AMS Statement on Climate Change

by Judith Curry

The American Meteorological Society (AMS) has just published its new statement on Climate Change.

The statement is billed as an ‘Information Statement’ of the AMS.  This statement is part of the AMS series of Policy Statements, see this link for Guidelines for Statements of the AMS.   From the Guidelines:

The American Meteorological Society (AMS) promotes the development and dissemination of information and education on the atmospheric and related oceanic and hydrologic sciences and the advancement of their professional applications.

Information Statements are intended to provide a trustworthy, objective and scientifically up-to- date explanation of scientific issues of concern to the public at large. They are informational only and do not make recommendations or take positions on issues. Information Statements should use language easily understood by a lay reader and avoid technical terminology and jargon. Information statements are typically no longer than 2000 words.

The AMS wrote a previous statement on climate change in 2007 [link].

The link to the new statement can be found here [link].

Excerpts from the statement are appended below, providing a sense of the overall content:

Background

This statement provides a brief overview of how and why global climate has changed over the past century and will continue to change in the future. It is based on the peer-reviewed scientific literature and is consistent with the vast weight of current scientific understanding as expressed in assessments and reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, and the U.S. Global Change Research Program.

How is climate changing?

Warming of the climate system now is unequivocal, according to many different kinds of evidence.  Due to natural variability, not every year is warmer than the preceding year globally. Nevertheless, all of the 10 warmest years in the global temperature records up to 2011 have occurred since 1997, with 2005 and 2010 being the warmest two years in more than a century of global records. The warming trend is greatest in northern high latitudes and over land.

Why is climate changing?

Climate is always changing. However, many of the observed changes noted above are beyond what can be explained by the natural variability of the climate. It is clear from extensive scientific evidence that the dominant cause of the rapid change in climate of the past half century is human-induced increases in the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide (CO2), chlorofluorocarbons, methane, and nitrous oxide. The most important of these over the long term is CO2, whose concentration in the atmosphere is rising principally as a result of fossil-fuel combustion and deforestation.

Human activity also affects climate through changes in the number and physical properties of tiny solid particles and liquid droplets in the atmosphere, known collectively as atmospheric aerosols. Examples of aerosols include dust, sea salt, and sulfates from air pollution.

Land surface changes can also affect the surface exchanges of water and energy with the atmosphere. Humans alter land surface characteristics by carrying out irrigation, removing and introducing forests, changing vegetative land cover through agriculture, and building cities and reservoirs. These changes can have significant effects on local-to-regional climate patterns, which adds up to a small impact on the global energy balance as well.

How is the climate expected to change in the future?

Future warming of the climate is inevitable for many years due to the greenhouse gases already added to the atmosphere and the heat that has been taken up by the oceans. 

In general, many of the climate-system trends observed in recent decades are projected to continue. Those projections, and others in this section,  are largely based on simulations conducted with climate models, and assume that the amount of greenhouse gas in the atmosphere will continue to increase due to human activity. Global efforts to slow greenhouse gas emissions have been unsuccessful so far. However, were future technologies and policies able to achieve a rapid reduction of greenhouse gas emissions — an approach termed “mitigation” — this would greatly lessen future global warming and its impacts.

Confidence in the projections is higher for temperature than for other climate elements such as precipitation, and higher at the global and continental scales than for the regional and local scales. The model projections show that the largest warming will occur in northern polar regions, over land areas, and in the winter season, consistent with observed trends.

In the 21st century, global sea level also will continue to rise although the rise will not be uniform at all locations. With its large mass and high capacity for heat storage, the ocean will continue to slowly warm and thus thermally expand for several centuries. Model simulations project about 27 cm (10 inches) to 71 cm (28 inches) of global sea level rise due to thermal expansion and melting of ice in the 21st century. Moreover, paleoclimatic observations and ice-sheet modeling indicate that melting of the Greenland and the West Antarctic ice sheets will eventually cause global sea level to rise several additional meters by 2500 if warming continues at its present rate beyond the 21st century.

Atmospheric water content will increase globally, consistent with warmer temperatures, and consequently the global hydrological cycle will continue to accelerate. For many areas, model simulations suggest there will be a tendency towards more intense rain and snow events separated by longer periods without precipitation. However, changes in precipitation patterns are expected to differ considerably by region and by season. In some regions, the accelerated hydrological cycle will likely reinforce existing patterns of precipitation, leading to more severe droughts and floods. Further poleward, the greater warming at high latitudes and over land likely will change the large-scale atmospheric circulation, leading to significant regional shifts in precipitation patterns. For example, the model simulations suggest that precipitation will increase in the far northern parts of North America, and decrease in the southwest and south-central United States where more droughts will occur.

Climate-model simulations further project that heavy precipitation events will continue to become more intense and frequent, leading to increased precipitation totals from the strongest storms. This projection has important implications for water-resource management and flood control. The simulations also indicate the likelihood of longer dry spells between precipitation events in the subtropics and lower-middle latitudes, with shorter dry spells projected for higher latitudes where mean precipitation is expected to increase. Continued warming also implies a reduction of winter snow accumulations in favor of rain in many places, and thus a reduced spring snowpack. Rivers now fed by snowmelt will experience earlier spring peaks and reduced warm-season flows. Widespread retreat of mountain glaciers is expected to eventually lead to reduced dry season flows for glacier-fed rivers. Drought is projected to increase over Africa, Europe, and much of the North American continental interior, and particularly the southwest United States. However, natural variations in world ocean conditions at decadal scale, such as those in the North Pacific and North Atlantic basins, could offset or enhance such changes in the next few decades. For the longer term, paleoclimatic observations suggest that droughts lasting decades are possible and that these prolonged droughts could occur with little warning.

Weather patterns will continue to vary from day to day and from season to season, but the frequency of particular patterns and extreme weather and climate events may change as a result of global warming. Model simulations project an increased proportion of global hurricanes that are in the strongest categories, namely 4 and 5 on the Saffir-Simpson scale, although the total counts of hurricanes may not change or may even decrease. Some regional variations in these trends are possible. Simulations also indicate that midlatitude storm tracks will shift poleward. Interannual variations of important large-scale climate conditions (such as El Niño and La Niña) will also continue to occur, but there may be changes in their intensity, frequency, and other characteristics, resulting in different responses by the atmosphere. Heat waves and cold snaps and their associated weather conditions will continue to occur, but proportionately more extreme warm periods and fewer cold periods are expected. Indeed, what many people traditionally consider a cold wave is already changing toward less severe conditions. Frost days (those with minimum temperature below freezing) will be fewer and growing seasons longer. Drier conditions in summer, such as those anticipated for the southern United States and southern Europe, are expected to contribute to more severe episodes of extreme heat. Critical thresholds of daily maximum temperature, above which ecosystems and crop systems (e.g., food crops such as rice, corn, and wheat) suffer increasingly severe damage, are likely to be exceeded more frequently.

Final remarks

There is unequivocal evidence that Earth’s lower atmosphere, ocean, and land surface are warming; sea level is rising; and snow cover, mountain glaciers, and Arctic sea ice are shrinking. The dominant cause of the warming since the 1950s is human activities. This scientific finding is based on a large and persuasive body of research. The observed warming will be irreversible for many years into the future, and even larger temperature increases will occur as greenhouse gases continue to accumulate in the atmosphere. Avoiding this future warming will require a large and rapid reduction in global greenhouse gas emissions. The ongoing warming will increase risks and stresses to human societies, economies, ecosystems, and wildlife through the 21st century and beyond, making it imperative that society respond to a changing climate. To inform decisions on adaptation and mitigation, it is critical that we improve our understanding of the global climate system and our ability to project future climate through continued and improved monitoring and research. This is especially true for smaller (seasonal and regional) scales and weather and climate extremes, and for important hydroclimatic variables such as precipitation and water availability.

Technological, economic, and policy choices in the near future will determine the extent of future impacts of climate change. Science-based decisions are seldom made in a context of absolute certainty. National and international policy discussions should include consideration of the best ways to both adapt to and mitigate climate change. Mitigation will reduce the amount of future climate change and the risk of impacts that are potentially large and dangerous. At the same time, some continued climate change is inevitable, and policy responses should include adaptation to climate change. Prudence dictates extreme care in accounting for our relationship with the only planet known to be capable of sustaining human life.

[This statement is considered in force until August 2017 unless superseded by a new statement issued by the AMS Council before this date.]

Update:  Bill Hooke has some additional background on the AMS statement:

JC comments:

My strong objections to this type of statement by professional societies has been voiced previously.  This statement is worse than the previous AMS statement, and much worse than the statement by the Royal Society, which is probably the most credible statement on this topic made by a professional society.

So who is responsible for this statement? Current members of the AMS Council can be found [here].  It is not clear who authored the statement.

Several months ago, I recall receiving an email asking for comments on the draft statement (apparently a mass mailing to the AMS membership).  I tried to access it but didn’t have my site login info handy at the time.  So I am seeing this statement today for the first time.  I suspect that there will be a lot of AMS members that are unhappy with this statement.

Apart from the broader issue of whether or not professional societies should make such statements, the main question that I have is why write a new statement now?  It appears that each statement has a life time of 5 years.   Why not wait another year or two until the IPCC AR5 is out?  It seems that there is little in the AMS statement that is associated with more recent publications (since the AR4).  As the CMIP5 climate model simulations show a broader range of uncertainty than the simulations used in the AR4, what is the basis for making a more confident statement on attribution (which seems to be based wholly on models) than was made in the AR4?

As far as I can tell, this statement is a naive example of Michael Kelly’s invisible hand (quote from my no consensus paper):

Kelly (2005) describes an additional source of confirmation bias in the consensus building process:As more and more peers weigh in on a given issue, the proportion of the total evidence which consists of higher order psychological evidence [of what other people believe] increases, and the proportion of the total evidence which consists of first order evidence decreases . . . At some point, when the number of peers grows large enough, the higher order psychological evidence will swamp the first order evidence into virtual insignificance.

In other words, consensus statements get parroted without any actual intellectual examination.  In this case, what is the point of the AMS statement?  Apparently, to ‘inform the public’  on this controversial issue by appealing to the ‘authority’ of the society.

JC note to AMS:  read my paper No consensus on consensus.

361 responses to “AMS Statement on Climate Change

  1. “The new statement recognizes a larger role humans play in changing our climate than AMS’s previous revision from 2007.”

    All together now….It’s worse than we thought!

    • Latimer Alder

      …and

      ‘More research is needed. Send money now!’

    • Global efforts to slow greenhouse gas emissions have been unsuccessful so far.

      Guess why! Twenty years of advocacy for economically irrational policies such as:

      blocking the development of nuclear power
      mandating renewable energy
      targets and time tables for emissions cuts
      Kyoto Protocol
      carbon pricing (e.g. the EU ETS fiasco)
      world government
      add to the list …

    • The ongoing warming will increase risks and stresses to human societies, economies, ecosystems, and wildlife through the 21st century and beyond, making it imperative that society respond to a changing climate.

      What is the evidence for that assertion? It seems like an ideologically based belief to me. It seems to me that the evidence from the trends since the Little Ice Age is that warmer is better.

      • Latimer Alder

        @Peter Lang

        It’s the old Garden of Eden schtick all over again.

        ‘Once upon a time there was a Golden Age when everything was perfect. Then somebody wed dislike did something we disapprove of and it all went wrong. What the evildoers must do now is stop doing the thing we disapprove of and we will all return to the Golden Age’

        All that ever changes is who’s doing the telling and what it is they disapprove of.This time its burning fossil fuel. A thousand years ago it was not worshipping a god correctly. In the Epic of Gligamesh, it was because the people were too noisy.

        But the basic story comes round and round and round over the centuries.

      • No, warmer has not been better in Oklahoma this summer. Because of the heat and lack of rain, crops have suffered something awful, and the economy is taking a hit.

      • Latimer Alder

        And colder and much wetter (wettest for at least 100 years) hasn’t been brilliant in the UK this ‘summer’ either.

        Votes from us: – bring on more warming!

        Population of Oklahoma : 3,750,000
        Population of UK: 62.600,000

      • andrew adams

        And before that we had widespread drought conditions. The lesson is that extremes of weather can be bad in whichever direction they fall.

      • Latimer Alder

        @andrew adams

        Yup. Sure was bad that drought. Even the buses were affected

        http://randomlylondon.com/is-there-any-doubt-we-are-in-drought/

        Now remind me exactly what the consequences of global warming are predicted to be: 1. In London. 2. In Queensland

        a. More rainfall
        b. Less rainfall
        c. No change

        Pick only one answer and do not write on both sides of the paper at once.

      • andrew adams

        Latimer,

        Yes, there were drought conditions earlier this year, as indeed there were last spring.

        http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/feb/24/hosepipe-bans-uk-drought?INTCMP=SRCH

        Of course in those circumstances when it does rain (even in an area not actually in drought conditions) there will always be some smartarse saying “ho ho, so much for the drought”, but I’m not sure what you think that proves.

        Thankfully, the extremely wet summer has restored water levels to their normal levels (as happened last year) so actually we should be grateful for the summer we have had, however upleasant it may have been in some respects.

        In answer to your question, I don’t know of any specific projections for London, I doubt there are any, but IAUI the expectation for Northern Europe is that there will be an increase in precipitation.

        With respect to Queensland, a quick scan of the FAR seems to indicate that the expected changes are uncertain, but others here may be able to give a better answer.

      • Latimer Alder

        Thanks Andrew

        I just wanted to check that it was the increased precipitation that brought about the drought. Because it might have been the other way round and the wet spell was caused by less precipitation.

        You can read all about the two years of below average rainfall here:

        http://www.london.gov.uk/guide-2012-drought

        Final check to make sure I understand the predictions:

        If it rains a lot that’s in line with projections of increased precipitation because of climate change.

        If it doesn’t rain a lot then that’s just weather.

        Unless the precipitation is snow, which isn’t in line with predictions that climate change will mean its a thing of the past. So if it snows it’s weather

        Glad we’ve sorted all that out.

        I’m off to the seaside tomorrow for a few days. Should I pack stuff for weather or for climate change? Or just look at the seaweed when I get there?

      • Lattie – do you think that wetter than ‘normal’ summers and drier than ‘normal’ winters could just possibly be an indication of something?

        No, not time to change your underpants. It just could be an indication that our local (UK) climate is changing.

        Now I know lots of ‘skeptics’ then howl that they know that it’s changing but that it’s ‘natural’ but you seem to be distressed that this changing climate may make it too cold for you to sit on the beach in your shreddies tomorrow. Complaining that you don’t know whether to label an individual occurance of unusual precipitation and/or temperature ‘climate change’ or ‘weather’ doesn’t actually change the price of fish so just what are you wibbling on about?

      • Latimer Alder

        @louise

        Yes I know its a bit picky to want to check if all the predictions people make about climate are actually borne out by what actually happens before we start to make dramatic changes to accommodate such predictions. Maybe I just have a sceptical nature.

        Only yesterday a bloke in the Dog and Duck asked me to give him a hundred quid so that he could ‘invest’ it on my behalf on a dead cert at Epsom. And never having met him before and being a bit suspicious of his ‘Trust Me, I’m a Racing Tipster’ schtick, I turned him away. Wasn’t that mistrustful of me!!

        But seriously, one of Mr Gorbachev’s favourite proverbs was ‘Доверяй, но проверяй’ (rough translation ‘Trust but Verify’). And I am a great admirer of both and he and Reagan for keeping cool and statesmanlike heads to bring the Cold War to a peaceful conclusion.

        So I’d just like exactly what the predictions are for UK so we can see how they pan out. Andrew A said ‘more precipitation’.. You say wetter summers but drier winters. No doubt I could find a third who said something orthogonal to both and a fourth who contradicted all of them.
        It is not an unreasonable question to want to have some definite prediction to test.

        And, returning to my Dog and Duck acquaintance. it is entirely possible to make sure you win the race by betting on every horse, and then only presenting the winning ticket. but you fool nobody but yourself…and give the bookmaker a nice profit whoever wins

        ‘Trust but Verify’. Sound advice.

      • andrew adams

        Latimer,

        The projections for Northern Europe are for increased preciptation over the coming decades. Time will tell whether those projections will prove to be correct over that timescale and area.
        London and the SE of England are particularly prone to droughts compared to the rest of the UK, I don’t see why this shouldn’t continue to be the case but I don’t know if it is possible to make projections on that small a scale.
        Of course things may change as our understanding of the effect of the disappearing arctic sea ice becomes clearer.
        But people taking projections for changes in climate decased into the future and declaring them wrong because of what is happening in 2012 is getting a bit boring.

      • Latimer Alder

        @andrew adams

        ‘But people taking projections for changes in climate decades into the future and declaring them wrong because of what is happening in 2012 is getting a bit boring’.

        Its called ‘credibility’, Andrew.

        If your predictions/projections/forecasts can’t get it right over one or two or five years, why on earth should we give any credence to the same forecasts over fifty or a hundred years?

        Sorry if you find that boring, but that fundamental question isn’t going to go away because of your ennui. And, as yet, nobody has come up with anything even approaching a decent answer.

  2. I find the temporal vagueness naive if not dishonest. What do they mean by “In the 21st century”? By 2030? By 2050? By 2080? By century’s end?

    Have the authors ever read the IPCC reports, one wonders…

    • I looked it up and found that the 21st century is a 100 year period between 2000 and 2100AD.

      • And your answer is as meaningful as the AMS’ wild guesses…

        I know you don’t take this stuff seriously, but people have died already because the IPCC published projections for 2080 and international agencies took them as predictions for 2010.

      • Only good intentions matter. No fair going back and checking on results. If a policy sounds good and people believe it with their whole hearts and it will save (pick one or more): old people, the poor, the childrunz, animals, humanity, etc. then it HAS to be done immediately and with no regard to cost and you can never, ever, ever cut funding even it the program did not work. It just means you didn’t spend enough the first 12 times.

      • lolwot | August 27, 2012 at 1:36 pm said: ”I looked it up and found that the 21st century is a 100 year period between 2000 and 2100AD”

        Hallelujah .lolwot, at last, you just said for the first time something that is correct… the truth. Monitor, if your tongue doesn’t get paralyzed because of it, you should tell the truth some other time, again. For example, something like this: http://globalwarmingdenier.wordpress.com/open-pandoras-box/

  3. A fan of *MORE* discourse

    Judith Curry asserts  “2C warming is a distinct possibility, even 4C. What has not been convincing is that such a warming in any way would be apocalyptic in the 21st century.”

    Dr. Curry, with respect, the Good-Reuveny economic analysis On the Collapse of Historical Civilizations demonstrates that a 90-year time-frame (that is, encompassing the 21st century *only*) is *far* too short for rational economic analysis to be effective.

    And common-sense agrees, eh?   :)   :)   :)

    • You already said that.

    • A fan of *MORE* discourse

      To say it another way, folks who look ahead multiple generations reach very different conclusions regarding climate-change, compared to folks who are less far-sighted.

      Who looks ahead centuries and more? America’s Founders and Framers. Wendell Berry. James Hansen. The Pope. Your mother and father.

      Who looks ahead on shorter time-scales:

         • libertarians look ahead to retirement,
         • senators look ahead 6 year,
         • presidents 4 years,
         • representatives 2 years,
         • business CEOs 1 year,
         • radio pundits one week, and
         • scoundrels and fools, not at all.

      Is it any wonder that the former group regards climate-change seriously, and the latter group does not?   :eek:   :sad:   :cry:

      Conclusion  The AMS has joined the far-sighted faction. Good! It is the proper and traditional role of science to do so.   :)   :)   :)

      • No no no no no! Fan. When I say “you already said that”, that doesn’t mean “say it again, Fan”.

      • The tragedy is not the fact that Fan writes, the tragedy is that otherwise reasonable people still read and respond to that nonsense.

      • A fan of *MORE* discourse

        P.E., have you ever heard this wonderful saying?   :)   :)   :)

        “Science is a perpetual attempt to recognize that the different aspects of nature are really different aspects of the same thing”
           — Richard Feynman

        Climate-change science and climate-change denial are forms of cognition that both evolve only slowly … they can be usefully regarded the extreme poles of long-term and short-term cognition about one shared phenomenon: climate-change.   :)   :)   :)

        What’s shifting rapidly are the Bayesian odds favoring the proposition “James Hansen’s long-term worldview is essentially correct.” The AMS position is shifting precisely because these odds are shifting, eh? Shifting drastically!

        And so the strengthened AMS resolution makes good sense, eh?   :grin:   :grin:   :grin:

      • Why do your posts remind me of the Cheshire cat?

      • They remind me of the eminent computer scientist and nuclear physicist Alfred E. Neuman.

      • Latimer Alder

        Reminds me of the obscure and incomprehensible ramblings of ‘Manic Dave’ who frequented the Dog and Duck some years ago.

        He was initially amusing in very small doses, but the novelty wore off as he got more and more pissed.

      • lurker passing through, laughing

        fan of more BS, a true climate kook, relies on Feynman, who recognized climate kookiness for what it is. The climate crazed are thoughtfully providing free laughs during these challenging times.

      • Pretty sure Feynman would have accepted man-made global warming when he saw the evidence.

      • For the millionth time…the issue is not if GW exists, or even if AGW exists…the issue is: how bad is it? I am 100% sure Feynman would have stayed away from CAGW, just as Dyson does.

      • A fan of *MORE* discourse

        omnologos believes  “I am 100% sure Feynman would have stayed away from CAGW.”

        LOL … omnologos, are you “100% sure” of that?  :grin:

        “People search for certainty. But there is no certainty. People are terrified—how can you live and not know? It is not odd at all. You only think you know, as a matter of fact. And most of your actions are based on incomplete knowledge … it is possible to live and not know.”

        “I have different degrees of certainty about different things, but I’m not absolutely sure of anything.”

        “Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty — some most unsure, some nearly sure, none absolutely certain.”

        “Much of our knowledge must always remain uncertain. The most we can know is in terms of probabilities.”

            —Richard Feynman

        So, how would you like your uncertainty to be further increased, omnologos?   :)   :)   :)

        To start, we can ask ourselves this simple question: What *IS* a rational, nonzero, Feynman-style uncertainty estimate, regarding the proposition “James Hansen’s long-term worldview is essentially correct”?   :?:   :?:   :?:

        The world wonders!   :)   :)   :)

      • “Science is a perpetual attempt to recognize that the different aspects of nature are really different aspects of the same thing”

        Thanks Fan. That is a great quote by RF. Another way to phrase it is that science is about looking for patterns in nature and using the patterns of math and then uniting the two.

        “Much of our knowledge must always remain uncertain. The most we can know is in terms of probabilities.”

        Another great one. I read Feynman too long ago, when I was in college and didn’t realize a lot of these little tidbits he threw out.

        Feynman’s CalTech colleague and certainly an equal Murray Gell-Mann is still kicking around and has to laugh at all the climate kooks that are flying Feynman’s flag as if they knew what he would think about the current science.
        And of course Gell-Mann is a signatory on one of the AGW statements from a couple of years ago.

      • scoundrels do look ahead. some of them get caught and we know about them.

    • Fan, I’d like to thank you for your three smiley face obsession. Makes it easier to simply scroll past without reading.

  4. Climate change is dominated by natural oscillations of sun and the Earth’s core. One provides the energy, the other the variability in the absorption and release of the energy. Understanding of the natural oscillations is key not only the climate but other natural events. Here I demonstrate one more of the Sun-Earth relationships.

    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/Sun-Earth.htm

    Arctic Ice
    After two years of digging into North Atlantic SST, it is obvious to me that the AMO is at top of the cycle. Since the AMO is measured south of Iceland it might take a 2-3 years more for the peak of the energy (heat) cycle to reach the Beaufort gyre.
    Nature will do its thing weather we like it or not.

    • vukcevic | August 27, 2012 at 1:42 pm

      vuk, you are still confusing astrology with climatic changes. Your Balkans had the biggest snowfall in living memory – because was insufficient ice on Arctic in winter – mountains should have absorbed the water from the melting snow for dry days…

      Now, few months after, is dryer than ever / crops scorched. Because Sahara / sub Sahara are building strength in producing extra dry heat – Lake Chad, Caspian sea are almost dry = less moisture created, to fight the extra dry heat -> dry heat vacuums the moisture. You are stuck into your astrology / (the heavenly influences) wan’t let go – same as a blind to a lamp post, wan’t let go… shame shame!

      1] it wasn’t enough ice on arctic’s water, because of lack of ”raw material” for renewal of the ice. 2] lake Chad, Caspian are drying, because of lack of raw material for rain (that raw material) ”water vapor” is demonized by all the Warmist and half of the Fakes. Even badmouthed on this post. Unless you let off the sun / galaxy influences – you will die ignorant and dumb, with your Pagan lunacy.

  5. lurker, passing through laughing

    Dr. Curry,
    The professional organizations are oddly and sadly vulnerable to the sort of dysfunction that cults like climate change represent.
    Fortunately, history preserves this sort of junk so they can provide entertainment and laughs for future readers.

  6. Dr. Curry,

    You ask “why now?” let alone emphasis on conformational bias. I suggest you cast your eye around for a political event: RNC, DNC. Platform writing occurs as I write. Climate change is likely being written out of the Republican platform and is endangered of being written out of the Democratic platform.

    Just as Muller tried to influence Durban and other political types try to spin public opinion around weather events, so too, the spiel is ramped up to influence influence peddlers, and those susceptible to being influenced.

    Hence, the short term objective: political platforms.

    My onion.

    • Could very well be. But I doubt it’s going to influence either. The R platform is essentially a done deal, and the D platform is pretty close to a done deal as well. If it didn’t make it in so far, it’s because the message people decided it wasn’t good message.

      So, yeah, that’s probably what’s behind it, and no it’s not likely to make any difference.

  7. The “flagship” professional society in my area of interest, the American Statistical Association, also has developed a penchant for issuing these kinds of consensus statements, on climate and other issues. They reflect internal politics at an executive level that usually is isolated from the greater membership. These statements then are fed to the press and from there to the general public, willfully feeding on misperceptions in the latter about the way that science operates. Uncertainty disappears not because the science has resolved it, but because of fear that the boobs won’t be able to process it.

  8. Project* count = 14
    Model* count = 10
    Simulation* count = 10

    *and variants thereof

    AMS Statement credibility count (IMHO) = 0

    • Actually (after reviewing entire Statement), “simulation” count is less than 10, but overall it’s … well … worse than I thought. Counts of words (and variants thereof):

      Climate 62
      Warming 21
      Greenhouse 21
      Model 19
      Project 19
      Human 18
      Weather 14
      Extreme 9
      Simulation 8
      CO2 8
      Scientific 6
      Potential 6
      Evidence 4
      Unequivocal 2
      Inevitable 2
      Uncertain 2
      Sustain 1

      The phrase “climate change” occurs no less than thirteen times, while “global warming” only rates two mentions.

      Needless to say, none of the above does much to enhance the credibility count of the AMS. But it does make an interesting comparison with the recent Rio+20 “outcome document” – in which “sustainable/sustainability” swamped “climate change”.

  9. Apart from the broader issue of whether or not professional societies should make such statements, the main question that I have is why write a new statement now?

    Well – in lieu of any actual evidence, let’s speculate about some conspiracy theories and try attributing the event to some completely unquantified theories with no relevant evidence controlled for different variables.

    K?

    Very few posts so far, but we do have a few conspiracy theories proffered already. Here’s my favorite so far:

    You ask “why now?” let alone emphasis on conformational bias. I suggest you cast your eye around for a political event: RNC, DNC. Platform writing occurs as I write.

    As for unquantified theories with no relevant evidence or control for variables, I would offer your own speculation:

    As far as I can tell, this statement is a naive example of Michael Kelly’s invisible hand (quote from my no consensus paper)…
    In other words, consensus statements get parroted without any actual intellectual examination.

    Do you have any evidence to support your speculation that this statement involved no “actual intellectual examination?”

    Any?

    At all?

    Wouldn’t having some actual evidence be a prerequisite for a scientist proffering a theory about a cause-and-effect relationship?

    Paging Mr. Uncertain. T. Monster….Paging Mr. Monster.

    • No conspiracy theory needed. Just a confederacy of dunces.

      The election, the upcoming IPCC report, the recent hot summer in the newspaper recently are all reasons that may have led the small group of people on the council to decide it was time to put their two cents out there again so soon.

      • So would your theory be supported by identifying a similar causality in previous statements by similar institutions?

        One would think that if you were proffering such a theory – the very first thing you’d do is look for the kind of supporting evidence I suggest.

        Seeing as how you seem to support the theory – I assume that you have the evidence readily available?

      • And sorry, BIll…

        It really is a conspiracy theory.

        There is no quantified or qualified data offered to support a hypothesis about a cause-and-effect relationship that requires a coordinated and unified effort (with no stated dissent) from a group of people that certainly hr001 has had no personal contact with. Even Judith says that she hasn’t even heard of some 50% of the people potentially involved in the drafting of the statement.

        How do you differentiate a confederacy of dunces from a conspiracy theory? And further, on what basis do you classify people you’ve never met as “dunces” other than that they disagree with you as to how scientific data should be interpreted?

      • And one more thing –

        How would asking Judith for input square with either a confederacy of dunces or a conspiracy theory?

        Now presumably asking for her input could be considered an attempt to claim plausible deniability for a conspiracy/confederacy – but please note that the AMS did not publicize their attempt to get her input – Judith did. Is there some mechanism that would have required her input because of some professional association? If not, then the evidence that Judith herself supplies is counter to the conspiracy/confederacy theory.

      • I believe that all members of the AMS were sent the same email, noting the draft statement was open for comment from the membership

      • Judith –

        I believe that all members of the AMS were sent the same email, noting the draft statement was open for comment from the membership

        So the question becomes do you have any information on how those comments from the membership were handled?

        Perhaps comments from “skeptics” were routinely dismissed without any consideration, and comments from “realists” were incorporated without any evaluation as well. It is certainly theoretically possible.

        The question is whether you have any evidence. Asking questions about the process is certainly appropriate.

        However, it seems to me that identifying evidence should be a prerequisite before you throw your weight behind even speculative conclusions.

      • Nope, I have no idea what kind of comments were received from the membership or how they were handled. I have talked to enough AMS members who are skeptical of such statements to support what I said.

      • Nope, I have no idea what kind of comments were received from the membership or how they were handled. I have talked to enough AMS members who are skeptical of such statements to support what I said.

        So on the one hand you have no idea how the comments were handled, but on the other hand you attribute the statement to “parrot[ing] without any actual intellectual examination.”

        Do you think everyone involved in issuing this statement was a parrot, or just most of them?

      • Roger Caiazza

        Comments on the draft policy document were due at the same time that there was a public relations campaign going on. Remember: “Forecast the Facts is a campaign to hold meteorologists accountable. It starts by calling on the American Meteorological Society to resist pressure from deniers and issue a strong statement on climate change.” I commented on the draft document and noted that the draft, which in my opinion was not as strong as the final product, could have been written by that organization.

        If you can find any sign that the following comments were addressed or acknowledged in the policy statement you are more charitable than I am. I am sure that soon the statement “Avoiding this future warming will require a large and rapid reduction in global greenhouse gas emissions” will be politicized to the point that anyone with alternate viewpoints will be demonized. I have to ask myself whether I want to continue to be part of an organization that would publish that statement without adequate caveat.

        My comments:
        While I personally disagree with scientific organizations preparing specific issue advocacy documents I understand that AMS disagrees. However, this policy statement should directly confront the ultimate climate change policy requirement from the scientific community: can reductions in greenhouse gas emissions mitigate climate change and how much can be mitigated with appropriate discussion of the uncertainty of that estimate. The draft statement does not adequately acknowledge the uncertainties of the current state of climate science and does not emphasize how becoming a weather-resilient society will also address adaptation. I believed the document needed to be revised considerably before I saw that proponents were campaigning for this statement to be strong. Now I think it is even more important to be impartial and fully disclose uncertainties.

        This document has been crafted to imply an answer to the GHG emission mitigation policy while at the same time avoiding any specific statements that can be challenged. As is typical for this type of climate change statement, the unequivocal warming is noted, a litany of observations sounding an alarm for the problem are described, mechanisms are proposed for the observations and the final remarks make a plea for mitigation of GHG emissions. Notably lacking in these statements is a clear explanation of the changes in uncertainties within the presentation. From the unequivocal, we know it is warming to the statement “it is widely accepted that the dominant cause of the rapid change in climate of the past half century is human-induced increases in the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases” the readership needs to know certainty decreases with every statement. Moreover it does not address the ultimate policy question. If we parse the quotation it can be construed as supporting mitigation with certainty but “dominant cause” could also mean that of GHG concentrations, land use changes and aerosol changes, GHG concentrations is 40% of the problem and the others only 30% each. Policy makers should have access to the caveats and nuance that this statement does not provide.

        As it stands now this document will be held up as “proof” that the AMS supports the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming theory. Proponents will undoubtedly use this to argue for reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. However, the document does a dis-service to its membership and its audience by not directly addressing the uncertainties that must be addressed for mitigation policies.

        One final point in the presentation scheme also should be addressed. While I am not generally in favor of the AMS advocating for any specific policies, I do think that we should be strong supporters of making society more resilient to weather impacts in general. In that light and combined with the fact that the majority of climate change impacts are incremental to weather impacts that will occur with or without climate change caused by human influences, I strongly recommend that this statement emphasize adaptation as a component of a more general goal of making society more resilient to weather impacts. That theme should be incorporated throughout the document.

        In summary, adaptation and uncertainties are included in this document but are not stressed enough in my opinion. The document should be revised to clarify the benefits of a weather-resilient society and how that directly addresses potential climate changes. The descriptions of uncertainty should be incorporated throughout the document clarifying that unequivocal means we know it is warming, we are less certain how much climate has changed, even less certain why climate is changing and much less certain how climate might change in the future.

      • A reply to Joshua (27 Aug, 2.57 pm): Roger Caiazza, CCM, comments at Livingonthe realworld that he “…provided comments on the draft [of the just released AMS policy statement on climate change] which were ignored completely.” Would a comment from Dr Curry have been treated any differently by the AMS?

      • “I have talked to enough AMS members who are skeptical of such statements to support what I said.” – JC.

        How many exactly?

        Given the AMS membership is around 14000, it would need to be quite a few for these views to have much significance.

        Or is Judith suggesting a monolithic consensus is required before coming to any conclusions?

      • lurker, passing through laughing

        Joshua seems dedicated to imposing a monotonic and ignorant answer to any issue. Like a comedy skit where no matter the question, the dunce gives the same answer.
        The climate concerned are great at extemporaneous bits of humor.

      • Latimer Alder

        @lurker etc

        It’ll be time for a shift change soon.

        And then we’ll get the Climate Rapid Response A Team, instead of the inexperienced and talentless ‘Joshua’ and ‘Robert’.

        Which will be an improvement.

    • Jebediah Hypotenuse

      JC comment:

      So who is responsible for this statement?

      Timing: AMS
      Style: AMS
      No acknowledgement of Judith Curry’s musings on uncertainty and parrotting: AMS

      Scientific contents: mother nature.

  10. Shades of The Vatican Rag, by Tom Lehrer

    “First you get down on your knees,
    Fiddle with your rosaries,
    Bow your head with great respect,
    And genuflect, genuflect, genuflect, genuflect.”

    • Jebediah Hypotenuse

      Or this:

      Oh we will all fry together when we fry.
      We’ll be french fried potatoes by and by.
      There will be no more misery
      When the world is our rotisserie,
      Yes, we will all fry together when we fry.

      From
      “We will all go together when we go”

      • David Springer

        I think it works to the tune of “She’ll be coming round the mountain”

        In 5th grade me and two of my buddies got sent to the principle’s office for passing around our own version of that song. The three of us had to sing it to the principle. Thinking quickly, I volunteered to go first and took the first two lines. You should have seen the kid who got the last line. But that was nothing compared to the principle with his hand clamped over his mouth trying not to laugh.

        She was coming round the mountain doing 90 doing 90
        When the chain on her motorcycle broke
        She landed in the grass’
        With the kickstand up her ass
        And her tits playing Dixie on the spokes

  11. Mark B (number 2)

    The following statement is taken from a paper by Butler et al:
    AIR TEMPERATURES AT ARMAGH OBSERVATORY, NORTHERN IRELAND,
    FROM 1796 TO 2002

    http://star.arm.ac.uk/preprints/445.pdf

    In spite of the current warmer conditions, annual mean
    temperatures still remain within the range seen in the previous two centuries

    This paper is full of common sense and does not sensationalize anything. To me (a non scientist), the way that the authors have gone about analysing the evidence is excellent.

    By contrast, the AMS Statemnt looks like it has been issued by the Ministry of Information in a totalitarian state.

    • By contrast, the AMS Statemnt looks like it has been issued by the Ministry of Information in a totalitarian state.

      Yes. This is where the Lysenko analogies become particularly instructive. I mean I don’t personally know any “skeptical” scientists who might, at some point, theoretically be imprisoned or executed. Do you?

      • Latimer Alder

        Did the previous correspondent mention Lysenko, imprisonment or execution? Nope.

        So where did these ideas enter the discussion from? Why Joshua of course….funny that…..

      • Good point, Latimer.

        Let’s just completely ignore the analogy to a totalitarian state, and the WSJ editorial referencing Lysenkoism.

        Why Joshua of course….funny that…..

        Drats. Foiled again. I should have none I couldn’t hide my true intent from “skeptics” like Latimer. They’re just so dang smart.

        When will I ever learn?

      • Latimer Alder

        I see the analogy to a totalitarian state. But even if I squint through my fingers and try very very hard to believe in Peter Pan, I cannot see where Mark B (number 2) mentions, points to, links to or otherwise indicates approval of, nor affinity to a WSJ editorial about Lysenkoism.

        There are only about 95 words in his remarks and I have read them all (using a dictionary for the long and difficult ones).

        Where does he mention Lysenko or the WSJ? Nowhere. The first to introduce that term into this whole thread was you. Projection?

      • Mark B (number 2)

        I don’t know who Lysenko is, so this doesn’t make sense to me.

      • Just in case you missed this: Watson, Paul Joseph. “Climate Alarmist Calls For Burning Down Skeptics’ Homes.” Infowars, n.d. http://www.infowars.com/climate-alarmist-calls-for-burning-down-skeptics-homes/
        “Let’s start keeping track of them…let’s make them pay”.
        “Writing for Forbes Magazine, climate change alarmist Steve Zwick calls for skeptics of man-made global warming to be tracked, hunted down and have their homes burned to the ground, yet another shocking illustration of how eco-fascism is rife within the environmentalist lobby.”
        And then there is 10:10.

    • Thanks, Mark B, for this timely reminder that there are still climate scientists who do science in the traditional way, by looking critically at good data (in the case of the paper by Butler et al (2004) a long time series – with some gaps – of instrumental temperature measurements from a single station in a park in a small town) and discussing calmly what conclusions can be drawn from the data. The hysterical statement from the AMS elite seems to represent the antithesis of such an approach.
      Butler et al go on to make this interesting point:
      “The mid-19th century warm period, which is also seen in the central England series, has received relatively little attention. It is important to establish the reality of such 19th century warmings, because that century is frequently used as a baseline for modelling the 20th century climate. A baseline at the end of the 19th century, when conditions were noticeably cooler, would exaggerate the subsequent warming in the 20th century.”

      • Mark B (number 2)

        Coldish, I’m glad you found that paper interesting. This is is another comment from it:
        “At the top of Figure 9 we show a series for the eastern USA (Landsberg et al., 1968).
        Again, rises and falls of temperature follow those seen in the European series, suggesting that the variations seen in northwest
        Europe are indicative of changes over a wider area.”

        The common factor here is the Atlantic Ocean. I have already downloaded annual ice core data from Greenland and I am going to see whether there is any correlation between this and the earliest set of Armagh data, which was from 1795 to 1825, and seems to be the most reliable (and consistent) set of readings taken prior to the 1880s. The first task will be to verify whether the claimed individual years of ice core data have actually been taken from those years.
        The very cold year of 1816 should show up on both sets of data, so that will be a starting point.

  12. Statements such as this from so called professional societies should be illegal unless approved in a proper democratic vote by a 2/3 majority of their members.

    One would expect that the membership of a professional society would have sufficient intellect to understand the issues and not need an (often unelected) quorum to speak on their members behalf.

    Presumably they are afraid of the outcome of such a vote, they might get a surprise along the lines experienced by the authors of the infamous “97% of scientists” survey.

    • Statements such as this from so called professional societies should be illegal unless approved in a proper democratic vote by a 2/3 majority of their members..

      I agree. How else are we going to protect against statists that are trying to destroy our democratic, capitalist system unless we get more laws to constrict their behavior?

      It’s like how will we prevent the government from taking over Medicare unless we get some Tea Party Congress-criters to write some laws as a prevention?

    • David Springer

      Perhaps against the by-laws. Presumably the members-at-large have exactly the representation they elected. It’s up to them to police it if they are dissatisfied.

    • Robin Guenier

      A survey of the opinions of AMS members was conducted last February: http://www.climatechangecommunication.org/images/files/AMS_CICCC_Survey_Preliminary_Findings-Final.pdf

      The survey was not well phrased but, in essence, it found that (1) 44% are sure GW is happening and is mostly anthropogenic and (2) 28% think GW (anthropogenic or not) is serious.

      • Odd interpretation. 89% think GW is happening. Of that 89%, 46% are extremely sure and 37% very sure. That’s pretty sure.

        Over the next 100 years, if unaddressed, 38% think GW will be harmful, and an additional 38% think it will be somewhat harmful.

        Only 2.4%, Kim bots, think GW will be beneficial. Plant food, miracles, etc.

      • David Springer

        Only 24% responded to the survey. Not even David Springer knows what the other 76% were thinking but it probably wasn’t “Global warming is an important concern of mine so as an accredited professional in the weather forecasting business I should make my opinion on it known.”

        Har har har

      • Or, the wife called and I forgot to put the can out on the street and my kid could only find one sock. You’re wrong. Time is going to make a 99.99% dead wrong. It’s kind of funny.

      • David Springer

        Ah. So forgetting to put out the garbage and a child’s missing sock are more important than global warming. Thanks for setting me straight on that. LOL

      • No, a correct interpretation. See my response below (8:55 am) to Max_OK.

        You’ve confused GW “is happening” with GW is happening and is “caused mostly by human activity”. A common error.

      • David Springer

        When asked “Is global warming a big enough concern of yours to bother responding to this survey?”

        76% said no.

      • In a nutshell..

        Perhaps the should be asked why they are making consensus statements of a unproven belief from the minority.

  13. A well thought out statement that summarizes the facts we have so far.

    Hard to see anything there for a reasonable person to object to.

    These are realities that need to be faced.

    • Nonsense. No climate model has yet come anywhere near predicting current temperatures. Many of the so-called facts quoted are extremely questionable.

      • Name one.

      • Can’t name one, huh?

        Just one little “so-called fact” that is “highly questionable”?

        C’mon. Try.

      • That graph is wrong. But this is c3headlines we are talking about, home of being wrong.

      • “It is clear from extensive scientific evidence that the dominant cause of the rapid change in climate of the past half century is human-induced increases in the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide (CO2), chlorofluorocarbons, methane, and nitrous oxide. The most important of these over the long term is CO2, whose concentration in the atmosphere is rising principally as a result of fossil-fuel combustion and deforestation.”

        Two big things. What is clear is that they haven’t shown any such things,

        because A: no empirical or rational physical explanation has ever been presented that Carbon Dioxide which is fully part of the Water Cycle which cools the Earth 52°C to 15°C from the 67°C it would be without it, think deserts, is capable of reversing that to raise the temps at all never mind the 1,2,4,6, 10 degrees centigrade bandied about with such fantastical abandon posturing as science, and

        because B: it is not possible to differentiate between ‘human’ produced by burning fossil fuels and other natural sources particularly volcanic emissions, and

        because C: the amount of natural emissions from volcanic sources has been underestimated, and

        because D: etc. etc.

        For B & C please see: http://carbon-budget.geologist-1011.net/

        Volcanic Carbon Dioxide
        Timothy Casey B.Sc. (Hons.)
        Consulting Geologist

        “Abstract
        A brief survey of the literature concerning volcanogenic carbon dioxide emission finds that estimates of subaerial emission totals fail to account for the diversity of volcanic emissions and are unprepared for individual outliers that dominate known volcanic emissions.”

        For A, please engage brain. Water vapour is the main “greenhouse gas” and this cools the Earth ergo there is no “Greenhouse Effect which is that “greenhouse gases” (i.e. those capable of imbibing thermal radiation), raise the temperature of the Earth 33°C from the claimed -18°C it would be without them.”

        This is a junk science statement from an organisation which has taken itself out of real science and is now devoting its time to promoting an internally incoherent fantasy fictional fisics important to a minority who have no idea what they are defending because they have no idea what they are talking about.

  14. Latimer Alder

    ‘In the 21st century, global sea level also will continue to rise although the rise will not be uniform at all locations.’

    Does that mean we will have hills in the sea? It goes up more in some places than others? Or are they mistaking what we maritime people call ‘tides’?

    But anyway they are still predicting only two feet rise in 88 years (one housebrick every 11 years). And I’m not going to lose sleep over that.

    • Does anyone know whether or not they accounted for subsidence? I have seen a report that 50% of the sea level rise was due to that. If not, it is another of those pesky missing variables. :-)

  15. Cees de Valk

    The commented on the draft with the advice to stop publishing this stuff. In particular the Final Remarks are a disgrace: who do they think they are to declare this? Totally unprofessional. You can’t blame elected politicians for ignoring or ridiculing climate scientists if they act like unelected politicians. AGU and AMS keep working hard to run climate as a relevant scientific discipline into the ground.

  16. “….what is the basis for making a more confident statement on attribution (which seems to be based wholly on models) than was made in the AR4?”
    Mmmm…….
    ¿Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity?

  17. Bill Hooke provides some further info on the AMS statement

    http://www.livingontherealworld.org/?p=714

  18. It seems to me that our hostress has reacted in completely the wrong way to this paper. This is not a scientific document; it is a joke. It is a cross between a political manifesto by Karl Mann, and the CAGW Gospel according to Sant Iago.

  19. It’s like a nature hike through the Book of Revelations!

  20. Judith Curry

    Thanks for posting this.

    The new AMS Policy Statement indicates that the AMS Counsel has joined the “consensus”.

    AMS Policy Statements are aimed at representatives of local, state, or Federal government, officials of international bodies, and related policy professionals.

    (Yawn – no new “science” here; looks like politics as usual.)

    Max

    • Professional societies didn’t used to see themselves as political actors. This is something that’s come about in the past 20 years. But you’re right; they’re all doing it now. It’s now the way it’s done.

  21. Does this group of people inspire my confidence in making an assessment of climate change? In a word, NO.

    I doubt you inspire confidence in them, either.

    What this statement and others like it illustrate is that the scientific understanding of climate change is moving further away from denialism and its cousin, lukewarmerism. Obviously that is going to be an uncomfortable feeling for someone with a foot in both worlds.

    This is, it seems to me, a responsible, adult way of dealing with this, and a childish, futile way. The adult way begins by acknowledging that if you vehemently disagree with more and more of your collegues, it’s entirely plausible that you’re wrong. That you’ve missed something. That you’ve ended up in a blind alley that your ego is preventing you from recognizing as a blind alley.

    Second aspect of the adult response: realize that you need some really powerful science if you still think you’re right and you want to convince others. Attacking other people’s science, though undoubtedly part of process, is not going to be enough. Inveighing against Bayesian probability is not going to be enough. To affect such a broad scientific agreement takes data, not merely complaining.

    The childish response, or course, is to become more emotionally attached to your position the more at odds with other scientists it is; to blame tribalism and groupthink, embrace cranks and blowhards if they are willing to share your “skepticism.”

    You are, of course, entitled to your own opinion. As the statement of your own professional society attests, however, without better arguments than you’ve offerred so far, it just doesn’t carry much weight.

    • David Springer

      Robert,

      Show your data that the number of scientists who are about the global warming bandwagon are increasing.

      In the United States you are certainly losing hearts and minds in the general population. I would be surprised if the trend is different among scientists. Climategate was a mortal wound but the bleeding of mindshare was dropping for a year or two prior to it.

      http://www.gallup.com/poll/126560/americans-global-warming-concerns-continue-drop.aspx

    • Robert, you write “The adult way begins by acknowledging that if you vehemently disagree with more and more of your collegues, it’s entirely plausible that you’re wrong.”

      Consider the case of Prof. Dan Shectman, who won the Noble Prize for Chemistry in 2011; for the discovery of quasi crystals.

      “Shechtman’s image, however, showed that the atoms in his crystal were packed in a pattern that could not be repeated. Such a pattern was considered just as impossible as creating a football using only six-cornered polygons, when a sphere needs both five- and six-cornered polygons. His discovery was extremely controversial. In the course of defending his findings, he was asked to leave his research group. However, his battle eventually forced scientists to reconsider their conception of the very nature of matter.”

      So a Noble Laureat was ostracized by his colleagues because no-one agreed with his ideas. sarc on/ But that was the adult way of doing things. /sarc off

      • Absolutely nothing you’ve said challenges my points in any way. Indeed, it reinforces them. Apparently you’ve misunderstood your own anecdote. :)

      • If Robert had been Custer at Little Big Horn, he’d have come back as a ghost to claim victory.

      • Pauling = Dyson, etc.

      • The ignorant Crip won’t understand your brilliant equivalance JCH.

        Pauling alone was the bad fly in the ointment. Like Dyson, his past glory could not make up for the fact that he was wrong. Pauling temporarily took down many of his acolytes along with him, but eventually consensus science won out.

        The Shechtman story is exactly the wrong analogy for the climate skeptics to pin their views on. I was right there at the time, immersed in crystal diffraction research.

  22. Chad Wozniak

    How sad it is that an organization like the AMS would try to lend credence to AGW bull@#$%&*!! Obviously, criminal-reactionary-leftist politics rules at the AMS, and to hell with science and honesty. You have to wonder whose @#$%&*!!hole they pulled their numbers for warming out of.

    Criiminal? You bet. The AGW freakos are conspiring to deprive us of our inalienable rights. If that isn’t a crime, it sure as hell should be.

  23. David Springer

    Very unlikely to be a consensus opinion of the members. The whole article below should be read by anyone who doesn’t know that the face of weather forecasting in the public eye is in the skeptic column.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/30/science/earth/30warming.html

    Such skepticism appears to be widespread among TV forecasters, about half of whom have a degree in meteorology. A study released on Monday by researchers at George Mason University and the University of Texas at Austin found that only about half of the 571 television weathercasters surveyed believed that global warming was occurring and fewer than a third believed that climate change was “caused mostly by human activities.”

    More than a quarter of the weathercasters in the survey agreed with the statement “Global warming is a scam,” the researchers found.

    • David Springer

      I suppose I should qualify that with US weather forecasters. Not that any others matter, mind you, but that’s probably better left unsaid. :mrgreen:

      • Mark B (number 2)

        You are dead right to “qualify that with US weather forecasters”
        This view is not shared by Britain’s foremost weatherman, Fred Talbot:

        “Fred was involved in ITV Granada’s ‘Big Challenge’ environmental campaign in 2006 with the production of Fred Talbot’s Green Guide. He is also extremely active in the environmental campaign Manchester Is My Planet, a project which encourages people to reduce their carbon footprint….
        Fred, who is known for his Green Guide and for his floating map on ITV, will be made an Honorary Doctor of Science.
        MMU has been particularly impressed with his role in making the “case for action to protect our planet and against climate change accessible to millions.”

        http://www.zoominfo.com/#!search/profile/person?personId=46965085&targetid=profile

      • David Springer

        The OP is about the opinion of the American Meteorological Society so I’m still not sure that I needed to specifically qualify it.

      • Mark B (number 2)

        Point taken. Anyway, I think that Fred Talbot is past it anyway. If they brought the floating weather map back, I doubt whether he could safely make the leap from Northern Ireland to Scotland without ending up in the water of Liverpool Docks.

    • I was hoping Joe Bastardi would show up and comment on this thread, but I have a hunch he’s got other things going on right about now.

    • “only about half of the 571 television weathercasters surveyed believed that global warming was occurring”

      Wot? I thought the line (lie?) was that skeptics accept the world is warming, they just question the cause.

      • David Springer

        Probably because half of them know what the satellites have been telling them about global warming for the past 10 years.

        http://www.gallup.com/poll/126560/americans-global-warming-concerns-continue-drop.aspx

        As long as that trend continues you’re going to bleed mindshare.

      • David Springer

        Oops. Wrong link left in my clipboard. Try this:

        http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:2002/plot/rss/from:2002/trend

      • Have they looked recently?

        http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:2008/plot/rss/from:2008/trend

        0.25C/decade warming right there. They must come to the conclusion the world is warming right?

      • David Springer

        If they looked recently they’d see 2.00C/decade global cooling.

        http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:2010/plot/rss/from:2010/trend

        We’re in a world of hurt if that trend goes on for 20 more years, huh?

        Ever seen a wooly mammoth? You may live long enough…

        ROFLMAO

      • Mark B (number 2)

        lolwot, you cheated because you didn’t look at a full decade, but you still came up with a figure for the warming per decade. David’s first graph was for a full decade, which gives it more validity.

      • Is there some reason why you are quoting a 2010 poll?

        Is it just a coincidence that the two years since then have shown a fall in opinion against your favor?

      • David Springer

        Don’t you wish you could retract that given that I snuck in the correction to the link before you pointed it out? LOL

      • There’s nothing so funny as Davy trying to gloat.

        “Yeah! I found a stupid mistake in what I wrote before you did! IN YOUR FACE!”

        :)

      • David Springer

        In the past two years poll results have not changed more than the margin of error but the change since 2006 is far larger than the margin of error. No cherry picking. Here’s more data and more charts from Gallup on a number of questions. It’s worse than you think:

        http://www.gallup.com/poll/153608/global-warming-views-steady-despite-warm-winter.aspx

        Bottom Line

        The slight majority of Americans support global warming as valid on a number of measures. And after peaking in 2010, public skepticism about global warming softened slightly in 2011, and remains at the lower level this year. Nevertheless, Americans remain less certain about the accuracy of global warming news coverage, about humankind’s role in causing global warming, and about the scientific consensus on the issue than they were last decade.

        Some shift in Americans’ global warming views might have been expected this year, given the near-record warm temperatures experienced this winter across much of the country — Gallup finds 79% of Americans reporting that the weather in their area was warmer than usual, though less than half of these attributed this to global warming.

        However, the fact that belief in global warming did not increase markedly suggests Americans are basing their perceptions more on the debates over scientific evidence than on the weather outside their front door.

      • David Springer

        I’m glad you were able to find some humor in that, Robert. God knows I enjoy bringing a smile to an otherwise angry, bitter person such as yourself.

  24. Government vs. the People:

    A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do. He may as well concern himself with his shadow on the wall. Speak what you think now in hard words, and tomorrow speak what tomorrow thinks in hard words again, though it contradict every thing you said today. — ‘Ah, so you shall be sure to be misunderstood.’ — Is it so bad, then, to be misunderstood? Pythagoras was misunderstood, and Socrates, and Jesus, and Luther, and Copernicus, and Galileo, and Newton, and every pure and wise spirit that ever took flesh. To be great is to be misunderstood. (Emerson, Self-Reliance)

  25. Curiuos George

    I only look closely at one model, UCAR’s Community Atmosphere Model 5.1. This model assumes that a latent heat of vaporization of water is constant; actually it varies by 10% between -50 degrees C and +50 degrees C. I reported it to UCAR scientists. A surprising reply was “The error is trivial compared to many others”.

    I would not bet a planet on this piece of junk.

  26. Robert and lolwat.
    There are plenty of similar graphs. They all demonstrate that climate models are far too inaccurate to base policy on.

  27. This says: The observed changes noted above are beyond what can be explained by what can be explained by the natural variability of the climate.
    I say: The observed changes above, and the explanations that are presented are way beyond what the people doing the explaining do understand about the natural variability of the climate.
    .

    • LOOK AT THE DATA! It is really simple. When the oceans are warm it snows and earth cools. When the oceans are cold it snows less and earth warms.

      This is what natural variability does show.

  28. Robert and lolwat.
    Face reality, India and China will continue to industrialise and co2 emissions will continue to increase regardless of moves by the idiot West to destroy their economies in the name of unachievable and ineffective and pointless co2 reduction.

    The Arctic will have reduced or thinner summer ice for 4 to 10 years or so but after that multi year ice will grow steadily. (AMO + Sun). If the Arctic moves into a situation whereby we can access the resources that are then then we should so.

    If the World gets dramatically warmer then that will be a good thing, opening up vast tracts of land to agriculture in Canada and Russia. We will adapt.

    • David Springer

      +1 for the dose of reality

      Global warming is entirely academic. It will either happen or it won’t and there’s no politically possible way to change that. The only thing that has a snowball’s chance in hell is an engineering solution which simply replaces fossil fuels with something cheaper. Rejoice, for such a solution is near to hand. Synthetic biology. Custom designed artificial microbes will soon (2-3 decades at most) be able to turn water, sunlight, and CO2 into replacements for fossil fuels cheaper than oil at $10/bbl.

      You people who have so much faith in ideologically inspired just-so stories of climate science have no faith in the hard sciences. That’s where we part company. Hard science & engineering is where it’s at. Synthetic biology is a transformative technology. Forget nuclear, forget fusion, forget wind, forget everything except synthetic biology. It’s the answer to cheap sustainable energy and much, much more.

    • You are right, it might now be too late to bring India and China in, let alone other emerging emitters. Not cutting a deal on carbon emissions when the West had more influence was the West’s biggest mistake and it might come back to haunt us.

      Imagine 9/11 had happened but we needed Chinese and Indian permission to do anything about it and they wouldn’t give it. That’s the kind of diplomatic crisis that is in the wings if man’s big climate experiment goes wrong.

      Economic paper calculations of benefits vs harm, adaptation vs mitigation will go out of the window the moment a population watches a disaster unfolding in their own country on TV and perceives it as being caused by the refusal of other countries to act.

      • Oh, yes, war is the answer for misplaced guilt.
        ==========

      • David Springer

        Trying to screw the United States in Kyoto was the big mistake for the CAGW lunatics.

        The U.S. was going to sign off on it until the carbon credits for reforestation were removed. You see the U.S. was replanting so much forest it didn’t need to reduce its carbon footprint to be in compliance with Kyoto. The nut is that Kyoto was never about stopping global warming it was about stopping the runaway economic and military freight train that is the United States of America. Thus the carbon credits for reforestation was dropped in the final version and Bill Clinton then told the proponents to take a long walk on a short pier by not submitting it to the US Senate for ratification.

        I remember it well. Scientific American back then even piled on in favor of not taking part in the treaty.

        http://www.eoearth.org/article/Kyoto_Protocol_and_the_United_States

        However, two of the most difficult issues unresolved at Kyoto, and responsible in large part for the breakdown of the COP-6 negotiations in November 2000, are related to (1) emissions trading — specifically, how much of a country’s obligation to reduce emissions can be met through purchasing credits from outside, vs. taking domestic action; and (2) the extent to which carbon sequestration by forests, soils and agricultural practices can be counted toward a country’s emission reductions.

        The EU opposed the U.S. proposal, mainly on the issue of forests, and the extent to which a country like the United States would receive credits for a “business as usual” scenario that did not involve the harder emissions reductions from fuel sources and technological measures. When the United States put numbers to this proposal, the U.S. credits from carbon sinks appeared to represent about 125 million tons of carbon, against a likely need to reduce emissions by about 600 million tons of carbon to meet its commitment in 2008-2012. This was strongly opposed by the EU and other countries, and a stalemate over this issue, despite several revisions downward of the U.S. position and tentative acceptance of a much smaller amount by the EU, was thought to be a major factor in the collapse of the November COP-6 negotiations at The Hague.

        Much more at the link.

    • Same old tired “I can read the minds of all Asians now and for the next hundred years” fallacy. Come up with something original.

    • The Very Reverend Jebediah Hypotenuse


      If the World gets dramatically warmer then that will be a good thing, opening up vast tracts of land to agriculture in Canada and Russia. We will adapt.

      Right.

      All we will need to do is to import millions of tonnes of topsoil from somewhere else where it isn’t being used, and gently place it on top of the granite, muskeg, and melting permafrost – and then figure out a way to keep the Sun shining on the North during the artic winter.

      Piece of cake. Odd that no one has done this already, isn’t it?

      • Do you deny that the areas will be more easily used by humans if it is warmer there?

      • The Very Reverend Jebediah Hypotenuse

        Deny? Heavens, no.

        Have you ever been to the Canadian or Russian North?

        “More easily used by humans”?
        If that means growing food crops on Baffin or Devon Island, then you really should pop by and see these places sometime.

      • I have been to northern Canada but not to northern Russia. So you agree that the land would be more useful if it was warmer, and I agree that most of the land would be unsuitable for efficient farming.

      • The Very Reverend Jebediah Hypotenuse


        So you agree that the land would be more useful if it was warmer…

        The land you speak of was scraped clean of topsoil by glaciers a few thousand years ago – and even where there is good soil, you still have the problem of it being dark for about 6 months per year.

        And useful to whom?
        You do realize that there are already people living in the North, and that their opinions on ‘adaptation’ might not be yours?

      • Latimer Alder

        @very reverend jebediah hypotenuse

        Good point you raise about the views of the (few) people of the North. No doubt you would give great weight to their desire to continue living the way they would like to.

        But would you extend that courtesy to the people of China and India who are keen to exploit their natural fossil fuels resources and whose rate of increase of emissions makes any mitigation effects taken by the West entirely futile?

        Or are the local population’s wishes only to be considered if they meet with your approval?.

      • Latimer Alder

        @vrjh

        It may be dark for six months each year but the converse is also true. It is light for six months too. ‘The Land of the Midnight Sun’.

      • The Very Reverend Jebediah Hypotenuse

        Latimer Alder:

        But would you extend that courtesy to the people of China and India who are keen to exploit their natural fossil fuels resources and whose rate of increase of emissions makes any mitigation effects taken by the West entirely futile?

        Mitigation effects are the same wherever they come from – Nature doesn’t give a sh*t about West-East provincialism.

        And as a matter of fact, China is at least making the right noises – While the US, Canada, and Australia are dithering.

        http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15444858

      • Latimer Alder

        @VRJH

        ‘China is making the right noises’

        Oh good.That’s all right then..we can all sleep easy in our beds.

        But then I read what he actually said:

        ‘China will not allow its carbon dioxide emissions per person to reach levels seen in the US, ‘

        But given that the population of China is about four times that of the US (1.35 Billion vs 0.31 Billion), it still allows China to emit three times as much in the future as the USA does today. And given the relatively low base, it’ll take a generation or two to get up there. So this pledge costs nothing and will not be tested for a very long time. Talk is cheap.

        Don’t get me wrong. If I were the Chinese minister I’d probably say something very similar. And if a bunch of gullible fools take it to mean something other than what I said, I;d be pleasantly surprised…but I wouldn’t be dashing to correct them. That’s diplomacy.

      • David Springer

        Have you ever been to Alaska, dummy?

      • David Springer

        http://www.randburg.com/gr/general/general_10.html

        Vegetation
        Greenland lies north of the tree line and with rare exceptions it is not possible to cultivate crops. For example, the growing season is too short to allow even wheat to mature.
        Forest-like brush exists in many places. The sunniest valleys in South Greenland have stands of strong, upright birch trees which attain a height of up to 7 metres. Greenlandic ash and various species of willow, evergreens, ferns and several species of herbs also grow in South Greenland. Greenland has a highly varied flora growing on its mountain-slopes, marshes and meadows.

        Although the soil in Greenland is fertile, its productivity is improved with the addition of fertilizers.

      • David Springer

        So much organic matter in tundra soil, it burns.

        http://phys.org/news/2011-07-largest-tundra-yields-scientific.html

        Largest recorded tundra fire yields scientific surprises
        July 27, 2011

        Tundra soils store huge amounts of carbon hundreds to thousands of years old. Intact, the layers of organic soil insulate the permanently frozen ground, called permafrost, below.

        Teh stupid in jebediah hypotenuse it took to say glaciers removed all the topsoil and left just rock behind, it burns too.

      • West River South Dakota is just as easy to use as East River South Dakota. Based upon food production, you would fat as a hog in East River South Dakota and skinny as a rail in West River South Dakota.

        So I’m all for selling West River top soil to unsuspecting Canadians.

      • Very

        You wrote: “And as a matter of fact, China is at least making the right noises – While the US, Canada, and Australia are dithering.”

        You comment is an example of how many “warmists” view the issue and the world community. In your view it does not seem to matter if actions are taken that do nothing, we should be trying something! It doesn’t matter that in the real world that developing nations will be increasing their emissions greatly over the next several decades- what is important is that the west show that we are working to reduce emissions! It doesn’t matter that the reductions can not be shown to actually improve the feared conditions, and will have reduced available resources for actually accomplishing something– we need to reduce emissions!

        Why???

      • The Very Reverend Jebediah Hypotenuse

        OK, Rob. You’ve just pigeon-holed me; you’ve told me that I’m a typical “warmist” who believes whatever piffle you think “warmists” believe.

        You aren’t looking for a real “why?” – You are looking for a straw man to knock over.

      • Very

        I apologize if I have overly generalized your beliefs or position, but you did write a statement indicating that indicates the rhetoric from China is of importance, when in fact it means nothing about actual emissions.

        Is it unreasonable to ask what will be accomplished to avoid the conditions that are feared if the actions proposed are implemented? Is it unreasonable to believe that it is foolish to support the implementation of actions without having knowledge of what the action will accomplish in regards to the indicated condition?

      • The Very Reverend Jebediah Hypotenuse

        Rob,

        None of the questions you ask are unreasonable, IMO.

        Neither you nor Latimer seem to believe that the Chinese will abide by their own laws. And maybe they won’t.

        The point is – The laws of physics do not care which nation-state GHGs come from. And, so far – it is the West that has contributed the majority of the indutrial CO2 increase.

        If you want to complain about the per-capita Chinese or Indian level of emissions reaching levels that we’ve been releasing for decades, then you are simply elevating hypocrisy to the level of international diplomacy.

        Of course, that has been done before. YMMV.

      • Very

        If this was an issue of basic physics there would be no debate. In the real world developing nations will continue to increase their CO2 emissions. The question is:
        “Will the conditions that you fear become less worrisome if the USA adopts the actions that you propose, and is the improvement in conditions worth the expense to US citizens?”

        Imo, there is no reliable information to be able to tell us the answer. Is weather less troublesome at 500 ppm vs 520 ppm?

        I think it does not make sense to incur costs to reduce CO2 emissions in the USA when we don’t know if the expense will accomplish anything towards achieving the desired goal.

  29. David L. Hagen

    Pielke Sr., Curry, and Singer on the new AMS climate statement at WUWT
    Contradictory Statements By The American Meterological Society – Comments On The New Statement Titled “Climate Change” Roger Pielke Sr.

    WUWT includes an extensive opinion by Fred S. Singer including:

    It should be clear by now that the strong AGW claims of the IPCC are based on rather flimsy evidence. We look forward to the next IPCC report due in 2013-14 to see if additional data and model results show better support for their claim. I serve as an “expert reviewer” of this report but have not seen any such evidence in the first draft.
    In the meantime we can post certain question to the AGW supporters and await their answers:

    **Why did climate warm between 1910 and 1940?

    **Why did climate cool from 1940-1975? If the cause is assumed to be aerosols, also please explain the separate trends observed in the northern and southern hemispheres and compare with climate models. This asymmetry has been a puzzle for some time.

    **Why is there a step increase (temperature “jump”) in 1976-77 — and again in 2001-2002? Such jumps are not in accord with the slow steady increase calculated by climate models.

    **Why is there no pronounced warming trend since 2002?

    **And finally, why no warming for night-time marine air temperatures, troposphere, and proxies in the last two decades of the 20th century — in conflict with reported land-surface temperatures? Could one admit the possibility that there might be something wrong with the land-surface data used by IPCC as ‘evidence’ for AGW?

    For these and many similar reasons, scientific debate about the extent and implications of the anthropogenic contribution to past and future global warming is essential for formulating a rational energy policy as the keystone for economic prosperity. The upcoming election battles may provide such an opportunity.

  30. I swear the CAGW progressive agonistes here have all gone to the same propagandistic blogging seminar.

    1. Answer every question with a question.
    2. Always demand proof of any statement by your opponent, without giving any yourself.
    3. Change and argue terminology on even the most insignificant points. (Joshua is the past master at this sophomoric tactic.)
    4. Attack, attack, attack, then cry foul when your opponent defends himself in kind. (Accuse your opponent of the most grievous moral failings, and when he calls you a progressive, decry the politics of personal destruction.)
    5. No matter how badly you are proven wrong, never admit an error and always claim victory. (This is Robert’s specialty.)
    6. Graphs, lots of graphs, with scary colors and carefully chosen time scales. (After all, everybody else is stupid, that’s why they have the right to run our lives for us – so pictures, no matter how misleading, are key.)

    Delete all comments from the progressive drones above that meet these criteria, and I bet this thread shrinks by half.

    • 1. are you serious?
      2. citation needed.
      3. what do you mean by “terminology”?
      4. that’s just stupid.
      5. If you’ve got nothing better to say then clearly I’ve won.
      6. http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/noise/derivative/plot/noise

      • ‘3. what do you mean by “terminology”?’
        forcing, equilibrium, average and unforced

      • Those are all valid concepts borrowed from control systems engineering. Whether or not they’re being properly used by the climatati is a whole other question.

      • Evidently the tangle of ignorant, fantical neo-fascist hatred that is Gary does not recognize blatant hypocrisy and desperate attempts at projection when he is vomiting them forth.

        It is nice of him to admit that asking for evidence of deniers’ assertions drives them up the wall. ;) Why is it that being asked to back up his claims makes him so very angry? Maybe because he knows he can’t?

      • A great big gold star for Robert for demonstrating points 2, 3 and 5 in a two paragraph comment.

      • Add projection to that.

        ignorant, fantical neo-fascist hatred that is Gary does not recognize blatant hypocrisy and desperate attempts at projection when he is vomiting them forth.

        Followed by

        Why is it that being asked to back up his claims makes him so very angry?

        :lol:

      • Michael Larkin

        Wonder of wonders. It’s got a sense of humour, Who’d a thunk it?

  31. The AGW house of cards, as shown in the graph below, was built by smoothing all the oscillations in GMST before 1970s and leaving the warming phase of the oscillation since then untouched and calling it man-made.

    IPCC Chart => http://bit.ly/OaemsT

    As shown in the IPCC’s own chart above, the models haven’t represented the observed global cooling from 1880s to 1910s and the global warming from 1910s to 1940s. As the models don’t agree with the known past, they have ZERO chance of predicting the unknown future.

  32. “The dominant cause of the warming since the 1950s is human activities.”

    The mistakes of the IPCC, dutifully followed by AMS, is best illustrated by the above statement. By quantifying climate calamity to begin in 1950, when temperature was actually falling from its peak in 1940, (see my web site) the AMS ignored important evidence at the very beginning of modern climate. Evidence that showed conclusively the importance of resonance in CO2 at about 14.5 microns and the limited capability of CO2 to absorb energy at that wavelength. By ignoring the unchecked build up of world temperature between 1905 and 1940, 0.45C, the IPCC missed out on seeing the maximum rate of temperature build up possible for that concentration of CO2 (a rare gas) but also ignored the transport delay of the oceans in returning that burst of heat to the atmosphere, completed by 2000. Both the BEST project and satellite temperature show little or no increase in temperature after 2000.

  33. “The dominant cause of the warming since the 1950s is human activities.”

    Actually, the dominate cause of warming since the 1950s appears to be the cooling or lack of warming in the 1940s in the northern hemisphere. It is almost like there is some kind of 50 to 60 year oscillation.

    • The Skeptical Warmist (aka R. Gates)

      Of course, you are assuming that the rapid increase in human aerosols (mainly from the exploding U.S. industrial base in the 1940-1970 period) had no effect on cooling the planet, and that the underlying potential for warming simply was released unfettered when the the global human aerosol declined rapidly with the clean air act in 1970.

  34. Not really. Human aerosol would play a role as well as a crap load of land use change, but volcanic aerosols are still natural I believe. Oddly, volcanic aerosols have a much larger impact on the nh than the sh, must have something to do with thermal mass, i reckon.

    If you look at GISS loti regional detrended, it is kinda of illuminating. 44-64S is about as stable as a rock. It almost looks like 1951-1980 is about the worst possible base line to choose if you want to determine anthropogenic impacts. An imbalance between the NH and SH ocean heat capacities could be interpreted a number of ways. 17 million kilometers squared of Antarctic sea ice melt each year could tend to stabilize a fair amount of heat. Heck, it would require about 60% of that in the Arctic to balance things out.

  35. New And Improved! AMS Statement on Climate Change!

    Will you buy our sh*t if we change some words around? ;)

    Andrew

  36. Do you think that global warming will pose a serious threat to you or your way of life in your lifetime?

    For 2010
    No => 67%
    Yes => 32%

    Fortunately, twenty years of scare mongering by the AGW camp has not worked.

    http://www.gallup.com/poll/126560/americans-global-warming-concerns-continue-drop.aspx

    • You’re still pushing that two-year-old poll, even after it was pointed out to you on multiple occasions that more recent polls are availible and point towards the opposite conclusion. Your dishonesty here renders everything you claim suspect. You may not be able to help being ignorant, but you can at least be honest. Think about it.

      • Robert

        “more recent polls”?

        Reference?

        Max

      • David Springer

        The “more recent polls” of the last two years have not changed more than their margin of error in those two years. Robert is making noise about noise, in other words. Idiot, track thyself.

  37. Interdecadal 20th century temperature deviations, such as the accelerated observed 1910–1940 warming that has been attributed to an unverifiable increase in solar irradiance (4, 7, 19,20), appear to instead be due to natural variability. The same is true for the observed mid-40s to mid-70s cooling, previously attribute to enhanced sulfate aerosol activity (4, 6, 7, 12). Finally, a fraction of the post-1970s warming also appears to be attributable to natural variability.

    http://deepeco.ucsd.edu/~george/publications/09_long-term_variability.pdf

    References
    4) Stott PA, et al. (2000) External control of 20th century temperature by natural and
    anthropogenic forcings. Science 290:2133–2137.
    6) Meehl GA, et al. (2004) Combination of natural and anthropogenic forcings in twentieth-
    century climate. J Climate 17:3721–3727.
    7) Stott PA, et al. (2006) Transient climate simulations with the HadGEM1 climate model:
    Causes of past warming and future climate change. J Clim 19:2763–2782 .
    12) Hansen J, et al. (2005) Earth’s energy imbalance: Confirmation and implications.
    Science 308:1431–1435.
    19) Hoyt DV, Shatten KH (1993) A discussion of plausible solar irradiance variations,
    1700–1992. J Geophys Res 98:18895–18906.
    20) Solanki SK, Fligge M (1998) Solar irradiance since 1874 revisited. Geophys Res Lett
    25:341–344.

    • Emphasis mine:

      Variability associated with these latter processes, generally referred to as natural long-term climate variability, arises primarily from changes in oceanic circulation. Here we present a technique that objectively identifies the com- ponent of inter-decadal global mean surface temperature attrib- utable to natural long-term climate variability. Removal of that hidden variability from the actual observed global mean surface temperature record delineates the externally forced climate signal, which is monotonic, accelerating warming during the 20th century.

      Externally forced.

      • JCH

        Unvalidated models have to be regarded as theoretical until they have been validated. Models have to be validated piecewise because confidence in the model cannot be high if there are unvalidated processes. The IPCC has repeated that many of the processes in their models are not well understood.

        Models can only be validated against real data. As we used to say: warts and all. If there are hidden processes in the climate system then they should be in the models and if they are strong enough to alter our view of the 20th century measured climate then it is imperative they be identified, ie no longer hidden.

        It is easy to determine early 20th century climate change just by looking at the annual averaged records, What you appear to be saying is don’t believe them. Substitute some vague hidden ocean movements and incidently achieve better correlation between average global temperature and CO2 concentration. Because this was done with several models with unspecified differences, it carries greater weight? Personally I prefer to have one good model that embodies all of our most reliable knowledge.

  38. Tragically, it has morphed in to the American Global Warming Aggrandizement Society.

  39. Detecting natural influence on surface air temperature change in the early twentieth century

    We analyze surface air temperature datasets simulated
    by a coupled climate model forced with different external
    forcings, to diagnose the relative importance of these
    forcings to the observed warming in the early 20th century.
    The geographical distribution of linear temperature trends
    in the simulations forced only by natural contributions
    (volcanic eruptions and solar variability) shows better
    agreement with observed trends than that does the
    simulations forced only by well-mixed greenhouse gases.
    Using an optimal fingerprinting technique we robustly
    detect a significant natural contribution to the early
    20th century warming. In addition, the amplitude of
    our simulated natural signal is consistent with the
    observations. Over the same period, however, we could
    not detect a greenhouse gas signal in the observed surface
    temperature in the presence of the external natural
    forcings. Hence our analysis suggests that external
    natural factors caused more warming in the early 20th
    century than anthropogenic factors.

    http://www.image.ucar.edu/idag/Papers/Nozawa_etal_surface_air.pdf

  40. Anyone interested in learning more about the mercurial nature of the arctic, wiki has an article about…

    Franklin’s lost expedition was a doomed British voyage of Arctic exploration led by Captain Sir John Franklin that departed England in 1845. A Royal Navy officer and experienced explorer, Franklin had served on three previous Arctic expeditions, the latter two as commanding officer. His fourth and last, undertaken when he was 59, was meant to traverse the last unnavigated section of the Northwest Passage. After a few early fatalities the two ships became icebound…

  41. Amusingly, Judy asks who authored this piece from the AMS. One might wonder if the lack of attribution of authorship is spawned by doubt about attribution of cause of climate change. Were they proud of this report, wouldn’t they advertise their names?

    Like a pre-nup, someone’s preparing for regrets. But be honest, weathermen; should this arranged marriage go forward?
    ============

  42. “The ongoing warming will increase risks and stresses to human societies, economies, ecosystems, and wildlife through the 21st century and beyond, making it imperative that society respond to a changing climate.”
    ______

    Bugs are wildlife that will benefit from a warmer planet (see linked abstract).

    http://www.els.net/WileyCDA/ElsArticle/refId-a0022555.html

    Are there any bug lovers here?

    • The last 1.5C degrees of warming have produced vast benefit for all living things, as will the next 1.5C degrees of warming. May we please, pretty please, have it?
      =========================

    • David Springer

      “Are there any bug lovers here?”

      A lot of birds love bugs. There a few birds here. Louise, Beth, Judith…

  43. There is a reason why Professional Organizations do not let their membership vote on these types of statements…they would be defeated handily! And yet the wider public thinks the organization, in its entirety, is totally behind this AGW support. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

  44. Here’s an excerpt from the Gallup Poll cited previously up thread:

    “.While barely half of Americans agree that the effects of global warming are already manifest, an additional 29% say the effects will start to happen within a few years (4%), sometime in their lifetime (10%), or sometime further into the future (15%). Fifteen percent of Americans say the effects will never happen.”

    http://www.gallup.com/poll/153608/Global-Warming-Views-Steady-Despite-Warm-Winter.aspx

    This was not very clear, but the way I read it, the “additional 29%” puts the total who think the effects of global warming have happened or will start to happen within a few years at almost 80%. I am surprised the proportion is that high.

    Did anyone else have trouble with these numbers?

  45. Chad Wozniak

    Another even simpler reason they don’t allow votes is: they’re cowards. And of course what place do votes have in the totalitarian state these people want to impose?

  46. Ladybirds are really good bugs, and what would life be without grasshoppers crickin’ in the grass? And bugs are food fer song birds and bees are not jest about pollination but mmm …honey, Max_ OK, …okay?

    • Well, bug loving Beth, next time I scare a cockroach, swat a skeeter, or scratch a bed bug bite, I’ll think of you and Kim.

  47. The AMISS Illogical Society!
    Say, what do yer hafta do ter become a member? )

  48. Judith,
    Thanks for your examination of this statement by the AMS. As a member of the AMS for over 20 years, and a past boardmember of the Board of Broadcast Meteorology, it frustrates me to no end that the AMS puts out a statement like this that a very significant percentage if its membership do not support. This statement was not voted on by the membership, and as you pointed out was likely drawn up by a very small number of individuals. Even if it was the consensus of its drafter(s), it is not the consensus of the entire AMS… especially those on the broadcast side of things.

  49. Latimer Alder

    Judith writes:

    ‘ It is not clear who authored the statement, but I suspect it was the members of the AMS Committee on Climate Variability and Change (for membership list, see here). After reading this list of names, I recognize some, but less than half. Does this group of people inspire my confidence in making an assessment of climate change? In a word, NO.’

    I see that 30% of the membership of this committee (3 in 10) are located in Colorado. Which has never seemed to me to be the ideal place (altitude 1500m, distance from sea 1500 km) to advise us all (me – altitude 15 m, distance from sea 10km, regular daysailor) about sea level rise and its supposed consequences.

    • The AMS statement reflects what a majority of its’ members think about global warming, as evidenced by the results of a 2012 membership survey. Some key results of the survey are presented below.

      What caused global warming over the last 150 years:

      59% said mostly human activity
      11% said human activity and nature, more-or-less equally
      6% said mostly nature
      23% said scientists don’t know enough to tell

      Will global warming be harmful or beneficial over the next 100 years, unless something is done to address it:

      38% said very harmful
      38% said somewhat harmful
      12% said harms and benefits more or less equal
      2% said somewhat beneficial
      0.4% said very beneficial
      10% said don’t know

      http://www.ametsoc.org/boardpges/cwce/docs/BEC/CICCC/2012-02-AMS-Member-Survey-Preliminary-Findings.pdf

      • BTW, kim is one of those 0.4 percenters. I think Peter Lange may be one too.

        Bedtime

        Sleep tight, don’t let the bedbugs bite

      • Latimer Alder

        @Max_OK

        Since only 1/4 of the membership responded, it is not possible to state that this represents ‘what the majority of members think’.

        You can safely say that ‘of the 26.4% who could be arsed to respond the majority (15.5% of the total membership) think that climate change is being caused by humans’. And so on from the published percentage figures.

        But you actually know nothing about the views of the other 73.6%.

      • Why do you think the views of the 73.6% who didn’t respond to the survey would be very different than the views of the 26.4% who did respond?

      • Latimer Alder

        @max_ok

        You ask why I think the response of the whole membership would be different. The simple answer is because 3/4 of them couldn’t be arsed to reply.

        People don’t respond to things they don’t care about. And a self-selecting sample of those who care enough to fill in the form and post it (or even to e-mail it) is very unlikely to be ‘representative’ of the membership as a whole. Polling organisations take great care to make sure that their sample is truly representative. This survey method was not (unless by chance)

      • Latimer, if 73.6% of AMS members didn’t respond to the survey because they don’t care about the subject, why would they object to AMS making a statement about the subject?

      • Latimer Alder

        @max_Ok

        Umm

        Let me give an example.

        If I don’t care very much about, say, abortion or evolution, I might still object to a society I belong to making strong statements either way and misrepresenting that they reflect the majority of membership. It’s a matter of integrity.

      • Latimer, you might well react that way, but you don’t speak for AMS members.

        If as many AMS members object to the AMS climate statement as some contrarians here seem to think, those members should start a petition to show the strength of their numbers. If they don’t, what would you make of that?

      • Latimer Alder

        @Max_OK

        I make no claim to speak for AMS members. But you asked me why they might object. And I gave an example of a (deliberately different) set of circumstances where I could imagine that people would object on the grounds of integrity

        The internal politics of the AMS are a matter for them. Maybe none of them worry about such things, I don’t know.

        But doing a bad poll and then making incorrect claims about the outcome does not fill me with confidence in it as an institution.

      • “the AMS statement reflects what a majority of its’ members think about global warming, as evidenced by the results of a 2012 membership survey.”

        No, that’s incorrect – you’ve misunderstood the survey’s findings:

        Question 1: 89% think GW “is happening”. But, after excluding (see Question 2) the 15% who are only “somewhat sure” or “not at all sure” it’s happening, only 74% are sure it’s happening.

        Question 3: Of the 74%, 59% think it is caused “mostly by human activity” – i.e. 44% of all respondents.

        Question 4: Of the 74%, 38% think GW will be “very harmful” if nothing is done to address it – i.e. 28% of all respondents. (Note: another 28% of all respondents think it will be “somewhat harmful” – so seem unlikely to think it serious.)

        Comment:

        Looked at independently, these results are revealing: (A) 44% of all respondents is sure GW is happening and is mostly anthropogenic (therefore, 56% either (i) think it’s not happening, or are unsure about whether it’s happening, or (ii) think it’s happening but is not anthropogenic) and (B) 28% of all respondents think GW (anthropogenic or not) is serious.

        But they’re not independent: at most, only 28% consider GW is real, anthropogenic and serious. But, as it’s reasonable to assume (B) includes some of the 56% who think GW is real but not anthropogenic (A ii), it’s likely that less than 28% think GW is real, anthropogenic and serious.

        That’s a remarkable finding: it seems the AMS has published a statement on climate change that is at variance from its members’ views. JC is probably right to suspect that there will be a lot of those members that are unhappy with this statement.

      • guenier, you should get the Girma Award for that one.

      • OK Max_OK, show me where I got it wrong. Hmm …?

      • guenier, you got it wrong right from the start on question #1.

        Here is the right way to add the percentages from question #1:

        46% extremely sure + 37% very sure + 16% somewhat sure = 99% sure, and 99% of 89% = 88% ,not the 74% you came up with. Starting with that mistake, you compound your misinterpretations of other results.

        Your problem may be misunderstanding modifiers. In “somewhat sure” the “somewhat” modifies the “sure” rather than changing the “sure” to “unsure.” Could it be English is not your mother tongue?

      • Max_OK: yes, English is my mother tongue. (I’m British and, inter alia, founder chairman of an online research company.)

        First, let’s suppose you’re right and the survey found that 88% of respondents are sure GW is happening. It also found that 59% of these think it is caused “mostly by human activity”. Therefore, 52% of all respondents agree. So it seems there’s a bare majority. But there’s a problem: because this survey (like all surveys) has a margin of error, it would be unsafe to claim even a bare majority. It would be correct to say that “around 50%” agreed.

        But the word “somewhat” cannot be so easily ignored. It means “in some degree”, “up to a point” or, more colloquially, “sort of” or “kinda”. Suppose the boy looking after your dog called to say he was dead. You: “are you sure?” Boy: “well, sort of”. I suggest you’d assume he wasn’t sure. Another approach: suppose a pharmaceutical company had asked my company to find out whether doctors were sure that a drug didn’t have dangerous side-effects for a specific category of patient (we work in healthcare). Suppose we found that 14% were “somewhat sure”. If we reported that 14% as “sure”, we wouldn’t just lose that pharma as a customer, our business could be in serious regulatory trouble.

        In other words, to treat “somewhat sure” as meaning “sure” is unsafe. Therefore my conclusion that the survey found that 44% of respondents agree GW is caused mostly by human activity is correct.

      • The 23% who indicate the science of attribution is not robust enough to determine for them the degree GW is AGW likely includes people who have hunches both ways. I do not think attribution is solid now, but I suspect that at least 100% of the recent warming is anthropogenic.

      • JCH said, “but I suspect that at least 100% of the recent warming is anthropogenic.” That is a pretty high confidence level :)

        While linear regressions are not always useful, they can be illustrative.

        http://redneckphysics.blogspot.com/2012/08/baseline-impact.html

        For 100% of the recent warming to be anthropgenic I would think that since Global Warming is the issue, not regional warming, then you would need to better define recent. 130 years is recent, to some, so about 0.8C per decade if you happen to think that the oceans are the best indication of global. 1941to present is recent to some, so about 0.8 C per decade if you happen to think the oceans are the best indication of global. 1980 to present is recent to some, so about 0.8 C if you happen to think the oceans are the best indication of global.

        Now if we are talking regional, 2.75 C per century may be reasonable. Then you might want to fit something better than a simple linear regression to figure out the “regional” impact that I do agree is partially due to anthropogenic influences. Not quite 100% though.

      • oops, those should have all been per century :(

      • guenier, viewing “somewhat sure” as “sure” is not unsafe.

        Suppose I ask three adults who had chicken pox when they were children if they believe they are at risk for shingles. The first person is very sure, the second is sure, and the third is somewhat sure.

        I then ask these three adults if they plan to be vaccinated for shingles. The first person is very sure, the second is sure. The third person, who was “somewhat” sure about being at risk for shingles, is sure he will get vaccinated because he doesn’t want to take the risk.

      • Max_OK: you’ve confirmed my point rather neatly.

        Your first question includes a “somewhat sure” category so is directly analogous to the AMS survey. Of the three adults being asked, the first two are sure and the third is “somewhat sure”. And that means that, like my dog-minding boy, he doesn’t really know. To claim all three are “sure” would be unsafe.

        In contrast, your second question doesn’t include a “somewhat sure” category so is not at all analogous to the AMS survey. This time, when the third person is asked about vaccination, just like the other two and quite unlike the dog minder, he’s sure. To claim all three are “sure” would plainly be safe.

        Thanks.

      • guenier, your notion that I confirmed your point, tells me you didn’t understand my point.

        “Somewhat sure” doesn’t mean “unsure.”

        “Unsure” doesn’t mean “somewhat sure.”

        Now, lets move on to what “somewhat sure” does mean. It’s simply a matter of degree. “Very sure” implies more sureness than just plain “sure,” which in turn, implies more sureness than “somewhat sure.”

        When it comes to making a decision, we may not be “very sure” or even “sure” of the right thing to do, but if we are “somewhat sure” that may be sure enough. For example, I invest money in stocks because I am “somewhat sure” stocks will appreciate in value over the long-term. If I were unsure about the future of stocks, I wouldn’t put money at risk.

      • A word of advice, Max_OK: don’t consider employment in the survey business.

        Yes, there can be times when “somewhat sure” may not mean “unsure”. But there are others when that’s exactly what it means – as in my dog-minder and doctor survey examples (and the example you gave in your previous comment). In other words, it’s ambiguous. And that’s why it’s unsafe, when interpreting it in the context of an opinion survey, to bundle “somewhat sure” in with “sure”.

        A question. Suppose you were responsible for interpreting for the pharmaceutical client the results of my doctor survey example. And suppose 38% of respondents were “sure” the drug didn’t have dangerous side-effects for a specific category of patient and 14% were “somewhat sure” it didn’t. Would you advise the pharma that the survey found that 52% of respondents were sure that such patients would not experience dangerous side effects?

      • Yes, guenier, I would “advise the pharma that the survey found that 52% of respondents were sure that such patients would not experience dangerous side effects”. and then I would give the breakdown of sure and somewhat sure.

        Words mean what words mean. “Somewhat sure” does not mean “unsure.” It is reasonable to act on the basis of somewhat sure. It is not reasonable to act on the basis of “unsure.” That’s the difference.

      • Max_OK:

        I’ve got some good and some bad news for you. The good news is that your investment example has persuaded me to change my mind. The bad news (and you won’t like this) is that it’s persuaded me that “somewhat sure” always means “unsure”. See below.

        Yes, “words mean what words mean” and “somewhat” is a particularly interesting example: its meaning depends on the word it’s qualifying. Thus, if the weather has improved “somewhat”, it’s certainly better than it was. But, if my daughter says she’s “somewhat pregnant”, what does that mean? She’s either pregnant or she’s not – it’s not subject to qualification. “Sure” is the same – you’re either sure or you’re not sure. There can be no halfway house: to be sure “up to a point” (i.e. “somewhat sure”) means you’re unsure.

        Take your stock market example. You say you invest in stocks because you’re “somewhat sure” they will appreciate over time. ”If I were unsure [you say] … I wouldn’t put money at risk.” Your final words are the clue: if you were “sure” about your money’s appreciation, it would not be at risk. But you say it is at risk, so you must be unsure about its appreciation. Nonetheless, you’re acting on the basis of “unsure” because you’re willing to take that risk. Likewise I’m unsure about the possibility of rain this afternoon. But I’m not going to take a coat when I walk my dogs because I’m willing to take the risk. So you see: acting on “unsure” can be reasonable.

        Another example: if you’re “somewhat sure” your train leaves at 3:30 pm, you’d be wise to check the timetable. Only then could you be “sure”. In other words, “somewhat sure” is the same as “unsure”. But this time, if you’ve got any sense, you’re not prepared to take the risk – even though you were “somewhat sure”.

        PS: your pharma response illustrates the point nicely. By giving them a breakdown you’re admitting there’s a difference. If “somewhat sure” meant “sure”, a breakdown would be unnecessary.

      • Robin Guenier

        You’re funny Max_OK. So, if I you were “somewhat sure” your train left at 3:30, you’d get to the station by 3:20. Really? And, if it turned out it was 2:30, you’d look pretty silly. No, I think you’re a sensible person and, like other sensible people, you’d check the timetable. And you’d do so because “somewhat sure” is not the same as “sure” – as I’ve explained and demonstrated time and time again. Man up and get over it.

        One thing though – you’re dead right that “if you need absolute certainty for every decision, you are not going to do much”. That’s why you invest in stocks even though you’re unsure that they will appreciate. And why I didn’t take a coat when I walked the dogs even though I was unsure about rain. (It didn’t rain by the way.) Yet I think we’re both reasonable people. But it was you who said, “It is not reasonable to act on the basis of “unsure.”” Seems you were wrong.

      • David Springer

        Max, only 24% of the membership responded to the survey. I’m not sure if you need to be told but that’s not a majority and it cannot be claimed to represent a majority. The fact of the matter is that the vast majority didn’t think the survey was worth the time it would take to respond.

      • David, if the 24% response rate to the AMS survey means only members who feel strongly about global warming responded, the results indicate the warmists who feel strongly greatly outnumber the skeptics who feel strongly.

        If as some here suspect, the proportion of AMS members who object to the organization’s statement is larger than the survey suggests, a petition could determine if it is larger.

      • David: it’s a common misconception (one you share with Latimer Alder – see his comment at 2:22 pm on Aug 28) that, because only a minority of an eligible population responds to a survey, that survey cannot be truly representative of that population’s opinion. That’s not so; indeed the whole opinion poll business is based on it not being so. In the case of this AMS survey, out of 7,062 eligible members, 1,862 responded, i.e. 26%. By any standards, that’s a large survey with a substantial response rate. Moreover (see the respondents’ demographics), the respondents would seem to be a balanced, representative sample. Therefore, within proper margins of error, it should represent AMS members’ opinions. The fact that the questionnaire used was rather poorly drafted is quite another matter – and that does prejudice its value. Having said that, it is one of the best climate change surveys I’ve seen and it’s therefore interesting that only 44% of respondents is sure GW is happening and is mostly anthropogenic.

      • Again, guenier, you are misinterpreting “”somewhat sure” as “not sure.”

        But that mistake aside, one of the more interesting results of the survey is from question 3, where we find only 6% thought the global warming was caused by natural events.

        You may have noticed a lot of posters here are 6 percenters.

      • you are misinterpreting “”somewhat sure” as “not sure.”

        Ahem … I’ve given you (above) both an explanation and many (and various) examples illustrating the reality that “somewhat sure” does indeed mean “not sure”. Here’s the most recent:

        If you were “somewhat sure” your train leaves at 3:30 pm, you’d be wise to check the timetable. Only then could you be “sure”. In other words, “somewhat sure” is the same as “not sure”.

        Yes, you’re right: only 6% thought GW was caused “mostly by natural events”. But how is that relevant to our exchange?

      • guenier, “somewhat sure” is sure enough for me. If I was somewhat sure my train left at 3:30, I would get to the station by 3:20 ( assuming it’s a Swiss train). If it was a plane, however, I would get to the airport about 1:00.

        Sure, “somewhat sure” is not sure sure, but if you need absolute certainty for ever decision, you are not going to do much. You might as well lock your doors and stay home.

      • You’re funny Max_OK. So, if I you were “somewhat sure” your train left at 3:30, you’d get to the station by 3:20. Really? And, if it turned out it was 2:30, you’d look pretty silly. No, I think you’re a sensible person and, like other sensible people, you’d check the timetable. And you’d do so because “somewhat sure” is not the same as “sure” – as I’ve explained and demonstrated time and time again. Man up and get over it.

        One thing though – you’re dead right that “if you need absolute certainty for every decision, you are not going to do much”. That’s why you invest in stocks even though you’re unsure they will appreciate in value over the long term. And why I didn’t take a coat when I walked the dogs even though I was unsure about rain. (It didn’t rain by the way.) Yet I think we’re both reasonable people. But it was you who said, “It is not reasonable to act on the basis of “unsure.”” Seems you were wrong.

        (This post was originally in the wrong place.)

  50. Why, Max-OK, that is right thoughtful of you.
    And next time I watch a butterfly flutterin’ from one roadside flower to the next … to stop to sip a drop of celestial nectar …mmmm….honey … say, Max-OK, I’ll think of you. )

  51. Dr. Curry

    On housekeeping, your link (“The link to the new statement can be found here [link].”) to the current document appears to be not working.

    http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/2012climatechange.html is the reference?

    And do not despair. “Why not wait another year or two until the IPCC AR5 is out?”

    In 2014, the 2009 http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/2009geoengineeringclimate_amsstatement.html will expire and be due for updating, synchronizing nicely with the IPCC AR5. Which is after all, a more significant subject.

    While I find enthusiasm for geoengineering to be problematic, it’s the far more important topic overall, not least of all considering the AMS is going through a transition from the body governing people who forecast inclemency to those experts in Atmospheric and Ocean Sciences and the chain of dissemination of information related to all things related to weather, climate, and geoengineering.

    This is a profound shift, and it’s the thing you really want to be observing, discussing, and being active about.

    Having your nose out of joint about the affrontery of a Society actually taking a technically correct public stance on the state of its body of knowledge as it is today, much much less significant in the context of this revolutionary revision of the entire profession.

    (The Body of Knowledge approach is hardly unique to the AMS — many professional organizations are using it and are improved by the clarity provided — and while it doesn’t have the touchy-feeliness of the last generation’s “helps characterize the unique nature of AMS as a society,” tone and sentimentality, why does sentimentality make a public statement better again?)

    • “a Society actually taking a technically correct public stance on the state of its body of knowledge as it is today”

      Where’s their public statement on the state of clock radio technology? Surely they want to be on the right side of THAT. lol ;)

      Andrew

      • Wrong organization.

        You may be thinking of http://www.servicescomputing.tv/rss/view/index.php for RSS

        Or http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/mostRecentIssue.jsp?reload=true&punumber=6230821 for integrated circuits.

        You sure you’re in the computer profession, or is it more like a hobby or aspiration?

      • Bart R,

        I do not see any proclamations from the prestigious AMS in any of the links you provided. Surely knowinf their official stance on Clock Radios would be influential and would save the world from mean people.

        Andrew

      • I’m sure many meteorologists would agree with you. The medium is, after all, the message.

        Also, as emergency broadcasts are important to meteorologists, or at least vice versa, there’s a plausible case to be made for what you suggest.

        You should write them about your suggestion.

      • I think you may be starting to catch on Bart R,

        Try this on: The science of Clock Radios is well-established, such that Clock Radios are mass produced (have been for awhile) and pretty reliably work as advertised. This is obvious to a lot of people and I think a statement from the AMS on the matter would not have much impact.

        In contrast, Climate Science can only produce highly-contrived drawings to sell. To try and get people to think these drawings have meaning, perhaps a Weighty Declaration from a Very Important Group of Excellent Professionals might put a jolt into an otherwise dead parrot.

        Andrew

      • Due to expire in 2014: http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/2009radiofrequencyallocations_amsstatement.html

        But if you’ve found a source of reliable, cost-effective, well-built clock radios and solutions to the technical issues plaguing radio and timekeeping in general, I’m sure AMS will want to hear from you.

      • “Phenomena associated with climate variability and change, such as El Niño and global warming, are assessed through global observations made in part by microwave space-based sensors.”

        Oh look, even the AMS statement about radio frequencies is about Global Warming.

        Always Be Sellin’, eh Bart?

        Andrew

      • Bad Andrew | August 30, 2012 at 9:57 am |

        Always Be Sellin’?

        I had noticed that particular value running through your posts. Always pushing your soundbite selling points, keeping your propagandistic pitches low and outside, but I’d been too polite to mention it.

        Thanks for the admission, so we can recognize you for what you are.

  52. The AGW house of cards, as shown in the chart below, was built by smoothing all the oscillations in GMST before 1970s and leaving the warming phase of this oscillation since then untouched and calling it man-made.

    IPCC Chart => http://bit.ly/OaemsT

    As shown in the chart above, the models don’t represent the observed global cooling from 1880s to 1910s and the global warming from 1910s to 1940s. As IPCC models don’t agree with the known past, they have ZERO chance of predicting the unknown future.

  53. But it will be very difficult to make the MWP go away in Greenland.

    http://www.ecowho.com/foia.php?file=5111.txt&search=mwp

    • Why do you want to MWP to go away???????????????

      • Ah, the fading glorious Holocene. We’ll see Roman and Minoan Optima temperatures again, but perhaps after the next glaciation, since AnthroCO2 appears so pusillanimous.
        ===============

      • Greenland! Vikings! Grapes. Oh well.

        In Antarctica things are different, with 1000 years ago cold and the LIA warm, i.e. anti-correlated (see the 1999 IUGG abstract MC02/E/08-B1 by Gary Clow). What this demonstrates is that it is possible that many of the favorite climatic episodes, the MWP, the LIA, may not be global phenomena.

        We will review carefully the borehole database for deep high quality data
        that may shed some additional light on the full millennium in different
        regions. We might even think about different parameterizations for
        some of the best data. But it will be very difficult to make the MWP go
        away in Greenland.

        Maybe a climate scientist made a joke in an email.

      • Mark B (number 2)

        I’ve looked up what PARAMETERIZATIONS means:

        Parametrization (or parameterization; also parameterisation, parametrisation in British English) is the process of deciding and defining the parameters necessary for a complete or relevant specification of a model or geometric object. (Wikipedia).

        So they were going to fiddle about with “the best data” until the MWP went away?

      • JCH

        “may not be…”

        Gimme a break.

        There are independent studies from all over the world, plus a whole pile of historical evidence, which all point to a MWP slightly warmer than today.

        To argue that just because these studies do not cover every nook and cranny of our globe, the MWP “may not be global” is silly logic.

        The warming measured over the late 20th century (as well as the statistically indistinguishable warming of the early 20th century) also did not happening all over the globe, but very few people would argue that, therefore, this warming <em"may not be global".

        Max

      • Face it, natural forces can bring greater temperature change than the apparently weak gas CO2 can, and the most likely natural change is to the downside. Besides, climate optima are named that for a reason, because a warmer world sustains more total life and more diversity of life.
        =================

      • Girma, the MWP is a complication. When you are making linear approximations of a non-linear system, complications are a PITA.

        Imagine you are using anomalies to simplify determining a “global” average temperature. Temperature anomaly is a reasonable approximation “all things remaining equal”. One thing that doesn’t remain equal is regional relative humidity. When it is dry, lower relative humidity, there would be more temperature variability. So if you average anomaly for a dry climate you would get more variability than for a wet climate because of the lower thermal mass of the air. Then if you average temperature anomaly for a higher elevation, which has a lower thermal mass, you would be more variability. Since climate includes chaotic weather, averaging higher variability low thermal mass temperatures with more stable higher thermal mass temperatures, the variability difference would tend to suppress the signal in the higher elevation dryer regional temperatures if the change in temperature is large relative to the “true” average, what ever that may be.

        This is the largest reason that the satellites and surface station records diverge. They are not measuring the same thing because they have different base reference periods. For anomaly to be a valid approximation, the magnitude of the change has to be small.

        Steven Mosher is looking into the change in the diurnal temperature range they found in BEST. They will probably realize the anomaly versus heat capacity issue soon since the “skeptics” have already started picking up on the issue.

        Moral of the story, when base line dependence is an issue, you picked the wrong base line.

        http://redneckphysics.blogspot.com/2012/08/degrees-of-confusion-another-modest.html

        I am adding some neat plots to that, but frame of reference is one of the first things you are taught in thermodynamics for a very good reason.

      • Thanks dallas

        Interesting result. I will have a careful look of your link.

  54. Mark B (number 2)

    “Of course, if the MWP was shown to be global in extent and as warm or warmer than today (based on an equivalent coverage over the NH and SH) then obviously the late-20th century warmth would not be unprecedented. On the other hand, if the MWP was global, but was less warm that today, then current warmth would be unprecedented.”

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8511670.stm

    Not strictly true, Dr Jones. The Roman Warm Period could have been warmer than today, but you haven’t mentioned that one.

  55. it won’t wash when facing critics head-on.
    >>
    >> Their latest arguments are more subtle. Their main point is that
    >> their counter information hangs together into a logically coherent
    >> picture.
    >>
    >> Models: no real finger print that distinguishes AGHG forcings from
    >> others! Models using AGHG forcings predict warming is function of
    >> latitude yet the Arctic is hardly warming (north of ~^65°N), and high
    >> latitude Antarctic (excepting for the peninsula) is actually cooling
    >> slightly.
    >>
    >> Models: As you say need AGHG forcings to simulate last 30 years of
    >> observed warming. But, they counter, UAH satellite reductions show
    >> no such warming so don’t need AGHG forcing (or at least don’t need
    >> effects of positive feedbacks and just increases in AGHGs don’t cause
    >> so much warming).
    >>
    >> Solar forcing–not able to generate last 30 years of observed
    >> warming. Same counter as last one–“See, they say, no increased
    >> solar in last 25 years is consistent with no warming!!
    >>
    >> Also, since no warming since 1945, MWP most likely to have been as
    >> warm as now and thus sun can indeed explain (with proper lags)
    >> observed warming thus far.
    >>
    >> Their model–climate varies depending on solar activity. all
    >> observations are consistent with this.
    >>
    >> Models predict that any surface warming will be seen in the
    >> troposphere. Since UAH satellite reduction shows no such warming–1.
    >> models are wrong and/or no warming at surface just lousy observations.
    >> 2. If no warming at surface in last 30 years AGHG forcing predictions
    >> by models is incorrect probably due to poor cloud/water vapor
    >> modeling–no positive feedbacks to speak of.
    >>
    >> Sooooo, you can say all you want that all the prestigious societies
    >> and folks say it’s AGHGs, but they’ve been bamboozled by a few of
    >> elitist scientists. As long as satellites show no recent warming,
    >> the entire AGHG hypothesis collapses, not because multi-atomic
    >> molecules don’t cause the atmosphere to be more opaque, but because
    >> there are no positive feedbacks which the models need to get the
    >> “right” answer.
    >>
    >> So, what I need is strong evidence that the surface record is indeed
    >> correct (UHI effect is small, and marine boundary layer approximation
    >> is correct).
    >>
    >> Now, Richard, toss in large effects of land use changes and of black
    >> soot forcing changing earth’s albedo, and you now have additional
    >> forcings which may be causing warming but can’t be countered by
    >> reducing AGHGs.
    >>
    >> Soooo, it still ain’t all that easy to convince an audience that the
    >> Singer’s of this world aren’t on to at least part of the problem.
    >>
    >> AND keep in mind that increased CO2 is good for us–more agriculture,
    >> etc.
    >>
    >> Nope it just ain’t that easy. So any information–graphics, etc on
    >> these issues will be greatly appreciated.

    http://www.ecowho.com/foia.php?file=1079108576.txt&search=mwp

    • Mark B (number 2)

      From the same dialogue a “science” lesson:

      >> People on airplanes, when they find out what I do for a living,
      >> usually ask me if I “believe in” global warming. It’s not religion,
      >> of course. What I actually tend to believe in, if they really wanted
      >> to try to understand, is quantum mechanics. CO2 and CH4 and all
      >> those other interesting trace gases have more than two atoms, and
      >> that fact simply has inescapable consequences.

      I will have to look up how many atoms nitrogen, oxygen and water vapour atoms have, as our expert omitted to tell us that. Anyway, here are more musings on religion from the same conversation:

      > enough, this is like trying to convert someone with one religion to
      > another.

      http://www.ecowho.com/foia.php?file=1079108576.txt&search=mwp

      Thanx Girma for the link

  56. Oh no, Max-OK,
    Assertion w/out evidence there… beat everybody off at the traffic lights, not even trying, ) I am a very good driver, quick reflexes and an impeccable record.

  57. Attribution, she’s a bitch,
    Don’t know why just scratch that itch.
    Puff the Magic Carbon
    Lived by the C. degree.
    Nature turned and bit him, someplace rich.
    =============

  58. Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2004 11:22:56 -0700

    >> I don’t think the skeptics should be allowed to choose the
    >> battlefield, and I certainly don’t think the issue of whether
    >> anthropogenic influences are a serious concern should be settled by
    >> looking at any single data set. I do think the IPCC TAR was right to
    >> stress that you simply can’t plausibly make GCMs replicate the
    >> instrumental record without including GHGs (and aerosols). I also
    >> think the recent AGU and AMS public statements, which you will
    >> doubtless find on their web sites, are right on target. Many of us
    >> were pleasantly surprised that our leading scientific societies have
    >> recently adopted such strong statements as to the reality and
    >> seriousness of anthropogenic climate change.
    There really is a
    >> scientific consensus, and it cannot be refuted or disproved by
    >> attacking any single data set.
    >>
    >> I also think people need to come to understand that the scientific
    >> uncertainties work both ways. We don’t understand cloud feedbacks.
    >> We don’t understand air-sea interactions. We don’t understand
    >> aerosol indirect effects. The list is long. Singer will say that
    >> uncertainties like these mean models lack veracity and can safely be
    >> ignored. What seems highly unlikely to me is that each of these
    >> uncertainties is going to make the climate system more robust against
    >> change. It is just as likely a priori that a poorly understood bit
    >> of physics might be a positive as a negative feedback. Meanwhile,
    >> the climate system overall is in fact behaving in a manner consistent
    >> with the GCM predictions. I have often wondered how our medical
    >> colleagues manage to escape the trap of having their entire science
    >> dismissed because there are uncured diseases and other remaining
    >> uncertainties. Maybe we can learn from the physicians.

    http://www.ecowho.com/foia.php?file=1079108576.txt&search=mwp

  59. Well, Pielke Pere didn’t write it, but he’s written about it. He helps explain the anonymous confusion.
    ==========

  60. Doug Proctor

    If you distill it down to what is projected with little qualifiers to the end of the century, it says nothing other than on the basis of recent trends, it will get warmer by 2100 and sea levels will continue to rise. Projections aren’t worth a lot, but some feel that the trends to warm and rise might get stronger, but not catastrophically.

    Arm-waving to maintain face with their warmist friends and financial supporters.

  61. AMS Statement on Climate Change
    It is clear from extensive scientific evidence that the dominant cause of the rapid change in climate of the past half century is human-induced increases in the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases

    CLIMATEGATE EMAIL
    We don’t understand cloud feedbacks. We don’t understand air-sea interactions. We don’t understand aerosol indirect effects. The list is long.

    http://www.ecowho.com/foia.php?file=1079108576.txt&search=mwp

    • Sooooo, you can say all you want that all the prestigious societies and folks say it’s AGHGs, but they’ve been bamboozled by a few of elitist scientists. As long as satellites show no recent warming the entire AGHG hypothesis collapses, not because multi-atomic molecules don’t cause the atmosphere to be more opaque, but because there are no positive feedbacks which the models need to get the “right” answer.

  62. Notbuying yourlies

    We are not buying your lies and disinformation anymore !!!. Even a grade school child knows that it is all about the takeover of all of the worlds valuable and life sustaining Natural Resources. We all know that it is a Corporate controled, Globalist, Socialist take over of all the worlds resources !!!. We are not the corporation’s, the government’s or U.N.’s Property !!!, and we will not be controled as such !!!. Global warming and climate change are a giant Lie !!!, That is being used to steal away all of our Rights, Freedoms, Liberty, Opportunity and Resources !!!. Also, Agenda 21 is premeditated murder !!!, and there will be global arrests for anyone that supports it’s murderous agenda.

    • lurker, passing through laughing

      Notbuyingyourlies,
      You have no future as a comedian.
      Keep your day job..
      Oh, that’s right: you don’t have a day job.

  63. Notbuying yourlies

    Historical records show that there were immense patches of bare and exposed ground with grass and plants growing on it in Antarctica in the 1940’s. Areas which are now covered in mountains of ice and snow !!!. Also the IPCC has been proven to me to be as corrupt as a three dollar bill, and has lost all credibility with the release of the climategate documents. Wake Up People !!!, It can no longer be called “legitimate science” when it pushes and follows a predetermined outcome and agenda !!!..

  64. Notbuying yourlies

    The reports of theglobal warming, climate change, earths demise, and the multitude of other phony enviromental catastorphies that are being feed to the people, have been greatly exaggerated, or rather are ficticious and entirely made up, by those attempting to usurp and obtain total control over all of the worlds resources !!!.
    Why is it so hard for people to realize this irrefutable fact of life …. Money, Food, Heat, and Energy all originate from natural resources, if we are not allowed access to any natural resources then we DIE !!!.
    People are a product of nature, much like trees and plants, if you take away their water, sunlight, or nutrients they DIE !!!.

  65. I’ve always found the “top X warmest years have occured in the last Y years ” to be extremely misleading post 2000:

    What exactly does the temperature trend look like if that fact did not hold today?

    After the super-nino, and restablization two years later, the temperature would have to quite precipitously drop out of its new high state, just to get back to 90’s level.

    It is evidence thast could easily be predicted without the need to consider global warming a decade ago. In other words – it is only proof that the world has not entered a tailevent cooling period.

    • SUT

      Yes.

      The “top X warmest years have occured in the last Y years ” argument tells us nothing about current trends.

      Let’s say it COOLED by a rate of 0.08C per decade over the first decade of the 21st century.

      This would represent a decadal COOLING TREND.

      Right?

      Let’s say that, prior to this, it had WARMED for three decades at twice this rate, or 0.16C per decade.

      Then, obviously, it would be WARMER on average over the first decade of the new millennium than it was over the previous three decades, despite the fact that it is now COOLING.

      Right?

      One should not mix apples with oranges.

      Max

  66. andrew adams

    I don’t see any reason why professional societies should not issue statements on issues that are relevant to their particular field, and climate change is certainly a legitimate and important area of interest for the AMS. If it were, say, The Royal College of Opthalmologists issuing such a statement then there might be more cause to question it.

    The reason they are issuing the statement now would appear to be that the statements have an “expiry date” after which their position is reviewed and an updated statement is issued. I see no particular reason why the AMS should follow the timetable of the IPCC, surely it is better that they act independently. Certainly one would expect them to have a sufficient knowledge and understanding of the published science on climate change, given its relevence to their own particular area of expertise, to form an informed opinion of their own.

    And I would certainly be surprised if their statement differed in any substantial way from the “consensus” view. Why should they come to a different view based on the same evidence as the large majority of informed opinion?

    Dr Curry accuses them of merely parroting the consensus view without any actual intellectual examination. This is somewhat uncharitable in my view, not to mention lacking any actual evidence, especially in light of the fact that she was actually given the opportunity to comment on the statement prior to publication. One could no doubt offer a similarly uncharitable view of Dr Curry’s reaction to the statement.

    • They should have put their money on a climate shift saving the day. (It’s in the nature of climate shifts to head off global Marxist takeovers: sort of like gawd is on our libertarian side.)

    • David Wojick

      I do not think this is the large majority of informed opinion. It is not even politically correct any more, but it is still the policy of the funding agencies. They are presenting a controversy as settled science. Why is something of a mystery. Zealotry? AMS has been at this for a long time, running proCAGW shows on Capitol Hill for over a decade. They are stuck in CAGW.

      As for expertise, their science is primarily the interplay of air masses, not radiation physics, paleoclimate, climate modeling, statistical analysis, solar dynamics, nonlinear dynamics, etc. These are weather people.

      This is simply an object lesson in politicization of science.

      • “As for [David's] expertise: not radiation physics, paleoclimate, climate modeling, statistical analysis, solar dynamics, nonlinear dynamics, etc…. [He] This is simply an object lesson in politicization of science”

        Yup.

      • David Wojick

        Indeed Michael, my expertise is the logic of complex, science intensive issues. So I study the debate, not the climate. What is your expertise?

        Contrary to the AMS statement, the scientific debate is real. Their statement is merely a clear presentation of the basic arguments on one side. This is a fact about the debate, my field, not about the climate.

      • Judith is a member of this ‘no expertise’ AMS. I’m sure she is flattered by your assessment of her cluelessness.

        My expertise – BS detection. You reek.

        How’s the propaganda program for a political advocacy group, for use against defenceless children, coming along?

      • The Very Reverend Jebediah Hypotenuse


        So I study the debate, not the climate.

        If you studied the latter topic half as much as the former, you would learn that “the scientific debate” is almost always a term used by ignorant bloggers who complain about the “politicization of science” with no hint of irony.

      • David Wojick | August 29, 2012 at 7:18 am said: ”As for expertise, their science is primarily the interplay of air masses, not radiation physics, paleoclimate, climate modeling, statistical analysis, solar dynamics, nonlinear dynamics, etc. These are weather people”

        Yes David, and they are wrong. But, the radiation physics, paleoclimate, climate modeling, statistical analysis, solar dynamics, nonlinear dynamics are THE BIGGEST CONMEN THAT EVER EXISTED.

        1] extra radiation interferes with electronics, but doesn’t increase or decrease the GLOBAL temp = is the mother of all crap

        2] no, paleoclimate is the mother of all con. They were presenting localized warmings / coolings as GLOBAL = is the precursor of all of today’s evil, regarding the phony global warming; being referred as ”climate change” When somebody tells with confidence that: 300-400y ago was warmer planet – hundreds of years before Australia was discovered , no imprints of temp in the oceans 2/3 of the planet = him / yore not talking about the GLOBAL temperature, but about your own credibility. That’s why the Fake Skeptics become as Warmist’s geldings. Warmist are riding on your backs, they don’t have any legitimate proof + they don’t need to face reality – when the ”paleoclimate excrement’ stinks much more than global warming in 100y.

        ”climate modeling” is NOT modeling about the climate, but promoting / dignifying the phony global warming. Is same as: because the moon is spinning around the earth (climate is in constant change) ”modeling’ that the universe is spinning around the earth also (phony GLOBAL warmings as for real) . Climate is controlled by the H2O molecule, not CO2! More water storages, topsoil moisture and water vapor on land = milder climate (cooler days / warmer nights) Lack of those, hotter days / colder nights. Climate ”modelers” considering water vapor as bad for climate; are the biggest con ever. Climate is MODELED by the amount of H2O on land, not by the biggest scum referred as modelers. Their sandpit jobs are doing tremendous damages. If anybody is modeling climate past next Monday = is guess work – if anybody confuse big / small climatic changes with changing the temperature overall on the WHOLE planet; is only a conman, or dumb idiot

        ”Statistical analysis” is for massaging the numbers as a foreplay; for screwing the Urban Sheep

        Solar dynamics, non linear dynamics, used to be called: okus-pokus = planting wool over the people’s eyes, to fleece them better. Warmist love for you to promote the pagan conmen; that makes you a dedicated Warmist gelding – nothing personal David, just facts

  67. Rev

    Believe you’ve got it wrong, your Reverence.

    There IS a “scientific debate” going on.

    Our host is aware of this “scientific debate”.

    Climate scientists, such as John Christy, Richard Lindzen, Roy Spencer, and others, are also keenly aware of this scientific debate”.

    Sure, there has been a “politicization of the science” as well, but if you believe “the science is settled” you simply haven’t recognized what is going on out there, old chap.

    Max

    • The Very Reverend Jebediah Hypotenuse


      John Christy, Richard Lindzen, Roy Spencer, and others…

      Oh – good god, man.
      Can you not find a new rebel hero to cheer for every now and then?

      I mean really – How’s about a Monckton?

      The existence of a scientific “debate” consists more than pointing to a few cranks and dogmatists with axes to grind.

      As for Dr Curry’s awareness – She is not ignorant enough to challenge the science. Almost everything she says here is psycho-politics wrapped in the language of “defending the integrity of science”.

      • I challenge the conclusions of the IPCC here quite regularly, particularly their confidence levels

      • Given the enormous external forcing by politics and finance, the ‘settled science’ is almost surely wrong. Just where it is wrong is what the debate is about.
        =========

      • The Very Reverend Jebediah Hypotenuse

        Very brave, Dr Curry.

        Except that one does not “challenge” anything scientifically substantive by blogging,

        One opinionates, one annotates, and one expresses one’s personal concerns.

        To challenge science requires credible scientific evidence.
        Not conspiratorial, finger-pointing blog posts.

      • David Springer

        The Very Reverend Jebediah Hypotenuse | August 29, 2012 at 11:53 am | Reply

        “Very brave, Dr Curry.”

        Says the anonymous coward afraid to attach his real name to his opinions.

        I understand. I’d be anonymous if I were you too. Saves a lot of embarrassement that way, huh?

      • You assume what the IPCC wrote was all good science and not what it actually was- a summary of positions not supported by reliable evidence.

      • Reverend

        Monckton is no0t a “climate scientist”.

        The others I named, plus our hostess here are.

        They are fully aware that “the science is NOT settled”.

        IOW that there is an ongoing “scientific debate”.

        Just because you cannot (or don’t want to) see it, does not mean it isn’t there – or that it only exists in the minds of the bloggers here.

        Wise up, man.

        Max

      • lurker, passing through laughing

        Rev.,
        Thank you for beclowning yourself. You seem to do it rather well.
        Cheers,

    • There IS a “scientific debate” going on.

      I agree.

      There is also a “scientific debate” going on about intelligent design.

      I think that there is a “scientific debate” on both issues. I’m not saying that those two debates are identical in scope, but there is an underlying similarity in that it is simply a fact that some people challenge the science on scientific terms.

      Two follow-on points:

      1) “Teaching the controversy,” or looking at the debate requires viewing those phenomena in full context. Extreme minorities in expert opinion may or may not be wrong, but they are extreme minorities.

      2) It is facile, as Judith has done, to determine that just because someone considers the evidence to be “unequivocal” so as to justify a particular conclusion – that the are mere “parrots.”

      The irony of Judith’s accusations in that regard is that she only applies her thinking in one direction.

      • The irony, Joshua, is that despite voluminous correspondence and acute criticism, you hardly ever have anything useful to say.
        ========================================

      • Which would suggest yet another irony, kim – that you so often focus a rather significant % of your comments on what I say.

        And to add yet another level of irony – you have said in that past (paraphrasing) that you don’t find my comments worthy or reading.

        And to add yet another level of irony – apparently you think that it is valuable to write comments that contain little content other than a broad-stroke expression of dislike for my comments.

      • Brilliant, Kim. I’ve tried to understand Josua’s posts since he started here, and found the effort to be a waste of time.

      • “found the effort to be a waste of time”

        So has Joshua. He tried to leave twice, but it didn’t take.

        Andrew

      • David Springer

        Joshua who?

      • Joshua

        Your post on the comparison of “scientific debates” on various topics is interesting.

        However, there is one KEY difference between the debate surrounding Darwinism and that on CAGW.

        There is significant empirical scientific evidence in support of Darwinism (as opposed to “Creationism”), and all efforts to falsify Darwinism scientifically have failed. IOW, it has become a “corroborated hypothesis” and, in the process, has become “reliable scientific knowledge” over time.

        The same is not true for the CAGW premise, i.e. that human GHGs (principally CO2) have been the principal cause of observed late 20th century warming and that this, therefore, represent a serious potential threat to humanity and our environment unless they are curtailed dramatically in the future.

        This premise (or hypothesis) has two basic problems, which Darwinism does not have: it is not falsifiable as such and it is not supported by empirical scientific data (such as physical observations or reproducible experimentation). It, therefore, remains an “uncorroborated hypothesis” and is not yet ready to be considered “reliable scientific knowledge”.

        That’s the difference in a nutshell.

        Vive la difference!

        Max

  68. A fan of *MORE* discourse

    Neven blasts “fake skeptics” in today’s Arctic Sea Ice essay titled Similar melts from 1938-43?

    Fake skeptics  … upped the ante of misleading and distorting stupidity. … Anyone can see and judge the silliness of paid shrill Marc Morano, 5-sentence posts regurgitator/vomiter Steve Goddard and of course WUWT. But this Sunday Times article, written by well-known pseudo-journalist Jonathan Leake (search for his name on Deltoid) had a quote by presumed scientist John Christy … My question to Dr. Christy: Why do you lie?

    It seems to me that the AMS is professionally entitled — even *obligated* — to ignore the “fake skeptics.”

    Isn’t that plain common sense?   :!:   :?:   :!:

  69. Fan

    Isn’t that plain common sense?

    Nope.

    Max

  70. David Springer

    Will the children of Michigan remember that the lakes were once ice-free in the summer?

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/wti/from:2010/plot/wti/from:2010/trend

  71. The Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) sand castle was built by smoothing all the oscillations in Global Mean Surface Temperature (GMST) before 1970s, leaving the warming phase of this oscillation since then untouched and calling it man-made, as shown in the chart below:

    IPCC Chart => http://bit.ly/OaemsT

    As shown in the IPCC chart above, the climate models don’t represent the observed global cooling from 1880s to 1910s and the global warming from 1910s to 1940s. As IPCC models disagree with the known climate of the past, they have zero chance of predicting the unknown climate of the future.

    • Girma | August 29, 2012 at 5:38 pm said: ”The Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) sand castle was built by smoothing all the oscillations in Global Mean Surface Temperature (GMST) before 1970s”

      Girma, they didn’t ”smooth” anything! Before 82, they were massaging the numbers in opposite direction than after. Find in some original literature, from before 81 – you will see that the same cult was promoting ”Nuclear Winter for year 2000” = they were presenting that the planet is getting cooler because CO2 intercepts sunlight high up = less sunlight reaches to the ground ”the DIMMING EFFECT” That theory was turned 180 degrees in opposite direction, because the count-down for year 2000 was supposed to start – so, before you even defrosted from their nuclear winter – with bigger noise, and better organised – they presented the ”warming crap” in 100y. Which is exactly the same as their nuclear winter for year 2000.

      The truth: yes, same as fog – CO2 is lifted high up in the morning, and intercepts some sunlight up, where cooling is much more efficient = less heat comes to the ground = their dimming affect was correct – but ONLY FOR DAYTIME; any extra gas in the troposphere that is not opaque is like shade-cloth affect. BUT, they ignored that: sunlight is only 12h a day. because upper atmosphere is warmer / on the ground cooler by the evening – during the night cooling is less efficient (vertical winds slower). Those two factors CANCEL EACH OTHER!!!

      Cooler days / warmer nights around Kyoto city are equal to hotter days / cooler nights west in Gobi desert – overall the same. So, unless you are a ”Flat Earth Believer” that is 24h sunlight on every spot on the planet – you shouldn’t believe in GLOBAL warming, or GLOBAL cooling. More pollution in the air, as H20, CO2 or any other particle that is not transparent as oxygen & nitrogen = cooler days on the ground / warmer nights. Clear sky = hotter days / colder nights. That’s why they only monitor for hottest minute of the day = for 365 minutes in a year; and ignore the fluctuation in all the cooler minutes in that year. It’s a scam, Girma, and you fell for it; is it theirs, or your own fault. If you are scared from all the proofs and facts on my website = they have a good job on you.

  72. Many of us were pleasantly surprised that our leading scientific societies have recently adopted such strong statements as to the reality and seriousness of anthropogenic climate change.

    http://bit.ly/SV1rfw

  73. It occurs to me that this thread, though it does address the issue of the AMS paper on AGW, misses the underlying issue. That being can we continue to burn fossil fuels with impunity? I would aver, no we can’t!
    Is the globe warming? Apparently the answer is yes. Are humans responsible? Considering the we are adding long sequestered CO2 back into the atmosphere, I think that the answer just might be, again, yes. Does GW have the potential to be a catastrophic as some claim? Probably! Will it? Who knows for sure.
    But regardless of all the gibberish fossil fuel have a short time left to supply the energy that they presently do. Consequently, in the long term (say 100 years) we (humans) will be required to find alternatives to supply the energy that is critical to our life style and survival.
    If we’re smart we will address the underlying problem and the brouhaha of AGW just might resolve itself.
    Then we can all find something else to bicker about…

  74. The AMS members who object to the organization’s statement on global warming could show their strength in number through a petition. I doubt there will be such a petition. It could backfire if the number of signers turned out to be a small proportion of the membership. Skeptics might be better off just whining about the statement.

    • Some wanted to organise a count of those who supported giving its highest prize to Hansen, but the organisers blocked it. Very good piece by Bill Gray last year:

      http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/16/on-the-hijacking-of-the-american-meteorological-society-ams/

      “My interaction (over the years) with a broad segment of AMS members (that I have met as a result of my seasonal hurricane forecasting and other activities) who have spent a sizable portion of their careers down in the meteorological trenches of observations and forecasting, have indicated that a majority of them do not agree that humans are the primary cause of global warming. These working meteorologists are too experienced and too sophisticated to be hoodwinked by the lobby of global climate modelers and their associated propagandists. I suggest that the AMS conduct a survey of its members who are actually working with real time weather-climate data to see how many agree that humans have been the main cause of global warming and that there was justification for the AMS’s 2009 Rossby Research Medal (highest AMS award) going to James Hansen.”

  75. Humans are only responsible for 1/2 of the warming since this is only .8 degrees humans can only affect .4 degrees.

    Is it worth tens of trillions of dollars to avoid this warming ?

    • NetDr | August 31, 2012 at 7:19 pm said: ”Humans are only responsible for 1/2 of the warming”

      NetDr, what you are referring ”0,8C of warming”; is the increase in urban heat. For a start, is NOT 0,8C for every city – depends on the increase of population. It’s between o,01 – 4C, depends what time of the day and season, NOT UNIFORM! But the Warmist cannot admit that – because of dummies like you; they don’t need to

      That 0,8C has NOTHING to do with the GLOBAL temperature. 1] nobody is adequately monitoring to know what the GLOBAL temp is – therefore, one cannot compare one unknown with any other unknowns 2] because of ”urban heat” by the laws of physics / nature instantly creates other areas a bit cooler, to equalize. 3] talking about ”warmer planet” makes the Fake Skeptics as the dumbest people that ever existed. If the Fakes like you didn’t exist – the Warmist would have invented them. Warmist need dummies, to portray to the public that they are ”debating / arguing”

      When the 8000km3 of air in the big city warms up extra, because of human activity -> that air expands by 50km3 – that extra volume of air goes upwards into the stratosphere as an invisible nuclear mushroom -> releases extra heat / intercepts EXTRA coldness -> that air shrinks more than any other below (because gets COLDER than any other below) – falls down (if you believe in the laws of gravity) and brings EXTRA coldness to the ground. Because of the fast spinning of the planet – that extra coldness falls somewhere far west – plus on the way down, the winds distribute and spread that extra coldness on much larger areas – so it’s not noticeable.

      Bottom line: overall the GLOBAL temp is always the same. 2] it’s a music for the Warmist ears, when the Fake nutters are talking about warmer / colder planet, Being warmer in Europe by 5C, but colder in Pacific by 0,2C -is not warmer or colder planet – just the heat / coldness shift locations – otherwise the winds would stop. As long as you know the truth that: when you are talking about ”warmer planet”, because some place gets warmer than normal = you are doing the Warmist dirty job -> you become their favored roll of toilet paper. Otherwise their stench becomes noticeable to the public

  76. It is clear from extensive scientific evidence that the dominant cause of the rapid change in climate of the past half century is human-induced increases in the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide (CO2)

    The “extensive scientific evidence” being tweaked models utterly flummoxed by the current hiatus in warming.

    This is not science, it is propaganda. Its purpose is not to inform but to persuade and play politics. It takes over the torch from Climategate.

  77. There is a punctuation error in the AMS’s statement. It says “Warming of the climate system now is unequivocal, according to many different kinds of evidence. Due to natural variability, ….”.

    It should say “Warming of the climate system now is unequivocal, according to many different kinds of evidence, due to natural variability.”.

    (I didn’t read any further)

  78. Glad you posted this, Judy, I would not have known. I read the full statement and found it is simply outrageous. It is an out and out political statement based on no actual science. So I sat down, wrote a critique of it, and sent it directly to Louis Uccellini, the president of AMS, last night. Below is the full text of what I sent.
    ***********************************************
    On the Information Statement of the American Meteorological Society,
    Adopted by AMS Council 20 August 2012

    By Arno Arrak

    As a member of the AMS I find this so-called “Information Statement” highly objectionable. It does not meet the standard of providing “… a trustworthy, objective, and scientifically up-to-date explanation of scientific issues of concern to the public at large” as claimed in its first line. It is full of scientifically unsubstantiated claims which amount to purposeful misleading of the public. I checked BAMS and find that at no time has the membership been consulted about any of the “factual” statements it promotes. It is clear that a small group now controls the Society and has taken it upon themselves to define what science says about climate. Any information that contradicts their opinion is either suppressed or left out. There are so many distortions, errors and omissions in it that I can’t cover them all so I will concentrate upon the more important ones. I will use the same paragraph headings as the report uses.

    Background

    This statement provides a brief overview of how and why global climate has changed over the past century and will continue to change in the future, or so they say. There are two problems with this. First, their account of how climate has changed over the past century is wrong. Second, the idea that they know the future is laughable. They use climate models that have been proven wrong time and time again. One example: IPCC AR4 predicted that global warming in the twenty-first century will proceed at the rate of 0.2 degrees per decade. We are now in the second decade of this century and there is no sign of the predicted warming. If a scientific theory makes a prediction and that prediction is demonstrably wrong that theory is also considered to be wrong. The greenhouse theory of warming that made this prediction must therefore be considered wrong. I will have more to say about greenhouse theory below.

    How is climate changing?

    “Warming of the climate system now is unequivocal…” Let’s stop right there. They mean “anthropogenic warming” but deceptively do not want to spell it out. Then they continue: “Observations show increases in globally averaged air and ocean temperatures, as well as widespread melting of snow and ice and rising globally averaged sea level.” As observations of nature these are true but most of them cannot be used to support anthropogenic warming. Global air temperature, for instance, is controlled by various natural forces, not even one of them human-caused. I will cover that below. As to the “rising globally averaged sea level” it simply does not belong in this package. We know it for a fact that sea level has been rising linearly for eighty years, at the rate of 2.46 millimeters per year [Chou, Yu & Li, Science 320:212-214 (2008)]. That is 24.6 centimeters per century, not twenty feet as Al Gore says in his Nobel Prize-winning propaganda film. Satellites clock sea level rise today at 3 millimeters per year which corresponds within the statistical error with the eighty year trend. This long term trend is most likely due to the world-wide melting of glaciers that is part of coming out of the Little Ice Age. It has absolutely nothing to do with human influence. Next they claim anthropogenic warming of polar regions: “Arctic sea ice extent and volume have been decreasing for the past several decades. Both the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have lost significant amounts of ice. Most of the world’s glaciers are in retreat.” I already explained the glaciers above. They are deceptive also with their Antarctic story because the warming is confined to the West Antarctic, the only part of Antarctica that is not fully inside the Antarctic Circle. The West Antarctic ice sheet in places drops directly into the ocean without any protective ice shelves and can be influenced by oceanic conditions. For example, the shelf facing the Amundsen Sea is melting because warm water from below wells up. What is happening is that prevailing winds blow away the cold water from the coast which is then replaced by that upwelling water from below. Such vagaries of winds and currents have so destabilized the West Antarctic ice sheet that it has a periodic record of collapse. Thus, sediments in the Ross Sea indicate that melt water has cascaded into the sea 18,000 years ago, again 10,500 years ago, again 5,000 years ago and then again 1,500 years ago. It could easily happen any time now but not because of anything we have done. And then in the north then they want to claim Arctic warming as their own. What they say about the Arctic sea ice extent is certainly true but this again is not due to any anthropogenic influence. The Arctic is not warming because of any imaginary greenhouse effect but because Atlantic Ocean currents are carrying warm Gulf Stream water into the Arctic Ocean [E&E 22(8):1069-1083 (2012)]. In 2010 the temperature of water reaching the Arctic exceeded any individual values available for the last two thousand years. It all started suddenly at the beginning of the twentieth century after two thousand years of slow, orbitally-driven cooling. We know for sure that there was no parallel increase of carbon dioxide when the warming started and this makes the greenhouse effect impossible. Warming paused in mid-century for thirty years, then resumed, and is still going strong. However, if you still believe in the greenhouse effect you will have to explain how to turn it on and off as is required to produce this mid-century pause in warming.

    Why is climate changing?

    Here is how they present their case for human-induced warming: “It is clear from extensive scientific evidence that the dominant cause of the rapid change in climate of the past half century is human-induced increases in the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide (CO2), chlorofluorocarbons, methane, and nitrous oxide. The most important of these over the long term is CO2, whose concentration in the atmosphere is rising principally as a result of fossil-fuel combustion and deforestation.” For now, let’s forget about the other gases, they are introduced just to confuse the issue, and concentrate on carbon dioxide. Originally Hansen blamed carbon dioxide for global warming when he spoke to the Senate in 1988. It was a warm day, peak of the 1988 El Nino period, and both Hansen and the cameramen were wiping the sweat off their brows in a non-airconditioned hearing room. Senator Wirth, the committee chairman, had made sure that the air conditioning did not work and went out the previous night to open all the windows in the hearing room. For the hearing itself he had lined up more than ten TV cameras to report Hansen’s talk to the nation. It is this media blitz that started the present global warming mania. Hansen showed three versions of his climate models, predicting the amount of global warming through 2020, and advocated emissions reductions. The one marked “business as usual” was scariest and predicted a temperature rise of more than a degree Celsius in thirty years. This prediction has turned out to be way off the mark. The other two of his curves showed what could be done by emission controls. The climate models used today are all descended from Hansen’s but run on expensive supercomputers that Uncle Sam gave them. AMS prescription for stopping dangerous global warming is the same as Hansen’s in 1988: emission controls on carbon dioxide, i.e. we must stop burning fossil fuels. This is a trillion dollar demand on us, the peoples of the world. Unfortunately environmentalists have already indoctrinated enough people in power into believing their dubious theories and governments are now spending billions of dollars in public money on these worthless projects. As far as I can tell their faith in carbon dioxide comes from pure theory and is in conflict with actual observations of climate. Let’s go over the observed facts on global temperature, starting with the twentieth century, and see how they fit their story of global warming. The first ten years of the century saw cooling, not warming. This suddenly changed to warming in 1910 which stopped equally suddenly in 1940. There was no parallel increase of carbon dioxide in 1910, and this immediately rules out the greenhouse effect as a cause of warming. Bjørn Lomborg attributes this warming to solar influence and I agree with him. With it, forty percent of the century is over, without any sign of that greenhouse warming. The end of that warming was marked by rapid and severe cooling which lasted through World War II. The Finnish winter war of 1939/40 was fought at minus forty Celsius. There is nothing in any climate model that can either explain or forecast that. The Gulf of Finland froze over and Estonian volunteers walked across the ice to help defend the Finns against the Russians. Next year when Hitler attacked Russia it was General Frost, not the Red Army, who stopped the Germans at the gates of Moscow. And after the war was over the blizzard of 1947 was still able to immobilize New York City for weeks. There is no global warming theory that can explain how this cooling could happen in the presence of increasing carbon dioxide in the air. By 1950 the worst was over and climate stabilized for the next thirty years. But there was no warming until 1976 when the Great Pacific Climate Change is said to have brought a short step warming of about 0.2 degrees. By that time the Mauna Kea laboratorty was running and reported a steady increase of carbon dioxide in the fifties, sixties, and seventies. There has never been any satisfactory explanation of why a steady thirty year increase of carbon dioxide did not cause any warming. By now, seventy percent of the twentieth century was history, with still no sign of anthropogenic warming in sight. There was no warming in the eighties and nineties either, just a collection of ENSO peaks and valleys [1]. One of the peaks was the El Nino of 1988 that Hansen thought was a sign of global warming and so testified to the Senate. It was actually one of five El Nino peaks in that time interval, each one followed by a cool La Nina period. According to satellites the mean temperature remained constant during that entire period but this is not what you find on most land-based temperature curves. These feature a “late twentieth century warming” in that time slot that they count as greenhouse warming. It does not exist according to UAH and RSS satellites, NASA GISTEMP, and NCDC, all of which show that global mean temperature did not change from 1979 to 1987 . But this fake version is now so widespread that even Michael Mann and Richard Müller both use it, not knowing that it is a fake. This temperature rise was manufactured simply by reducing the depth of cool La Nina valleys between El Nino peaks of that period. The nineties ended with the super El Nino of 1998 that finally brought us real warming [1]. In four years, global temperature rose by a third of a degree Celsius and then stopped. There has not been any warming since that time. This step warming cannot be explained by any carbon dioxide greenhouse effect. Its cause very likely was the large amount of warm water the super El Nino carried across the ocean. The super El Nino peak temperature was twice as high as that of any other El Nino peak before it. This is very clear in satellite records but ground-based records do not show its true height. It is probably unique for at least a century and a half and should be intensively studied instead of being buried by a fictitious late twentieth century warming. With it we have reached the end of our temperature overview and can state that there has not been any anthropogenic greenhouse warming for the last 100 years. To talk of such warming as a fact is irresponsible pseudo-science thrust upon an unsuspecting public.

    Final remarks

    I will skip over the two climate change paragraphs since the required explanations are already implied by the foregoing.The final section goes on to claim again that “The dominant cause of the warming since the 1950s is human activities…” without giving any evidence whatsoever that such is a case. We have already seen that global temperature change is not among the arguments that can be used for it. But on top of that, we are also asked to believe that “The observed warming will be irreversible for many years into the future, and even larger temperature increases will occur as greenhouse gases continue to accumulate in the atmosphere.” There is no science whatsoever behind this claim. Ferenc Miskolczi, a Hungarian scientist, has studied the absorption of infrared radiation by the atmosphere and come to the conclusion that accumulation of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is incapable of raising atmospheric temperature. According to his theory, the existence of a stable climate requires that the infrared optical thickness of the atmosphere should have a constant value of 1.87. He worked out his theory in 2005 and in 2010 he was able to put it to an experimental test [E&E 21(4):243-262 (2010)]. Using NOAA weather balloon database that goes back to 1948 he showed that the infrared optical thickness of the atmosphere had been constant for 61 years. At the same time the amount of carbon dioxide in the air increased by 21.6 percent. This means that the addition of this substantial amount of carbon dioxide to air had no effect whatsoever on the absorption of IR by the atmosphere. And no absorption means no enhanced greenhouse effect, case closed. This is a purely empirical result, not dependent upon any theory, and it overrules any calculations from theory that do not agree with that. Specifically, it overrules any calculations based on the enhanced greenhouse effect, such as those predicting dangerous global warming to come. Miskolczi theory takes account of not only the greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide but also of the greenhouse effect of water vapor which is the larger of the two. According to Miskolczi the required constant value of the IR optical thickness is maintained by feedback mechanisms among all the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. The amount of carbon dioxide cannot be changed but water vapor has an effectively infinite source/sink in the oceans and can change. By suppressing the absorption from the added carbon dioxide it demonstrates the existence of a negative feedback effect of water vapor on the greenhouse effect. This is the exact opposite of what IPCC climate models have been doing by using positive water vapor feedback as an ad hoc device to get more warming out of carbon dioxide in the air

    [1] Arno Arrak, What Warming? Satellite view of global temperature Change (Second Edition, 2010)

  79. Way cool! Some extremely valid points! I appreciate you
    penning this post and also the rest of the website is really good.

  80. {
    {I have|I’ve} been {surfing|browsing} online more than {three|3|2|4} hours today, yet I never found any interesting article like yours. {It’s|It is} pretty worth enough for me.
    {In my opinion|Personally|In my view}, if all {webmasters|site owners|website owners|web owners}
    and bloggers made good content as you did, the {internet|net|web} will be
    {much more|a lot more} useful than ever before.
    |
    I {couldn’t|could not} {resist|refrain from} commenting. {Very well|Perfectly|Well|Exceptionally well} written!|
    {I will|I’ll} {right away|immediately} {take hold of|grab|clutch|grasp|seize|snatch} your {rss|rss feed} as I {can not|can’t} {in finding|find|to find} your {email|e-mail} subscription {link|hyperlink} or {newsletter|e-newsletter} service. Do {you have|you’ve}
    any? {Please|Kindly} {allow|permit|let}
    me {realize|recognize|understand|recognise|know} {so that|in order that} I {may just|may|could}
    subscribe. Thanks.|
    {It is|It’s} {appropriate|perfect|the best} time to make some plans for the future and {it is|it’s} time to be
    happy. {I have|I’ve} read this post and if I could I {want to|wish to|desire to} suggest you {few|some} interesting things or {advice|suggestions|tips}. {Perhaps|Maybe} you {could|can} write next articles referring to this article. I {want to|wish to|desire to} read {more|even more} things about it!|
    {It is|It’s} {appropriate|perfect|the best} time to make {a few|some} plans
    for {the future|the longer term|the long run} and {it is|it’s} time to be happy. {I have|I’ve} {read|learn} this
    {post|submit|publish|put up} and if I {may just|may|could} I {want to|wish to|desire to} {suggest|recommend|counsel} you {few|some} {interesting|fascinating|attention-grabbing} {things|issues} or {advice|suggestions|tips}.
    {Perhaps|Maybe} you {could|can} write {next|subsequent} articles {relating
    to|referring to|regarding} this article. I {want to|wish to|desire to} {read|learn}
    {more|even more} {things|issues} {approximately|about} it!
    |
    {I have|I’ve} been {surfing|browsing} {online|on-line} {more than|greater than} {three|3} hours {these days|nowadays|today|lately|as of late}, {yet|but} I {never|by no means} {found|discovered} any {interesting|fascinating|attention-grabbing} article like yours. {It’s|It is} {lovely|pretty|beautiful} {worth|value|price} {enough|sufficient} for me.

    {In my opinion|Personally|In my view}, if all {webmasters|site owners|website owners|web owners} and bloggers made {just
    right|good|excellent} {content|content material} as {you did|you probably did}, the {internet|net|web} {will be|shall be|might be|will probably
    be|can be|will likely be} {much more|a lot more} {useful|helpful} than ever before.

    |
    Ahaa, its {nice|pleasant|good|fastidious} {discussion|conversation|dialogue} {regarding|concerning|about|on the topic of} this {article|post|piece
    of writing|paragraph} {here|at this place} at this {blog|weblog|webpage|website|web
    site}, I have read all that, so {now|at this time} me also commenting {here|at this place}.
    |
    I am sure this {article|post|piece of writing|paragraph}
    has touched all the internet {users|people|viewers|visitors},
    its really really {nice|pleasant|good|fastidious} {article|post|piece of writing|paragraph} on building up new {blog|weblog|webpage|website|web site}.
    |
    Wow, this {article|post|piece of writing|paragraph} is {nice|pleasant|good|fastidious},
    my {sister|younger sister} is analyzing {such|these|these kinds of} things, {so|thus|therefore} I am going
    to {tell|inform|let know|convey} her.|
    {Saved as a favorite|bookmarked!!}, {I really like|I like|I love} {your blog|your site|your web site|your website}!
    |
    Way cool! Some {very|extremely} valid points! I appreciate you
    {writing this|penning this} {article|post|write-up} {and the|and
    also the|plus the} rest of the {site is|website is} {also very|extremely|very|also really|really} good.
    |
    Hi, {I do believe|I do think} {this is an excellent|this is a great} {blog|website|web site|site}.
    I stumbledupon it ;) {I will|I am going to|I’m going to|I may} {come back|return|revisit} {once again|yet again} {since I|since i have} {bookmarked|book marked|book-marked|saved as a favorite} it. Money and freedom {is the best|is the greatest} way to change, may you be rich and continue to {help|guide} {other people|others}.|
    Woah! I’m really {loving|enjoying|digging} the template/theme of this {site|website|blog}.
    It’s simple, yet effective. A lot of times it’s {very hard|very difficult|challenging|tough|difficult|hard} to get that “perfect balance” between
    {superb usability|user friendliness|usability} and
    {visual appearance|visual appeal|appearance}. I must say {that you’ve|you have|you’ve} done a {awesome|amazing|very good|superb|fantastic|excellent|great} job with this.
    {In addition|Additionally|Also}, the blog loads {very|extremely|super} {fast|quick} for me on {Safari|Internet explorer|Chrome|Opera|Firefox}.
    {Superb|Exceptional|Outstanding|Excellent} Blog!
    |
    These are {really|actually|in fact|truly|genuinely} {great|enormous|impressive|wonderful|fantastic} ideas in {regarding|concerning|about|on the topic of}
    blogging. You have touched some {nice|pleasant|good|fastidious} {points|factors|things}
    here. Any way keep up wrinting.|
    {I love|I really like|I enjoy|I like|Everyone loves} what you
    guys {are|are usually|tend to be} up too. {This sort of|This type of|Such|This kind of} clever work and {exposure|coverage|reporting}!

    Keep up the {superb|terrific|very good|great|good|awesome|fantastic|excellent|amazing|wonderful} works guys I’ve {incorporated||added|included} you guys to {|my|our||my personal|my own} blogroll.|
    {Howdy|Hi there|Hey there|Hi|Hello|Hey}! Someone in my {Myspace|Facebook} group shared this {site|website} with us so I came to {give it a look|look it over|take a look|check it out}. I’m definitely {enjoying|loving} the
    information. I’m {book-marking|bookmarking} and will be tweeting this to my followers! {Terrific|Wonderful|Great|Fantastic|Outstanding|Exceptional|Superb|Excellent} blog and {wonderful|terrific|brilliant|amazing|great|excellent|fantastic|outstanding|superb} {style and design|design and style|design}.|
    {I love|I really like|I enjoy|I like|Everyone loves} what you guys {are|are usually|tend to be} up too. {This sort of|This type of|Such|This kind of} clever work and {exposure|coverage|reporting}! Keep up the {superb|terrific|very good|great|good|awesome|fantastic|excellent|amazing|wonderful} works guys I’ve
    {incorporated|added|included} you guys to {|my|our|my personal|my own} blogroll.
    |
    {Howdy|Hi there|Hey there|Hi|Hello|Hey} would you mind {stating|sharing} which blog platform you’re {working with|using}? I’m {looking|planning|going} to start my own blog {in the near future|soon}
    but I’m having a {tough|difficult|hard} time {making a decision|selecting|choosing|deciding} between BlogEngine/Wordpress/B2evolution and Drupal. The reason I ask is because your {design and style|design|layout} seems different then most blogs and I’m looking
    for something {completely unique|unique}. P.
    S {My apologies|Apologies|Sorry} for {getting|being} off-topic but I had to ask!
    |
    {Howdy|Hi there|Hi|Hey there|Hello|Hey} would you mind letting me know which {webhost|hosting company|web host} you’re {utilizing|working with|using}? I’ve loaded
    your blog in 3 {completely different|different} {internet browsers|web browsers|browsers}
    and I must say this blog loads a lot {quicker|faster}
    then most. Can you {suggest|recommend} a good {internet hosting|web hosting|hosting} provider at
    a {honest|reasonable|fair} price? {Thanks a lot|Kudos|Cheers|Thank you|Many
    thanks|Thanks}, I appreciate it!|
    {I love|I really like|I like|Everyone loves} it {when people|when individuals|when folks|whenever people} {come together|get together}
    and share {opinions|thoughts|views|ideas}. Great {blog|website|site},
    {keep it up|continue the good work|stick with
    it}!|
    Thank you for the {auspicious|good} writeup. It in fact was a amusement account it.
    Look advanced to {far|more} added agreeable from you!
    {By the way|However}, how {can|could} we communicate?
    |
    {Howdy|Hi there|Hey there|Hello|Hey} just wanted to
    give you a quick heads up. The {text|words} in your {content|post|article} seem to be running off the screen in {Ie|Internet
    explorer|Chrome|Firefox|Safari|Opera}. I’m not sure if this is a {format|formatting} issue or something to do with {web browser|internet browser|browser} compatibility but I {thought|figured} I’d post to
    let you know. The {style and design|design and
    style|layout|design} look great though! Hope you get the {problem|issue} {solved|resolved|fixed}
    soon. {Kudos|Cheers|Many thanks|Thanks}|
    This is a topic {that is|that’s|which is} {close to|near to} my heart… {Cheers|Many thanks|Best wishes|Take care|Thank you}! {Where|Exactly where} are your contact details though?|
    It’s very {easy|simple|trouble-free|straightforward|effortless} to find
    out any {topic|matter} on {net|web} as compared to {books|textbooks},
    as I found this {article|post|piece of writing|paragraph} at this {website|web site|site|web
    page}.|
    Does your {site|website|blog} have a contact page?
    I’m having {a tough time|problems|trouble} locating it but, I’d like to {send|shoot} you an {e-mail|email}.

    I’ve got some {creative ideas|recommendations|suggestions|ideas} for your blog you might be interested in hearing. Either way, great {site|website|blog} and I look forward to seeing it {develop|improve|expand|grow} over time.|
    {Hola|Hey there|Hi|Hello|Greetings}! I’ve been {following|reading} your {site|web site|website|weblog|blog}
    for {a long time|a while|some time} now and finally got the {bravery|courage} to go ahead
    and give you a shout out from {New Caney|Kingwood|Huffman|Porter|Houston|Dallas|Austin|Lubbock|Humble|Atascocita} {Tx|Texas}!
    Just wanted to {tell you|mention|say} keep up the {fantastic|excellent|great|good} {job|work}!

    |
    Greetings from {Idaho|Carolina|Ohio|Colorado|Florida|Los angeles|California}!
    I’m {bored to tears|bored to death|bored} at work so I decided to {check out|browse} your {site|website|blog} on my iphone during lunch break. I {enjoy|really like|love} the {knowledge|info|information} you {present|provide} here and can’t wait to take a look when I get home.
    I’m {shocked|amazed|surprised} at how {quick|fast} your blog loaded on my {mobile|cell phone|phone} .. I’m not even using
    WIFI, just 3G .. {Anyhow|Anyways}, {awesome|amazing|very good|superb|good|wonderful|fantastic|excellent|great} {site|blog}!
    |
    Its {like you|such as you} {read|learn} my {mind|thoughts}!
    You {seem|appear} {to understand|to know|to grasp} {so much|a lot} {approximately|about} this, {like you|such as you} wrote the {book|e-book|guide|ebook|e book} in it or
    something. {I think|I feel|I believe} {that you|that you simply|that you just} {could|can} do with {some|a few} {%|p.c.|percent} to {force|pressure|drive|power} the message {house|home} {a bit|a little bit}, {however|but} {other than|instead of} that, {this is|that is} {great|wonderful|fantastic|magnificent|excellent} blog. {A great|An excellent|A fantastic} read. {I’ll|I will} {definitely|certainly} be back.|
    I visited {multiple|many|several|various} {websites|sites|web sites|web pages|blogs} {but|except|however} the audio {quality|feature} for audio songs {current|present|existing} at this {website|web site|site|web page} is {really|actually|in fact|truly|genuinely} {marvelous|wonderful|excellent|fabulous|superb}.|
    {Howdy|Hi there|Hi|Hello}, i read your blog {occasionally|from time to time} and i own a similar one and i was just {wondering|curious} if you get a lot of spam {comments|responses|feedback|remarks}? If so how do you {prevent|reduce|stop|protect against} it, any plugin or anything you can {advise|suggest|recommend}? I get so much lately it’s driving me {mad|insane|crazy} so any {assistance|help|support} is very much appreciated.|
    Greetings! {Very helpful|Very useful} advice {within this|in this particular} {article|post}! {It is the|It’s the} little changes {that make|which will make|that produce|that will make} {the biggest|the largest|the greatest|the most important|the most significant} changes. {Thanks a lot|Thanks|Many thanks} for sharing!|
    {I really|I truly|I seriously|I absolutely} love {your blog|your site|your website}.. {Very nice|Excellent|Pleasant|Great} colors & theme. Did you {create|develop|make|build} {this website|this site|this web site|this amazing site} yourself? Please reply back as I’m {looking to|trying to|planning to|wanting to|hoping to|attempting to} create {my own|my very own|my own personal} {blog|website|site} and {would like to|want to|would love to} {know|learn|find out} where you got this from or {what the|exactly what the|just what the} theme {is called|is named}. {Thanks|Many thanks|Thank you|Cheers|Appreciate it|Kudos}!|
    {Hi there|Hello there|Howdy}! This {post|article|blog post} {couldn’t|could not} be written {any better|much better}! {Reading through|Looking at|Going through|Looking through} this {post|article} reminds me of my previous roommate! He {always|constantly|continually} kept {talking about|preaching about} this. {I will|I’ll|I am going to|I most certainly will} {forward|send} {this article|this information|this post} to him. {Pretty sure|Fairly certain} {he will|he’ll|he’s going to} {have a good|have a very good|have a great} read. {Thank you for|Thanks for|Many thanks for|I appreciate you for} sharing!|
    {Wow|Whoa|Incredible|Amazing}! This blog looks {exactly|just} like my old one! It’s on a {completely|entirely|totally} different {topic|subject} but it has pretty much the same {layout|page layout} and design. {Excellent|Wonderful|Great|Outstanding|Superb} choice of colors!|
    {There is|There’s} {definately|certainly} {a lot to|a great deal to} {know about|learn about|find out about} this {subject|topic|issue}. {I like|I love|I really like} {all the|all of the} points {you made|you’ve made|you have made}.|
    {You made|You’ve made|You have made} some {decent|good|really good} points there. I {looked|checked} {on the internet|on the web|on the net} {for more info|for more information|to find out more|to learn more|for additional information} about the issue and found {most individuals|most people} will go along with your views on {this website|this site|this web site}.|
    {Hi|Hello|Hi there|What’s up}, I {log on to|check|read} your {new stuff|blogs|blog} {regularly|like every week|daily|on a regular basis}. Your {story-telling|writing|humoristic} style is {awesome|witty}, keep {doing what you’re doing|up the good work|it up}!|
    I {simply|just} {could not|couldn’t} {leave|depart|go away} your {site|web site|website} {prior to|before} suggesting that I {really|extremely|actually} {enjoyed|loved} {the standard|the usual} {information|info} {a person|an individual} {supply|provide} {for your|on your|in your|to your} {visitors|guests}? Is {going to|gonna} be {back|again} {frequently|regularly|incessantly|steadily|ceaselessly|often|continuously} {in order to|to} {check up on|check out|inspect|investigate cross-check} new posts|
    {I wanted|I needed|I want to|I need to} to thank you for this {great|excellent|fantastic|wonderful|good|very good} read!! I {definitely|certainly|absolutely} {enjoyed|loved} every {little bit of|bit of} it. {I have|I’ve got|I have got} you {bookmarked|book marked|book-marked|saved as a favorite} {to check out|to look at} new {stuff you|things you} post…|
    {Hi|Hello|Hi there|What’s up}, just wanted to {mention|say|tell you}, I {enjoyed|liked|loved} this {article|post|blog post}. It was {inspiring|funny|practical|helpful}. Keep on posting!|
    I {{leave|drop|{write|create}} a {comment|leave a response}|drop a {comment|leave a response}|{comment|leave a response}} {each time|when|whenever} I {appreciate|like|especially enjoy} a {post|article} on a {site|{blog|website}|site|website} or {I have|if I have} something to {add|contribute|valuable to contribute} {to the discussion|to the conversation}. {It is|Usually it is|Usually it’s|It’s} {a result of|triggered by|caused by} the {passion|fire|sincerness} {communicated|displayed} in the {post|article} I {read|looked at|browsed}. And {on|after} this {post|article} AMS Statement on Climate Change | Climate Etc.. I {{was|was actually} moved|{was|was actually} excited} enough to {drop|{leave|drop|{write|create}}|post} a {thought|{comment|{comment|leave a response}a response}} {:-P|:)|;)|;-)|:-)} I {do have|actually do have} {{some|a few} questions|a couple of questions|2 questions} for you {if you {don’t|do not|usually do not|tend not to} mind|if it’s {allright|okay}}. {Is it|Could it be} {just|only|simply} me or {do|does it {seem|appear|give the impression|look|look as if|look like} like} {some|a few} of {the|these} {comments|responses|remarks} {look|appear|come across} {like they are|as if they are|like} {coming from|written by|left by} brain dead {people|visitors|folks|individuals}? :-P And, if you are {posting|writing} {on|at} {other|additional} {sites|social sites|online sites|online social sites|places}, {I’d|I would} like to {follow|keep up with} {you|{anything|everything} {new|fresh} you have to post}. {Could|Would} you {list|make a list} {all|every one|the complete urls} of {your|all your} {social|communal|community|public|shared} {pages|sites} like your {twitter feed, Facebook page or linkedin profile|linkedin profile, Facebook page or twitter feed|Facebook page, twitter feed, or linkedin profile}?|
    {Hi there|Hello}, I enjoy reading {all of|through} your {article|post|article post}. I {like|wanted} to write a little comment to support you.|
    I {always|constantly|every time} spent my half an hour to read this {blog|weblog|webpage|website|web site}’s {articles|posts|articles or reviews|content} {everyday|daily|every day|all the time} along with a {cup|mug} of coffee.|
    I {always|for all time|all the time|constantly|every time} emailed this {blog|weblog|webpage|website|web site} post page to all my {friends|associates|contacts}, {because|since|as|for the reason that} if like to read it {then|after that|next|afterward} my {friends|links|contacts} will too.|
    My {coder|programmer|developer} is trying to {persuade|convince} me to move to .net from PHP. I have always disliked the idea because of the {expenses|costs}. But he’s tryiong none the less. I’ve been using {Movable-type|WordPress} on {a number of|a variety of|numerous|several|various} websites for about a year and am {nervous|anxious|worried|concerned} about switching to another platform. I have heard {fantastic|very good|excellent|great|good} things about blogengine.net. Is there a way I can {transfer|import} all my wordpress {content|posts} into it? {Any kind of|Any} help would be {really|greatly} appreciated!|
    {Hello|Hi|Hello there|Hi there|Howdy|Good day}! I could have sworn I’ve {been to|visited} {this blog|this web site|this website|this site|your blog} before but after {browsing through|going through|looking at} {some of the|a few of the|many of the} {posts|articles} I realized it’s new to me. {Anyways|Anyhow|Nonetheless|Regardless}, I’m {definitely|certainly} {happy|pleased|delighted} {I found|I discovered|I came across|I stumbled upon} it and I’ll be {bookmarking|book-marking} it and checking back {frequently|regularly|often}!|
    {Terrific|Great|Wonderful} {article|work}! {This is|That is} {the type of|the kind of} {information|info} {that are meant to|that are supposed to|that should} be shared {around the|across the} {web|internet|net}. {Disgrace|Shame} on {the {seek|search} engines|Google} for {now not|not|no longer} positioning this {post|submit|publish|put up} {upper|higher}! Come on over and {talk over with|discuss with|seek advice from|visit|consult with} my {site|web site|website} . {Thank you|Thanks} =)|
    Heya {i’m|i am} for the first time here. I {came across|found} this board and I find It {truly|really} useful & it helped me out {a lot|much}. I hope to give something back and {help|aid} others like you {helped|aided} me.|
    {Hi|Hello|Hi there|Hello there|Howdy|Greetings}, {I think|I believe|I do believe|I do think|There’s no doubt that} {your site|your website|your web site|your blog} {might be|may be|could be|could possibly be} having {browser|internet browser|web browser} compatibility {issues|problems}. {When I|Whenever I} {look at your|take a look at your} {website|web site|site|blog} in Safari, it looks fine {but when|however when|however, if|however, when} opening in {Internet Explorer|IE|I.E.}, {it has|it’s got} some overlapping issues. {I just|I simply|I merely} wanted to {give you a|provide you with a} quick heads up! {Other than that|Apart from that|Besides that|Aside from that}, {fantastic|wonderful|great|excellent} {blog|website|site}!|
    {A person|Someone|Somebody} {necessarily|essentially} {lend a hand|help|assist} to make {seriously|critically|significantly|severely} {articles|posts} {I would|I might|I’d} state. {This is|That is} the {first|very first} time I frequented your {web page|website page} and {to this point|so far|thus far|up to now}? I {amazed|surprised} with the {research|analysis} you made to {create|make} {this actual|this particular} {post|submit|publish|put up} {incredible|amazing|extraordinary}. {Great|Wonderful|Fantastic|Magnificent|Excellent} {task|process|activity|job}!|
    Heya {i’m|i am} for {the primary|the first} time here. I {came across|found} this board and I {in finding|find|to find} It {truly|really} {useful|helpful} & it helped me out {a lot|much}. {I am hoping|I hope|I’m hoping} {to give|to offer|to provide|to present} {something|one thing} {back|again} and {help|aid} others {like you|such as you} {helped|aided} me.|
    {Hello|Hi|Hello there|Hi there|Howdy|Good day|Hey there}! {I just|I simply} {would like to|want to|wish to} {give you a|offer you a} {huge|big} thumbs up {for the|for your} {great|excellent} {info|information} {you have|you’ve got|you have got} {here|right here} on this post. {I will be|I’ll be|I am} {coming back to|returning to} {your blog|your site|your website|your web site} for more soon.|
    I {always|all the time|every time} used to {read|study} {article|post|piece of writing|paragraph} in news papers but now as I am a user of {internet|web|net} {so|thus|therefore} from now I am using net for {articles|posts|articles or reviews|content}, thanks to web.|
    Your {way|method|means|mode} of {describing|explaining|telling} {everything|all|the whole thing} in this {article|post|piece of writing|paragraph} is {really|actually|in fact|truly|genuinely} {nice|pleasant|good|fastidious}, {all|every one} {can|be able to|be capable of} {easily|without difficulty|effortlessly|simply} {understand|know|be aware of} it, Thanks a lot.|
    {Hi|Hello} there, {I found|I discovered} your {blog|website|web site|site} {by means of|via|by the use of|by way of} Google {at the same time as|whilst|even as|while} {searching for|looking for} a {similar|comparable|related} {topic|matter|subject}, your {site|web site|website} {got here|came} up, it {looks|appears|seems|seems to be|appears to be like} {good|great}. {I have|I’ve} bookmarked it in my google bookmarks.
    {Hello|Hi} there, {simply|just} {turned into|became|was|become|changed into} {aware of|alert to} your {blog|weblog} {thru|through|via} Google, {and found|and located} that {it is|it’s} {really|truly} informative. {I’m|I am} {gonna|going to} {watch out|be careful} for brussels. {I will|I’ll} {appreciate|be grateful} {if you|should you|when you|in the event you|in case you|for those who|if you happen to} {continue|proceed} this {in future}. {A lot of|Lots of|Many|Numerous} {other folks|folks|other people|people} {will be|shall be|might be|will probably be|can be|will likely be} benefited {from your|out of your} writing. Cheers!|
    {I am|I’m} curious to find out what blog {system|platform} {you have been|you happen to be|you are|you’re} {working with|utilizing|using}? I’m {experiencing|having} some {minor|small} security {problems|issues} with my latest {site|website|blog} and {I would|I’d} like to find something more {safe|risk-free|safeguarded|secure}. Do you have any {solutions|suggestions|recommendations}?|
    {I am|I’m} {extremely|really} impressed with your writing skills {and also|as well as} with the layout on your {blog|weblog}. Is this a paid theme or did you {customize|modify} it yourself? {Either way|Anyway} keep up the {nice|excellent} quality writing, {it’s|it is} rare to see a {nice|great} blog like this one {these days|nowadays|today}.|
    {I am|I’m} {extremely|really} {inspired|impressed} {with your|together with your|along with your} writing {talents|skills|abilities} {and also|as {smartly|well|neatly} as} with the {layout|format|structure} {for your|on your|in your|to your} {blog|weblog}. {Is this|Is that this} a paid {subject|topic|subject matter|theme} or did you {customize|modify} it {yourself|your self}? {Either way|Anyway} {stay|keep} up the {nice|excellent} {quality|high quality} writing, {it’s|it is} {rare|uncommon} {to peer|to see|to look} a {nice|great} {blog|weblog} like this one {these days|nowadays|today}..|
    {Hi|Hello}, Neat post. {There is|There’s} {a problem|an issue} {with your|together with your|along with your} {site|web site|website} in {internet|web} explorer, {may|might|could|would} {check|test} this? IE {still|nonetheless} is the {marketplace|market} {leader|chief} and {a large|a good|a big|a huge} {part of|section of|component to|portion of|component of|element of} {other folks|folks|other people|people} will {leave out|omit|miss|pass over} your {great|wonderful|fantastic|magnificent|excellent} writing {due to|because of} this problem.|
    {I’m|I am} not sure where {you are|you’re} getting your {info|information}, but {good|great} topic. I needs to spend some time learning {more|much more} or understanding more. Thanks for {great|wonderful|fantastic|magnificent|excellent} {information|info} I was looking for this {information|info} for my mission.|
    {Hi|Hello}, i think that i saw you visited my {blog|weblog|website|web site|site} {so|thus} i came to “return the favor”.{I am|I’m} {trying to|attempting to} find things to {improve|enhance} my {website|site|web site}!I suppose its ok to use {some of|a few of} your ideas!!\

  81. Very nice post. I just stumbled upon your weblog and wished to say that I have truly enjoyed browsing your blog posts.
    After all I’ll be subscribing to your rss feed and I hope you write again very soon!

  82. Great beat ! I would like to apprentice while you amend your site, how can
    i subscribe for a blog web site? The account helped me a
    acceptable deal. I had been tiny bit acquainted of this your broadcast provided
    bright clear idea

  83. Heya i’m for the primary time here. I came across this board and I find It truly useful & it helped me out much. I am hoping to give one thing again and help others such as you aided me.

  84. Great post. I was checking constantly this weblog
    and I’m impressed! Very helpful information specifically the ultimate section :) I deal with such information a lot. I was looking for this certain info for a long time. Thank you and best of luck.

  85. I read this piece of writing fully about the comparison of latest and
    preceding technologies, it’s awesome article.

  86. Hi! I’ve been following your web site for some time now and finally got the bravery to go ahead and give you a shout out from Kingwood Tx! Just wanted to tell you keep up the great job!

  87. Your mode of telling the whole thing in this article is really nice, all can
    easily understand it, Thanks a lot.

    • Judging from your analysis and logic, you and the few folks who commented immediately above you must be “skeptics.”

      heh.

  88. You are in point of fact a good webmaster. The website loading speed is incredible. It sort of feels that you are doing any unique trick. Moreover, The contents are masterpiece. you have done a fantastic task on this topic!

  89. Really when someone doesn’t be aware of then its up to other viewers that they will assist, so here it occurs.

  90. We are a group of volunteers and starting a new scheme in our community.
    Your web site offered us with valuable information to work on.
    You’ve done a formidable job and our whole community will be thankful to you.

  91. Hi there! This post couldn’t be written any better! Reading through this article reminds me of my previous roommate! He continually kept talking about this. I am going to forward this information to him. Pretty sure he’ll have a good read.
    Thanks for sharing!

  92. hey there and thank you for your information – I’ve certainly picked up something new from right here. I did however expertise several technical issues using this web site, as I experienced to reload the site many times previous to I could get it to load properly. I had been wondering if your hosting is OK? Not that I am complaining, but slow loading instances times will sometimes affect your placement in google and can damage your high quality score if advertising and marketing with Adwords. Well I am adding this RSS to my e-mail and could look out for a lot more of your respective fascinating content. Ensure that you update this again soon.

  93. The number of calories is always important but
    there are kinds of food out there which are very deceptive.
    The instructions for the Apple brie Cheese Omelette recipe are pretty straightforward, even a mere male such as I am able
    to follow it, and even make it a tasty dish. Mozzarella, Parmesan, Emmental and
    Roquefort might be a flavorful combination but
    you can use any cheeses you fancy.

  94. Hello there! This is kind of off topic but I need
    some guidance from an established blog. Is it tough to set up your own blog?
    I’m not very techincal but I can figure things out pretty quick. I’m thinking about
    setting up my own but I’m not sure where to begin. Do you have any tips or suggestions? Thank you

  95. Asking questions are genuinely good thing if you are not understanding something fully,
    however this post provides nice understanding even.

  96. Fastidious replies in return of this query with genuine arguments and describing all on the topic
    of that.

  97. Very nice post. I just stumbled upon your weblog and wanted to say that I’ve really loved surfing around your weblog posts. After all I will be subscribing on your rss feed and I’m hoping you write again soon!

  98. Currently it eems likie Druoal is the preferred blogging platform out there right now.
    (from what I’ve read) Is that what you are
    using on your blog?

  99. counterculture’ ousts the content popular during a particular decade and replaces it as the new way of popular music.
    The 2002 movie The Count of Monte Cristo was really filmed in Valletta and Vittoriosa instead of Marseille.
    When there is a file you would like to share, you’ll be able to upload it in your storage account.

  100. Hi! Quick question that’s completely off topic. Do you know how to make your
    site mobile friendly? My web site looks weird when browsing from
    my iphone. I’m trying to find a template or plugin that
    might be able to resolve this issue. If you have any
    recommendations, please share. With thanks!

  101. Hey! I could have sworn I’ve been to this blog before but after
    checking through some of the post I realized it’s new to me.
    Nonetheless, I’m definitely glad I found it and I’ll be bookmarking and checking
    back frequently!

  102. Guangzhou has been a land of many golf club, golf summer camp have years of experience, so a lot of summer camp has long reputation outer