A strong 6.4-magnitude quake struck Indonesia's remote West Papua Sunday, the country's geophysics agency said.
The quake struck at 3:54 pm (0854 GMT) with an epicentre 127 kilometres (79 miles) northwest of the town of Manokwari in West Papua, the Jakarta Meteorology and Geophysics Agency said.
It was measured at a depth of 12 kilometres.
The agency's technical chief Suharjono said there appeared to be no damage or injuries reported yet.
"The tremors, which lasted less than a minute, were strong enough to cause people to panic. They all ran out of their homes," he added.
Earth Changes
The U.S. National Earthquake Center says a strong earthquake has shaken Mexico's Gulf of California.
It says the magnitude-6.9 quake struck at 12:59 p.m. (1:59 EDT, 17:59 GMT) and was centered 76 miles (122 kilometers) north-northeast of Santa Isabel in Baja California and 331 miles (533 kilometers) southeast of the border city of Tijuana.
It says the magnitude-6.9 quake struck at 12:59 p.m. (1:59 EDT, 17:59 GMT) and was centered 76 miles (122 kilometers) north-northeast of Santa Isabel in Baja California and 331 miles (533 kilometers) southeast of the border city of Tijuana.
The IPCC's computer models have proved just as wrong in predicting global temperatures as the Met Office has been in forecasting those mild winters and heatwave summers, says Christopher Booker.
Everyone has enjoyed the discomfiture of the Met Office, caught out over its April forecast that we were in for a "barbecue summer" - not least because this is the third year running that our weathermen have got their predictions for both summer and winter hopelessly wrong. In 2007 and 2008 they forecast that summers would be warmer and drier, and winters milder than average - just before temperatures plunged and the heavens opened, deluging us with abnormal rain or snow according to season.
One cause of the blunders that have made the Met Office a laughing stock is less widely appreciated, however. It is that the multi-million pound computer it uses to assist its short-term forecasting for Britain is also one of the four main official sources of data used by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to predict global warming. In this respect the IPCC's computer models have proved just as wrong in predicting global temperatures as the Met Office has been in forecasting those mild winters and heatwave summers.
© unknown
Sir John Houghton, former head of the Met Office, edited the first three IPCC reports between 1990 and 2001
Sir John Houghton, former head of the Met Office, edited the first three IPCC reports between 1990 and 2001
Everyone has enjoyed the discomfiture of the Met Office, caught out over its April forecast that we were in for a "barbecue summer" - not least because this is the third year running that our weathermen have got their predictions for both summer and winter hopelessly wrong. In 2007 and 2008 they forecast that summers would be warmer and drier, and winters milder than average - just before temperatures plunged and the heavens opened, deluging us with abnormal rain or snow according to season.
One cause of the blunders that have made the Met Office a laughing stock is less widely appreciated, however. It is that the multi-million pound computer it uses to assist its short-term forecasting for Britain is also one of the four main official sources of data used by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to predict global warming. In this respect the IPCC's computer models have proved just as wrong in predicting global temperatures as the Met Office has been in forecasting those mild winters and heatwave summers.
On July 31, 2009, the purge of public data at CRU reached levels "unprecedented" in its recorded history. Climate Audit reader Super-Grover said that the data purge was "worse" than we expected.
On Monday, July 27, 2009, as reported in a prior thread, CRU deleted three files pertaining to station data from their public directory ftp.cru.uea.ac.uk/.
The next day, on July 28, Phil Jones deleted data from his public file - see screenshot with timestemp in post here, leaving online a variety of files from the 1990s as shown in the following screenshot taken on July 28, 2009.
On Monday, July 27, 2009, as reported in a prior thread, CRU deleted three files pertaining to station data from their public directory ftp.cru.uea.ac.uk/.
The next day, on July 28, Phil Jones deleted data from his public file - see screenshot with timestemp in post here, leaving online a variety of files from the 1990s as shown in the following screenshot taken on July 28, 2009.
© unknown
As readers know, both myself and various Climate Audit readers have requested CRU station data from both the Met Office and CRU. While my initial request to CRU was refused, I asked for a reconsideration and the matter is still outstanding, as are all the other CRU requests. Under U.K. Freedom of Information Act, once FOI requests have been made for information, public authorities are not permitted to "alter, deface, block, erase, destroy or conceal any record held by the public authority, with the intention of preventing the disclosure by that authority of all, or any part, of the information to the communication of which the applicant would have been entitled." As fordprefect observed the other day, the Computer Misuse Act also prescribes various offences, one of which is the unauthorized modification of the contents of a computer with the intent "to prevent or hinder access to any program or data held in any computer".
I was therefore more than a little surprised that on July 27, at about 2:42 p.m. (UK), CRU deleted three files from their data directory ftp.cru.uea.ac.uk/data/ entitled newcrustnsall.dat.Z, newcruextusall.dat.Z and newcrustnsall.hdr. I have before and after screenshots of the contents of this directory showing the deletion, screenshots that I will show below. I also have a screenshot showing the most recent change of the directory and that no other files were changed. [As readers observed, it is possible and perhaps even likely that the files were moved to a concealed location, rather than totally erased, which would present similar sorts of issues for FOI compliance.]
I was therefore more than a little surprised that on July 27, at about 2:42 p.m. (UK), CRU deleted three files from their data directory ftp.cru.uea.ac.uk/data/ entitled newcrustnsall.dat.Z, newcruextusall.dat.Z and newcrustnsall.hdr. I have before and after screenshots of the contents of this directory showing the deletion, screenshots that I will show below. I also have a screenshot showing the most recent change of the directory and that no other files were changed. [As readers observed, it is possible and perhaps even likely that the files were moved to a concealed location, rather than totally erased, which would present similar sorts of issues for FOI compliance.]
© unknown
In case you are just joining us, here is some background on the story below. I know the identity of the mole. The ball is now in CRU's court. Steve McIntyre reports below and throws down the gauntlet.
Met Office/CRU Finds the Mole
by Steve McIntyre on July 28th, 2009
More news on the Met Office/CRU molehunt.
Late yesterday (Eastern time), I learned that the Met Office/CRU had identified the mole. They are now aware that there has in fact been a breach of security. They have confirmed that I am in fact in possession of CRU temperature data, data so sensitive that, according to the UK Met Office, my being in possession of this data would, "damage the trust that scientists have in those scientists who happen to be employed in the public sector", interfere with the "effective conduct of international relations", "hamper the ability to protect and promote United Kingdom interests through international relations" and "seriously affect the relationship between the United Kingdom and other Countries and Institutions."
© unknown
As some WUWT readers may have learned from reading Climate Audit, an anonymous source deep within Hadley CRU has provided Steve McIntyre a copy of a data file he has been seeking but has had his FOI requests to Hadley seeking the same file, rebuked.
I've seen the data. As I posted last night on Climate Audit:
You know, not everyone in every organization believes in everything the organization does. This is why we have leaks in the White House and people like "Deep Throat" that provide evidential tidbits with guidance like "follow the money".While the CRU data file is not the most current, it is the most current one the mole could produce for us.
Steve has shared this data and the source with me, as a way of verification, and I can vouch for both the validity of the data and of the source ip address. It truly comes from deep within the organization. - Anthony
Let me review the request situation for readers. There are two institutions involved in the present round of FOI/EIR requests: CRU and the Met Office. Phil Jones of CRU collects station data and sends his "value added" version to the Met Office, who publish the HadCRU combined land-and-ocean index and also distribute the CRUTEM series online.
I requested a copy of the "value added" version from the Met Office (marion.archer at metoffice.uk.gov) which has been refused for excuses provided in my last post. On June 25, 2009, learning that Phil Jones had sent a copy of the station data to Peter Webster of Georgia Tech, I sent a new FOI request to CRU ( david.palmer at uea.ac.uk) requesting the data in the form sent to Peter Webster. This too was refused today.
We now have a new excuse to add to our collection of excuses - each excuse seemingly more ridiculous than the previous one.
I requested a copy of the "value added" version from the Met Office (marion.archer at metoffice.uk.gov) which has been refused for excuses provided in my last post. On June 25, 2009, learning that Phil Jones had sent a copy of the station data to Peter Webster of Georgia Tech, I sent a new FOI request to CRU ( david.palmer at uea.ac.uk) requesting the data in the form sent to Peter Webster. This too was refused today.
We now have a new excuse to add to our collection of excuses - each excuse seemingly more ridiculous than the previous one.
Pouring cold water on global warming by Terri Jackson a Queens graduate physicist, climatologist and formerly founder of the Energy Group at the Institute of Physics, London
The following article by Terri Jackson was originally published in the Belfast Telegraph in May this year and as you will see from the following communication it was also due to be republished in the Autumn edition of the newsletter of the London branch of the Institute of Physics South East Branch. This is a first class article, but it would appear there was a change of mind concerning the nature of the materiel involved.
Terri contacted ClimateRealists.Com and made the following comments...... when they (the editor) saw that it was against man made global warming and for natural climate change my article was immediately suppressed and I was told it would not be published.
Dear Terri,
The secretary of the IOP London & South East Branch, Len Lewell, has passed to me your offer of an article written by yourself on global cooling, about a page or so, for the branch newsletter. I understand that the article would include solid scientific facts and proof.
Please accept my apologies for not having contacted you earlier.
I am writing to accept your offer, and would like to include your article in the Autumn issue of the newsletter, which will be distributed to branch members at the beginning of September. Illustrations should if possible be of high definition, and attached separately from the text. The deadline is Monday 20th July.
With best wishes,
Michael Hammond
EditorSo here is the Terri Jackson article ........and many thanks for bringing this to our attention.
Dear Terri,
I am sorry to say that, as indicated recently, it is not possible to include your article after all.
I apologise for any disappointment caused.
Billions of tonnes of water droplets vanish from the atmosphere, as if by magic, in events that reveal in detail how the Sun and the stars control our everyday clouds. Researchers of the National Space Institute in the Technical University of Denmark (DTU) have traced the consequences of eruptions on the Sun that screen the Earth from some of the cosmic rays - the energetic particles raining down on our planet from exploded stars. 'The Sun makes fantastic natural experiments that allow us to test our ideas about its effects on the climate,' says Prof. Henrik Svensmark, lead author of a report newly published in Geophysical Research Letters. When solar explosions interfere with the cosmic rays there is a temporary shortage of small aerosols, chemical specks in the air that normally grow until water vapour can condense on them, so seeding the liquid water droplets of low-level clouds. Because of the shortage, clouds over the ocean can lose as much as 7 per cent of their liquid water within seven or eight days of the cosmic-ray minimum.
'A link between the Sun, cosmic rays, aerosols, and liquid-water clouds appears to exist on a global scale,' the report concludes. This research, to which Torsten Bondo and Jacob Svensmark contributed, validates 13 years of discoveries that point to a key role for cosmic rays in climate change. In particular, it connects observable variations in the world's cloudiness to laboratory experiments in Copenhagen showing how cosmic rays help to make the all-important aerosols.
'A link between the Sun, cosmic rays, aerosols, and liquid-water clouds appears to exist on a global scale,' the report concludes. This research, to which Torsten Bondo and Jacob Svensmark contributed, validates 13 years of discoveries that point to a key role for cosmic rays in climate change. In particular, it connects observable variations in the world's cloudiness to laboratory experiments in Copenhagen showing how cosmic rays help to make the all-important aerosols.
Comment: This amazing story provides us once again with an every day real live example of the psychological deviance that pervades all of our reality. Those who run the programs and have foisted the global warming meme into the public consciousness over the last two decades now decide the raw data for which the last two decades' policies and political agendas have been based on are too dangerous for the public of which it serves to examine.
Absolutely amazing!
If the AGW'ers didn't have enough problems already with their failed models, tweaked data, falsified statistical methodologies, their missing tropospheric hot spots, missing ocean heat, extended winters, missing and flooded summers, low solar irradiance, low API, and on and on. Now, heading into the December 2009 Copenhagen Conference the propagandists will have to deal with the lowest of lows so far perpetrated by those in control and in positions of leadership and power in the climate science world. The actual removal and hiding of data and the refusal to allow data to be examined by anyone not in the special, elite, privileged group that is telling the rest of the world what to do.
It is unbelievable that a scientific public service institution would use the draconian state secrets laws and claim that temperature data it has used to beat the public consciousness over the head for the last couple of decades is all the sudden privileged information that the public is not allowed to see.
The Global Warming Political Terrorists strike another blow into the public psyche!
This incredible saga has been followed here on SOTT with the following stories:
British Climatic Research Unit Refuses To Release Data Once Again
"Deep Cool" - the Mole within Hadley CRU
Met Office / Hadley CRU discovers the mole
British Climatic Research Unit Erases Global Temperature Data
"Unprecedented" Data Purge At British Climatic Research Unit