me this is not going to be a gigantic factor regarding the quantity of fish in this lake. I’m sure you can easily imagine the increased fishing and the increased pollution resulting from an additional 77.5 million or so people in the region.  I read one item noting that the water in Lake Tanganyika is no longer potable, which is another indication of problems not caused by CO2 over the past 90 years.  Problems no doubt caused by pollution from runoff of things like fertilizers, animal waste, human waste, sewage, and the dumping of chemicals that could also be causing fish decline. To go back to the “unprecedented” warming. I can’t find anything on Lake Tanganyika, but I did find this from NOAA about the surface temperatures in Lake Malawi, which is in the same region of Africa, just South of Lake Tanganyika.

Lake Malawi TEX86 Surface Temperature Reconstruction

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

               World Data Center for Paleoclimatology, Boulder

                                  and

                     NOAA Paleoclimatology Program

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NOTE: PLEASE CITE CONTRIBUTORS WHEN USING THIS DATA!!!!!

NAME OF DATA SET: Lake Malawi TEX86 Surface Temperature Reconstruction

LAST UPDATE: 4/2005 (Original receipt by WDC Paleo)

CONTRIBUTORS:

Lindsay A. Powers, Thomas C. Johnson, Josef P. Werne, Isla S. Castañeda,

Ellen C. Hopmans, Jaap S. Sinninghe Damsté and Stefan Schouten

IGBP PAGES/WDCA CONTRIBUTION SERIES NUMBER: 2005-038

SUGGESTED DATA CITATION: Powers, L.A., et al..  2005.

Lake Malawi TEX86 Surface Temperature Reconstruction.

IGBP PAGES/World Data Center for Paleoclimatology

Data Contribution Series # 2005-038.

NOAA/NCDC Paleoclimatology Program, Boulder CO, USA.

ORIGINAL REFERENCE:

Powers, L.A., T.C. Johnson, J.P. Werne, I.S. Castañeda, E.C. Hopmans,

J.S. Sinninghe Damsté, and S. Schouten.  2005.

Large temperature variability in the southern African tropics since

the Last Glacial Maximum.

Geophysical Research Letters, 32, L08706, doi:10.1029/2004GL022014.

ABSTRACT:

The role of the tropics in global climate change is actively debated,

particularly in regard to  the timing and magnitude of thermal and

hydrological response. Continuous, high-resolution temperature records

through the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM) from tropical oceans have

provided much insight but surface temperature reconstructions do not

exist from tropical continental environments. Here we used the TEX86

paleotemperature proxy to reconstruct mean annual lake surface

temperatures through the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM) in Lake Malawi,

East Africa (9º-14ºS). We find a ~3.5ºC overall warming since the LGM,

with temperature reversals of ~ 2ºC during the Younger Dryas (12.5 ka BP)

and at 8.2 ka BP.  Maximum Holocene temperatures of ~29ºC were found

at 5 ka BP, a period preceding severe drought in Africa. These results

suggest a substantial thermal response of southeastern tropical Africa

to deglaciation and to varying conditions during the Holocene.

GEOGRAPHIC REGION: Tropical East Africa

PERIOD OF RECORD: 24 KYrBP - present

FUNDING SOURCES:

National Science Foundation (USA) grants ATM-9709291 and ATM-0081776 (to TCJ),

and a European Association of Organic Geochemists travel scholarship to LAP.

DESCRIPTION:

The dataset is a paleotemperature reconstruction of mean annual surface

temperature from the north basin of Lake Malawi, East Africa using the

TEX86 paleothermometer. (TetraEther indeX of tetraethers with 86 carbon atoms).

The age model for these cores is already available for previous Lake Malawi MP98

data sets on this website.

TEX86 values are means of replicate analyses. All samples were measured at least

in duplicate, half of samples were measured at least in triplicate.  The calibration

equation used to calculate mean annual lake surface temperatures (LST) is

LST=(TEX86-0.25)/0.017 with a calibration error of +/- 2 degrees C.

Lake Malawi core M98-1P: 10º15.9'S, 34º19.1'E, water depth 403m.

Lake Malawi core M98-2P:  9º58.6'S, 34º13.8'E, water depth 363m.

Lake surface elevation 474m.

DATA:

Lake Malawi TEX86 Surface Temperature Reconstruction

Column 1:  Age, cal kYBP

Column 2:  TEX86, means of replicate analyses

Column 3:  Mean Temperature

Column 4:  Standard Deviation

  Age      TEX86     Temp        SD

  0.25      0.69     25.88      0.86

  0.57      0.69     26.17      0.19

  1.75      0.71     26.87      0.76

  2.96      0.69     26.16      0.71

  3.32       0.7      26.6      0.21

  3.54       0.7     26.71      0.43

  4.23      0.72     27.79      0.45

  4.45      0.72     27.49      0.56

  4.77      0.73     28.52      0.46

  5.05      0.74     28.93      0.58

  5.46      0.74     28.61      0.02

  6.22      0.72      27.6      0.11

  6.72      0.72     27.58      0.22

  7.45      0.68     25.06      0.78

  7.58      0.69     25.91      0.56

  7.79      0.68     25.09      0.25

  8.02      0.69     25.81      0.02

  8.23      0.66     24.35      0.23

  8.92      0.69     26.17      0.67

 10.23      0.69     25.85      0.71

  10.9      0.68     25.52      0.49

 11.46       0.7     26.44      0.78

 11.94       0.7      26.6      0.64

  12.2      0.69     25.84      0.12

 12.51      0.68      25.3      0.14

 12.72      0.68     25.48      0.55

 12.98      0.71     27.13      0.28

 13.52      0.69     25.64      0.18

 13.74      0.72     27.49      0.08

 13.84      0.73     28.15      0.55

 14.29      0.71        27      0.06

 14.51       0.7     26.37      0.65

 14.89      0.69     25.86      0.66

 15.94      0.67     24.97      0.57

 17.58      0.65     23.48      0.77

 18.52      0.64     23.09      0.83

 19.01      0.64     23.13      0.74

 20.01      0.63     22.58      0.58

 20.78      0.63     22.52      0.43

 21.77      0.66     23.98       0.3

 22.43      0.66     24.13      0.01

 23.24      0.67     24.48      0.58

 23.88      0.66     24.19      0.03

As noted above they had a 3.5 degree Celsius warming since the last glacial maximum approximately 20-21,000 years ago. Then they had a 2 degree Celsius temperature reversal during the Younger Dryas (12,900-11,500 years ago). I find it amusing that they’re referring to  a .9 degree Celsius warming as being “unprecedented” considering that by comparison, there are larger temperature swings than noted in the study by the Brown University group. You can also see that coming off the last glacial maximum, the lake warmed, as did the rest of the Earth, then when the temperature dropped during the Younger Dryas, so did the temperature of the lake. Also, the Little Ice Age ended about 1850 and we’ve been warming again.  Is it really “unprecedented” the lake is also warming up again? It seems there is a non-CO2 caused pattern that’s merely repeating itself again.

Since they’re claiming CO2 is the cause, here are some CO2 levels for you to ponder. You can see from the below chart that around the last glacial maximum 20,000 years ago CO2 was under 200 ppm. (CO2 is the round dots-middle line). Note the CO2 level stays relatively flat with a little rise until about 17,00o years ago, then starts rising at a faster pace.  Now look at 12,900 years ago (Younger Dryas).  Notice the CO2 level is now about 240 ppm yet the temperature is dropping? Then notice it continues to rise while the temperature is still dropping until 11,500 years ago? (For temperatures during the same periods refer to the second chart. Sorry I didn’t come across one with both). To me it shows there’s no direct correlation between CO2 levels and temperature changes.

You want more to consider? This study from Science Online from 2008 titled “Northern Hemisphere Controls on Tropical Southeast African Climate During the Past 60,000 Years” also leaves me wondering about the anthropogenic global warming claim and also seems to back up my thought that CO2 is not driving this.

The processes that control climate in the tropics are poorly understood. We applied compound-specific hydrogen isotopes ({delta}D) and the TEX86 (tetraether index of 86 carbon atoms) temperature proxy to sediment cores from Lake Tanganyika to independently reconstruct precipitation and temperature variations during the past 60,000 years. TTanganyika temperatures follow Northern Hemisphere insolation and indicate that warming in tropical southeast Africa during the last glacial termination began to increase ~3000 years before atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations.

Note they show warming FOLLOWS Northern Hemisphere insolation, and INCREASED 3,000 years BEFORE CO2 increased. More doubt about CO2 causing this regardless if the source is natural or anthropogenic.

They also note the temperature fluctuations in the lake over the past 60,000 years, again perhaps this .9 Celsius warming isn’t all that unusual or man caused.

Our TEX86 and {delta}Dleaf wax reconstructions show that temperature and hydrology in the Tanganyika basin were extremely variable throughout the past 60,000 years (Fig. 2). Holocene lake surface temperature (LST) fluctuated between ~27° and 29°C, whereas temperatures during the LGM were ~4°C cooler. The magnitude and timing of this temperature shift are similar to those of nearby Lake Malawi (14), indicating that our TEX86 record captures regional temperature change in tropical southeast Africa during deglaciation.

Again, more fluctuation than .9 degrees Celsius.  They then proceed to state the surface temperature changes in these lakes are not CO2 related!

In particular, Tanganyika LST at the end of the LGM follows rising Northern Hemisphere summer insolation, a potential trigger for deglaciation (20). Temperatures rise at 20,000 ± 380 yr B.P., just as they do in a TEX86 LST record from Lake Malawi (14) (Fig. 3). This timing is consistent with rising temperatures at ~20,000 yr B.P. in Antarctica, yet leads the deglacial CO2 rise recorded in Antarctic ice cores (21) by about 3,000 years, a difference that is outside the chronological errors of the ice core and the LST records. Increasing greenhouse gas concentrations are therefore not responsible for the initial transmission of warming from the high latitudes to the southeast African tropics.

“Not responsible.” I don’ t know how you can get clearer than that. More CO2 Insanity. Will it ever end?

Initial Source: Reuters

Comments Off on Lake Tanganyika Warming – "Unprecedented" BS

Filed under Co2 Insanity, Editor, Science