Sunday, January 06, 2013

Media preferences exposed

This could go in my fraud blog, but as a work in progress rather than a lesson of any type is fine to go in here.

In the last two years, in amongst the speculative and inductive studies repeated endlessly by all known media, two massive studies surfaced, one well over a year ago by none less than part of the Japanese government, whose sole satellite measuring CO2 worldwide had released its findings, and unlike the expectations showed the more populated an area was generally the more CO2 it absorbed, while emissions came from deserts and forests. Now the mechanisms behind this can be left to the scientists, but the findings were so drastic you'd think the media ought to have mentioned them as they pretty well changed the game. 18 months later there is a sole report tucked away online if you look hard enough. Otherwise the Japanese Ibuki satellite findings remain a very badly publicised elephant. If David Copperfield can hide the Statue of Liberty the papers can hide an elephant like this very easily.

Now this week possibly the best news of 2013 and maybe even the 21st century altogether was released. The Hebrew University of Jerusalem put together the largest known collection of parameters and found little or no evidence of man made warming. The world isn't going to burn or the oceans boil, it's not happening. Music to the ears of every single citizen of the world, as even if you don't believe it if it was happening everyone would have been affected. But it isn't. OK, this was only yesterday, but although a few websites have picked this one up if it's not in the papers by Monday it never will be.

Now this is interesting, as last year when the Berkeley University BEST study reran the Michael Mann hockey stick using solely temperature records (the same ones I think) amazingly they came up with the same results, and within a femtosecond The Guardian and BBC were giving it more welly than a royal wedding. Add to that a final paragraph added (paraphrasing) 'But there is a possibility this may be due to natural causes such as the multidecadal oscillation'. The major difference between law and science (or journalism) is the attention to detail. Lawyers write such long contracts as every word (let alone paragraph) counts. Therefore by missing a paragraph anyone reading would use to neutralise the remainder of the article (like the Wayne's World style addition of 'Not' after a claim) the media have added subterfuge to irrelevance. Just like a chancellor announcing new giveaways in the budget he actually gave away months earlier (standard PR methods), using someone else's material to run an equation and find the same result they did is simply putting garbage in and getting it out again. But merit or not, the media picked this up like a naked photo of Al Gore (or would they?) and cut the ugly foreskin off which would have otherwise ruined the picture.

So we have a far greater piece of evidence here by combining the three phenomena (four if you include the partial reporting of BEST).

A physical measurement demonstrates populated countries do not emit CO2
A study (possibly the largest of its kind) concludes there is no anthropogenic sign of warming
A team recheck someone else's data and find it is what it was, except it may not be.

Which gets the coverage?

And the main question is actually 'Why?'.

When people work out the why, then they will no longer rely on the media to tell them such vital material, but do their own investigation now we have it all available on the internet. If newspapers want to become redundant, this is the quickest way to make it happen.

There will always be people who don't believe words alone so here are the links:
Ibuki Satellite
Full climate analysis

Believe me, you won't need my help for the BEST material, but it was included in the second study and made absolutely zero impact. That's called 'discrediting' I think in science, or superseding at the least.


rogerhootonofnuriootpasouthaustralia said...

Excellent article and links. The information in those links HAS been given media, print and tv to my knowledge, here in Australia.
China at present is having extreme COLD weather and snow falls.
More and more people are saying they do NOT believe in man-made climate change and that it is part of a normal cycles. Here in South Australia us older residents, especially those over 80 years old, are reminding the younger people about extremes of temperatures and weather conditions in the past. And the weather forecasters are also showing that information.
Going to be interesting to see what weather patterns happen in the next few weeks as the Sun is at present is covered in sun spots. See

rogerhootonofnuriootpasouthaustralia said...

QUOTE from The Australian newspaper 7th January 2013. "Marc Morano, Climate Depot blog: GORE'S massive personal cash influx from oil-backed Al Jazeera makes him by far the most lavishly funded fossil fund player in the global warming debate today. Will the media now accurately label Gore an industry-funded activist every time they report on him."

rogerhootonofnuriootpasouthaustralia said...

QUOTE from The Australian newspaper, 7th January 2013.
From an item by James Delingpole about the Guinness World Records 2013 book.
"I turned to pages 34 and 35 and - lo -here was a whole section that had mysteriously been devoted to the deadly threat of "climate change" I say "mysteriously" because, despite the publisher' feeble attempt to hide the fact by heading the section "To the Limits", it contains very little by way of actual records.
Rather, what you get is scaremongering eco-propagander so blatant and biased it might have come straight off a Greenpeace press release.
Her's one example: "Fact: Pine Island glacier in Antarctica is shrinking by at least 16m a year and may be gone in 100 years." it says. This may or not be true but it is an odd thing to single out, given that the most salient climates fact about Antarctica is that its ice mass has been increasingly dramatically."
And there are a few more anti climate change references.
Excellent article.

Shadeburst said...

Hi David, I went to the CO2insanity page and that led me to the JAXA press announcement on the IBUKI findings. The satellite maps do not show CO2 emissions and absorption. They show uncertainty reduction. The CO2insanity page did some prime cherry-picking by using the one map out of twelve that showed lots of green over the USA and northern Eurasia. Please take another careful look and if you agree, a mention in your blog would be the right thing to do.

rogerhootonofnuriootpasouthaustralia said...

Australian Bureau of Meteorology spokesman on 8th January 2013 talking about the present high record temperatures across Australia as we have many bush fires going he said that there probably WAS higher temperatures in the past but we now have better and more accurate ways of recording temperatures now then there was years ago.
Just shows it is modern technology what is giving the high climate change readings when compared with those years ago when it was just using small mercury thermometers which the weather people say were NOT accurate enough for todays' precision lifestyle.

David said...

Thanks Shadeburst, I'll check that out. Unfortunately the media and even the blogs shunned this one and the only two reports didn't say anything like you did, and the Jaxa site itself only appeared to be saying it was measuring CO2 levels geographically so hard to infer anything beyond what the writers themselves have presented. Secondly I can't work out the purpose of using the results to only show uncertainty reduction as it's of little use to anyone except a few specialists and not what the actual aim of the project was. It would explain the media avoidance as that would certainly not be a story, but then again was not their official agenda either but I'll have to check now.

It's not doing individual replies at the moment so have to do in one go, thanks Roger, it shows the most important things in climate research are the interest combined with the time and patience to follow it up. Being paid and under deadlines and pressure to deliver can wreck even the best professionals' output.

David said...

Here goes for Ibuki: Bear in mind it was not reported by anyone apart from John O'Sullivan and themselves, so I am only working with a very small selection of opinions, but his is one I trust.

1) “in the high latitudes of the Northern hemisphere emissions were less than absorption levels.”

2) "Sasano proceeded to explain the color-coding system of the iconic maps showing where regions were either absorbing or emitting the trace atmospheric gas. Regions were alternately colored red (for high CO2 emission), white (low or neutral CO2 emissions) and green (no emissions: CO2 absorbers)."

3)"The Japanese satellite map shows regions colored the deepest leaf green (net absorbers of CO2) being predominantly those developed nations of Europe and North America; thus indicating built up environments absorbed more CO2 than they emitted into the atmosphere."

1 and 2 were from Jaxa's page, not his. Jaxa have recently updated it (not reported at all outside), adding:

4) "These flux values were estimated by combining ground-based CO2 monitoring data and CO2 concentration data acquired through the improved observation method of the Greenhouse gases Observing SATellite"

5) "In order to obtain better CO2 flux estimates, we will continue to refine the data processing algorithms for the retrieval of CO2 concentrations from GOSAT data and the estimation of CO2 fluxes."

If you can point out/paste the part where it refers to uncertainties I will keep on checking but everything appears to confirm my original impression.

David said...

I will add on their link they have the certainties next to the concentrations (although weighting the final data by uncertainty may have saved the pairing, but what do I know). But those are in addition to the concentrations, not instead, or present on my link at all and only posted last month on their site directly.

David said...

I've read a site which agrees with you about the uncertainties, but nothing on the original two I found including O'Sullivan's, so I don't know if you saw it there or on one of Jaxa's. But I have found a study based on it I will be following up:

Using new data from NASA and JAXA satellite instruments to quantify the magnitude and
distribution of continental sources and sinks of carbon dioxide
Paul Palmer & John Grace (University of Edinburgh)
1) Analyse satellite observations of CO2 from the OCO satellite instrument.
2) Develop an established global 3-D model of land-surface fluxes and atmospheric transport to simulate observations of CO2.
3) Evaluate the model using ground-based, aircraft, and satellite observations of CO2.
4) Quantify regional fluxes of CO2 using the satellite observations.
5) Explore the use of correlated measurements of CO and CH4 to improve source attribution of observed
variations in CO2.

Both are contactable by email as so far the study is not at a stage where anything has been published online.

rogerhootonofnuriootpasouthaustralia said...

UPDATE Please check out these two links. This is what I have been saying for decades. I take a daily interest in Sun activity and have done for many years. Of all the things in the cosmos my biggest interest is my several times a day check on what the Sun is doing.

Also check

rogerhootonofnuriootpasouthaustralia said...

Sea rise 'not linked to warming', says report
• by: Graham Lloyd, Environment editor
• From: The Australian
• January 15, 2013 12:00AM
THE latest science on sea level rises has found no link to global warming and no increase in the rate of glacier melt over the past 100 years.
A paper published last month in Journal of Climate highlights one of the great uncertainties in climate change research - will ocean levels rise by more than the current 3mm a year?
The peer-reviewed article, "20th-century global-mean sea-level rise: is the whole greater than the sum of the parts?" by JM Gregory, sought to explain the factors involved in sea-level rises during the last century. It found that sea-level rises had not accelerated "despite the increasing anthropogenic forcing" or human influence.
Australia's pre-eminent sea-level scientist, John Church, contributed to the paper, which said it could not link climate change and the rate of sea-level rises in the 20th century.
Ben Greene, a doctor of theoretical physics, said Australia was already a world leader in measuring sea levels.

Ben Greene, a doctor of theoretical physics, said Australia was already a world leader in measuring sea levels.

The University of Reading paper says contributions to sea level rises include expansion of the water itself as it warms, melting glaciers and ice sheets, groundwater extraction and water trapped in reservoirs.

Dr Greene said overseas opinion was there would be a bit more sea level rise in the short term.
"The interesting thing comes in about 10 years' time if methane and CO2 traps in the ocean start to get released," he said.
"There would then be at least a short term acceleration some time in the 2020s. But the rise may accelerate and then reverse."