Dr. Jeffrey Andresen, Global Warming Fabulist, to Speak at Ludington

Dr. Jeff Andresen is scheduled to talk at the Ludington City Hall at 6:30 PM on Wednesday May 15, 2014 about climate change and you, and why your local governing boards and planning commissions have to adapt their planning to the realities of indisputable global warming caused by man.  According to this MSU Ph.D. who is billed as the "state climatologist", we need to seriously discuss the variability of our climate, and why it is threatening the future of Ludington?  His presentation will cover what is known about climate change in Michigan and the potential impacts on community health, agriculture, buildings and neighborhoods.  Or at least that's how it is billed here.

 

 

He was introduced in the following video taken at "Resilient Monroe" the precursor to our "Resilient Ludington".  I am going to review his facts and figures and his overall summary, point by point, to illustrate the clarity of his dissertation.  It shows a lot of what he will undoubtedly lay out on the tables on Wednesday in the Community Room.  At (00:10 in) 'Allen', a Monroe planner perhaps, introduces him: 

 

"He's going to focus on some of what we are seeing on weather changing, and what we are seeing in weather events recently that will impact our communities.  More importantly how we think about that as we develop our master plans and our comprehensive plans and ultimately how we look at our state regulations or standards that the communities may want to put in place to help us adapt to what we have seen." 

 

Dr. Andresen (who will be hereafter given bold-italic speech and be quoted from the given time in the video.  This is from 2:15 in)  "As much as we want to think of climate as static, unchanging and stable, in reality, it is constantly changing, it has changed dramatically in the past; it's changing now and will change undoubtedly in the future.  And of course, there is a human element now that we're dealing with and that adds another degree of complexity."

 

This is the first indication that Dr. Andresen should not be talking on this subject.  Climate has the accepted meaning: 

"the weather conditions prevailing in an area in general or over a long period."  Weather over an area constantly changes, climate, by its definition cannot change 'constantly' or even be 'changing now'.  The climate in Mason County and all of Michigan is exactly what it was back during the time when only American Indians roamed its vastness. 
The average rainfall, temperatures, and all other weather related phenomena has not significantly changed almost
everywhere in Michigan from 2014 BC to 2014 AD.

(4:15 in)  "I think the thing to note here is that if a value is negative that individual year was cooler than the 100 year average (on this chart)"

"While positive values indicate warmer than the average.  This blue line is a nine year moving average... temperatures have warmed a little less than one degree Celsius, a little less than two degrees.  That doesn't sound like much... but that's a fairly significant change, especially by what we know geologically."

 

When you go from the low point to the high point (roughly 1910 to 2010) there has been a shift of about one degree, as stated.  This does seem to indicate the average earth temperature is rising, but it is far from dramatic.  The shape of the graph seems to indicate a cyclical pattern, which the above chart going back 11,000 indicates is normal.  Even this graph shows a basic flatline characteristic around the norm when compared to the paleoclimatology data.

(7:10 in) "Some parts of the great lakes region, nighttime winter (Dec. - Feb) temperatures have increased as much as ten degrees in the last thirty years.  We will see a lot of trends relate back to that."

This statement means nothing, one could point out Ludington's average 1984 February temperature of 33 degrees:

 

 

and compare it to February of 2014, thirty years later, where the temperature averaged 16 degrees:

 

 

And make an equally inane comment that Ludington temperatures in this winter month that he focused on has dropped 17 degrees in the last thirty years.   The 'trend' he forecasts is his future  similar arguments not related to facts that are coming up.

7:35 in "...most of (the related trends) have direct impacts on us.  One of them, without question is the amount of ice on the great lakes, and the duration of ice cover on the great lakes decreasing unquestionably.  This particular series is taken from a satellite series."

"... this is actually the maximum coverage.  You can see that it peaked back in the late 1970s... since the late 1970s you can see some noise here and there but basically the trend has been downward, unquestionably.   If we included last year 2012, there was virtually no ice on the lakes last year, there was a little bit this year, but nowhere near the long term normals.  So the amount of ice on the lakes is decreasing."

Dr. Andresen is showing you a chart of dubious heritage and percentages, I found from the respected NOAA website an actual chart of the maximum coverage of the Great Lakes in that period which looks nowhere near his chart on the numbers:

 

As of March 6, 2014, the total Great Lakes basin was 92.19 percent covered, ranking the Great Lakes ice coverage this winter second in the overall rankings (to 1979), according to Physical Scientist with the NOAA Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory.

The last time in recent history the ice coverage was even close to this winter's percentage was the winter of 1993-1994. That winter ice coverage was measured at 90.7 percent.  As late as April 23, the Great Lakes still had 35% ice cover

 

 

(8:50 in) "Water temperature of the great lakes is also increasing.  Lake Superior, for example, has warmed five degrees Fahrenheit in just since 1979.  That's a huge change."

 

That's a huge fabrication.  This link with a chart from the University of Minnesota  shows the surface water temperature (SWT) of Lake Superior was around 11 degrees Celsius back 35 years ago.  Nowadays, NOAA's charts originating from measurements they started in 1995 shows that in its first 15 years the SWT varied between about 5 and 8 degrees Celsius. 

 

 

Since 1979 that is a change, up to the year 2010, of 3 to 6 degrees Celsius (about 5 -11 degrees Fahrenheit) COLDER!  With some ice coverage lasting until June this year, we will see one of those big dips once again. 

(9:00 in) "This graph illustrates changes in seasonality...

 

 

"... we have essentially a week, a week and a half more (of a frost free season/growing season) than we had 30 years ago...  There's an exclamation point on that particular trend last year ... a record breaking heat wave we had in March of last year (2012) was by far the warmest March on record of more than a hundred years, 13.8 degrees above normal, it was the largest departure I have ever seen in my professional career." 

 

Add a question mark to this year's winter.  Perhaps he can explain why March 2014 was just the opposite, cities in northern Michigan like Houghton Lake and Gaylord experiencing their coldest March on record, even cities to the south like Benton Harbor (chart on right), did not experience any highs in the fifties until the 31st, the highs rarely reaching the day's average temperature. 

 

One has to wonder why global warming alarmists would place among their crises the extension of a frost-free season.  Won't it help most agricultural production if we have more of a growing season?  The problems of 2012 mentioned was that a warm anomaly in March which triggered blooming was followed by 15-20 freezes; if the period of warmth or these after-freezes never occurred, the fruit would have been most plentiful.  One has to wonder how global warming has anything to do with an early warm spell followed by seasonal cold or vice versa.  Besides, if one is to start at 1930, ignoring the short growing seasons of the time between 1895 and 1930 (and possible limitations on the measurements of the time), the graph would be much less dramatic at its right end. 

 

The graph of 2012 conditions (below) for the arctic regions illustrate that even in the hot year mentioned by the doctor, growing seasons variance was only +/-2 days for all areas from the previous moderate season of 2011.  The data for this was determined by satellites focusing on when the plant life switched from green to brown as seen from satellite images, not from thermometers. 

 

 

(14:00 in) "There have also been significant changes in precipitation... ever since the 1930s, Michigan has become gradually wetter with time... overall precipitation has increased on an annual basis somewhere on the order of 10-15%... that translates to somewhere on the order of maybe 4, even 5 inches... so Michigan has become both warmer and wetter."

As you can see from the data chart presented, the numbers go up and down for each year, but the interpolated red line seems to be going up.  I can't determine the source of the chart, so I went looking around again and found another NOAA chart:

 

It is fairly clear from looking at the two graphs that one is way off.  The first shows annual readings between 600-1000 mm.  The second ranges between 120-320 mm.  The second also shows there is no evidence that Michigan is getting any wetter, or showing in any way "overall precipitation has increased on an annual basis somewhere on the order of 10-15%".  In the last ten years, five years had above average precipitation, five below, and basically holding the average steady.  That translates to about zero inches. 

Shortly after the 15:00 mark he begins to talk about why the rainfall is increasing so dramatically (which it hasn't by the above chart) by pointing to a chart on Caro, MI and the amount of wet days it has.  According to the chart, it has went from 1 in 4 days where it is precipitating to 1 in 3.  He tries to link the causality for more wetness (which is effectively the same as noted), by areas having more rainy days.  Since the premise is wrong, whether wetness was well-defined, and the chart has no 'official' source or verification of its data, it is unworthy of being presented, there or here.

 

 

He then (16:30 in) tries to place extreme weather events onto causality of extra precipitation (which doesn't exist, as noted) by showing that the top ten wettest days in the region account for more rainfall from the period by using the above graphic, covering different periods.   Again, the premise fails, and the argument is unconvincing except to a gullible believer.  He then goes into crisis mode for a few minutes, prophesying increased droughts and floods for all areas before launching into projections. 

 

(21:05 in):  "What do the model projections say.  This is taken from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC], basically the best estimate scientists can guess on how things will be in the future given a number of different scenarios... Collectively, what these say is that by the middle of this century, temperatures here in the Great Lakes region will warm something on the order of 2 to 3 degrees Fahrenheit, and 4 to 11 degrees by the end of the century.  Again that doesn't sound like a whole lot, but it is a very large change."

 

Computer models on climate change are only as precise, accurate and unbiased as is the author of the software.  Climate simulation models have been notoriously inaccurate and overestimate the warming and its consequences.  Here is a short list of some of the predictions that have been inaccurately made by climate scientists, followed by a graph of some overestimates by the computer models even at this early date (the green line is NASA's applicable model, the red and black are actual global temps):

 

 

We then have a diagram come up showing us Michigan's southern migration to Oklahoma's climate by the end of the century, based on the worst of these model's predictions.  I sure hope we can take those lakes with us, which affect our climate and temperature here in Ludington so much.  Even though this isn't likely to happen, I know a few people who wouldn't mind this change, and be distraught that it'll take about ninety years.

 

 

Almost as hilarious is the maps put out at the 25:40 mark showing projected precipitation for the period 2080-2099.  If Dr. Andresen cannot get the past precipitation maps accurate, why would we believe with any confidence the ones 70 years in the future.  This again is under the belief we will have double digit temperature rises by then.  As he states near the end of his presentation:

 

(33:50 in) "These projections are just that.  They are educated guesses, or estimates."

SUMMARY:  The key words are 'guesses' and  'potential', the positive impacts are minimized, the negative impacts are elevated to crisis level, the last one will be removed this Wednesday, when he talks:

 

 

In the full summary, below, Dr. Andresen carelessly switched the two and one degree Fahrenheit, so that it its first point is false.

His second point was shown using faulty data as previously shown, and was froze out of the water for this anomalous year.

His third point was proven false with NOAA statistics.

His fourth and fifth points relies on an inaccurate climate simulation, programmed to presume worse case scenarios with moderate to high continued carbon dioxide emission levels.

His sixth relies on the concept of a constantly changing climate, which does not exist by definition.

 

 

 

His seventh is the best as concerns reality.  Planning strategies should be dynamic in nature so as to go back to normal once these crises never arise and we proceed to cool down once again without changing our way of life dramatically.

Views: 643

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

One of your best works of Reporting X. The climate alarmists are well organized and well funded. I'm afraid the gullible among us will be easily deceived. I hope the citizens of Mason County will be more critical of the information that is presented on May 15th. I wonder if anyone besides those of us on this forum have given any thought as to why these highly paid "experts" like Dr. Anderson and the LIAA [Land Information Access Association] are coming to town to help with our local attempts to renew our Master Plans. They are here doing this for our benefit, they claim, and it's free. Why? Connect the dots and you will find that the trail leads directly back to U.N. Agenda 21. It's important that people know what they are dealing with. In order for Agenda 21 to succeed and be implemented we will have to forfeit the liberties and freedoms we have gained since the founding of the U.S.A. We will have to accept a central controlling entity which will control the Worlds population and it's economy. Don't be fooled by the climate alarmists. They are only one of the cogs in a master plan to control us. 

http://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/Agenda21.pdf

Uberliberal Rahm Emanuel explained the playbook of progressive ideology:  "You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it's an  opportunity to do things you think you could not do before."

The matrix here isn't that complex to those who allow themselves to be skeptical.  LIAA volunteers their comprehensive planning experience which features resiliency, sustainability, adapting to climate change, etc., all noble concepts.  But these noble and reasonable ideas are all predicated on inconclusive or false premises, they stress improbable, imminent crises, so you must peel a layer or two off and look at what's underneath the surface to see what their ultimate goal is.  Somewhere in this onion, you will get to Agenda 21 concepts, and just below that, a tyrannical brand of socialism that leaves individuals with very little property and civil rights-- which is repugnant to the ideals of this constitutional republic. 

All Americans who value their liberties, their way of life, their own pursuit of happiness, and their Constitution, need to stand up to those who would implement such plans and policies that would trample over them.

 

If there was any doubt what LIAA is up to when they set up these meetings with local officials the article below will make it crystal clear. The LIAA is not some random company that wants to help us, they are an agenda driven organization sponsored by leftists who want big changes by implementing Agenda 21. This effort to change America goes straight to the top. LIAA is not using the word "resiliency" at random. This is a well funded effort to fundamentally change America.The  link posted below is from the APA American Planners Associtation, who is the parent orginization for LIAA. Not only are they trying to alter climate issues but are also keyed in on economics. Any time you see the words 'sustainability or resiliency or resilient" you can count on the fact the Agenda 21 and it's supporters are involved.

http://blogs.planning.org/policy/2013/04/12/budget-proposes-major-c...

Budget Proposes Major Changes to Sustainable Communities Initiative

By Tess Hembree
Policy Manager, Advocacy Associates

In an effort to rejuvenate the unauthorized, defunded Sustainable Communities Initiative at the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), President Obama proposed a major overhaul to both the structure and the function of the competitive grant program in his FY14 budget.

The President’s budget recommends changing the name of the Office of Housing and Sustainable Communities, the office within HUD that administers the Sustainable Communities Initiative, to the Office of Economic Resilience (OER).

This represents both a name change and a shift in priorities to help communities face economic realities and challenges. The budget also recommends moving the OER to HUD’s Office of Community Planning and Development.

Though Sustainable Communities is changing to focus more on economic issues, HUD Secretary Shaun Donovan has voiced a strong commitment to the livability principles laid out in the initial stages of the program and plans to continue the strong federal partnerships forged with DOT and EPA.

The OER will seek out new partners that focus on economic resiliency within the federal government, including the Economic Development Administration, Commerce, the National Economic Council, and workforce development programs at the Department of Education. HUD is aiming to help communities develop strategies for economic resilience, including implementation strategies and planning. They are also hoping to leverage and align the rest of the HUD budget to work in service with the efforts of communities.

OER will provide $75 million in “Integrated Planning and Investment Strategy Grants.” These grants build on the Regional Planning and Community Challenge Grants, but will place a “greater emphasis on supporting actionable economic development strategies, reducing redundancy in federally-funded planning activities, setting monitoring performance, and identifying how federal formula funds can be used smartly and efficiently in support of economic resilience,” according to HUD’s budget. Current Regional Planning and Community Challenge grantees will not see any changes.

It's create-a-crisis to achieve their political ends.  Unfortunately, they have politicized climatology so that if you go into the field and look objectively at the data, you are stigmatized if you do not ascribe to anthropogenic global warming (aka climate change) even without any causal link.  It's almost like being a conservative black man or woman.

Sustainability, like global warming, has been linked by enough people to Agenda 21 and its socio-political objectives, to cause it to lose some of its benign character.  Hence 'resiliency' becomes the new euphemism for 'sustainability' that can be traced back to Agenda 21.  In similar vein, 'climate change' replaces 'anthropogenic global warming' to satisfy the masses when the data shows global cooling trends they can't trace to mankind's actions.   Also in similar vein, officials will deny that Agenda 21's policies are the goal, but if they are being honest in their discussions, you won't find much difference, if any, between the two. 

Part of the problem with the climate change/global warming/global cooling debate is you see so much different stuff in the news its tough to know whats really happening. One day you hear that there is a bunch more sea ice in Antarctica... the next day you hear about all this ice melting... stuff like that is what drives me nuts and is one of the many issues I have with the whole debate to begin with. To me, the saddest part of it all is that with how important temperature is to the debate, there are no accurate temperature readings prior to the mid 1800's... before that time they are making estimates and in my opinion, anyone can estimate anything they want (hopefully the scientist are all ethical but I at times have my doubts) to support their claims.

Reading thru their web sites I found a direct connection between the LIAA, Land Information Access Association to MPA, Michigan Planning Association to, APA, American Planning Association to ECLEI, International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives. ECLEI Helped draft U.N. Agenda 21 the Master Plan for every occupant on the Earth. If you don't want to lose your ability to decide for yourselves how and where you live then I suggest you get involved because I assure you the above orginizations are on the move to make those decisions for you. They sweet talk local officials and bribe them with grants to "help improve" local jurisdictions.

A must view

I agree.  The citizens seemed very well-informed, Vice Mayor Matt Grocott connected the dots and made the obvious (to us) connection between the loss of sovereignty to the United Straits to the Untied Nations, and how it flew in the face of their oaths to the Constitution.  Those councilors that voted for affirmation are disgusting traitors.

The first video is very good too, but the second one is motivational, until you see the worms vote at the end and then it becomes a call to action.

I think traitor is a good name for all those folks who ignore the will of the people. Traitors to the Constitution and traitors to the people who elected them. Below is and explanation  about the famous hockey stick graph which gave a false impression of climate change

On this one issue alone in California per Willy's video, the people should demand a recall vote on the Mayor and others voting for the passage. I hope Bill Bailey's audio becomes available soon and we can also identify with this message on a local basis. When time permits, I will read the entire thread that X posted, but I assume it's the same message of unconstitutional proposals being spread thruout the USA.

If the Climate crowd wants to be taken seriously, they should really get rid of people like the French Foreign Minister... specially when he proclaims that there are '500 days to avoid climate chaos'. Enough people are skeptical of the climate change issue as it is and politicians going around fear mongering something that is obviously a bogus claim makes it even harder to believe what they are telling us.

French Foreign Minister: '500 Days to Avoid Climate Chaos'

Secretary of State John Kerry welcomed French foreign minister Laurent Fabius to the State Department in Washington on  Tuesday to discuss a range of issues, from Iran to Syria to climate change. Or, in the words of the foreign minister, "climate chaos." Kerry and Fabius made a joint appearance before their meeting, and the foreign minister warned that only 500 days remained to avoid "climate chaos"[emphasis added]:

Well, I’m very happy to be with John. There is no week without a phone call or a visit between John and myself, and we have on the agenda many items, many issues – Iran, because negotiations are resuming today; the question of Syria, and we shall meet next Thursday in London together; Ukraine as well; and very important issues, issue of climate change, climate chaos. And we have – as I said, we have 500 days to avoid climate chaos. And I know that President Obama and John Kerry himself are committed on this subject and I’m sure that with them, with a lot of other friends, we shall be able to reach success on this very important matter.

It is unclear what the foreign minister had in mind with the 500 days.  However, France is scheduled to host the "21st Conference of the Parties on Climate Change" in December 2015, about 565 days from now.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/french-foreign-minister-500-day...

RSS

© 2024   Created by XLFD.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service