Week in review 10/5/12

by Judith Curry

A few things that caught my attention this past week.

From masterresource:  Presidential debate climate change cheat sheet.  Some excerpts:

Climate During the Obama Administration

• Over the course of the Obama presidency the rate of global warming has declined.

• Over the course of the Obama presidency the rise of the global sea level has slowed.

• Over the course of the Obama presidency the emissions of greenhouse gases from the U.S. have declined.

None of the above are a result of Obama Administration policies.

• Instead, the vagaries of natural climate variability have led to a (temporary) slowdown of the rise in both global average temperature and global average sea level.

• The reduction of greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S is largely a result of a poor economy, a rise in the use (and affordable availability) of natural gas, and on-going improvements of the U.S. energy efficiency that were begun long before the Obama Administration.

Well, all this seems to be moot in context of the presidential election:  climate change seems to be off the political radar.

———

From USA Today (h/t Bill Hooke):  Stealth war to redefine science.  Some excerpts:

In our state of political gridlock, the scientific community fears the impact of the looming federal budget cuts known as “sequestration.” But there is something else they should be fearful of: the redefining of science itself.

Indeed, there appears to be an increasing trend to change the definition of what is widely considered to be science. Why?

Two reasons: Money and politics.

First, the money. Relatively speaking, science departments are lavishly funded compared with the humanities. If a field becomes widely perceived as being scientific, it is likely to get more money from the National Science Foundation (NSF) and other government sources of funding.

Second, the politics. It’s not a secret that academia, particularly the humanities, skews heavily left.

———

Die Klimazwiebel has an interesting post about UK public on climate change. Excerpts:

The study shows that while a substantial majority of the UK public believe the world’s climate is changing, many feel relatively uninformed about, or uninterested in, the findings of climate science, and a sizable [sic] minority do not trust climate scientists to tell the truth about climate change.

———

NYTimes has an article entitled Study finds fraud is widespread in retracted scientific papers.  Excerpt:

In the new study, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, two scientists and a medical communications consultant analyzed 2,047 retracted papers in the biomedical and life sciences. They found that misconduct was the reason for three-quarters of the retractions for which they could determine the cause.

“We found that the problem was a lot worse than we thought,” said an author of the study, Dr. Arturo Casadevall of Albert Einstein College of Medicine in the Bronx.

Dr. Casadevall and another author, Dr. Ferric C. Fang of the University of Washington, have been outspoken critics of the current culture of science. To them, the rising rate of retractions reflects perverse incentives that drive scientists to make sloppy mistakes or even knowingly publish false data.

While the fraudulent papers may be relatively few, he went on, their rapid increase is a sign of a winner-take-all culture in which getting a paper published in a major journal can be the difference between heading a lab and facing unemployment. “Some fraction of people are starting to cheat,” he said.

“I don’t think this problem is going to go away as long as you have this disproportionate system of rewards,” he said.

——-

JC note:  I am still at the UK, the RS uncertainty workshop is over.  Terrific workshop, I will have several posts in the coming days.  In the meantime, check out Josh’s Workshop cartoons. (link fixed)

807 responses to “Week in review 10/5/12

  1. No comment on this http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v5/n10/full/ngeo1573.html

    “Permafrost soils contain an estimated 1,700 Pg of carbon, almost twice the present atmospheric carbon pool1. As permafrost soils thaw owing to climate warming, respiration of organic matter within these soils will transfer carbon to the atmosphere, potentially leading to a positive feedback2. Models in which the carbon cycle is uncoupled from the atmosphere, together with one-dimensional models, suggest that permafrost soils could release 7–138 Pg carbon by 2100 (refs 3, 4). Here, we use a coupled global climate model to quantify the magnitude of the warming generated by the feedback between permafrost carbon release and climate. According to our simulations, permafrost soils will release between 68 and 508 Pg carbon by 2100. We show that the additional surface warming generated by the feedback between permafrost carbon and climate is independent of the pathway of anthropogenic emissions followed in the twenty-first century. We estimate that this feedback could result in an additional warming of 0.13–1.69 °C by 2300. We further show that the upper bound for the strength of the feedback is reached under the less intensive emissions pathways. We suggest that permafrost carbon release could lead to significant warming, even under less intensive emissions trajectories.”

    • The huge range of possibilities in this work would seem to make it almost meaningless.

    • Wow, soil sure holds lots of carbon.

    • What’s to comment on yet another behind a paywall, model-driven paper? The authors of which include IPCC-nik Andrew <AR4 will show that climate change is a barrage of intergalactic ballistic missiles>> Weaver!

      The same Andrew Weaver designated as an LA for AR5. Now what would be news is if Weaver, having recently declared himself a candidate for the Green Party in British Columbia’s spring 2013 election, were to acknowledge his conflict of interest and recuse himself from IPCC deliberations, henceforth. That would be both newsworthy and honourable, would it not?

      Certainly far more honourable than pretending (redefining?) model simulations as “experiments” as Weaver and his co-authors have done in the SI.

      http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v5/n10/extref/ngeo1573-s1.pdf

    • Louise,

      You and other alarmists continually post articles implying catastrophe. However, the connection isn’t made. How does the presence of 1,700 Pg of carbon in permafrosts mean catastrophe. I know you argue it will be released, warm the atmosphere and cause all sorts of unspecified deadly consequences. But the planet has been with out ice at either pole for 75% of the time multi-cell life has existed. So what is the problem with warming? Furthermore, life thrives when the planet is warmer and struggles when colder. So what is the problem with warming?

      I see no point in continuing to argue the planet will warm if there is nothing more that unsubstantiated assertion using scary adjectives to define the consequences of warming.

      Furthermore, the consequences must be put in terms of costs and benefits and time phased so we can compare these with the costs and benefits of the proposed mitigation policies.

      At the moment I am convinced that most of the proposed mitigation policies – like carbon taxes, cap and trade and renewable energy, will have insignificant effect on the climate but have huge economic costs (meaning bad for human well-being). See here for example:

      http://jennifermarohasy.com/2012/06/what-the-carbon-tax-and-ets-will-really-cost-peter-lang/

      Alarmists really do need to understand and address this concern of the skeptics.

      • “I know you argue it will be released, warm the atmosphere and cause all sorts of unspecified deadly consequences. But the planet has been with out ice at either pole for 75% of the time multi-cell life has existed. So what is the problem with warming? Furthermore, life thrives when the planet is warmer and struggles when colder. So what is the problem with warming?”

        Sudden and pronounced change is the cause of mass extinctions.

        It doesn’t matter whether it’s cooling, warming, or what. Changing conditions place a stress on species. Species have to adapt to in order to survive. If the change is too much too fast then species can fail and be driven extinct.

        When did the planet last warm 3 degrees C in a few centuries? And how did life cope with that?

      • Chief Hydrologist

        Large, abrupt climate changes have affected hemispheric to global regions repeatedly, as shown by numerous paleoclimate records (Broecker, 1995, 1997). Changes of up to 16°C and a factor of 2 in precipitation have occurred in some places in periods as short as decades to years (Alley and Clark, 1999; Lang et al., 1999). However, before the 1990s, the dominant view of past climate change emphasized the slow, gradual swings of the ice ages tied to features of the earth’s orbit over tens of millennia or the 100-million-year changes occurring with continental drift. But unequivocal geologic evidence pieced together over the last few decades shows that climate can change abruptly, and this has forced a reexamination of climate instability and feedback processes (NRC, 1998).

      • Lolwot,

        When did the planet last warm 3 degrees C in a few centuries? And how did life cope with that?

        I find these sorts of comments/questions unpersuasive because of the inconsistency in what the Alarmists claim are the most important impacts of warming. Here are some of the impacts people pick from:
        • Rapid sea level rise
        • Magnitude of sea level rise by 2100
        • Extreme weather events
        • Fatalities from hot weather events (they ignore the reduction in fatalities cause by less cold events)
        • Loss of glaciers and loss of reliable fresh water supplies
        • Reduced alkalinity of the oceans
        • Polar bears drowning

        And, on this occasion, you’ve chosen to pick on mass extinctions.

        I find it frustrating that the climate science ‘consensusts’ has been unable to put it all together and state their projections of the net economic costs and benefits over time for any given temperature projection scenario. Without that I cannot take your cherry picked argument about mass extinctions seriously.

        There are other reasons too why I find your comment/questions unpersuasive. The amount and rate of extinctions caused by CO2 is already, and will be in the future, negligible compared with the extinctions caused by habitat destruction from other causes. So your argument is a distraction and a diversion from what is important. Mitigating CO2 emissions would cause us to waste our wealth on polices for a cherry picked, but relatively unimportant, threat (when considered in proper perspective).

        Another point, comparison of present and past rates of warming are meaningless because we have temperature readings at much closer time scales now than we have for the past.

        Furthermore, we know from Greenland ice cores that rates of temperature change were much faster in the past than now. Importantly, life thrived when it warmed but died out when it cooled. This shows life prefers warmer. I realise the Greenland ice cores refer to local temperature changes. But so what? Life responds to local changes not global changes. So the rapid local changes demonstrate that life prefers warmer and warming.

        All in all I am far from persuaded that warming is a serious threat in the next 50 or even 100 years. On the other hand, the consequences for human well-being of the mitigation polices advocated by CAGW Alarmists – such as CO2 pricing and mandated renewable energy – would be very bad.

        Furthermore, I am persuaded that we will cut emissions automatically without damaging the economy. It will happen faster when the ‘Progressives’ stop blocking progress – either because a significant proportion of them realise the damaging consequences of the policies they promote, or because they are sidelined by the majority of rational and objective people.

        In summary, I’d urge you to put all the costs and benefits of projected damages together and time phase them – rather than pick out one scaremongering scenario at a time, each time loaded up with scary adjectives. It’s totally off-putting.

      • I point to this:

        > I’d urge you to put all the costs and benefits of projected damages together and time phase them – rather than pick out one scaremongering scenario at a time, each time loaded up with scary adjectives

        And I point to this:

        > [T]he consequences for human well-being of the mitigation polices advocated by CAGW Alarmists – such as CO2 pricing and mandated renewable energy – would be very bad.

        That is all.

      • Like the polar bears???

      • “and state their projections of the net economic costs and benefits over time for any given temperature projection scenario”

        Because no-one knows!

        How much economic cost came from 9/11? Did people figure that out before they took action against terrorism?

        If you think people will deal with climate disaster in a “rational” unattached way using calculations, you might just get a nasty surprise if and when disaster strikes.

        The fact is that as much as we know, the changes to CO2 happening to the atmosphere today are unique in Earth’s long history. Far faster than anything that has come before.

        This renders a “nothing to see here” conclusion impossible. “nothing to see here” can only be supported now by providing positive evidence that the very significant change in CO2 level will have no effect, or that it happens all the time. Neither can be supported. In fact the evidence leans very much the other way.

        The three known direct effects of rising CO2:
        1) warming because CO2 is a strong greenhouse gas
        2) ocean acidification because rising CO2 reduces surface ocean pH
        3) plant fertilization because CO2 is “plant food”

        It’s implausible that any one of these impacts will be zero, let alone all of them and each have further knock on effects on the environment.

        The scale of this impact (global) and the long turnaround time to reverse it even if we wanted to, makes the issue particularly important. There’s no question of being able to suddenly turn it off, it’ll take many decades at least to reverse whatever impacts occur.

        So ‘no-one knows what will happen’ is actually a bad thing, not a good thing. The more uncertain we are the more plausible the nastier catastrophes. Uncertainty works both ways.

      • @Peter Lang: I am persuaded that we will cut emissions automatically without damaging the economy.

        I agree, but it is far more persuasive case that we will cut emissions automatically BY damaging the economy.

      • “When did the planet last warm 3 degrees C in a few centuries? And how did life cope with that?”

        Warming appears to occurred at that rate or faster at the beginning of every interglacial during the current ice age.

        See for example here: http://www.esd.ornl.gov/projects/qen/transit.html

        “The time span of the past few million years has been punctuated by many rapid climate transitions, most of them on time scales of centuries to decades or even less. The most detailed information is available for the Younger Dryas-to-Holocene stepwise change around 11,500 years ago, which seems to have occurred over a few decades. The speed of this change is probably representative of similar but less well-studied climate transitions during the last few hundred thousand years. These include sudden cold events (Heinrich events/stadials), warm events (Interstadials) and the beginning and ending of long warm phases, such as the Eemian interglacial. Detailed analysis of terrestrial and marine records of climate change will, however, be necessary before we can say confidently on what timescale these events occurred; they almost certainly did not take longer than a few centuries.”

        Most species in the northern temperate region have survived several such cycles of warming and cooling. And that includes Polar bears:

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_bear#Taxonomy_and_evolution

        There really is no basis for the idea that current (or realistically projected) warming rates are capable of causing a mass extinction.

      • From that article:

        > If one accepts the contradictory picture obtained from comparing the Devil’s Hole record and some of the terrestrial pollen records with other parts of the world, it seems that for thousands of years warm ‘interglacial’ type conditions in the mid-latitudes on land could have been occurring at the same time as much colder ocean temperatures and expanded Arctic ice sheets. The Eemian, it appears, could have been a strange beast quite unlike our present interglacial phase (which began rapidly and fairly simultaneously all around the world). This confusion over the nature and duration of the Eemian adds to the difficulty in making simple, general comparisons with our present interglacial, and in interpreting the significance of some of the events seen in the marine and ice core records.

        Another quote:

        > It is important to note, however, that most of the very rapid climate transitions during the last 100,000 years do not show any clear association in timing with the background Milankovitch rhythms, especially the fluctuations at periodicities below 19 kyr. In these cases their ultimate trigger must lie in other factors, probably a combination of many processes that sometimes line up to set the climate system on a runaway course in either the direction of cooling or warming.

        And perhaps the quote most related to our subject matter:

        > It is difficult to say what the risks are of a sudden switch in global or North Atlantic region climate, because the mechanisms behind all past climate changes (sudden or otherwise) are incompletely understood. They appear to be real, however, and relatively small-scale changes in North Atlantic salinity have been observed and studied in the last few decades (Dickson et al., 1988). Fluctuations in surface water characteristics and precipitation patterns in that region vary on decadal time scales with variations in the strength of high-pressure areas over the Azores and Iceland (the North Atlantic Oscillation; Hurrel, 1995, 1996), providing an observed apparent link between salinity and climate fluctuations. The fear is that relatively small anthropogenic changes in high-latitude temperature as a result of increased concentrations of greenhouse gases might switch North Atlantic circulation and alter the course of the Gulfstream during such natural fluctuations.

        One can see a lot of words just by reading.

      • > You and other alarmists continually post articles implying catastrophe. However, the connection isn’t made.

        How is it supposed to be implyed is no connection is being made?

        Hypothesis: Peter Lang injected his own pet peeve into Louise’s comment.

        Observation: Peter Lang’s opus.

      • Willard,

        Did you not understand the point or are you using a CAGW Alarmist tactic of avoiding the point?

      • Peter Lang,

        Perhaps you should rince and repeat your point again, in case anyone has not understood it, there are so many ways to state it:

        Simply CAGW alarmism.

        Or, because of CAGW alarmism, X.

        Or, CAGW alarmism is obviously caused by Y.

        Or, that just proves that CAGW alarmism is Z.

        Or else.

        Please continue. CAGW alarmism is so much interesting.

      • Peter Lang,

        I think Willard well understands the point but is just tired of your continued mis use of the term CAGW. You and your fellow deniers, are determined to misrepresent the IPCC’s findindings and to describe 3 degrees of global warming, the most likely climate sensitivity, as “CAGW.”

        The IPCC doesn’t use the term CAGW at all. If you think it does give me just one reference.

        They do use the ‘word’ catastrophic for the more unlikely possibilities such as the collapse of the Antarctic or Greenland ice sheets which would lead to a rise in sea level of several metres.

        If you think I’m wrong in saying that, then show me where the IPCC say otherwise.

        I doubt you’ll stop your mispresentation of the IPCC even though you know full well what you are doing. At least that that’s what I’d expect from a lying b*****d like yourself.

      • TT,

        It might be a good idea to document the occurences of the string “catastroph” in the IPCC documents.

        Here’s one example where the IPCC did talk about abrupt climate change:

        http://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/post/1614543532

        Paul in Sweden eventually stepped down from the debate.

        Which reminds me of Mövits:

        The Cirkus might appeal to WebHubTelescope.

    • Latimer Alder

      I don’t have full access to this article – not having a spare £22 hanging around – but from reading the abstract this is an entirely model-based paper.

      How has the model been validated against reality? Any actual observations or experimental work at all? Or is it just another beautiful (or even ramshackle) construction with no grounding in fact?

      I must, however, give credit to the authors for calling their data ‘simulations’ rather than ‘observations’ and ‘experiments’ as other more assertive climateers have done.

    • Louise, those Warmist & Fake’s misleading ”feedbacks” are actually ”STARVEBACKS”

      2]Using ”Nostradamus tactic”: it ”COULD” happen in 2300…? You are not heroic anymore; to ”predict /scare” for next year / decade…

      Louise, you told us many things; but would you like to tell us something honest: do you feel sick in the belly, when you look yourself in the mirror?! The ones that you are targeting – you are not succeeding to scare them – b] scaring children and nutters; is not something to be proud off…0,13 – 1,69C, WOW!!! Are you sure that isn’t going to be 1,71C, instead of 1,69C. If I had any say; you and similar – would have being in the the same cell as Bernard Madoff, only few years longer sentances

    • Alarmist climate model output is not any kind of data.

      The history of the past ten thousand years has had many warm periods that are similar and warmer than this one. Permafrost has not been a problem in these many past warming periods and there is no reason to believe it will cause a problem in this current warm period that is well inside the bounds of the past warming periods in the past ten thousand years.

      Climate Models fail and fail again. Climate Models forecast warm, warmer, warmest and it does not come to pass.

      Actual data wins out over junk consensus science every time.
      If the data goes their way, ever, I will consider their alarmist theory.

      The data is not going their way and I reject their alarmist theory

  2. A fan of *MORE* discourse

    Judith Curry writes: “Check out Josh’s Workshop cartoons.”

    Hmmm … following the link that you supplied leads not to Josh’s cartoons, but instead to

    Climate policies deserve a negative discount rate
    by Marc Fleurbaey and Stéphane Zuber

    Abstract  We defend a methodology of discounting, for the evaluation of the long-term effects of climate policies, which relies on a social welfare objective, against the view that the market rate of return should be used for that purpose.

    We also show that in the long run, the discount rate for such policies should focus on the worst-case scenario for the most disadvantaged populations.

    As a consequence, it is likely that the appropriate discount rate for climate policies should be negative, implying a high priority for the future.

    Judith, the Fleurbaey-Zuber economic analysis will no doubt thrill foresighted conservatives like Pope Benedict, Wendell Berry, Jane Goodall, James Hansen, and all the hunting-and-fishing folks at Season’s End … but libertarian cartoonists like Josh are unlikely to be amused! ;)   :smile:   :grin:   :lol:   :!:

    `Cuz is it *rationally* the case, that consideration for the welfare of future generations, acts to restrict the liberty of the present generation?

    Aye, Climate Etc lassies and laddies, now *THAT’S* the enduring question, eh? ;)   :smile:   :grin:   :lol:   :!:

    Not just this week, but every week, eh? ;)   :smile:   :grin:   :lol:   :!:

    • Chief Hydrologist

      The enduring question is what practical, pragmatic and effective actions should be taken in a multi-objective context of the global civilisation. Guees we should look elsewhere than you – FOMBS.

      http://thebreakthrough.org/archive/climate_pragmatism_innovation

    • David Springer

      As far as mistakes go it wasn’t so bad. It could have been a porn link. ;-)

    • The “Josh” link initially took me to Economic Logic. Now it shows Economic Logic in the address bar but won’t open it. However, Fan, I’ve downloaded the negative discount paper from your link and will comment on it later.

    • Fanny

      Midst all your smileys I caught this remark

      `Cuz is it *rationally* the case, that consideration for the welfare of future generations, acts to restrict the liberty of the present generation?

      Your future great-grandchild: Puleez, greatgrandpa, don’t rack up a bunch of debt for me to pay to try to cool the planet I’m gonna live in. I don’t want it colder. I want it warmer than you old fogeys had way back in the 2010s. The warmer the better.

      Greatgrandpa Fanny: But, honey, I’ll make this big economic sacrifice “for the welfare of future generations”, and ask the whole world to do the same, even if it totally disrupts our economy for the next generations, because I know what’s best for you.

      GGC Like hell you do!

      Max

      • Of course there is no plan by CAGWers of actually lower CO2 levels by any significant amount, the only significant plan is to try create some totalitarian government regime, which the great-grandchild would have to deal with. In similar way [though perhaps minor in comparison] present children in Russia have the USSR legacy that continues to burden their future.

        But, if some local asshats could provide the story of how the soviet empire made the future a better world for the children, this would be preciously delightful. Perhaps if I can make a suggestion, one can discuss how it as provided opportunities for strengthening familial bonds and increasing appreciation of the richness of the religious aspects of life.

      • Well said Max,

        Its so bleeding obvious, why can’t the Loony Left nutters understand it?

      • “I’ll do nothing “for the welfare of future generations”, and ask the whole world to do the same, even if it totally disrupts our climate for the next generations, because I know what’s best for you.”

      • Lolwot,

        You are being deceptive. That is not what Max said. Max said he and everyone else will do the very best they can for their decedents by being economically rational, increasing wealth (I am talking about national and global wealth) and investing in education, improved governance systems, infrastructure, etc.

    • Good Morning Fan.

      It appears that the San Diego Unified School District supports your approach to investments in effort to reduce greenhouse gases:

      http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2012/10/despite-setbacks-san-diego-unified-school-district-asserts-commitment-to-clean-energy-alternatives?cmpid=SolarNL-Saturday-October6-2012

      I do find it rather disturbing that the “District officials say they have not followed thought to track the actual savings”

      http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2012/sep/14/tp-flawed-solar-panels-removed-at-schools/?page=1#article

      Do you have any suggestions for the district on how they might improve their financial and engineering tracking processes (let alone their initial decision making processes on how negative a discount rate they should use to select project A vs. B) so that they become a tad more effective in their use of the limited amount of funds they can obtain from the public?

      Obviously they will need to have a price for the value of a ton of carbon dioxide removed from the generation of electricity with their RE projects. Do you have a recommended value for them to use?

      The folks over at Synapse have a few thoughts on the subject of CO2 and what prices could (should?) be:
      “Special Edition: Synapse Releases 2012 CO2 Price Forecast”

      http://www.synapse-energy.com/Downloads/SynapseReport.2012-10.0.2012-CO2-Forecast.A0035.pdf

    • A fan of *MORE* discourse

      See also this month’s article by Stephan A. Schwartz, titled Climate Change and Willful Ignorance (Explore, September 2012).

      Latimer Alder and Peter Lang, your attention in particular is directed away from juvenile politics-first quibbles, and toward Scharz’ serious, in-depth analysis! ;)   :smile:   :grin:   :lol:   :!:

      • Latimer Alder

        @AFOCBS

        If you ever start writing like a grown up rather than an over-enthusiastic five year old who has just discovered smileys for the first time then I’ll maybe pay more attention to your witterings.

        Until then, fergddit. Leave the adults alone. They don’t want to hear from you.

      • Latimer Alder

        PS

        Have you thought of applying for a post as a climate communicator? The alarmists – realising that they are losing the arguments – think that ‘better communication’ (i.e. more attractive lipstick on the pig) is what they need.

        Please become one. You’d be the sceptics best recruiting sergeant

      • A fan of *MORE* discourse

        Latimer Alder, your last two posts have been carefully inspected for (1) rationality, (2) scientific content, and (3) relevance to climate-change.

        Result of testing  Neither rationality, nor scientific content, nor relevance to climate-change, were detectable. ;)   :smile:   :grin:   :lol:   :!:

        Perhaps Stephan Schwartz’s article Climate Change and Willful Ignorance explains why?

        “Contrarian scientists, fossil-fuel corporations, conservative think tanks and various front groups have assaulted mainstream climate science and scientists for over two decades. The blows have been struck by a well-funded, highly complex and relatively coordinated denial machine.”

        At least some of the ideological basis is readily discerned:

        Congressman Paul Broun
        Senior Member, House Science Committee

        “God’s word is true. I’ve come to understand that. All that stuff I was taught about evolution and embryology and the big bang theory, all that is lies straight from the pit of Hell. It’s lies to try to keep me and all the folks who were taught that from understanding that they need a savior.”

        “You see, there are a lot of scientific data that I’ve found out as a scientist that actually show that this is really a young Earth. I don’t believe that the earth’s but about 9,000 years old. I believe it was created in six days as we know them. That’s what the Bible says.”

        Latimer Alder, your worldview and Congressman Broun’s worldviews are naturally consonant, eh?   :?:   :?:   :?:

        Your worldview, and the modern scientific worldview, not so much, eh? ;)   :smile:   :grin:   :lol:   :!:

      • Latimer Alder

        @AFOCBS

        Please stop writing drivel addressed to me.

        FYI I have been a total atheist since about 14 yo.

        I have never heard of Broun and do not remotely share any of his views that you have represented.

        If this sort of trash is the best positive advancement for your case that you can manage then you really are clutching at straws.

      • @fan
        Latimer Alder and Peter Lang, your attention in particular is directed away from juvenile politics-first quibbles, and toward Scharz’ serious, in-depth analysis!
        Yes, time to become and adult now and turn a blind eye to bias, and pretend politically-driven climatology is ‘the facts’. Swallow your propaganda like a man and stop complaining.

      • Fan, the comedic value of your posts continue to increase exponentially !

        From your editorial link

        “And we don’t have much time. Listen closely. That sound you hear is the smoke alarm of civilization ringing like a fire siren in the night.”

        LOL

      • Do not send to know for whom the smoke chokes, the truth is suffocated for thee.
        ============

    • Nothing you can ever put forward will ever be more deserving of a falling-down, belly-rolling laugh than the Fleurbaey and Zuber financial analysis. Sheesh; a couple of French authors pretending to an understanding of the finance function.

      When money is free (i.e. the interest rate is zero) Irving Fisher teaches us that you can justify spending whatever it takes to flatten every railroad track in the country because over enough years the fuel savings to run the locomotive will pay off the free money.

      Anyone who believes in financial models that recommend investing in projects with negative net present values what they are really saying is spend everything you can now–even if you have to run the printing presses day and night — because, the future will never come.

      • A fan of *MORE* discourse

        Wagathon, isn’t it odd that economists like Kenneth Arrow disagree with you?

        Gosh, and somehow economists like Arrow even manages to express their ideas without “falling-down, belly-rolling laughter.”

        How does Arrow do that, Wagathon? ;)   :smile:   :grin:   :lol:   :!:

      • Chief Hydrologist

        ‘Critics of the Stern Review don’t think serious action to limit CO2 emissions is justified, because there remains substantial uncertainty about the extent of the costs of global climate change, and because these costs will be incurred far in the future. However, I believe that Stern’s fundamental conclusion is justified: we are much better off reducing CO2 emissions substantially than risking the consequences of failing to act, even if, unlike Stern, one heavily discounts uncertainty and the future.’

        It is not strictly true that there is a valid black or white postion on mitigation. It is not taxes or nothing – much as that appeals to the monochrome minded.

        ‘Climate Pragmatism, a new policy report released July 26th by the Hartwell group, details an innovative strategy to restart global climate efforts after the collapse of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) process. This pragmatic strategy centers on efforts to accelerate energy innovation, build resilience to extreme weather, and pursue no regrets pollution reduction measures — three efforts that each have their own diverse justifications independent of their benefits for climate mitigation and adaptation. As such, Climate Pragmatism offers a framework for renewed American leadership on climate change that’s effectiveness, paradoxically, does not depend on any agreement about climate science or the risks posed by uncontrolled greenhouse gases.’

        http://thebreakthrough.org/archive/climate_pragmatism_innovation

        Why does Joe Romm call this an extreme right wing policy? God only knows FOMBS. :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool:

      • Joe Romm is suffering, these days. Have a little pity.
        ========

      • A fan of *MORE* discourse

        LOL … uhhh … Kenneth Arrow remains the youngest-ever Nobelist in history … and *FIVE* of his students have themselves become Nobelists … whereas the credentials of the Hartwell Group were … uhhh … what exactly, Chief? ;)   :smile:   :grin:   :lol:   :!:

      • To arrive as such a conclusion Arrow must accept as fact that there is a consensus of scientific belief in AGW theory. But we know better than that. We know that belief in global warming is a belief held by ‘egalitarian communitarians’ not the scientific literate who are skilled in numeracy and respect the teachings of the scientific method as a means of separating truth from fiction.

      • Chief Hydrologist

        Arrow may be the youngest proze winner in economics in 1972 – they must bloom latte in economics. Just like you FOMBS :lol:

        http://thebreakthrough.org/archive/climate_pragmatism_innovation

        By Rob Atkinson, Netra Chhetri, Joshua Freed, Isabel Galiana,
        Christopher Green, Steven Hayward, Jesse Jenkins,
        Elizabeth Malone, Ted Nordhaus, Roger Pielke Jr., Gwyn Prins,
        Steve Rayner, Daniel Sarewitz, Michael Shellenberger

        But we wonder if 18th century economics can handle the modern world.

        http://thebreakthrough.org/index.php/journal/past-issues/online-content/the-creative-destruction-of-climate-economics/

        We wonder if you have any clue at all about what you want – or are just obsessively pushing some button somewhere.

  3. vagaries of natural climate variability have led to a (temporary) slowdown
    apparently Vukcevic has a hypothesis but no one knows what it is:

    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/GSC1.htm

  4. Oh, c’mon, he’s so good he knew about that natural variability stuff. I’m not saying he asked me or nuthin’.
    ====================

  5. The link to Josh’s cartoons took me to a blog called Economic Logic.

    • A fan of *MORE* discourse

      LOL … that economic analysis turns out to be *FAR* more thought-provoking than any Josh cartoon! ;)   :smile:   :grin:   :lol:   :!:

      For which, thank you Judith Curry! ;)   :smile:   :grin:   :lol:   :!:

      • Chief Hydrologist

        Must be groundhog day again.

        The enduring question is what practical, pragmatic and effective actions should be taken in a multi-objective context of the global civilisation. Guess we should look elsewhere than you – FOMBS.

        http://thebreakthrough.org/archive/climate_pragmatism_innovation

      • Chief Hydrologist

        The old climate framework failed because it would have imposed substantial costs associated with climate mitigation policies on developed nations today in exchange for climate benefits far off in the future — benefits whose attributes, magnitude, timing, and distribution are not knowable with certainty. Since they risked slowing economic growth in many emerging economies, efforts to extend the Kyoto-style UNFCCC framework to developing nations predictably deadlocked as well.

        The new framework now emerging will succeed to the degree to which it prioritizes agreements that promise near-term economic, geopolitical, and environmental benefits to political economies around the world, while simultaneously reducing climate forcings, developing clean and affordable energy technologies, and improving societal resilience to climate impacts. This new approach recognizes that continually deadlocked international negotiations and failed domestic policy proposals bring no climate benefit at all. It accepts that only sustained effort to build momentum through politically feasible forms of action will lead to accelerated decarbonization.

        I would commend the particular technology of conservation farming because it addresses hunger, poverty, water and soil conservation, improved ecologies and carbon sequestration 500 Pg (500 billion tonnes) of carbon dioxide at the same time. That is nearly twice the total human emissions thus far. Everyones a winner.

      • Interesting Vid Chief !

  6. Chief Hydrologist

    Not quite last week – but relevant to variability. It shows centennial to millennial variabilty of the Pacific Ocean.

    http://www.antarctica.gov.au/media/news/2012/ice-core-reveals-unusual-decline-in-eastern-australian-rainfall

    http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00003.1?journalCode=clim

    Unlike El Niño and La Niña, which may occur every 3 to 7 years and last from 6 to 18 months, the PDO can remain in the same phase for 20 to 30 years. The shift in the PDO can have significant implications for global climate, affecting Pacific and Atlantic hurricane activity, droughts and flooding around the Pacific basin, the productivity of marine ecosystems, and global land temperature patterns. This multi-year Pacific Decadal Oscillation ‘cool’ trend can intensify La Niña or diminish El Niño impacts around the Pacific basin,” said Bill Patzert, an oceanographer and climatologist at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif. “The persistence of this large-scale pattern [in 2008] tells us there is much more than an isolated La Niña occurring in the Pacific Ocean.”

    The world is not warming for a decade or three and I would discount entirely the potential for any prediction beyond the next chaotic climate shift.

    I would commend – however – the particular technology of conservation farming because it addresses hunger, poverty, water and soil conservation, improved ecologies and carbon sequestration at the same time. Everyones a winner.

    http://www.fao.org/ag/ca/

    http://www.fao.org/ag/ca/doc/CA_SSC_Overview.pdf

    • Chief

      Is that dog SAM on the loose again? Does SAM blow the Easterly winds down or does SAM fill a void when the Easterly winds die? Do the rains in Brisbane come when SAM is back on the leach? Do the Easterly winds respond to ENSO?

      I’m interested if your pets are house broke.

      • Chief Hydrologist

        RiHo08,

        I am glad you asked such a sensible question. There are 4 main climate dogs influencing rainfall variability in Australia. But you know that dogs run in a pack. They are working dogs – so not house trained at all.

  7. A curious cold layer in the atmosphere of Venus
    by Staff Writers
    Paris (ESA) Oct 05, 2012
    “Venus Express has spied a surprisingly cold region high in the planet’s atmosphere that may be frigid enough for carbon dioxide to freeze out as ice or snow. The planet Venus is well known for its thick, carbon dioxide atmosphere and oven-hot surface, and as a result is often portrayed as Earth’s inhospitable evil twin.

    But in a new analysis based on five years of observations using ESA’s Venus Express, scientists have uncovered a very chilly layer at temperatures of around -175 degrees C in the atmosphere 125 km above the planet’s surface.

    The curious cold layer is far frostier than any part of Earth’s atmosphere, for example, despite Venus being much closer to the Sun.”

    http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/A_curious_cold_layer_in_the_atmosphere_of_Venus_999.html

    • David Springer

      Venus is very nearly tidally locked with the sun so it has a night that lasts for months. The surface and lower atmosphere is isothermal because it’s heated geothermally. The upper atmosphere, above the emission altitude where it’s thin enough for radiation to flow freely, is heated by the sun and when the sun ain’t there for months on end we should expect it to get mighty chilly. No surprise there. I guess you’d find yourself surprised if you subscribe to that goofy runaway greenhouse though. Good grief! Do people still believe that? I mean a runaway greenhouse effect on Venus is SO 1960’s. The first Russian probe got there in like 1970 and discovered the surface was isothermal fercrisakes.

      • What!!?, Venus doesn’t have a runaway greenhouse effect!? I am shocked. Next thing you’ll be saying there was no Snow Ball Earth.

      • David Springer

        At least a slushball earth. The evidence is ambiguous for a complete freeze all the way to the equator but little doubt it came very close a couple of times. That’s a runaway icehouse. There’s no such thing as a runaway greenhouse where the water cycle is active to limit it. Venus lost all its water but now sulfurous clouds reflect 90% of solar energy directly back to space giving the surface even less insolation than the earth. The uber-dense 90 bar CO2 troposphere is in the same ballpark for an insulator as rocks are and thus geothermal energy from the molten core of the planet is what keeps the surface hot. The geothermal gradient doesn’t take a nosedive at the top of the crustal rock like it does on the earth but rather continues on to the top of the troposphere where it then falls off the cliff.

        If you take the earth’s geothermal gradient (25C per kilometer) and apply it at the top of Venus’ troposphere (50 km) where the temperature is the same as the earth’s surface you get 1250C. But the pressure isn’t constant so the insulation is less at altitude and greater at the surface. Rocks don’t change so it isn’t quite the same. We can approximate the changing troposphere density by taking the average between surface and 50km to get 625C for a ballpark hypothetical surface temperature. Actual measured surface temperature is 450C and that puts us in the ballpark. The rest is just in the details of the difference in thermal conductivity between a 90-bar CO2 troposphere and rocks.

      • How does the climate system get out of an albedo-locked snow/slushball state?

      • BBD, My guess would be it never got there, to a Snowball, more a slush ball and then wobble shifted things around.

      • Captn, ‘slushball earth’ was still mostly frozen. The argued distinction is that the slushball earth had a narrow equatorial band of open, or seasonally open water.

        So either way, you have NH and SN ice sheets right down into low latitudes which gives you an albedo-locked icehouse climate. The last icehouse was the Marinoan ~640 – 635Ma. For ~5Ma, ‘wobbles’ didn’t override ice albedo. But then something did. What could it have been?

        What age are the top and bottom panels in this link btw?

      • BBD, the two panels are off of Google Earth, I don’t what bathymetric data they used, but it is fairly recent.

        About 750ma ago, northern Canada was estimated to be at 10N latitude, Depending on orientation, that would put the southern Caribbean at about 60S. Location of the land masses relative to the equator would be a factor to consider for SlushBall Earth.

      • Capn

        Continental drift during the ~5Ma of the Marinoan icehouse was relatively small. Certainly not enough to explain the exit from an albedo-locked icehouse. So what could have over-ridden ice albedo? Perhaps an atmospheric forcing?

      • BBD, the images were in reference to slushball. The 5ma is interesting, but I am looking more at the 2.2 ma which I think is related the the Antarctic losing a large chuck of ice sheet. That particular time period is a bit of an anomaly and the anomalies are general the more interesting events.

      • Capn

        BBD, the images were in reference to slushball.

        So Google Earth does 640Ma? Cool. Can I have a link?

        The 5ma is interesting, but I am looking more at the 2.2 ma which I think is related the the Antarctic losing a large chuck of ice sheet. That particular time period is a bit of an anomaly and the anomalies are general the more interesting events.

        We seem to be having separate discussions.

        Continental drift during the ~5Ma of the Marinoan icehouse (~640Ma) was relatively small. Certainly not enough to explain the exit from an albedo-locked icehouse. What over-rode the ice albedo?

      • BBD, this fixation of yours that everything is CO2 related is so 60s. If you spent a little time with the paleo you would noticed that there is an inverse correlation between Bottom water temperature and Sea surface temperature. As sea ice expands, the efficiency of the polar heat transfer decreases and the rate of Abysmal depth mixing decreases. This causes a larger stratification of mid- depth temperatures. Ocean heat content decreases but upper ocean heat content increases. It is magic.

        With warmer upper level water temperatures there is not much of a perturbation required to drive the system to a new inter glacial. Once the interglacial starts, additional CO2 is released from both the oceans and the land as glaciers retreat with warmer atmospheric temperatures. CO2 doe amplify that atmospheric warming, but is not the initial driver of the warming. Remember there is a lag of CO2 behind temperature in the southern hemisphere.

        The southern hemisphere is also more sensitive to precessional changes than the Northern hemisphere and the Northern Hemisphere more sensitive to volcanic activity. It is almost like there are two different hemispheres :)

      • BBD, since you have this fear of exploration,

        That is a plot of the Galapagos SST versus the tropical Eastern Pacific and Atlantic bottom water temperature estimates. There are different temperature ranges and settling times. Note how the bottom water temperature gradual warms between interglacial periods. Neat huh?

        That is the Bottom water temperatures versus EPICA CO2, notice how there is also an inverse relationship between bottom water temperature and CO2.

        The “Bottom” in those cores is 3200m and 3900m which is just above the Abysmal zone. So it would appear that OHC drops rapidly during the change from glacial to interglacial and then slowly rises during the interglacial until it drops like a brick at the entry into the next interglacial.

        Kinda interesting. That could be why Stott is on this “natural variability” kick, he is such an academic rebel. He even has an Hypothesis about CO2 and Caltrates since there seems to be some missing 14C in the abysmal depths.

      • Cap’n, I gotta HVAC problem for an important client, calls herself Ms. Guya, or something like that. I hear you’re a go to sorta guy.
        =====================

      • Capn

        We were discussing the geophysical mechanisms permitting the exit from a snowball earth. Remember? Why can’t we talk about this?

        Is your refusal to accept that CO2 plays a central role in glacial-interglacial transitions somehow connected to this refusal to discuss the exit from an albedo-locked greenhouse?

        ;-)

      • Oh, and one other thing. I’d google the difference between abyssal ocean and the, ahem, ‘Abysmal Ocean‘…

        ;-)

      • BBD, “Is your refusal to accept that CO2 plays a central role in glacial-interglacial transitions somehow connected to this refusal to discuss the exit from an albedo-locked greenhouse?”

        CO2 does not play a consistent or central role in the transistion from glacial to interglacial CO2 may contribute half as in 50% of the eventual warming, but the amount that CO2 contributes changes with the internal climate state of the system. CO2 is more a regulator than a driver.

        As for the “albedo locked” greenhouse or slushball, I doubt that other natural forces, like tides, change in the surface area of oceans, glacier dynamics and changing geological stresses of imbalanced mass would allow an Snowball Earth. Just for grins consider that sea level drop associated with glaciation would increase the shear stress on large land fixed glacial sheets on one side and floating on the oceans side. That huge ice masses move BBD. Every part of the system is dynamic.

        As I also pointed out, as sea ice extent increases, the ice insulates the water below not only radiantly, but also convectively by reduce surface ocean atmosphere turbulent mixing. So in many situations, CO2 is totally out matched by other climate influences.

        Since you obviously did not study the Herbert et al data I posted, the sensitivity to various forcings varies as the internal dynamics change. The average surface temperature of the Eastern Tropical Pacific has dropped for the past 4.5 million years while the Atlantic, South China and Arabian sea have remained much more stable as far as SST is concerned. CO2 has a role, but it is not the star of the show.

      • CO2 does not play a consistent or central role in the transistion from glacial to interglacial CO2 may contribute half as in 50% of the eventual warming, but the amount that CO2 contributes changes with the internal climate state of the system. CO2 is more a regulator than a driver.

        No. The glacial termination could not happen without positive *feedback* to the initial orbital forcing. CO2 is the central positive feedback on which the process depends because it globalises the warming. The rest of what you say indicates that you don’t really understand the term ‘feedback’.

        As for the “albedo locked” greenhouse or slushball, I doubt that other natural forces, like tides, change in the surface area of oceans, glacier dynamics and changing geological stresses of imbalanced mass would allow an Snowball Earth.

        Who cares? The slushball world is mostly white and mostly frozen. How does the climate system break out of the resulting albedo-locked icehouse?

        And no mention of Abysmal Oceans? ;-)

      • Since you obviously did not study the Herbert et al data I posted, the sensitivity to various forcings varies as the internal dynamics change. The average surface temperature of the Eastern Tropical Pacific has dropped for the past 4.5 million years while the Atlantic, South China and Arabian sea have remained much more stable as far as SST is concerned. CO2 has a role, but it is not the star of the show.

        Stop creating strawmen. CO2 acts as a feedback during glacial terminations and a major climate forcing now. It is about to emerge as the star of the show.

      • BBD, Freudian slip as I try to whip you into shape. CO2 lags temperature. It obviously is not a driver in Southern Hemisphere deglaciation. Unlike the Northern Hemisphere, there is no stable base for Antarctic glacial ice to expand. There are a variety of islands crossing the discharge of the Drake Passage that do provide some support for “fixing” sea ice which would change the pattern of the ACC with has a rather large temperature gradient.

        The most thermodynamic stable area of the oceans, believe it or not, is the southern latitude band between 44S and 64S due to the most efficient mixing created by the ACC and the wicked ass winds the region are famous for. It only takes a small change in that efficiency to impact climate. CO2 does not appear to have a significant impact on that efficiency or it would consistently lead southern hemisphere temperature change.

      • CO2 lags temperature. It obviously is not a driver in Southern Hemisphere deglaciation.

        Two strawmen. Just read Shakun et al. (2012). All is explained ;-)

      • BBD, Freudian slip as I try to whip you into shape.

        Whip me into shape? At least I know the correct term for abyssal oceans.

      • Are we talking about P. Martin btw? Co-author of this study?

        As well as Quaternary deep sea temperature histories derived from benthic foraminiferal Mg/Ca?

        Do read the linked abstract.

      • BBD, “Are we talking about P. Martin btw? Co-author of this study?

        As well as Quaternary deep sea temperature histories derived from benthic foraminiferal Mg/Ca?

        Do read the linked abstract.”

        Same Martin different study. She also has d18O and Lea has several reconstructions including the Galapagos. I am following the ~4300-yr recurrent pattern in temperatures which they mention as 5-kyr in that study. I am not trying to calculate sensitivity to CO2, that has been done to death and ranges from 0.7 to 9.0 C in most of the paleo studies I have seen. In fact it is because of the inconsistent range of sensitivity that I am looking in the changes in the decay rates of the internal oscillations.

        Now think about that, why would paleo reconstructed sensitivity to CO2 change with time? What would change the timing of Glaciations from 41ka to every 2nd or 3rd?

      • Same Martin different study. She also has d18O and Lea has several reconstructions including the Galapagos. I am following the ~4300-yr recurrent pattern in temperatures which they mention as 5-kyr in that study.

        Is your source for this graph entitled Abysmal Depths and CO2 Martin et al. (2002) Quaternary deep sea temperature histories derived from benthic foraminiferal Mg/Ca?

        If so, did you mean core M16772 Eastern tropical Atlantic? Not M16722?

        Second, which data are you using? Your δ18O curve differs from the M16772 δ18O curve in M02 Fig. 3. Your core TR163-31P δ18O curve also differs from M02’s Fig. 5.

      • BBD, Yep, Martin 2002 -The download of the spread sheet has M16772 in the read me and M16722 on the data page. That chart was dO18 which I was using for timing not temperature, since it had to most data points in the Atlantic core.

      • That chart was dO18 which I was using for timing not temperature, since it had to most data points in the Atlantic core.

        I’m still confused. Your δ18O curve differs from the M16772 δ18O curve in M02 Fig. 3. Your core TR163-31P δ18O curve also differs from M02’s Fig. 5. Your curves are different from the ones in the paper.

        Did you use different data?

      • BBD, “Did you use different data?” No, that is the data from the NOAA paleo site. I did use the default openoffice smoothing, but I just compared the download master to my worksheet and everything looks in order. If I do any interpolation or averaging I typical make big notes on the charts. I haven’t compared to the original paper though since I was just looking for various regional cores for the past 120ka to compare to the Herbert 2010 tropical oceans.

        There is the typo on the data page of the download, I when with M17722 because that was on the page with the actual data.

        Here is the TR-163-31P core Mg and dO18 plot direct from the download, not smoothing, no anomaly.

      • BBD, There is always another study. “In spite of the short data range, the power at tilt and to a limited extent at precession shared between d18Ocalcite and d 18 Owater permits a phase estimate to be made at these periodicities (Fig. 11). In both cases the phase offsets are within error zero: d18Ocalcite agsd18Owater by 2  3 kyr for tilt and 5  8 kyr for precession. In contrast, cross-spectral analysis indicates that at eccentricity periods there is a ca 16  5.5 kyr lead of temperature over calcited18O and a ca 24  5.6 kyr lead over water d18O (using ARAND software, Howell, 2001); similar values were obtained using Analyseries software (Paillard et al.,1996).”

        http://atripati.bol.ucla.edu/24.pdf

        They take a good look at some of the calibration issues and see the same 23ka bump I am seeing. I have no idea what “team” they play for.

      • I haven’t compared to the original paper though since I was just looking for various regional cores for the past 120ka to compare to the Herbert 2010 tropical oceans.

        Sloppy, and it’s going to cost you because there is a major problem here. Since you obviously can’t see what you’ve done, I’ll tell you for free: you have the δ18O curves for both cores upside-down. And that makes you a colossal buffoon ;-)

        Flip them to the correct orientation and your argument about the inverse relationship between bottom water and CO2 falls apart completely. As it rather has to, no?

        Another fatal error. Something of a pattern developing, I’d say.

        Now, stop the endless BS and go back and *read* Shakun et al. (2012). Also *read* Martin’s 2005 paper where she and co-workers disagree in great detail with your half-baked notions about the relationship between deep water formation and CO2:

        To characterize the response of Earth’s climate system to increases in atmospheric CO2, climate modelers define climate sensitivity as the change in global mean temperature in response to prescribed forcing. Here we turn this approach around and use estimates of ocean temperature change to investigate the mechanisms driving CO2 variations over the last glacial. New records provide evidence of a link between deep ocean temperature and atmospheric CO2 over the last glacial cycle. Two mechanisms simultaneously couple pCO2 and deep ocean temperature: the temperature-dependent solubility of CO2 in seawater and the atmospheric CO2-dependent radiative forcing of temperature. Each of these forcing mechanisms leaves a unique slope of covariation between CO2 and deep ocean temperature, which we estimate using numerical models of climate and the carbon cycle. The pCO2/T slopes derived from paleoclimate data differ between the deglaciation and shorter 5-kyr duration events in marine isotope stage 3 (MIS 3), revealing different mechanisms driving atmospheric CO2 variability. The amplitude of changes over the deglaciation coincides with estimates for CO2 forcing of temperature; however, CO2 changes during MIS 3 can be explained solely by temperature-dependent solubility driving variations in atmospheric pCO2. The deep water temperature changes during MIS 3 may reflect changes in the temperature or relative contribution of Antarctic Bottom Water and play a role in the “bipolar seesaw.”

        You need whipping into shape ;-)

      • Tripati plays for team *science*. Unlike you. Read this:

        Tripati et al. (2009)

        Coupling of CO2 and Ice Sheet Stability Over Major Climate Transitions of the Last 20 Million Years, Aradhna K. Tripati, et al.Science 326, 1394 (2009); DOI: 10.1126/science.1178296

        The clue is in the title.

        Idiot.

      • Steven Mosher

        Nice work BBD.

        OH CAPTAIN… my captain.. it looks like you have outdone Mike mann.
        i wonder if the captain realizes that IF he made this mistake, that he will be hounded unmercifully til he corrects it

      • It’s gone very quiet in here capn.

        Just dear steven passing by with a few kind and prescient words.

        Wherever can you be?

      • Steven Mosher, “OH CAPTAIN… my captain.. it looks like you have outdone Mike mann.
        i wonder if the captain realizes that IF he made this mistake, that he will be hounded unmercifully til he corrects it”

        Oh yeah, I know. Then once UNtopia is complete he can chill on the bass pond.

        BBD, my response is down near the bottom.

        http://judithcurry.com/2012/10/05/week-in-review-10512/#comment-250533

      • Isothermal? no

        Very strong greenhouse effect on Venus.

      • David Springer

        loltwat

        I meant isothermal with respect to latitude not altitude. Are you dyslexic or just planetarily (among other things) uninformed?

        There is no greenhouse effect in the lower atmosphere on Venus anymore. There probably was in the past due to water vapor but that all boiled off and was photodissociated a long time ago and hardly any sunlight penetrates to the surface today because of sulfuric clouds which reflect 90% of solar energy directly back to space. Earth gets far more sunlight at the surface than Venus. Dig it. Sunlight is required for the atmospheric greenhouse effect – solar shortwave comes in unimpeded to heat the surface and longwave is coming from the surface is impeded on the way out. The length of the night on Venus is 118 earth days so it gets no sunlight for a very long time at night. Yet the day and night surface temperature is the same ergo no greenhouse effect in the lower atmosphere.

        Now you know. Or at least now you should know but I fear this Solar System 101 lesson from yer old pal Dave went in one ear and out the other. More’s the pity.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus

        The surface of Venus is effectively isothermal; it retains a constant temperature not only between day and night but between the equator and the poles.

      • Isothermal at the surface is exactly what you’d expect under a strong greenhouse effect.

        Yes Venus absorbs less solar energy than Earth, but thanks to it’s massive greenhouse effect it’s far warmer than Earth.

        If you are trying to claim Venus is that warm from geothermal activity: pull the other one.

      • David Springer

        I thought you would be incapable of understanding. Hopefully others aren’t so dense. An isothermal planetary surface temperature when there the daylength is 118 earth days definitely precludes greenhouse heating. One modesty brighter individual than you tried to tell me it was due to high wind speeds on Venus that kept the day/night atmosphere well mixed. It was a plausible mechanism so looked it up. The surface winds on Venus, as it turns out, are very slow. High wind speeds only develop in the upper atmosphere. The lower atmosphere is more like soup than air and moves slowly as you’d expect for something so dense. The slow surface wind speed was inferred 50 years ago by radar imaging of the surface. At 90-bar if there were any significant windage it would polish the surface smooth as a billiard ball because it would push big rocks around with ease and effectively sand-blast it level. Radar imagery revealed a diverse surface with lots of interesting topology which is impossible in high 90-bar winds.

  8. Chief Hydrologist

    I picked up persistent variability in Josh’s cartoons.

    It is more persistent variation in ocean surface temperature in many locations. Still the only way for seasonal to decadal probabalistic forecasts.

    http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/ahead/rain_ahead.shtml

  9. I have been considering my belief that the estimates of no-feedback climate sensitivity are based on highly dubious physics. Let me try and write these down, and see if anyone has any comments.

    I start with the fact that I agree that should the concentration of CO2 double, then there would be a radiative imbalance, whose numeric value is about 3.7 Wm-2. This imbalance must be compensated for by a rise in global temperatures; AGW is real. The question is, what is the right way to estimate the no-feedback climate sensitivity?

    Now the no-feedback climate sensitivity is an abomination in physics. It is a quantity that it is impossible to measure, and as such has no meaning by itself. However, it could be useful as a way of trying to work out how the value of total climate sensitivity might be obtained from empirical data. So the way the number is estimated is of interest.

    The way I understand the value of about 1.2 C for a change in radiative imbalance of 3.7 Wm-2, is that this number is estimated by assuming that the only change in the atmosphere is a change in radiation. No account is taken of a potential change in lapse rate. However, it is clear that if there were to be any radiative imbalance, the atmosphere would respond by all means possible in order to compensate. It is just plain wrong to look only at the radiation term, and then say that a change in lapse rate can be considered a feedback. The change in lapse rate is never going to be a feedback. It is merely a different way in which the radiative balance can be compensated for.

    Therefore, the correct way to estimate no-feedback climate sensitivity is to assess how the whole atmopshere responds to a change of radiative imbalance. Note that this sort of estimation would be valid for any form of forcing; e.g a change of TSI One must take into account conduction, convection and the latent heat of water at the same time as the effects of radiation are considered. So far as I have been able to find out, no-one has attempted to do this estimation. There is nothing in the literature that I can find where such a number has been estimated. The only thing that is clear is that it will be less than 1.2 C for a doubling of CO2. How much less seems to be unknown.
    Some years ago, I participated in a blog on Yahoo called Climate Skeptics. There there were a number of people who really knew what they were talking about. I can only remember 2 names, Chuck Weis, and Bill Kinninmonth; David Woijek was also a member. They discussed the detailed physics of how the total atmopshere would respond to a change of forcing. I do not pretend to understand what they were talking about, but the upshot of the discussion was that they could not agree on what the proper physics was. So it does not surprise me that no-one has attempted the estimation of total atmosphere no-feedback climate sensitivity.

    So, two questions if people would not mind answering.

    1. Am I correct in claiming that the proper value of no-feeedback climate sensitivity must include all atmospheric effects; conduction, convection, the latent heat of water amd radiation.
    2. If I am right, then what is a resaonable numeric value for total atmosphere no-feedback climate sensitivity?

    • I love it when the talk turns to “Feed Backs” There is a good probability the 50% of the global warming since 1900 is not CO2 related, some combination of natural variability, recovery from LIA depression, land use etc. In that case, some portion of the warming attributed to CO2 would be “Feed Back” from other sources of warming. But since the modelers “defined” Feed Backs as responses to CO2 forcing, natural variability does not exist as it is assume to zero over rather short periods. Now that some models have replicated century scale natural variability (imagine that :) ), I wonder how the modelers will communicate that there is radiant feed back to natural variability?

    • “AGW is real”

      And your empirical proof is?

      Have you got anything at all to show it exists?

      What exactly do you base this on?

      • Myrrh, you write “And your empirical proof is?”

        No I dont. I put this bit into my discussion in order to maintain my argument with the proponents of CAGW. I want to ensure that it is understood that I am not claiming that adding CO2 to the atmosphere has no affect. I will, for the sake of discussion, agree that adding CO2 to the atmosphere has some affect on global temperatures, but the discussion needs to center on how much this effect is.

    • Kininmonth headed the National Climate Centre at Australia’s BoM from 1986-98 and represented Australia at world climate conferences in the early 90s. He runs the (private) Australasian Climate Research Institute and frequently writes very lucid articles and letters on alleged CAGW.

      • Jim Cripwell | October 6, 2012 at 6:31 am said: ” agree that adding CO2 to the atmosphere has some affect on global temperatures, but the discussion needs to center on ”how much this effect is”.

        Jim, it’s a loaded comment; how much the effect from CO2 is? zero, ZERO!!! discussing how much CO2 increases the GLOBAL temp, is same as discussing: how much man / Jim can get pregnant, OR, ”how many galaxies are spinning around the earth; if not the whole universe. You cannot admit that: you have being duped by the clever Warmist – so you are justifying half of their lies, as if they are correct. shame, shame!!!

      • Steven Mosher

        Zero effect?

        So, if we removed all the C02 you would see no effect whatsoever. Or if it were 100% C02 it would have no effect whatsoever.

        Might bold claims for a skeptic who is suppose to practice doubt.

      • Steven Mosher | October 7, 2012 at 4:03 pm said: ”Zero effect? So, if we removed all the C02 you would see no effect whatsoever. Or if it were 100% C02 it would have no effect whatsoever”

        Mosher 1]: if we remove all the co2, days will get a bit hotter / nights a bit colder – overall same warmth units would remain.

        2] ”if it were 100% C02” =======Mosher, you tricked yourself by that question! That’s what happen, when you are scared to recognize my formulas!!!

        3]oxygen & nitrogen are 998999ppm in the troposphere, they are regulating the temperature, not CO2! IF you put on one end of the scale an elephant V 350 ants on the other side… question is: ”if you double the ants to 700, or 1700 ants; would that tip the scale?” But, you are referring es extreme: to remove the elephant (the O&N), the REGULATORS…? Naughty, naughty!!!

        4] I respect a lot examples or experiments with extremes: same as: if you remove the gravity, all of Switzerland would have eventually flooded. from rainwater. Naughty, naughty Mosher!

        5] you don’t have to make it 100% CO2, to change the temperature; remove the O&N, temp will change. because they regulate, they insulate. On the moon, minus O&N, between day and night temp is over 200C. (tragically, because of the propaganda that CO2 is bad – the psichos are turning oxygen into water, by promoting of burning methane / natural gas; BUT ARE AGAINST CREATING NEW METHANE. mother of all crimes!!!

        Mosher, are you man enough, to admit when you are wrong?!?!?! Now is your chance, go to my basic proofs first on this post, then work on the other 9. : http://globalwarmingdenier.wordpress.com/climate/

      • Particular Physicist

        StephanTheVirtuallyAloneDenier
        Do you question the basic physics of CO2 absorption spectra?

      • The Skeptical Warmist (aka R. Gates)

        It would seem so. Or he’s just wants a bit of attention.

      • Particular Physicist | October 7, 2012 at 3:23 am asked:
        StephanTheVirtuallyAloneDenier
        Do you question the basic physics of CO2 absorption spectra?”

        Physicist, please don’t chicken out; you are needed!

        CO2 absorbs more heat, than O&N – but also CO2 absorbs much more COLDNESS than O&N!!! (that’s why CO2 is used to make dry ice) Unless you are one of the ”flat earth believers” / 24h sunlight on every spot on the planet?!

        In other words: CO2 absorbs much more heat during the day, up; where cooling is much more efficient – CO2 absorbs much more coldness than O&N, at night – THOSE TWO FACTORS CANCEL EACH OTHER::: http://globalwarmingdenier.wordpress.com/climate/

        Physicist, don’t chicken out! Everything is proven, in details!!!

      • Particular Physicist

        Stefan
        So you agree CO2 absorbs heat during the day, but say
        (a) it “absorbs coldness” during the night, and that
        (b) the two exactly cancel.

        So what does “absorb coldness” mean? CO2 radiates heat faster than O & N ? Is this effect documented anywhere? And does it have a name ?

      • Particular Physicist | October 8, 2012 at 2:00 am said: ”Stefan
        So you agree CO2 absorbs heat during the day, but say (a) it “absorbs coldness” during the night, and that (b) the two exactly cancel”.

        EVERYTHING IS PROVEN ON MY BLOG

        Physicist, my English is very limited, if I start telling you names on other languages; probably you wouldn’t understand, that on side, now – a] ”what does “absorb coldness” mean?” I have being on the same subject, on few other blogs -:::: for me is the most important, people on the street to understand. I don’t go from; ultimate zero / Kelvin / oxygen two, nitrogen two. Honest people say; oxygen + nitrogen – they have stoves and fridges calibrated in Centigrade – below zero is cold – above zero is warm – above boiling is hot, and so-on. ”put some warm cloths, not to catch a cold” see, for 99% of the people cold exisat.

        on the other hands, the regular bingo players in the phony GLOBAL warming blogosphere are desperate to sound scientific – for them is no coldness, no light, just lack of photons… They remind me of a starving man trying to shit – lots of hot air, but nothing solid.

        The pressure will come from the street; that’s where 90% of the people want NOTHING BUT the TRUTH. Simplify physicist, cut the crap, cross the irrelevant zeroes. I hope we have cleared the unnecessary smokescreen.

        Physicist, I have given you a tread, where you can find in more details. I strongly suggest, you should 2] but I don’t think it’s necessary .for me to reduce myself to start using Kalvin and oxygen two (O2 -N2) so that a person can understand.(As somebody said before): Physicist, are you with us, or against the truth?!

        Yes, CO2 absorbs more heat than O&N. If you don’t have a laboratory handy: take two lumps of wood, to represent oxygen + nitrogen, and a steel bar, to represent CO2. leave them on the sunlight – at noon monitor their temps and see how hotter the steel pipe will be than wood. 2] leave them on the same place, and take their individual temp at midnight. Of course, metal releases heat quicker; but because people know about dry ice – I’m not going to change it for you – so you can play smart ass. I will ask you one thing: do you know the importance for the truth to be known; or is it for you a game, as for most of the ”bingo players”?! please tell us.

    • Jim Cripwell, you got most of the way. The convection is considered via the lapse rate assumption. Basically it is convection that determines the tropospheric temperature profile. If you heat the surface, the convection transfers that change throughout the troposphere in a specific way that governs the lapse rate. You also mention conduction. That connects the surface to the bottom of the atmosphere, and also maintains that temperature connection between them.

      • Crickets.

        By chance Jim Cripwell said:

        > Let me try and write these down, and see if anyone has any comments.

      • “Jim Cripwell, you got most of the way. The convection is considered via the lapse rate assumption. Basically it is convection that determines the tropospheric temperature profile. If you heat the surface, the convection transfers that change throughout the troposphere in a specific way that governs the lapse rate. You also mention conduction. That connects the surface to the bottom of the atmosphere, and also maintains that temperature connection between them.”

        We can assume that what controls earth temperature [air temperature as measured in shaded box] is the skin surface temperature.

        Or change the skin surface temperature and Earth’s air temperature follows.
        With some means to force average global skin temperature to be 10 C warmer or cooler and a large fraction of this 10 C difference is reflected in air temperature.
        Or skin temperature is a knob that controls air temperature.

        Whereas changing the air temperature by 10 C warmer or cooler, does not affect skin temperature- by much.

    • Curiuos George

      “should the concentration of CO2 double, then there would be a radiative imbalance, whose numeric value is about 3.7 Wm-2″.Based on what simplifications? Probably on a cloudless planet. That’s not where I live. Is there any serious estimate on how the cloud cover (and therefore albedo and therefore the energy absorbed) would change?

      • CG
        The 3.7Wm-2 is a pretty solid estimate for the tropopause region, so it doesn’t include clouds or changes in much of anything. It is just a means to simplify one variable in a system full of variables. It is one of the few estimates that I completely agree with, BTW.

      • Curiuos George

        3.7Wm-2 is approximately 0.3% of the solar constant. Few numbers in climatology are known with such a precision, that’s why I question it.

        It may be an excellent estimate for a purely radiative balance above a black body; but then neither oceans nor jungles nor deserts nor clouds are good black bodies. And you have ignored my point that the more of the solar energy input itself may be reflected into space if the cloud cover increases – or maybe not. Are you aware of any estimates you could agree with?

      • Yes skeptics think clouds will increase in response to warming and act as a negative feedback reducing absorbed sunlight.

        Additionally Manacker thinks that would cause crop shortages and famines.

        No wait…silly me…skeptics only act concerned about a drop in sunlight if scientists are proposing it through geo-engineering. If it’s cloud changes caused by CO2 then that’s fine…

      • Disingenuous. Not worth reading your comments.

      • Or perhaps you don’t want to address the point that negative cloud feedback is actually another name for Anthropogenic driven Sunlight Reduction.

      • lolwot

        It appears that you have a reading problem.

        Please show where I wrote that added clouds “would cause crop shortages and famines”.

        But there is no doubt that clouds do affect our climate.

        We know (Ramanathan and Inamdar) that there are two primary mechanisms by which clouds affect our climate:

        http://www.ars.usda.gov/research/publications/publications.htm?seq_no_115=207108

        http://miskolczi.webs.com/RAM-Inamdar-FCMTheRadiativeForcingDuetoCloudsandWaterVapor.pdf

        – reflection of around 14% of the incoming SW radiation due to cloud albedo resulting in cooling estimated to be 48 W/m^2
        – absorption and re-radiation of outgoing LW radiation resulting in warming estimated to be 30 W/m^2

        [This compares with an IPCC estimate for 2xCO2 forcing (Myhre et al.) of around 3.7 W/m^2.]

        We know from ISCCP observations (Pallé et al.) that the global monthly mean cloud cover decreased by around 4.5% between 1985 and 2000. As a result the Earth’s global albedo decreased by the equivalent of around –5 W/m^2, i.e. decrease of reflected SW radiation (= heating of our planet). Over the period 2000 to 2004 the cloud cover recovered by around 2.5%, with an increase in reflected SW radiation of around +3 W/m^2 (= cooling).

        http://bbso.njit.edu/Research/EarthShine/literature/Palle_etal_2006_EOS.pdf

        [Interestingly, these periods coincide well with a period of rapid global atmospheric warming (1985-2000) followed by a period of slight cooling (2000-2004), as measured both at the surface and in the troposphere.]

        IPCC models assume that cloud feedback with warming is strongly positive, contributing 1.3C to the estimated total 2xCO2 climate sensitivity of 3.2C, as reported in AR4 WG1.

        Yet physical observations over the tropics from CERES satellites by Spencer + Braswell (2007), which were made after AR4, show a strongly negative feedback with warming over shorter time periods.

        Correcting the IPCC model assumptions to include these physical observations would reduce the 2xCO2 CS to around 1.0 C.

        So, as Kevin Trenberth stated in an interview, where he was asked to explain the current “unexplained lack of warming”, which he had previously referred to as a “travesty”, it could be that the “missing heat” is being reflected out “to space” with “clouds acting as a natural thermostat”. This makes sense to me, as it also appears to check with the physical observations.

        So that’s what I have concluded about the impact of clouds on our climate.

        Max

      • lolwot | October 6, 2012 at 8:40 am said: ” you don’t want to address the point that negative cloud feedback is actually another name for Anthropogenic driven Sunlight Reduction”

        G’day my friend lolwot, i have to help you a bit: there is no such a thing as ”negative / positive cloud feedback” there is only ”positive STARVEBACK” .of common sense…

        I have a good one for your kind of ”saviors” listen to my hypothesis: there are about 18000 satellites in orbit – all of them have selfishly spread many solar panels and are blocking part of the sunlight never to reach to the ground. PLUS numerous pieces of junk floating there, reflecting lots of sunlight every day; and that effect from those satellites IS ACCUMULATIVE. This is my contribution to the Warmist crap; don’t say that I didn’t help you! It’s suitable for your kind of fear mongering, BOO!!!

      • lolwot | October 5, 2012 at 10:21 pm said: ”Yes skeptics think…”

        wrong again lolwot: if ”Skeptics” can think – they wouldn’t be called Climate Change Skeptics. They would be called Global Warming Skeptics, but definitely NOT climate changing Skeptics. Clinically dead brains cannot see the difference between constant big / small climatic changes and phony GLOBAL warmings.

        That name has being pinned on them by the clever Warmist – so that when people on the street see a nutter that is skeptical about climatic changes – to keep their children away from him. They are not interested in AGW and similar crap. They know that it gets wet, then dry climate – it gets from summer into winter climate – when somebody is skeptical about climate changes – keep your children away from him!!!! The blogosphere is cuckoo’s incubator / paradise; but people with sanity on the street see more and more CO2 produced – GLOBAL warming is nowhere to be seen – the Fakes are getting ripe for funny-farm

      • Curiuos George | October 5, 2012 at 9:40 pm said: “should the concentration of CO2 double, then there would be a radiative imbalance, whose numeric value is about 3.7 Wm-2″.Based on what simplifications? Probably on a cloudless planet”

        George, water cloud and CO2 (dirty cloud) react very similar!!! If you know the effect from water cloud, dirty cloud effects similarly: .the fog is lifted in the morning by the sunlight and creates clouds. b] because ”carbon” atom in the CO2 molecule intercepts sunlight – warms up – that warms the two lucky oxygen atoms in the CO2 molecule – they, as warmer than surrounding oxygen & nitrogen atoms- expand more and lift the lazy carbon atom in the CO2 molecule up and up, during the day.

        then at night, the carbon atom stops getting warmed by the sunlight – cools itself and the two oxygen atoms; BECAUSE co2 CAN ABSORB MORE COLDNESS than O&N can; and falls down, to feed the trees and crops. Plus: my theory has being proven that: CO2 increases condensation = CO2 is a ”Rainmaker” if you want instruction for Stefan’s experiment, let me know.

    • Jim, in answer to your question, CO2 cannot be a driver of climate change (being able to retain radiation at thew surface) as it does not possess the physical properties to do so as it is in such small and insignificant amounts.

      To demonstrate the relative amounts of CO2, could you for example read a book placed on a lectern that 2.5 km away? Of course you can’t, and even if I doubled the font size from 10 to 20 point, you still couldn’t read it.

      So, that is what they are saying when they think CO2 can act as a radiation deflector. When it is only one molecule among 2500 or so of others, and even if you doubled the amount, the equivalent of boosting atmospheric CO2 levels from 390 to 780 ppm (doubling the point size on the book) it would still be the same, and then it would only be two molecules among 2500. In its current amounts in the atmosphere it does not have the physical presence to be able to do what they think it can..

    • 1. Am I correct in claiming that the proper value of no-feeedback climate sensitivity must include all atmospheric effects; conduction, convection, the latent heat of water amd radiation.

    • Sorry, I miscopied what I wrote in word.
      First, many thanks for all the comments. However, no-one has directly answered my first question. Let me rewriter it an emphasise it.

      1. Am I correct in claiming that the proper value of no-feeedback climate sensitivity must include all atmospheric effects; conduction, convection, the latent heat of water amd radiation.

      Does anyone have a specific answer to this question?

      • I replied above.The answer is yes, the lapse rate critically depends on convection to maintain it, and convection relies on latent heat to get as high as it does. The troposphere is a convectively mixed layer on a long time scale.

      • Jim D, you write “The answer is yes,”

        Thank you. Someone who agrees with me. Let us see whether there are any disagreements.

      • Maybe you misunderstood. I meant yes it already does. The thing it doesn’t include is that a warmer ocean will put more water vapor in the atmosphere.

      • Jim D | October 6, 2012 at 3:48 pm said: ”The thing it doesn’t include is that a warmer ocean will put more water vapor in the atmosphere”

        JimD, CORRECTION: the thing that YOU didn’t state is:: that water vapor would create more clouds – clouds are as a ”sun-umbrellas” for the sea / land = more sunlight is intercepted high up, where cooling is much more efficient -less sunlight comes to the sea / land; and equalizes in a jiffy. It’s called: self-adjusting mechanism” Which part you can’t understand JimD? http://globalwarmingdenier.wordpress.com/2012/07/20/water-vapor/

    • The Skeptical Warmist (aka R. Gates)

      Jim,

      The central problem with your underlying discussion related to the effects of increasing CO2 is that you are focused (like many are apt to do) on the atmosphere, when the key effects related to Earth’s energy imbalance actually are in the ocean. In putting a thicker or heavier jacket on your body, do you really care how warm the jacket is, or how much warmer it makes your body? As land dwelling creatures we are naturally inclined to care very much about the temperature of the lower troposphere and the activities related to life going on in this region, but it is very much like caring about the activities going on right on the surface of your skin, right under your warm jacket, when in fact, it is your core body heat, that is being maintained by that jacket on a very cold day that really matters.

      On Earth, we have two spheres of core “body heat”, namely, the oceans (the hydrosphere) and the lithosphere. The hydrosphere gets its heat of course primarily from the sun and to a much lessor extent from the lithosphere. Altering the greenhouse concentrations of the atmosphere will influence first and foremost how much heat is retained by the oceans, and indeed, along with the 40% increase in CO2, and similar increases in methane and N2O that we’ve seen over the past few centuries, we seen the heat content of our oceans rising consistently over this period. Of course, increasing greenhouse gas concentrations also alter surface tempertures and mid-troposphere tempertures as well, but these regions are far more subject to shorter-term variability from natural fluctuations, and thus are noisier signals compared to the overall steady rise in ocean heat content we’ve seen. Finally, keep in mind that rising ocean heat content does not mean that energy stays in the ocean, as the net flow of energy is always from ocean to atmosphere, and thus, that heat will, and has been affecting tropopsheric tempertures, and also affecting things like arctic sea ice, with the majority of it’s melting actually occurring from below, in the warming ocean water.

      • We seem to have been here before. Whatever is happening in the oceans, greenhouse gas warming must by definition be experienced in the atmosphere. Which has stopped warming this last decade and a half, despite CO2 levels shooting upwards,. So clearly there is a lot more to it (including claimed ocean warming) than just CO2 being the temperature knob as the consensus would have it.

      • The Skeptical Warmist (aka R. Gates)

        The troposphere has far less energy content and far less thermal inertia than the oceans and is thus far more subject to natural variabilty and short-term noise. If you are trying to access the impacts on Earth’s energy balance from increasing greenhouse gas concentrations, wouldn’t you want to look at the most stable and reliable non-tectonic energy reservoir of the planet to see long-term effects? Which is of course the oceans.

      • Doesn’t effect the basic point : if the atmosphere isn’t warming, it cannot the agent of the oceans warming.

      • Latimer Alder

        @R Gates

        Have we found Kev’s missing heat then?

      • Latimer Alder

        If so, where was it? Hiding down the back of the sofa where all my biros and loose change go? Or thrown out with the rubbish by mistake?

      • “We seem to have been here before. Whatever is happening in the oceans, greenhouse gas warming must by definition be experienced in the atmosphere. Which has stopped warming this last decade and a half, despite CO2 levels shooting upwards”

        The atmosphere hasn’t stopped warming in the last decade and a half.

        Take HadCRUT3.

        Total warming from 1970 to the end of 1998: 0.47C
        Total Warming from 1970 to present: 0.65C

        0.65 – 0.47 = 0.18

        So that’s 0.18C warming post 1998. 28% of the warming since 1970.

      • The Skeptical Warmist (aka R. Gates)

        Sullivan,

        It is not the temperature of the atmosphere that affects the temperture of the oceans, but rather the other way around, or more precisely, the heat flux from ocean to atmosphere. The net flow of energy on a planetary scale is from ocean to atmosphere, as the oceans contain far more energy than the atmosphere ever could. This fact, by the way, of net heat flow from ocean to atmosphere, is displayed quite readily by the fluctuations of the ENSO cycle, whereby tropospheric temperature is driven by the release of net heat from the tropical ocean surface. Thus, your requirement that atmosphere temperatures must rise before ocean tempertures do is nonsense.

      • Gates
        No, you’re avoiding the issue. CO2 impacts the atmosphere (directly), not the ocean. So for this to have some knock-on effect, the atmosphere needs to to warm.

        This point is strengthened by your own point that net heat transfer is from ocean to atmosphere, since a warmer atmosphere is a necessary condition for the oceans to warm by means of losing less heat to the atmosphere.

      • Sullivan you are avoiding the issue:

        The atmosphere has warmed over the last decade and a half.

      • No, the atmosphere has not warmed significantly over the last decade+. Even the IPCC doesn’t claim it has.

      • The Skeptical Warmist (aka R. Gates)

        Sullivan,

        CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere affect energy content of both oceans and atmosphere directly, with the primary effect being to the oceans first in terms of altering the planet’s energy balance. Net energy flows from ocean to atmosphere. Basic thermodynamics would not allow net energy to flow from a smaller reservoir (the atmosphere) into a much larger reservoir (the ocean). Sorry.

      • Take HadCRUT3.

        Total warming from 1970 to the end of 1998: 0.47C
        Total Warming from 1970 to present: 0.65C

        0.65 – 0.47 = 0.18

        So that’s 0.18C warming post 1998. A significant amount of warming. 28% of the warming since 1970 in fact.

      • lolwot

        Take HadCRUT3

        Trend since 1998 is slight cooling

        http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1998/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1998/trend

        Hope this helps.

        Max

      • Here’s Dick, wishing his best (no, not his BEST) to Willard Tony:

        > Look at the attached. There has been no warming since 1997 and no statistically significant warming since 1995. Why bother with the arguments about an El Nino anomaly in 1998? (Incidentally, the red fuzz represents the error ‘bars’.)

        http://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/post/32989835844

      • Let the reader also note that at the time of this writing, there are 19 occurences of “1998” on this page.

      • > We seem to have been here before.

        The tears of the world are a constant quantity. For each one who begins to weep somewhere else another stops. The same is true of the laugh. Let us not then speak ill of our generation, it is not any unhappier than its predecessors. Let us not speak well of it either. Let us not speak of it at all. It is true the population has increased.

        http://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/post/33120836963

      • R. Gates, you write “The central problem with your underlying discussion related to the effects of increasing CO2 is that you are focused (like many are apt to do) on the atmosphere, ”

        I am sure you are correct, but that is not my problem. The problem I am addressing is the estimations made by the proponents of CAGW of no-feedback climate sensitivity as it affects global temperatures. That is the issue. If you read what our hostess continually concentrates on, it is the uncertainly as to how much atmospheric temperatures rise as a result of adding CO2 to the atmopshere; not the effect on oceans.

        If someone has estimated the no-feedback climate sensitivity for oceans, then I would love to discuss it. But all I can find is a number of 1.2C increase in global temperatures for a doubling of CO2. Do you have a reference as to where a similar number has been estimated for the no-feedback climate sensitivity of oceans? If that reference exists, I would be delighted to discuss in as much detail as you like.

        But until I have something to hang my hat on, the equivanent of no-feedback sensitivity in the atmopshere, for oceans, I cannot start a sensible discussion. If you are correct, as I am sure you probably are, then what is the equivaltent number to 1.2 C for a doubling of CO2 for the atmosphere, for oceans, when you claim that the major effect is in the oceans?

      • The Skeptical Warmist (aka R. Gates)

        Jim,

        I do appreciate your search for this basic “no feedback” temperature of the lower troposphere for a doubling of CO2, though I am dubious as to what such a rather theoretical number would really tell you in the long run. What we care about in terms of the climate is the amount of external forcing placed on the system as a result of altering the greenhouse gas chemistry of the troposphere. This forcing represents a change to the energy balance of the system, with more net energy being retained as greenhouse gas concentrations increase. It makes more sense to measure this energy in Joules, and the majority of this energy being retained is in the primary non-tectonic energy reservoir of planet, which is in the ocean. The theoretical non-feedback temperature change of the lower troposphere from a doubling of CO2, be it 1.2C or whatever, is inconsequential compared to the 50 or 75 x 10^22 Joules of energy (or more) that the oceans would retain.

      • R. Gates you write “I do appreciate your search for this basic “no feedback” temperature of the lower troposphere for a doubling of CO2, though I am dubious as to what such a rather theoretical number would really tell you in the long run. ”
        You also write “The theoretical non-feedback temperature change of the lower troposphere from a doubling of CO2, be it 1.2C or whatever, is inconsequential compared to the 50 or 75 x 10^22 Joules of energy (or more) that the oceans would retain”

        Maybe I have not made myself clear. I am in basic agreemen t with what you write. I can see that what happens in the oceans is far more significant than what happens in the atmosphere. So, in one sense, you are preaching to the choir.

        What I am trying to discuss is the effect of rising CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere on the heat balance of the earth. You claim I need to look at what is happening in the oceans, and I do not disagree. But I cannot discuss the issue until I have the numbers that someone else needs to estimate. I cannot do the estimates myself, though if someone does the estimates, and explains how they do them, then my physics is good enough to be able to understand what they have done.

        So what I need is the equivalent of the no-feedback climate sensitivity for the oceans that has been estimated in a similar way for the atmosphere. If you are correct in emnphasising oceans, as I believe you could be, then someone ought to have made the same sort of estimations for oceans as has been done for the atmosphere.

        So what I need to know before I can start a discussion is what is the effect of a theoretical doubling of CO2 on the joules of energy that reside in the oceans? Until I have that figure, all I can discuss is what is happening in the atmosphere; since this is all the proponents of CAGW ever seem to talk about.

      • The Skeptical Warmist (aka R. Gates)

        Good question Jim…now that I understand it. Not sure anyone has actually made that calculation,but I could be mistaken. The past 50 year trend seems to be about .5 x 10^22 joules of energy stored per year down to about 2000m, pretty consistently, though data is quite sparse in the earlier years.

        A better choice for estimates on ocean heat content changes is probably looking at the paleodata the last time we saw greenhouse gases at these levels. Here, we are led to the mid-Pliocene, where we saw oceans with heat content 50 to 75 x 10^22 joules higher down to around 700m, translating to temperatures in the upper layers of around 3C higher, with even higher average tempertures of the ocean at higher latitudes.

      • R. Gates, you write “Not sure anyone has actually made that calculation”

        Thank you. Now let me proceed. I am trying to prove that CAGW is a hoax. I am attempting to do this by showing that the way the proponents of CAGW have claimed that CAGW exists, is by using highly dubious, and potentially wrong, physics to estimate the no-feedback climate sensitivity. So the issue is what is the effect of a theoretical doubling of CO2 on global temperatures? Oceans are only relevant to the discussion if we have the equivalent of the no-feedback climate sensitivity for oceans. Since we seem to agree that this number does not exist, then we cannot discuss it, and I will continue to concentrate on what happens in the atmosphere.

      • The Skeptical Warmist (aka R. Gates)

        Three things Jim,

        1 Just because I’m not aware of anyone who has made the calculation for how much energy the oceans will gain by a doubling of CO2 doesn’t mean that it is not out there somewhere in research. It is quite possible in fact been done.

        2. If you are trying to prove CAGW a “hoax”, first define exactly what YOU mean by CAGW. End of life on earth? End of human life? End of civilization? Radical biosphere shifts? Dramatic reduction of human life?

        3. Any discussion of CAGW, or even AGW, that does not include a comprehensive discussion of the oceans is absolutely pointless and meaningless, as the net flow of energy (i.e. the W in your CAGW) is from oceans to atmosphere. How can you meaningfully talk about a warming surface without talking about the source of some of that warming first…which is the oceans.

      • Skeptical Gates, “A better choice for estimates on ocean heat content changes is probably looking at the paleodata the last time we saw greenhouse gases at these levels. Here, we are led to the mid-Pliocene, where we saw oceans with heat content 50 to 75 x 10^22 joules higher down to around 700m, translating to temperatures in the upper layers of around 3C higher, with even higher average temper(a)tures of the ocean at higher latitudes.”

        Northern higher latitudes maybe. There was some remodeling done about 4.5ma ago, a new window of sorts was installed in the southern high latitudes.

        At least that is want the Herbet et al. tropical ocean data appears to imply.

      • The Skeptical Warmist (aka R. Gates)

        thanks for that Captn. Indeed, Northern high latitudes have a bit more paleodata available, with the suspicion that as we’ve move into the Arctic areas we saw yet even more warming of the oceans in the mid-Pliocene, not dissimilar to the actual effects we are seeing today from our greenhouse gas increases.

      • R. Gates you write “Three things Jim,”

        Thanks for the comments. None of them deter me in any way. I am engaging the proponents of CAGW on their turf, not mine. I dont have to consider anything other than what the proponents of CAGW have claimed. It is their definiton of CAGW matters, not mine. If they want to talk about oceans, I am ready to join in.

      • > I am engaging the proponents of CAGW on their turf, not mine.

        That’s why Jim Cripwell does not budge from Judy’s.

        Here would be a better turf:

        http://scienceofdoom.com

      • R. Gates and Jim Cripwell

        Hold on, guys.

        IPCC assumes (based on Myhre et al.) that 2xCO2 will result in “radiative forcing” of 3.7 W/m^2, which will result in around 1 °C warming of the atmosphere. With model-derived feedbacks this should be 3 °C.

        The same “radiative forcing” of 3.7 W/m^2” should result in theoretical warming of the ocean of:

        Mass of ocean = 270 times the mass of the atmosphere
        Specific heat of sea water = 4 times the average specific heat of our atmosphere

        dT = 1.0/(270*4) = 0.00093 °C

        Or, if we multiply by 3 for effect of IPCC-assumed feedbacks:

        dT = 3*0.00093 = 0.0028°C

        But, hey, let’s assume that only the “top 100 meters” of ocean get warmed.

        These have a mass of roughly 8 times the mass of the atmosphere

        dT = 1.0/(8*4) = 0.031 °C

        Or, if we multiply by 3 for effect of IPCC-assumed feedbacks:

        dT = 3*0.031 = 0.093 °C

        Yawn!

        That’s the warming one would theoretically see if all of the “radiative forcing” warmed the ocean alone.

        Hansen’s “pipeline” hypothesis assumes that roughly 50% of the past GH warming is still “hidden in the pipeline”, and he posits that the “pipeline” is the “ocean”, so the above warming estimates can be cut in half.

        Face it guys, it’s peanuts. It couldn’t even be detected if it really were to exist (which is highly doubtful).

        We only have semi-reliable measurements of ocean temperature since ARGO replaced the spot measurements from the old expendable XBT devices (which introduced a “warming bias”) in 2003. ARGO has since then shown slight cooling (not warming), which team leader, Josh Willis has referred to as a “speed bump”..

        Summary: there is no evidence that the ocean is warming; theoretical warming which could occur from CO2 “radiative forcing” is negligible.

        Max

      • R. Gates

        You may be shooting yourself in the foot by diverting the climate change discussion away from the (fairly reliably measured and non-warming) surface atmosphere to the ocean (poorly measured and non-warming, since ARGO measurements replaced the old expendable XBT devices, which introduced a warming bias).

        See

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argo_(oceanography)

        During 2006, the Argo Network was thought to have shown a declining trend in ocean temperatures.In February 2007, the author of the paper, Josh Willis, discovered that there were problems with the data used for the analysis. After eliminating incorrect data, the trend to that time remained cooling, but below the level of statistical significance.

        Willis referred to this slight cooling as a “speed bump”.

        Let’s wait a bit until we can see if there has really been any ocean warming. This may be a red herring (pardon the expression).

        Max

      • The Skeptical Warmist (aka R. Gates)

        Manacker,

        No doubt there was problems with earlier ocean heat content measurements but the ARGO floats are doing a great job of showing us general trends now, though it would be nice to have more consistent measurements down to even greater depths.

        Combined with ARGO data, extrapolations of current trends from paleodata gives us an even better general sense of the increases we’re seeing in ocean heat content over the long-term. In short, we can have a high-degree of confidence that the oceans are accumulating energy, and have been doing so for many decades. We seem to be headed rapidly back to the ocean heat content similar to the mid-Pliocene.

      • Chief Hydrologist

        Why ARGO and not CERES and MODIS?

        Why xbt and not ERBS?

        It is as if they don’t want to know.

      • Chief, Denial must be a river through the Hadley Center. The mid-pliocene temperatures was rather alarming. With two poles on the planet, it would seem that one would consider the one with the most ocean if one is concerned about ocean heat content.

      • Amazing. Max is capable of misreading a nursery rhyme. It’s like Texans, who have the Robin Hood legend completely backwards: they think the hero is the Sheriff of Nottingham, and I kid you not.

        Willis referred to the bogus statistically significant cooling as being a “speed bump”.

        After he realized there was an error, he referred to the “speed Bump” as follows:

        “I think ocean cooling isn’t real.”

      • The Skeptical Warmist (aka R. Gates)

        Chief et. al.,

        Of course with ocean heat content we care about energy storage in the ocean, and less about ocean ocean surface temperatures, which frequently tell us about heat flux or energy leaving the ocean, rather than about energy remaining in it. The ARGO floats are the best current way we have of actually measuring ocean energy or heat content. Certainly not something that you can get from satellite data.

      • Chief Hydrologist

        This calculates ocean energy based on sea levels and not sea surface temperature.

        This more recently calculates ocean heat content based on ARGO.

        The missing heat that Trenberth saw in the CERES record is found in the oceans. Seems logical. There was a recent paper on this. Data is the key to understanding and always has been. As we find from Newton’s fourth rule for natural philosophy.

        ‘In experimental philosophy, propositions gathered from phenomena by induction should be considered either exactly or very nearly true notwithstanding any contrary hypotheses, until yet other phenomena make such propositions either more exact or liable to exceptions. This rule should be followed so that arguments based on induction be not be nullified by hypotheses.’

        You can see the warming in CERES net radiative flux – positive up by convention.

        But all the change in energy in CERES was in the shortwave. Which is why I posted the CERES/MODIS graph.

        It is known without any doubt that ENSO is associated with changes in cloud radiatve forcing. This is the point you keep missing gates. And seemingly all of the other cult of AGW groupthink space cadets. It feels like groundhog day again.

      • I think I’ve never heard so loud
        The quiet message in a cloud.

        Amidst the whispers and the rumbles,
        Wonder other ears don’t tumble.
        =================

      • JCH

        Willis conceded that ARGO measurements showed slight cooling, even if this was “not of statistical significance”.

        But he did not say that there was warming based on ARGO measurements.

        Get your facts straight, JCH.

        Lying backfires.

        Max

      • The Skeptical Warmist (aka R. Gates) said: ”when the key effects related to Earth’s energy imbalance actually are in the ocean”

        WRONG again, Gates, wrong!.
        The earth’s energy imbalance is in the center of the earth; because 99% of the Faulty Line is on the bottom of the sea – on one part is released extra heat, and that creates El Nino – then on another part of the oceans more heat from the center is released, by submarine volcanoes / hot vents, other times less is released. Which means: if is warmer than normal in some part of the oceans – it means is: minus that heat in the center of the earth! If heat is in the magma, or in the sea, or in the plutonium; is called: ”stored heat” it’s NOT part of the global temperature; stop misleading yourself and others. get some truth, you will sleep better: http://globalwarmingdenier.wordpress.com/2012/09/10/global-temperature/

      • Chief Hydrologist

        Yeah gatesy – what do you have to say about that?

      • The Skeptical Warmist (aka R. Gates)

        stephanthedenier’s post is beyond mere words for finding a description…but this image properly sums it up:

      • Chief Hydrologist

        I think that’s pretty crude – and probably not within the blog rules. That’s what happens when you don’t have a rational and mature argument – isn’t it gatesy?

      • Fuel for the fire.
        ==========

      • The Skeptical Warmist (aka R. Gates) said: ”stephanthedenier’s post is beyond mere words for finding a description”

        WRONG again Gates, wrong! You are powerless to argue against REAL proofs; so you are avoiding the subject and diverting attention away. Perfect proof, how scared you are from solid, undeniable proofs. On the witness stand, under oath – you will not use those gutter tactics.

        Your 7 days a week, scaring children; will not be lucrative forever… On the witness stand, you will be facing; what is on my blog… have a happy insomnia. .

      • Particular Physicist

        Are there any calculations anywhere of the heat transfer from the Faulty :-) Lines on the ocean bed ?

      • Chief Hydrologist

        Well perhaps crimes against humanity is a bit of a slippery slide. Hasn’t someone been down that track before? But – hell it’s only gatesy – and perhaps a few of his friends. tt for sure. We can send them to UNtopia for re-education.

      • The Skeptical Warmist (aka R. Gates)

        Nothing crude about the picture at all. It represents a graphical illustration of a modified version of the source of most of the energy that we use here on the surface of the planet, which is solar. stephanthedeniers discussion about tectonic energy warming the oceans and causing El Nino, etc. was countered with this picture of modified solar energy– the real source of energy for both the oceans and we surface dwellers….

      • The Skeptical Warmist (aka R. Gates)

        stephanthedenier said: (to R. Gates)

        “Perfect proof, how scared you are from solid, undeniable proofs. On the witness stand, under oath – you will not use those gutter tactics.”

        ____

        I am going to court now? Wow. Take some meds dude.

        If you want to talk science, then fine, but to ramble on about witness stands, etc. Really dude…

        Generally, tectonic energy is about 1/1000 of the energy of incoming solar. Not going to be driving the weather systems (including ENSO) with this relatively small energy source. The biggest way tectonic energy affects our weather is through volcanic eruptions, which both block sunlight in the short-term, and can add greenhouse gases in the longer-term.

      • The Skeptical Warmist (aka R. Gates) | October 7, 2012 at 3:17 pm | said: ”I am going to court now? Wow”

        Gates, people go to jail for $1000 bucks; trillion dollars has being already wasted, for preventing the NON-EXISTENT global warming and to make it even more stupid; ‘to prevent climate from changing…?”

        You are a very prolific liar, candidate for the witness stand, same as Tony. Reason you are so much shamelessly lying, is because you think that: regarding climate, anything goes. Wrong, Offenders will be prosecuted – punishment will fit the crime. You cannot plead ignorance; because I presented the real proofs – you are avoiding those proofs; as ‘safety in numbers” b] you can plead insanity, but, because every lie of yours is calculative… i wish you good luck.

      • stephanthedenier,

        Thank you for all these inspiring comments. I don’t know how I ever missed them.

        You’re my new hero.

        There is Chuck Norris, but then there is you.

      • Particular Physicist | October 7, 2012 at 3:27 asked: ”Are there any calculations anywhere of the heat transfer from the Faulty Lines on the ocean bed ?”

        No, because you people are busy in searching / blaming galactic dust and sunspots. All the heat released from the faulty lines and geothermal heat on the bottom of the sea, which is 2/3 of the surface area of the planet. b] bottom of the sea on average is 2km closer to the center than the land. (1km down in the mine-shaft is 40C) heat released from the bottom. into the water is 100% absorbed by the water.

        on the other hand, lots of sunlight is reflected from the water as mirror effect – plus, heat absorbed close to the surface is wasted by increased evaporation. Physicist; experiment: how much less heat is needed to boil a pot of water from the bottom than from the top. Stick around, as long as you have an open mind. my English vocabulary is very limited, but yours is not – you make it, to sound english

      • Particular Physicist

        Are there any calculations anywhere of the heat transfer from the Fault Lines on the ocean bed ?”

        Stefan : No

        Than how can you say how much effect this heat is having ?

    • Steven Mosher

      go read SteveFs derivation on Lucia’s. its the closest thing to a no feedbacks first order estimate from known physics

      http://rankexploits.com/musings/2011/a-simple-analysis-of-equilibrium-climate-sensitivity/

      Basically 1.5C no feedbacks. That is 1.5C for an increase of 3.7watts.

      so a climate sensitivity of around 0.4 to 0.5 C per watt
      Doubling c02 gives you 3.7 watts or roughly 1.5C no feedbacks.
      i’ve seen similar derivations to around 1.2C for 3.7 watts.

      There are these numbers
      Climate sensitivity to a change in forcing ( say .5 C per watt)
      Additional watts from doubling .. 3.7
      Feedbacks.

      there isnt a lot a sense of arguing about the core sensitivity number
      there is no science suggesting that 3.7 watts is wrong.
      its all about the feedbacks.
      A) net negative will give you numbers less than 1.5C per doubling
      B) net positive will give you numbers 1.5C an above
      ( roughly roughly speaking )
      the problem with claim A is that you you have to do actual science to show this and not just arm wave.

      the sad thing is that some really smart people have excluded themselves from the discussion by saying things they dont have to. Focusing on feedbacks gets you to the table to discuss actual science.

      • novandilcosid

        I had a look at the cited link.
        The calculation is erroneous.
        The error is in the assumption that the planet is a blackbody, and that Stephan’s law applies.
        But neither is true. The Earth is nothing like a blackbody when viewed from Space.
        The radiation from the planet comes from several “surfaces” all of which are at different temperatures at different latitudes:

        1. The Surface

        2. The tops of the clouds

        3. In the wavenumber 630-710 region , from the “top” of the CO2, varying from about 10km to over 30km

        4. From water vapour (various heights depending on frequency)

        5. From ozone.

        None of the emissions from gases in the atmosphere are blackbody –Stephan’s Law does not apply to radiation from cold gases. Nor does it apply to radiation from multiple, unstable levels.
        The estimate by the author is therefore entirely flawed.

      • go read SteveFs derivation on Lucia’s. its the closest thing to a no feedbacks first order estimate from known physics

        http://rankexploits.com/musings/2011/a-simple-analysis-of-equilibrium-climate-sensitivity/

        Ok
        “The average solar intensity above the atmosphere is ~1366 watts per square meter. Earth’s average albedo is ~ 32%, meaning the intensity of what is absorbed is ~232.2 watts/M2, averaged over the Earth’s surface.”

        It doesn’t seem to me one can know how much energy is absorbed by knowing solar flux at TOA and albedo [or bond albedo].
        Or snow white to pitch black plus quantity of solar flux are factors which define the amount of energy absorbed.
        In addition one should not be asserting that the night side of planet earth absorbs the energy from the sun.

        Or planet painted the surface black or white will not make all the difference in temperature of the planet. A black painted surface will be warmer than white painted surface, but it’s not very significant difference.
        Or the earth per square meter absorbs more sunlight energy than the Moon does. The Moon has warmer surface, but it does not absorb more energy, and the amount of energy absorbed is important in terms of average global temperature when the sun goes down.
        Regolith or powdery surface of the lunar is great insulation. A block of steel on the moon will get a warm as the lunar regolith, but a block steel will absorb more energy, and it will remain warmer longer than the regolith after the sun goes down. The few bare rocks on the moon do this same thing- they remain warm, longer, and this due to them absorbing more energy. And the color of the rocks have little to do with it’s temperature or amount of energy absorbed.

        Or it paved over the entire planet Earth with blackest asphalt or whitest
        concrete it’s not going to make much difference in the average global temperature. It will have small difference in average temperature. But if you instead used black and white sand the difference would greater- it would lower the average temperature because sand absorbs less energy than compared solid paving. Or if compared black sand to concrete paving the concrete should have a higher average temperature- paving will keep the nights warmer be cause it absorbs more energy.

        Of course the clouds on earth are mainly what is meant by “albedo is ~ 32%”. And really, they talking about patches of clouds- thousands square km of clouds and thousands square km of there not being clouds. And averaging clouds and no cloud into an albedo is about as stupid as averaging the solar energy of sunlit side with nightside of the Planet.
        A planet with complete cloud coverage [giving you close to a 100% albedo is not Hugely different than a planet no clouds. It’s possible that no cloud planet could have lower average global temperature.
        Or if huge region on earth is covered with clouds it doesn’t mean it can not be fairly warm. And clouds at night generally make it warmer night.

        So amount of clouds or the color of the ground can make a difference, but they are not the sole or even most important effects upon whether Earth is snowball or a hot house.

      • Particular Physicist

        Mosher
        Do you not also need to focus on natural variation to get the table to discuss actual science ?

      • Let’s compare Moon, Mars and Earth.
        The average temperature of Earth on night side is around 0 C or warmer.
        The average temperature of Moon on night side is around 100 K.
        The average temperature of Mars on night side is say 180 K.

        Let’s turn off the Sun.
        How long does it take to cool the Earth to say 150 K?
        Months? Years?
        With the Moon we know within 2 weeks it’s warmest temperature will be around 100 K [it cools this much every 28 day long lunar day every lunar nite.
        With Mars in a day it will reach it’s night time temperature of 180 K- so in a day the warmest place on Mars will be about 180 K. And in about a day Mars’ atmosphere will start freezing out- it snow CO2. And probably within 2 weeks Mars will be covered in about 4″ of CO2 snow and have atmosphere similar the the Moon- as in no atmosphere worth mentioning, but it will still have the remaining 3% nitrogen part of the mars’ atmosphere, actually: “Carbon Dioxide (CO2) – 95.32% ; Nitrogen (N2) – 2.7%”

        http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/marsfact.html

        So 2.7 % left of it’s very thin atmosphere should survive for 2 weeks or more.
        So for Mars to reach 100 K that Moon reaches in 2 weeks, Mars might take as long as a month. Keep in mind Mars has about 28 times more CO2 in it’s atmosphere as compared to Earth.

        Now what happens with Earth?
        Trying to figure what happens over time with Earth, is harder than the Moon. Because Moon shows us what it does when the sun isn’t shining on it during it’s 2 weeks of night.
        We can get vaguely similar clues by looking at what happens in a small region of Earth at it’s poles when it has 6 months of night [winter in arctic circle]. Problem is that warmer parts of earth adds a bit of warming to this region when it is in 6 months of it’s yearly darkness.

        Let’s ask would the warm equator cool as quickly as the polar regions when the sun goes down during fall Equinox?

        Now what is going to keep the Earth warm will be mainly it’s oceans, and secondarily it’s rather substantial atmosphere. And I don’t think the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere will make much difference- perhaps add at most an hour more warmth, in comparison the water vapor in atmosphere might add week or more- but none of this has anything to do with either of their “radiant properties”.
        But the big thing is the Earth oceans.
        And the oceans in the tropics hold a vast amount of heat. Compare the arctic ocean to tropical oceans. There may be less than 1/2 inch of warm arctic ocean water- anywhere about 15 C. Whereas in tropics it has 100 meters of it.
        Basically one ignore this 1/2 inch of less of possible warm arctic water, and say this ocean surface temperature is about 2 C.
        So the tropics or up to 38 degrees latitude [about half the surface area of the planet] has about average temperature of say 20 C in top 100 meter.
        It seems if the arctic ocean had such warm water, there is good possibility [or good guess] that polar ice sea would not form in one six month winter season. And therefore it’s reasonable that it could take as long as six months before the the half of the world got much below 270 K.
        In the other half of the world there could be sea ice forming or formed on all these oceans. And the present cold regions, would getting ever colder over those 6 months. And it seems it could cold enough to start freezing out the CO2. So global CO2 could be dumping at polar regions and have some warming effect from phase transition- and so could get 6 inches or more CO2 snowfall in these rather small regions.
        After it stopped snowing CO2, polar temperature could lower down below 150 K [-123 C].
        After 6 months the average global temperature may be 0 C + [-100 C] divided by 2 or -50 C [or 220 K]. But question was 150 C, so probably less than 1 year.

      • So I guessed about Earth Moon, and Mars.
        Anyone want to try a guess about Venus?

        Question, if sun blinked out, how long would it take Venus to cool to 150 K?
        Sure, it’s harder, but …
        ?

      • Time’s up.

        Venus:
        Flux, W/m2: 2643
        Albedo 0.8

        http://www.atmos.washington.edu/2002Q4/211/notes_greenhouse.html

        I assume what is meant by .8 Albedo is that only 20% is absorbed which also means 20% is emitted, minus the geothermal heat [which is regarded as insignificant]

        So going calculate heat capacity of Venus atmosphere in joules and
        then the energy that leaves Venus per second in joules, and then divide them to get the number of seconds.
        Venus: Total mass of atmosphere: ~4.8 x 10^20 kg

        http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/venusfact.html

        Carbon Dioxide – Specific Heat:

        http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/carbon-dioxide-d_974.html

        How hot is the average Venus atmosphere?
        Above reference says “Average temperature: 737 K (464 C)”
        But that near the surface temperature and I want total mass average temperature of atmosphere. Oh well just use 737 K
        So 737 K minus 150 K is 587 K amount which has to cool
        “CO2 at 500 K: 1.014 kJ/kgK

        Roughly, 590 kJ/kgK times 4.8 x 10^20 kg. Which is
        2.8 x 10^23 kJ or
        2.8 x 10^26 joules [watts per second]
        Next:

        Venus diameter is 12,104 km
        6052 squared times pi is 115 million square km. Or
        1.15 x 10^14 square meters
        times this by 2643 times .2 And so:
        ~6.08 x 10^16 joules per second emitted.

        2.8 x 10^26 joules divide by 6.08 x 10^16 joules
        Which is 2.8 x 10^10 joules divided by 6.08
        So 4.6 x 10^9 seconds.
        And seconds in year: 3.15 x10^7
        1.4 x 10^2 years

        So 140 years to cool to 150 K

        Though probably more accurate to say 100 to 200 years
        Anyways- 100 to 200 years. Longer than I thought.

        So, why does Venus seem to take about 100 times more time than Earth?
        First I assumed once the entire surface of ocean of earth was frozen that the Earth’s atmosphere would get little warming from the ocean- I wasn’t concerned about *the need* freeze the entire ocean completely solid- which could take forever and hard to try to get any number on the rate it would do this.
        Oh, also I remember doing some calculation regarding Earth’s ocean and believe it has more thermal energy than Venus. I should do that again:
        Earth: Total mass of hydrosphere: 1.4 x 10^21 kg
        Water: 4.204 kJ/kgK
        Energy to lower entire ocean by one K: 5.8 x 10^24 joules
        Compare to Venus 2.8 x 10^26 joules to lower by 587 K

        And to freeze entire earth ocean
        Latent heat of melting – 334 kJ/kg
        4.67 x 10^26 joules
        But as I said one only has to freeze the top of the oceans.

      • The Skeptical Warmist (aka R. Gates)

        Even if the sun disappeared and the top layer of the oceans froze, maybe up to 10 meters or more, that ice would then insulate the remaining liquid ocean underneath, keep a fairly steady temperature with some very small amount of energy coming from the tectonic energy of the Earth’s core itself, and it would be quite likely that some forms of life would live on in that ocean, much like it does near hydrothermal vents now. Of course the atmosphere above that ice would dry out a all water vapor would quickly be deposited as snow on the surface, and eventually it would get cold enough that all CO2 would fall to the surface as well. It would be ice planet Earth, where the surface was quite inhospitable but under the ice, or deep in caves, survivable if you we’re some very simple life form.

      • gbaikie & physicist| October 7, 2012 at 6:24 pm said: ”Time’s up. Venus: Flux, W/m2: 2643 Albedo 0.8”

        gbaikie, the most important factor is missing; because my ”REAL’ proofs are ignored: listen very carefully::: ” every spot on the earth is Illuminated by the sunlight about 50% of the time. Because Venus is closer to the sun – about 55% of the Venus surface area is illuminated at any time – therefore 45% is in darkness at any given time. Therefore, the extra 10% surface area illuminated on Venus, IS ACCUMULATIVE!!! On the earth one polar cap is in permanent darkness, on Venus both polls are permanently sunlight. Imagine the difference in having 10% of surface area more in permanent sunlight on the equatorial regions on Venus, but not on the earth

        b] if you are seating on the moon, when the earth is between the moon and the sun – you will notice that: most of the sunlight goes trough the earth’s crown – not on Venus, (that small extra accumulative benefit is overlooked by everybody)

        c] on the earth oxygen & nitrogen are taking the heat from the ground – up, to be wasted. If my formulas are respected; would have known how the earth regulates heat – NOTHING to do with CO2, but O&N

        Physicist, if you put this in proper English, will prevent Venus to be used for confusion by the swindlers and by the ignorant

      • “gbaikie, the most important factor is missing; because my ”REAL’ proofs are ignored: listen very carefully::: ” every spot on the earth is Illuminated by the sunlight about 50% of the time. Because Venus is closer to the sun – about 55% of the Venus surface area is illuminated at any time – therefore 45% is in darkness at any given time. Therefore, the extra 10% surface area illuminated on Venus, IS ACCUMULATIVE!!!”

        Because the sun is not a point of light but is a disk, more than 50% of a planetary surface can receive a 1/8 or 1/4 Or More of the Sun than 50%, but it can’t receive more 50% coverage with full disk in sky [actually the bigger solar disk slightly less area get the full disk- but yes if talking getting some portion of the light from the solar disk, you get slightly more 50% of surface area getting some kind of sunlight.

        The diameter size of the sun’s disk is about 1/2 degree or it’s the radius is about 1/4 of degree. 15 degrees of 180 degree arc is 1 hour Or 1 degree arc is 4 mins. So it adds about 1 minute to the day- one for morning and 1 for evening- 2 minutes total as far as light.

        Or in terms of kilometer distance. 40,000 km circumference divided 360 equals 111.11 km per degree. So 27.77 km each side or combining both side 55.55 km.

        Now Venus. It’s atmosphere [as Earth’s atmosphere does] complicates it.
        So first start with it airless like the Moon. First the Moon is less than 1/3 Venus [or Earth’s] diameter. And Sun at Venus distance is something like twice the diameter of disk size as compared to earth distance. So were just comparing difference in “apparent size” the moon is smaller as compared to Venus at Venus distance as compared to sun- or we don’t see this 55% more sunlit moon.
        But as other effect, at Venus distance the sun would be about 1 degree arc [compared to Earth’s 1/2 degree arc]. And on airless Venus it’s twice number [111.11 km combining both sides of morning and evening].

        Now of course Venus isn’t airless. In fact in has a lot atmosphere and sunlight on Venus surface is sort of like sunlight on Earth when the sun is behind thin clouds, Though one can also sort of describe like diffused rather large size fuzzy ball. So the atmosphere kind of makes the sun look bigger. This might add bit more light at morning and night, but the sunlight needs to go thru far more atmosphere at morning and nite and therefore could be very dim or even obscured.

        “b] if you are seating on the moon, when the earth is between the moon and the sun – you will notice that: most of the sunlight goes trough the earth’s crown – not on Venus, (that small extra accumulative benefit is overlooked by everybody)”

        I think you talking about if looking earth on oppose side of sun you see red ring around earth [it’s got some name] or Earth’s atmosphere glows red. I think Venus atmosphere too thick to see something similar with Venus. Though one could see thru Venus atmosphere at it’s higher elevation where atmosphere far less dense.
        I have not seen such pictures and not sure what it looks like.

      • The Skeptical Warmist (aka R. Gates)

        I think the 1.4 to 1.5C figure is a good one for the the TCR, but of course, the name of the game is feedbacks, and also of course, the 1.4 to 1.5C figure is not even mentioning methane and N2O forcing, which are not inconsequential at their also rapidly growing levels.

      • David Springer

        Mosher places his faith on no-feedback climate sensitivity on a blog post by an anonymous author.

        Isn’t that just precious? ROFLMAO

      • Steven Mosher

        You imply that to claim “negative overall feedback” (claim A) “you have to do actual science to show this and not just arm wave.”

        Doesn’t the same hold for the claim of “positive overall feedback” (claim B)?

        And, Steven, this is the claim being made by IPCC, based on model-simulations, but not “actual science” (Feynman).

        THAT’s the “claim” being debated.

        Max

        PS A side question: Do you include S+B 2007 (showing net negative cloud feedback) or L+C 2009/2010 (showing overall net negative feedback) as “actual science”?

      • David Springer

        The published literature has a no-feedback climate sensitivity range beginning from a low of

        0.240K per W/m2 (Ramathan 1998, cited in IPCC 2001)

        to a high of

        0.313K per W/m2 (Bony 2006, cited in IPCC 2007)

        A CO2 doubling increases forcing by 3.7W/m2 so the no-feedback climate-sensitivity per CO2 doubling is (according to IPCC):

        IPCC 2001 0.888K
        IPCC 2007 1.158K

        For brevity one might choose 1K or to be more in line with consensus 1.1K.

        Mosher for some as yet undetermined reason would rather go with an anonymous blog author’s estimate of 1.5K. I’ll take a pass on that and focus on the published literature rather than the anonymous blog literature for what I should hope should be obvious reasons.

        As to how much these are based on “known physics” let me tell you something about known physics. Known physics doesn’t yield answers to the no-feedback climate sensitivity ranging from 0.88K to 1.16K. These are combinations of known physics and empircal data used in place of unknown physics. If the physics were really known we’d get a precise answer. Imagine the sorry state of physics if we only knew the strength of the eletromagnetic force to +-15% or the mass of a proton to +-15%. To state the no-feedback climate sensivity is determined from known physics could only be stated by someone who knows very little about physics. In other words someone like Steven Mosher.

    • Jim Cripwell has posed a serious question, one which I also believe has been insufficiently discussed.

      The usual way that the “no-feedback” temperature change is calculated is to calculate the temperature change at a ficticious uniform-temperature surface in the middle of the atmosphere, then assume that that temperature change is uniform from the surface to the tropopause, through the magic of an immutable lapse rate..

      That is incorrect science, as the First Law is not obeyed. A 1.2DegC change in temperature at the Surface requires between 8 and 12W/m of energy imbalance at the Surface. Where does that come from?

      If ALL of the “Radiative Forcing” (a term for energy imbalance high in the atmosphere) were to be translated (by magic) to the Surface, the HIGHEST average surface temperature change would be 0.6DegC. That’s the maximum that 4W/m^2 gets you at the surface with no feedbacks (consequences of increased temperature).

      In order that the planetary energy budget be in balance, the temperature increase has to be higher the higher you go – the lapse rate is not constant, it changes. That’s what IPCC AR4 WG1 Chapter2 Fig 2.2 shows – a non constant lapse rate. (I also think the diagram is totally in error.) Lapse rates are very dynamic as is the position of the Tropopause – see radiosonde measurements at http://weather.uwyo.edu/upperair/sounding.html
      When I looked at Guam, I saw a change in Tropopause height of over 1km in 12 hours. At polar locations the Tropopause height can change by 5km in 12 hours, and I have also seen temperature changes of over 20 degrees in 12 hours at height in the atmosphere. The conclusion is that the upper atmosphere is anything but regular and stable. Lapse rate changes happen hourly.

      A second and never discussed question is how an energy imbalance makes its way to the surface and affects the surface temperature. (NB Only surface conditions affect the Surface). An upper atmosphere energy imbalance manifests immediately as a change in temperature at the unbalanced location. How, pray, does that reach down 10km and change the surface temperature?

  10. Svend Ferdinandsen

    Fraud or cheating:
    It is the same symptoms as seen in sport and gambling. When the money involved cross some line it is bound to happen. It could be doping or it could be match fixing, but when the stakes are high enough then it is gone to a happen.
    There are in my opinion only two ways to prevent it: Reduce the money available or reduce the gains.

  11. It’s pretty clear that the climate debate (once hyped as the defining debate of our century) has fizzled in US politics.

    Gone are the days when a British Prime Minister (in this case Gordon Brown) warn us that we have 50 days to save the planet.

    But anyone who watched the fiascos at Copenhagen, Cancun etc. could have anticipated this.

    Sure, it’s still a multi-billion dollar big business for the time being (and those don’t die overnight).

    Looks like the politicos have other things to talk about, which interest the voters more.

    Max

    • Max,
      From a policy standpoint, AGW is dead. The warmists just don’t know it yet. Climate-gate along with the current ever lengthening span with no additional warming post 1998, have been key factors. I’d also throw in the collapse of the world-wide debt bubble.

      • “no additional warming post 1998″

        Is that myth never going to die?

        Take HadCRUT3.

        Total warming from 1970 to the end of 1998: 0.47C
        Total Warming from 1970 to present: 0.65C

        0.65 – 0.47 = 0.18

        So that’s 0.18C warming post 1998. 28% of the warming since 1970.

      • lolwot, technically you are correct, but the oceans are the big dog and since they have a lot more thermal inertia than the atmosphere, that would be the data that is more relevant to our immediate climate future. If you really want to get predictive about things, the southern oceans really tend to be climate tattle tails.

        There are a few change point analysis procedures that are somewhat useful. Some are so simple even a red neck can do it :)

        http://redneckphysics.blogspot.com/2012/10/just-for-fun-climate-shifts.html

      • “no additional warming post 1998″
        Is that myth never going to die?

        Nope! There is no actual data that can kill it. 2012 will end another year that is not warmer than 1998. 2013 will be another year that is not warmer than 1998. Every year with no additional warming makes the myth more of a truth. This new cycle is a repeat of what has happened many times in the past ten thousand years and is happening again.

        Just look at the actual data.

      • Chief Hydrologist

      • lolwot,, you wite “Is that myth never going to die?”

        You are deliberately misquoting what was said. The key word is “additional”. It is true that all the data we have on global temperatures shows that the world has been warming ever since the LIA. The question is, has there any ADDITIONAL warming over and above this background rise, which seems to have been going on at a rate of about 0.06 C per decade.

        Yes, global temperatures are still rising. They have not stopped rising……. YET. But the key point is that there has been no ADDITIONAL warming. There is no CO2 signal in any temperature/time graph.

      • No I am not misquoting what was said. You are.

        “Yes, global temperatures are still rising. They have not stopped rising……. YET.”

        bookmarked.

        “But the key point is that there has been no ADDITIONAL warming. There is no CO2 signal in any temperature/time graph.”

        CO2 signal would be global temperatures still rising. Nothing about “additional warming”.

      • Capt’nDallas

        Repetition is good for the slow learner; big print also helps.

        I now “get it”. How did you “see” the lags in the peaks in the first place?

        Keep talking, I’m listening.

      • HiR008, “I now “get it”. How did you “see” the lags in the peaks in the first place?”

        Every Perturbation in a Fluid causes “waves” and a large enough perturbation “resets” the wave periods. You just follow the waves back to the source or perturbation. In an Ideal fluid, each perturbation would generate the same pattern of waves, since the Earth is far from ideal, each pattern is different. The differences, noise, are the signals indicating changes in conditions. You just need a repeatable method to compare the differences, change point analysis.

        Then the common patterns or recurrences can be used like a carrier frequency in radio communications.

        BTW, Since there is a continuous shift in the “carrier”, the Drake Passage Erosion and the fluctuation of the ACC in three dimensions appears to be the most likely cause for the 400ka shift. That seems to be why Lea gets a paleo sensitivity of 5 to 9 C while Astor comes up with 0.7 to 1.5C, the carrier drifted.

      • lolwot, yiu write “CO2 signal would be global temperatures still rising. Nothing about “additional warming”.”

        Wrong. What little empirical data we have shows that global temperatures have been rising ever since the LIA. Precisley what the rate if rise was before CAGW was supposed to have started, is unclear, but since around 1850 the rate seems to have been around 0.06 C per decade. If CO2 has a major effect on global temperatures, then in the CAGW era, global temperatures should be rising at a rate signiuficantly more than 0.06 C per decade, which seems to be the background rate due to natural causes. This increased rate above 0.06 C per decade would be the CO2 signal. This additonal warming, according to the empirical data, is not happening. There is no CO2 signal.

      • you assume the warming since circa 1950 wasn’t caused by CO2 and so conclude it wasn’t caused by CO2.

        That’s circular reasoning.

        If all the warming since 1950 was caused by CO2 then obviously we wouldn’t need any “additional warming” for that warming to be caused by CO2.

      • lolwot, you write “you assume the warming since circa 1950 wasn’t caused by CO2 and so conclude it wasn’t caused by CO2.”

        Garbage. I am assuming nothing at all. I rely on empirical data which does not make any assumptions.

        The empirical data shows that global temperatures have been rising ever since the LIA. What has caused this rise, we dont know, but it cannot because of excessive amounts of CO2, because there were no factors causing CO2 levels to rise until post WWII. What the rate of rise of temperature was prior to 1850 we are not sure, but there is no reason to believe it was radically different from what we know of the trend since 1850.

        The empirical data seems to show that the rate of rise since 1850 has been linear and steady, and around 0.06 C per decade. This trend in rise of temperature has not changed over any period of time for which we have the data, including the post WWII era.

        I have no idea what caused the warming since 1950, and I make no assumptions about it. All I am saying is that the rate of rise of temperature has not changed at all, since we had good data starting around 1850. However, we know from empirical data that since WWII the rate of rise of CO2 has risen dramatically. So we have a dramatic rise in CO2 concentrations and no change in the temperature trend. That means that there is no CO2 signal.

      • lolwot | October 5, 2012 at 10:27 pm said: ”Total warming from 1970 to the end of 1998: 0.47CTotal Warming from 1970 to present: 0.65C 0.65 – 0.47 = 0.18”

        lolwot, CO2 is NOT a GLOBAL warming gas! Therefore, the extra imaginary warming, must be from your own hot air and farting released…?

      • Chief Hydrologist

        well numbnut? :lol:

      • I see assumptions.

        Assumptions about data and about numbers.

        But I don’t see any physicai assumption.

        This is the usual signal processing trick.

        Climate is more than a numerical signal.

      • In other words, those of John Nielsen-Gammon, trends are not the only evidence:

        > A flat trend over any time period only shows that other forcings or natural processes are canceling the warming effect of Tyndall gases over such a period. There are lots of time-varying forcings and natural processes with a variety of periods: ENSO (2-7 years plus longer-term variations), solar (11 years plus longer-term variations), PDO (50-70 years), for example. Any of those could be strong enough to cancel the Tyndall gas effect during half its phase. We know for certain that ENSO is more than strong enough to do that, but yet, over the long haul, the magnitude of global warming has recently exceeded the magnitude of ENSO variability. So, in addition to a flat trend over some period of years, I’d want evidence that it was not merely a temporary flat trend. In the absence of such evidence, I’d settle for a trend longer than half a PDO cycle, or 35 years or so. With such evidence, the trend could be as short as a year, because I’d be swayed not by the trend but by the evidence.

        http://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/post/9411951921

        Perhaps Jim Cripwell should stop by John Nielsen-Gammon’s blog and try his signal processing tricks.

      • There’s theory, there are observations.
        Ever the twain shall meet.
        ==================

      • lolwot

        You write:

        “no additional warming post 1998″

        Is that myth never going to die?

        NO.

        Not as long as the HadCRUT3 temperature record (the one used by IPCC) shows that “the myth” is FACT.

        http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1998/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1998/trend

        The record shows that global temperature has cooled very slightly since 1998. Please explain.

        Max

      • willard, you write “Perhaps Jim Cripwell should stop by John Nielsen-Gammon’s blog and try his signal processing tricks.”

        Again, please stop putting words in my mouth. I discuss a specific subject, on a specific issue, and somehow it is interpreted that I think I am stating some profound universal truth, that applies outside the specific case I was commenting on. If you are going to criticize what I write, then PLEASE, keep the discussion to what I have specifically written; not what you think I might have meant to say.

      • Which words have I put in your mouth, Jim Cripwell, and how does it relate to my suggestion that you go argue with one of the blogging theoricians?

        As far as I’m concerned, you’re simply doing the signal processing trick.
        Without any physical explanation, what you’re saying does not matter much for climate science. Unless you have a better explanation of the climatic phenomena than the one we have, the one we have stays on the table. Considering the level of your comments, you might need to “inference to the best explanation” to know what this means.

        This addresses what you’re talking about. Your comment does not address this criticism.

      • To do a web search for “inference to the best explanation”, that is.

      • > Precisley what the rate if rise was before CAGW was supposed to have started, is unclear, but since around 1850 the rate seems to have been around 0.06 C per decade.

        Here’s how Vaughan Pratt might answer this signal processing trick:

        What are the Actual Facts?

        The “actual facts” as you put it are that some combination of influences drove the temperature up quite dramatically since 1970. The CO2 went up dramatically in that period, and we’ve known for a century that increasing CO2 drives up the temperature, and moreover we understand the mechanism by which it does so in considerable detail.

        Hence to rule out CO2 as the culprit you would need to propose an alternative cause with a comparably plausible mechanism. Your candidate?

        http://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/post/24537022416

        Notice how Vaughan Pratt infers to the best explanation.

        Paying due diligence to these claptraps could very well be a full-time job.

      • The CAGW policy movement is ot dead. It has been shot, and is lying apparently dead on the floor, just like Michael Meyers in his hockey mask at the end of the movie Halloween, Now is no time to turn your backs on him.

        Anyone who has ever watched a good horror movie knows that it’s not enough to shoot the villain. You have to cut his freakin’ head off.

        If Obama wins re-election in November, it won’t matter that the majority of the American people are against decarbonization/Copenhagen/CAGW policies. The majority of the American people were and are against socialized medicine. That didn’t stop Obamacare. The EPA’s first decarbonization regs, for coal, have already been issued and just await the election to rise up from the floor and start stalking the local teenagers again.

        Coming to a theater near you in December 2012 (if The One wins) – “Michael Mann and his hockey stick come back to life in ‘CAGW II – Revenge of the IPCC.'” (No one will be allowed to leave the energy economy 15 minutes after the progressive takeover has begun.)

      • “If Obama wins re-election in November, it won’t matter that the majority of the American people are against decarbonization/Copenhagen/CAGW policies. The majority of the American people were and are against socialized medicine. That didn’t stop Obamacare. The EPA’s first decarbonization regs, for coal, have already been issued and just await the election to rise up from the floor and start stalking the local teenagers again.”

        I tend to think this monster will play a lot more golf, and he could perhaps find more time for traveling around the world.

        And Congress still holds the purse, if Congress is having an agency which making them look bad- the agency is constant enough in annoying them, they could simply decide to defund it.
        And just the threat removing the money, tends to get any bureaucracies attention. Even screaming zealots can be quite pliant when they facing no funding- though perhaps this concept will be tested.

        I think it is still a mystery what Obama will do if re-elected. I don’t think Obama knows, nor of course does any of his millions of supporters.
        Though I don’t know if it particularly matters even if Obama had some clear plan, as his proposed budgets have been ignored by the Dems.

        It seems a possibility we could see the most extreme example of lame duck president in the history of the US. And therefore anyone who think the power of the Executive has been becoming too powerful, might see some relief in an Obama second term.
        Though I think all the guys surrounding Obama are the bigger wild card, they could be much more engaged in their work and they seem to have a very significant degree of unaccountability, so it’s anyone’s guess what kinds of ruinous activity they may be engaged in.

      • gbalkie,

        Congress does indeed have the purse string. But it is unlikely the GOP will win veto proof majorities in both the House and Senate. Though there is the possibility that enough Dems will want to avoid political suicide that they will help roll back the worst of the coming (if Obama wins) EPA decarbonization regs.

        As far what Obama wants to do…he has been telling us explicitly for years. And it ain’t good. Unrestrained buy the need to be re-elected, there is every reason to believe he will become even more autocratic.

    • Max said:

      It’s pretty clear that the climate debate … has fizzled in US politics.

      Do you want evidence for that? Select ‘Climate Change” here and look at the activity chart. http://www.carboncapturereport.org/

      Tells a story doesn’t it?

      • Peter Lang

        The activity chart you cited confirms other data that tell me that the CAGW gravy train, with its bandwagon of climate doom-sayers, enviro lobby groups, green industry representatives, tax-hungry politicians, sensationalist science reporters, fuzzy-headed academics and Hollywood media darlings is slowing down.

        Is is about to lose a wheel and headed for the ditch?

        What will be the next bandwagon?

        Stay tuned.

        Max

      • Yes. There is an enormous amount of info in those reports. They come out daily. You can even drill down to see what you’ve been saying on blogs over the pas Five years or so.

        I’ve been checking what I’ve been saying … everything is correct :)

  12. Yes, the UN’s IPCC was right in their assertion that AGW had occured, but wrong in asserting that worse was to come. Linear thinking about future climate has been discredited by both classical and quantum thermodynamics. Has this seeped through to the wise heads in the Royal Society yet? We await Prof Curry’s reports with interest.

  13. Apparently you truly believe that “… the vagaries of natural climate variability have led to a (temporary) slowdown of the rise in both global average temperature and global average sea level.” I don’t dispute your right to believe it if you have thought it through. But have you really? Let’s take that temporary slowdown of global temperature first. The fact that there has not been any warming in the twenty-first century must then mean that some unknown vagary of climate is responsible for that. But is it just possible that this vagary might be the new normal that climate is throwing at us, like it or not? I personally believe that in the natural world nothing happens without a cause. You must have the same belief if you think that the warming not only has a cause but that the cause is us. And if the warming has a cause, lack of warming likewise has a cause even though you don’t know it and are calling it a vagary. I personally prefer laws of nature to vagaries. We all have heard that the warming is caused by the enhanced greenhouse effect from carbon dioxide that gets in the atmosphere from burning fossil fuels. Its amount is constantly increasing and has been increasing during all these years that there has been no warming during this century. Is it just possible that maybe that carbon dioxide is not the cause of the greenhouse effect that is supposed to fry us if we don’t stop it right now? Ferenc Miskolczi thinks so and in 2005 he came out with a theory that said so explicitly. He was studying the absorption of infrared radiation by the greenhouse gases at NASA and concluded that for a stable climate to exist the infrared optical thickness of the atmosphere had to be 1.867…This corresponds to 30 percent transmittance in the infrared. But what happens if we put more carbon dioxide in the air? According to Arrhenius it will start to absorb more outgoing infrared radiation and the transmittance of the atmosphere will then drop below the optimum 30 percent. It turns out that this does not happen. According to Miskolczi the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere have established that optimum value by interacting through various feedbacks. If something changes the optical thickness they will re-establish it by mutual feedbacks. In practice it boils down to carbon dioxide and water vapor. Once carbon dioxide is in the air it cannot be changed. But water vapor can be changed because it has an essentially infinite source/sink in the oceans. What happens when more carbon dioxide is released in the air is that the amount of water vapor diminishes to compensate for the absorption by that extra carbon dioxide. This is equivalent to negative feedback from carbon dioxide, the exact opposite of positive feedback IPCC uses in their calculations. That positive water vapor feedback was not part of the original Arrhenius theory but is a later ad hoc addition. It so happens that the sensitivity of carbon dioxide to doubling is only one degree Celsius. To get those higher sensitivities they need to predict dangerous global warming they absolutely must have positive water vapor feedback. And now this upstart Miskolczi tells them that they can’t have it. The first thing that happened after that was that NASA started to censor Miskolczi’s work. He could not stand it and quit. But in the meantime he had doped out a way to test his theory. Using NOAA database of weather balloon observations that goes back to 1948 he was able to show that the transparency of the atmosphere in the infrared had been constant for 61 years. And the value of its optical thickness was 1.87 as predicted by his theory. The amount of carbon dioxide in the air increased by 21.6 percent during this time interval. This means that the addition of this amount of carbon dioxide to air had no effect whatsoever on IR absorption by the atmosphere. And no absorption means no greenhouse effect, case closed. Let me put it another way: the enhanced greenhouse effect, the one allegedly responsible for global warming, does not exist. There is a theory that explains why that is so and empirical observations going back to 1948 proving it. And here are the consequences. First, all predictions of dangerous warming ahead that use the greenhouse effect are false. Second, No observations of global warming can be greenhouse warming. This includes the well-known observations of Arctic warming used to tell us that anthropogenic global warming is real. I have proved that Arctic warming is caused by Atlantic Ocean currents carrying warm Gulf Stream water north. There are actually no observations of warming left that can be called greenhouse warming.
    Next, sea level. There is no slowdown of global average sea level. Sea level rise has been at a steady 2.46 millimeters per year for the last eighty years as determined by Chao, Yu and Li in 2008. And something that has been linear that long is not about to change anytime soon. Satellites report approximately 3 millimeters per year rise, within a statistical uncertainty of that eighty year trend. Extrapolating this trend to a century gives 24.6 centimeters, not the twenty feet that Al Gore claims in his Nobel Prize-winning movie. At this rate the Maldives and other coral islands should not worry because the growth of corals can handle that degree of rise as they have in the past.

    • A fan of *MORE* discourse

      Arno Arrak asserts  “Sea level rise has been at a steady 2.46 millimeters per year for the last eighty years as determined by Chao, Yu and Li in 2008. And something that has been linear that long is not about to change anytime soon.”

      Your comment deserved a link Arno Arrack! ;)   :smile:   :grin:   :lol:   :!:

      Say, haven’t Canada’s high-Arctic ice-shelves … that have been stable geological fixtures for the past 4,000 years … all disappeared in the last five years?   :shock:   :shock:   :shock:

      The coming decade of sea-level data will be very interesting, eh? … since the observed rise is 20 millimeters in the last 16 months!   :shock:   :shock:   :shock:

      • A fan of *MORE* discourse

        PS: Arno, your recent, lucid, simple explanation of why James Hansen’s climate-change physics is right was very enjoyable!

        Thank you, Arno Arrack! ;)   :smile:   :grin:   :lol:   :!:

      • Here’s the data linearly de-trended:

        That overall U shaped curve indicates overall acceleration in the data.

      • Have another complimentary sea level graph on me

        So much for the idea “sea level has stopped rising”.

        Lets hope the acceleration over the 20th century doesn’t continue!

      • Latimer Alder

        @lolwot

        Please indicate where I can find data that shows an ‘acceleration over the 20th century’

        It might help also if you explained to the rest of us what you mean by ‘acceleration’ in case we are taking at cross purposes.

        Thanks.

      • Lolwot,

        Do you know what acceleration means?

        If the rate of sea level rise continues at 3 mm per year for another century is it totally irrelevant.

      • Latimer Alder

        3mm/year is a whole 30 cm per century.

        Just to make sure I’m not wrong I looked at my trusty school ruler – helpfully marked in both imperial and metric. 30 cm is just slightly less than 12 inches. Not quite a foot.

        In Central London – which has been a major trading port since Roman times 2000 years ago – the average tidal range is about 14 feet. For those unfamiliar with the motions of the sea (*) this means that the effective sea level goes up (or down) by 14 feet every 6 hours or so. The rate of tidal change is about 1.2cm/minute. it happens regularly and predictably and is quite unremarkable. We are used to it. Life carries on.

        Please can somebody explain how we are going to suffer greatly if a rate of 3mm/annum is added to an existing rate of 120mm/minute. I’ve been asking this simple question for four years now and had precisely zero sensible answers. Somebody must have a good idea…surely!

        (*) I think ,of course of the ‘Sea Level Research Group – hilariously located in Boulder, Colorado…about as far from the sea in both horizontal (1200 miles to Crescent City, Oregon) and vertically (5,430 feet) as it is possible to imagine. Perhaps they placed it there as the supreme of expression of post-modern irony? Or maybe the expression about booze ups and breweries has some force here – as in so much reality divorced academic work.

      • Latimer Alder,

        During the Durban climate conference, at which there 16,000 delegates, a letter to the Editor of the Australian asked:

        How exactly do you measure a 2mm rise in the sea level? With a piece of string, a dipstick, a school ruler?

        A letter the following day responded:

        On how to measure a 2mm rise in the sea level, Rod Steed (Letters, 9/12), based on the attendance at the UN Climate Change Conference in Durban one can only assume it will be measured by about 16,000 dipsticks.

      • Latimer Alder,

        During the Durban climate conference, a letter to the Editor of the Australian asked:

        How exactly do you measure a 2mm rise in the sea level? With a piece of string, a dipstick, a school ruler?

        A letter the next day said:

        On how to measure a 2mm rise in the sea level, Rod Steed (Letters, 9/12), based on the attendance at the UN Climate Change Conference in Durban one can only assume it will be measured by about 16,000 dipsticks.

      • Acceleration means the rate of sea level rise has increased over time.

        So assuming 3mm/year will continue might not be wise.

      • Latimer Alder

        @peter lang

        Nice.

        16,000 dipsticks in town and not one of them near a full can of oil………

      • Latimer Alder

        Your graph goes up a bit., slows down a bit, goes up a bit then slows down again. I see no overall acceleration. But instead a pretty constant rate with a few fluctuations.

        My underwear remains relentlessly dry while you, mon brave, are clutching at straws.

      • Here’s the trends in the data:

        It’s clearly accelerating.

      • lolwot,

        The data on sealevel is baffling – and the two graphs that you presented represent misuse of statistical analysis. They are comparable to some skeptic graphs that we see here and which have been constructed to prove the opposite message.

        The one that shows residual from linear trend tells the obvious fact that the timeseries appears to have a break around 1930. What is the explanation? I have no idea.

        The second one is a dramatic example of misleading graphics as it represents the trend from various past dates to the latest observation (I don’t know, whether only one point is used or a little more, but that makes little difference for the argument). There’s no doubt that the latest observation is above the trend and therefore leads to this graph but the very wide error bars are in this case fully justified and totally correlated as all trends drop simultaneously if the latest point drops and as almost all error comes from the uncertainty of the latest one or few points. It’s not right to think that there are any independent uncertainties and that the continuing rising trend of the graph would provide additional evidence compared to just two or three points picked from that graph.

        Even Girma can present better justified graphics.

        Those on the side of science – and the scientists themselves in particular – should never show this kind of graphics.

      • Latimer Alder

        @lolwot

        There is something very wrong with the graph you cite here

        And that is the error bars. It seems that for the data back in 1880 – well prior to modern ‘accurate’ ways of measuring sea level (eg satellites) – there was almost no error at all in the rate of change.(eg 1.5+/- 0.1) But now the errors are huge. For 2002 it is shown as 3.0+/-1.5).

        Frankly I do not believe that our ability to measure sealevel changes has decreased over time, and hence that the graph you present of supposed acceleration has much real substance.

        And it seems the NOAA agrees with me

        ‘Though the current rate is well documented, the altimeter record is still too short to be certain whether we are observing a long-term acceleration of global average sea level rise, or a case of climate variability’

        http://www.climatewatch.noaa.gov/article/2009/climate-change-sea-level

      • lolwot
        re “its clearly accelerating”
        So what?
        Your burden to support your hypothesis. You have not examined WHY sea level is accelerating!
        You have only presumed that your “evidence” conclusively proves anthropogenic global warming. It doesn’t!
        You first have to look at ALL the causes for sea level rise, and compare that to the uncertainties in each, and examine causation. You have to differentiate between anthropogenic global warming and:
        Satellite drift
        Long term rise from the Little Ice Age.
        Ocean oscillations, like the
        The Pacific Decadal Oscillation.
        The Pacific Centennial Oscillation.
        Solar cycles.
        Galactic cosmic rays and cloud variations
        Dams – storage, and
        Irrigation! – especially groundwater mining and its consequent depletion.

        Consider the uncertainties involved:
        Altimeter accuracy requirements for detecting changes in sea level rise, G D Quartly

        One constraint on detecting an increased trend is the natural interannual variability of the climate system, which implies that a minimum duration of around 10-20 years is required in order to detect a trend with confidence to within 1 mm/yr. . . .one notes that the required dataset duration can be between 10 and 60 years depending upon the quality of the altimeter missions. Due to the difficulty of tying separate missions to a common datum, a single short interruption to precise monitoring may add more than a decade to the time required to detect an increased rate of sea level rise.

        Consider:
        Model estimates of sea-level change due to anthropogenic impacts on terrestrial water storage Yadu N. Pokhrel1,2,3, et al. Nature Geoscience DOI: 10.1038/NGEO1476

        sea-level change in response to human impacts . . .We find that, together, unsustainable groundwater use, artificial reservoir water impoundment, climate-driven changes in terrestrial water storage and the loss of water from closed basins have contributed a sea-level rise of about 0:77mm/yr between 1961 and 2003, about 42% of the observed sea-level rise. We note that, of these components, the unsustainable use of groundwater represents the largest contribution.

        Contrast
        Robustness of Semi-Empirical Sea Level Projections</a Stefan Rahmstorf et al. 2011

        We have shown that the effect of reservoir storage is by no means compensated by the effect of groundwater pumping; including both effects only lowers sea level projections by ~10 cm as compared to the default case which only corrects for reservoirs. . . .
        Whilst the rate of sea level rise was on average 1.6 mm/yr for most of the 20th
        century, the trend that would be determined for individual decades varies between -0.4 and
        3.7 mm/yr due to various phenomena with time scales from interannual to decadal.

        The challenges in long-term altimetry calibration for addressing the problem of global sealevel change Fu et al. 2012 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.asr.2012.06.005

        Weighing the ocean: Using a single mooring to measure changes in the mass of the ocean Hughes et al. 2012, GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 39, L17602, doi:10.1029/2012GL052935, 2012

        These show major impacts you have not considered with high uncertainties.

      • Fan

        For a historical record of sea level, which goes back to the beginning of the 20th century, see:

        It is apparent that the rate of SL rise bounces all over the place on a decadal basis, but that there has been no acceleration in the rate of SL rise, as claimed by IPCC (in fact the second half of the 20th century saw a slightly slower rate of rise than the first).

        Max

    • Next, sea level. There is no slowdown of global average sea level. Sea level rise has been at a steady 2.46 millimeters per year for the last eighty years as determined by Chao, Yu and Li in 2008. And something that has been linear that long is not about to change anytime soon. …

      Spoken just like General Custard, moments before his troopers got whipped like a souffle.

      • After June 30, 1972 until June 30 1982 10 leap seconds were added in 10 years.

        After Dec 30, 1998 until Dec 30, 2012 3 leap seconds were added in 14 years and no more expected soon

        Earth shine data shows that Albedo of Earth has increased.

        Temperature data shows no warming since 1998.

        The data just keeps hammering the Consensus Climate Theory and Models.

        Spin rate of Earth increases when oceans drop and increase when oceans rise. Spin rate has increased. Oceans have dropped and that is in the NIST data.

      • JCH

        Check out the long term tide gauge records (see my earlier post), rather than spout off silly analogies with General Custer.

        Max

      • JCH

        The guy’s name was “Custer” – not “Custard”.

        You apparently know as little about history as you do about climatology.

        Max

    • I personally believe that in the natural world nothing happens without a cause.

      Exactly!

      When the oceans are cold and the Arctic is closed, it snows much less and Earth warms.

      When the oceans are warm and the Arctic is open, it snows much more and Earth Cools.

      I also personally believe that in the natural world nothing happens without a cause.

  14. The First Presidential Debate.
    The “climate” priorities of the presidential candidates was shown by no mention either of “climate” or of “warming”during the debate! Will this create a “climate of uncertainty”? Perhaps we can infer their priorities by their comments on “energy” during the debate! e.g.,
    Obama said:

    I think it’s important for us to develop new sources of energy here in America, . . .
    On energy, Governor Romney and I, we both agree that we’ve got to boost American energy production. . . .
    And oil and natural gas production are higher than they’ve been in years. But I also believe that we’ve got to look at the energy source of the future, like wind and solar and biofuels, and make those investments. . . .
    And the reason this is important is because by doing that, we can not only reduce the deficit, we can not only encourage job growth through small businesses, but we’re also able to make the investments that are necessary in education or in energy.

    Romney said:

    My plan has five basic parts. One, get us energy independent, North American energy independent. That creates about four million jobs. . . .
    Middle-income families are being crushed. And so the question is how to get them going again, and I’ve described it. It’s energy and trade, the right kind of training programs, balancing our budget and helping small business. Those are the — the cornerstones of my plan. . . .

    The third area: energy. Energy is critical, and the president pointed out correctly that production of oil and gas in the U.S. is up. But not due to his policies. In spite of his policies. Mr. President, all of the increase in natural gas and oil has happened on private land, not on government land. On government land, your administration has cut the number of permits and license in half. If I’m president, I’ll double them. And also get the — the oil from offshore and Alaska. And I’ll bring that pipeline in from Canada.

    And by the way, I like coal. I’m going to make sure we continue to burn clean coal. People in the coal industry feel like it’s getting crushed by your policies. I want to get America and North America energy independent, so we can create those jobs.

    Policies
    Compare these debate highlights with the candidates’ posted summary and detailed climate and energy policies.
    Obama’s Energy Plan

    “We can’t have an energy strategy for the last century that traps us in the past. We need an energy strategy for the future – an all-of-the-above strategy for the 21st century that develops every source of American-made energy.” – President Barack Obama, March 15, 2012

    Climate Change

    The President has taken unprecedented action to build the foundation for a clean energy economy, tackle the issue of climate change, and protect our environment. . . .

    Securing American Energy

    Develop and Secure America’s Energy Resources
    We need to deploy American assets, innovation, and technology so that we can safely and responsibly develop more energy here at home and be a leader in the global energy economy. . . .

    Romney’s Jobs Plan

    Part one of Mitt’s plan is to achieve energy independence on this continent by 2020. America is blessed with extraordinary natural resources, and developing them will create millions of good jobs – not only in the energy industry, but also in industries like manufacturing that will benefit from more energy at lower prices. America’s economy will boom when the billions of dollars we send overseas for our oil are kept here at home instead.

    See Romney’s full Energy policy including:

    Empower states to control onshore energy development. . .
    Open offshore areas for energy development. . .
    Pursue a North American Energy Partnership . . .
    Ensure accurate assessment of energy resource . . .
    Restore transparency and fairness to permitting and regulation . . .
    Facilitate private-sector-led development of new energy technologies . . .

  15. Another interesting point from the UK report;

    “Careful attention should be paid to communicating around topics known to be susceptible to misinterpretation. A particular example is ‘uncertainty’, where scientific and public interpretations of the term can diverge. Scientists need to be aware that, by their choice of wording, they may unwittingly alter the way a statement is interpreted….”

    • Latimer Alder

      @michael

      Would it be too much to expect that anybody who calls him or herself a ‘scientist’ would have known this since about age 13?

      Surely part of the essence of science is to be as precise an unambiguous as possible so that misinterpretations are minimised.To show all one’s working so that it can be checked. To provide sufficient detail that others can reproduce the results (or not).

      To do so, scientists should try to use direct and precise language. Many sciences use the formalised language of mathematics to communicate…partly because it is (largely) unambiguous. And an early course in my undergraduate chemistry degree was entitled ‘Effective Writing for Scientists’.

    • Latimer Alder

      I found this interesting too – also from the UK report

      ‘Cultural factors influence the way the public assimilate and process information and these should be taken into account when designing a communications approach. Opportunities to do this include: encouraging a range of talented science communicators from different backgrounds; giving thought to how climate scientists might work with others to embed scientific statements in broader messages using diverse communications channels’

      Same old pig….they’re just trying to find some more attractive lipstick :-)

    • Latimer Alder

      And the abstract says

      ‘Moreover, one-third of the UK public do not trust climate scientists to tell the truth about climate change’

      Actually it is worse than that. Reading deep into the text we find:

      ‘Just over one-third (38±3%) of respondents agreed that ‘climate scientists can be trusted to tell us the truth about climate change’,

      so nearly two thirds of the respondents do not actively trust climate scientists to tell the truth…..which should be a cause for great concern for them. If less than half your eventual paymasters actively trust you even to do a simple thing like tell the truth – let alone to make predictions, provide sound policy advice and guide the public’s opinion (as is the purpose of the piece), then you are in deep doodoo.

      And finally its should give the lie to that oft-peddled myth – however it is expressed:

      ‘Trust Us, We’re Climate Scientists’

      We don’t.

      Simples!

    • Lati, you dill.

      The advice is not to us the word ‘uncertainty’, as is correct scientific usage, but to express it in temrs of risk, which is better understood by the public at large.

    • “And the abstract says

      ‘Moreover, one-third of the UK public do not trust climate scientists to tell the truth about climate change’

      Actually it is worse than that. Reading deep into the text we find:

      ‘Just over one-third (38±3%) of respondents agreed that ‘climate scientists can be trusted to tell us the truth about climate change’,

      so nearly two thirds of the respondents do not actively trust climate scientists to tell the truth…..which should be a cause for great concern for them. If less than half your eventual paymasters actively trust you even to do a simple thing like tell the truth –……
      And finally its should give the lie to that oft-peddled myth – however it is expressed: ‘Trust Us, We’re Climate Scientists’
      We don’t.
      Simples!” – Lati,

      yes, simple indeed from Lati.

      And just as wrong.

      If you include those who don’t idageee witht he statment, that makes it over 60%.

      But the real message is the one Lati and his ilk will studiously ignore. Theelephant in the room is that climate scientists are by far the most trusted group.

      Others just far far worse.

      And the realkicker for the denialist, delusionist, conservative/liberterians like Lati – the second most trusted group are; environmental groups.

      The least trusted?
      Another kick in the nuts for the Lati’s – business and industry, who scarely score above zero in the trust stakes.

      No wonder they invest in their various astro-turf groups and throw cash at FUD activities; climate scientists are the most trusted group to give advice about climate – oh noes!!!!!

      • Latimer Alder

        @michael

        I suppose you might draw some faint consolation from the argument that

        ‘We’re not trusted to tell the truth, but there are others even more not trusted than us’

        A bit like Aston Villa and Birmingham City supporters. Villa guys don’t mind losing 5-1 at home so long as City lose 6-0…and vice versa. That both are plunging headlong to relegation wouldn’t matter in such a race to the bottom.

        So I hope that the consolation will keep you warm in the long cold winter nights.

        ‘60% don’t trust us….but look over there ..68% don’t trust *them*. Victory!

        Utterly bonkers……………………………

      • It’s really simple – scientists are the most trusted group – bar none.

        I know that conflicts with your denialist delusionist dogma.

        But you’ll just have to suck it up.

      • Latimer Alder

        @michael

        I don’t have a denialist delusionist dogma of any description.

        But if I had 60+% of people not trusting me, I’d view it as a serious problem, not as a cause for celebration.

        Your choice…I can’t do anything about it for you. But ignoring it because you see some other group even less trusted than you guys is a severe case of not seeing the wood for the trees.

        Titanic lookout on starboard bow (Sundance): ‘Iceberg 800 yards ahead on starboard bow, Captain’

        Lookout on port bow (Butch Michael): ‘Phew…we’re all right over here then. The nearest iceberg I can see is over 2000 yards away. For a moment there I thought we were in trouble’

      • Lati,

        You deluded fool – there is group that enjoy complete trust of the public ie 100%

        Scientist are at the top of the pile, and everyone else is below.

        Your preferred sources – industry/business – are down in the toilet at almost 0% trust. That’s why they push their FUD via front-groups and astro-turf.

      • “…no group…”

        Erratum – there is one small group with 100% trust. The denier delusionist dogmatics who have 100% trust in anyone who tells them there is nothing to worry about.

      • Michael

        scientists are the most trusted group

        In general, this may be so (especially if compared with used car salesmen, gypsy fortune tellers, politicians and hedge fund managers.)

        But climate scientists do not share this public trust, as the surveys in the UK and USA have shown.

        IPCC’s “consensus process”, exaggerations and fabrications plus the related Climategate excesses and whitewash attempts have blown this for them, and it’s a pity.

        But to deny it would be simply sticking your head in the sand.

        Max

      • max,

        It’s terribly simple.

        Climate scientists are the most trusted group in relation to cimate.

        The most.

        Deal.

      • Look at the trend. Five years ago climate science owned the world and its imagination. Now, not so much.
        ==========================

      • Latimer Alder

        @michael

        You say

        ‘Your preferred sources – industry/business – are down in the toilet at almost 0% trust’

        I wonder where you got the idea that ‘industry/business’ are my preferred sources? I have never expressed any such preference. Perhaps you have confused me with somebody else?

    • Chief Hydrologist

      Lati,

      So here we have another green/neo-socialist cult of AGW groupthink space cadet. I don’t supose you think anything he says is worth more than a single rat’s arse. You don’t suppose they imagine that their base is more than a few percent of the population do you? That would add to the delusions. C’est la geurre climatique.

      Cheers

      • Diddums chief – scientusts are the most trusted people in regards to climate.

      • Apparently too many people were engaging in a meaningful discussion for Michael so he had to start in with his nonsense.

      • Chief Hydrologist

        Trouble for you Hippy Mick – is that you are a cult of AGW goupthink space cadet and no one believes you.

  16. Michael, you are off the hook.

    • I’d say Michael is “off the wall” if he truly believes “scientists are the most trusted people in regards to climate.”.

      • Polls confirm that scientists are the most trusted people in regards to science.

        https://picasaweb.google.com/114996523280151499742/IndiaJpegs?authuser=0&feat=directlink#5781110504479148610

      • Don’t confuse max with the facts.

      • Tom,

        Yes.

      • Latimer Alder

        @lolwot

        You and Michael both persist in the delusion that being a bit less bad than some other guys is a virtue to be applauded.

        Returning to my football analogy. I bet Wycombe Wanderers supporters (hi Stu!) gain great consolation that Barnet are beneath them. But both of them are in a position to be relegated.

        BTW – your cited poll seems to be for India only. You may be pleased that scientists are seen as marginally less corrupt than Indian politicians. But its hardly something to boast about methinks.

      • Here’s a poll of Americans:

        Climate scientists are the most trusted group.

        I am more than happy with 74% trust. For a nation where a sizable proportion of the population thinks the theory of evolution is a lie so will automatically distrust scientists.

      • It fits perfectly that if most Americans trust twaddle like creationism, they’ll trust today’s climate science too.

      • Actually I am guessing a sizable number of the pollees who don’t trust climate scientists are also creationists, or are generally crackpots or people who listen to conspiracy radio and don’t trust scientists EVAH. I bet a large proportion don’t trust doctors either.

        There is a large intersect between creationists and climate deniers. For example both groups try to justify why scientists disagree with them by alleging a conspiracy. Both argue that scientists only accept the theory because they are chasing grant money, or are too scared to speak out in case they lose their jobs. Yet both push lists of “dissenting scientists” to convince people there is no consensus.

      • lolwot, “Actually I am guessing a sizable number of the pollees who don’t trust climate scientists are also creationists, or are generally crackpots or people who listen to conspiracy radio and don’t trust scientists EVAH.”

        I would guess that most of the pollees that say that don’t trust climates scientists are normal, rational, folks that can read.

      • Lolwot’s spin dressed up as ‘guesses’ are about as convincing and honest as Lewandowski’s.

        For one thing, the only conspiracists around are all in the alarmist camp – those who think there’s some secret agreement amongst government scientists to pursue the truth rather than their paymaster’s interests.

      • “those who think there’s some secret agreement amongst government scientists to pursue the truth rather than their paymaster’s interests.”

        Don’t forget about those who believe there was a secret conspiracy in the 60s to land man on the moon!

      • Well, if the poll is from Cook’s site, it must be true.

      • “You and Michael both persist in the delusion that being a bit less bad than some other guys is a virtue to be applauded. ” – Lati

        Deluded.

        Not “less bad”

        The most.

        The best.

        More than any other.

        Enjoy.

  17. Chief Hydrologist

  18. Do disasters pay scientists handsomely?

    http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2012/09/10/sea-level-acceleration-not-so-fast/ says so. But it doesn’t provide any graphs of slowing trends of trends of derivatives, so it’s not like we can really tell.

    I’d like to see some hard figures, because if you can prove it, I’m sure American ingenuity would find a better way to exploit it. I’m sure the USA could bottle and export disaster like nobody else, and with the power of the internet to email certificates any state could bury the world in scientists by turning the certification process into an online video game.

    So. Where’s the actual hard number proof? None of this Jo Nova armwaving or other Australian fabulism, and not the utterly invalid deceleration of acceleration of acceleration stuff like they do with sea level — which is shooting up more and more every year if you sit down and figure out what that ‘good news’ chart really says; we’re talking about money now not climate, and so the topic should be handled with some seriousness.

    And while we’re separating seriousness from sheer fictional frivolity, this claim that the rate of global warming has fallen is opposite of fact, when one doesn’t waste time looking at sub-decadal blips, so please don’t point to Bill Gates and call him a scientist who made money from disasters, however awful Microsoft’s products have historically been.

    Also, “..science departments are lavishly funded compared with the humanities..” bears some looking at. What are the expenses of an Arts or Humanities program? Some ink, some rolling paper, some absinthe and a clay pipe, and your University is set for all its Fine Arts, Business and Humanities. Heck, throw in hard liquor and you’ve established a Law program. Science costs money, and requires some measure of sobriety.

    As for skewing Left, I have to call that a myth as someone whose business life has taken him across America dealing with academia. The perception among the lesser educated that the better educated are less conservative seems no more than an indictment of conservatism by the stupid. If anything, academics are more to the Right in America, by and large.

    Looking forward to hearing more about the workshop.

    • Bart R

      Several billions of taxpayer dollars are being spent on global warming research.

      http://pjmedia.com/blog/how-much-of-your-money-wasted-on-climate-change-try-10-6-million-a-day/

      If IPCC were not selling the “catastrophic AGW” premise, this would not be the case.

      So “catastrophe” is a big-time money-generator.

      Al Gore made a buck or two on his “AIT” film, which sold “catastrophe”. In fact, he has amassed a large fortune since he left politics, by selling climate “catastrophe”.

      James E. Hansen has made a few extracurricular bucks selling the same theme.

      Of course, there are many folks and organizations lined up at the trough – and the climate scientists, themselves, will only get a small part of the taxpayer funded gravy.

      But there is no doubt that “catastrophe” sells well.

      Max

      • > If IPCC were not selling the “catastrophic AGW” premise […]

        Citation needed.

      • “anthropogenic warming could lead
        to some impacts that are abrupt or irreversible depending upon the rate and magnitude of the
        climate change. Partial loss of ice sheets on polar land could imply meters of sea level rise, major
        changes in coast lines and inundation of low-lying areas, with greatest effects in river deltas and
        low-lying islands” -Patchy

        http://www.ipcc.ch/docs/COP17/IPCC_chair_speech_COP_17.pdf

      • “approximately 20 to 30 percent of plant and animal
        species assessed so far are likely to be at increased risk of extinction if increases in global average
        temperatures exceed 1.5 to 2.5 degrees Celsius”,

      • Bad Andrews,

        Thank you for the two quotes, taken from the same speech by Pachauri in 2011-11 at Durban.

        Let’s emphasize the qualifiers for the first one:

        > anthropogenic warming could lead to some impacts that are abrupt or irreversible depending upon the rate and magnitude of the climate change. Partial loss of ice sheets on polar land could imply meters of sea level rise, major changes in coast lines and inundation of low-lying areas, with greatest effects in river deltas and low-lying islands.

        The second one also has some qualifiers:

        > Approximately 20 to 30 percent of plant and animal species assessed so far are likely to be at increased risk of extinction if increases in global average temperatures exceed 1.5 to 2.5 degrees Celsius.

        I fail to see how they are premises, let alone one premise.

        As far as I can tell, they are conclusions based on the empirical evidence collected and presented in the IPCC reports.

        Do you disagree with these claims?

        What are your counter-arguments?

        Do you have a better explanation?

        ***

        More to the point, how is it related to any catastrophe sold by this alleged premise?

        In fairness, we should mention two instances in that very same speech for the string “catastroph”:

        > It was Gandhi who said: “A technological society has two choices.
        First it can wait until catastrophic failures expose systemic deficiencies, distortion and selfdeceptions… Secondly, a culture can provide social checks and balances to correct for systemic distortion prior to catastrophic failures”.

        There seems to be no other instances.

        It seems, though, that Pachauri and Gandhi might agree about the main objective of the auditing sciences. Unless, of course, there is some disagreement about the object of the expression “systematic distorsion”.

        As far as I am concerned, Judy’s presents a daily interpretation of one very plausible meaning of that expression.

        Maybe it’s just a vocabulary thing [1].

        [1] http://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/post/31268600509

      • manacker | October 6, 2012 at 9:03 am |

        You appear to have misunderstood the question. It’s my fault, really. I often forget that for some of Judith’s foreign readers English isn’t their first language and Capitalism isn’t their first economic principle. We shouldn’t expect understanding of plain English or plain economics.

        You haven’t shown any rich scientists out of all these tax dollars, at all. You haven’t shown these tax dollars wouldn’t have been spent if not for disasters. You haven’t shown the least correlation between the spending and disasters. You’ve missed the point entirely.

        I’m always offended by the expenditure of taxpayer dollars, regardless of how necessary. Then again, everything seems odious to me at first blush, so I need to understand what’s being claimed at a detailed level before I set myself to deciding if that initial knee jerk is warranted or not.

        http://pjmedia.com/blog/how-much-of-your-money-wasted-on-climate-change-try-10-6-million-a-day/ in detail:

        First point is to look at the qualifications of the source to discuss issues of finance and economics, since the topic falls within that arena.

        Art Horn’s bio claims he is an out-of-work television meteorologist. Hardly a promising start when we’re hoping for informed accountancy, but let’s not poison the well with reasonable expectations.

        A brief review of his other blog entries reveals he’s more of a politically opinionated hack with a chip on his shoulder who will say anything regardless of how wrong to score points with what appear to be the substantial readership traffic his blog draws from his own near relatives.

        So we can be skeptical of your source, not that we wouldn’t be anyway.

        What does this source actually claim, using it’s Star Trek accounting?

        The ‘neighborhood’ of $4 billion a year (or $10.6 million a day).

        This year, your government will spend in the neighborhood of $4 billion on global warming research, despite the fact that there has been no global warming since 1998, and despite all of the billions that have been spent so far yielding no conclusive evidence that using fossil fuels to make energy has any significant effect on Earth’s temperature.

        Has there been no global warming since 1998? The only way to make that claim is to ignore all data before 1998, pretend the Arctic sea ice extent isn’t a meaningful indicator, interpret the shifting patterns of weather extremes casually, to be purposely more simple than the circumstance allows the reasonable person.

        http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/last:240/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/last:240/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/last:240/trend:12/plot/rss/last:240/trend/plot/uah/last:240/trend/plot/none

        If you accept AGW is real (which is a matter of accepting simple arithmetic on the data), and you understand statistics then you understand that below 17 years, any one sample is more than 5% likely by virtue of sampling noise (natural variability and other anthropogenic influences) to not reflect the actual longer-term trend. We get about one flat or negative such trend in twenty at the 17-year level, more at the 16 or 15 or lesser level, fewer at the 18 or 19 or longer level. So we’d expect to see flats and drops in the temperature trend on these scales, even even if this were the most rapid surface warming the planet has ever seen. (Isn’t it?)

        Drawing conclusions with such absolute certitude from the data on such a short span as ‘since 1998′ is therefore extremely dubious. Should we accept accounting advice from a source that’s so bad at math and logic?

        The human component of carbon dioxide that is injected into the air each year is very small, on the order of 3%. Half the carbon dioxide emitted into the air by human activity each year is immediately absorbed into nature. Carbon dioxide is 8% of the greenhouse effect; water in the air is 90% of the greenhouse effect. By volume, carbon dioxide is currently at about 390 parts per million in the atmosphere, increasing at about 2 parts per million annually. In other words, carbon dioxide is increasing at a rate of .5% per year. Since human activity adds 3% of the carbon dioxide that gets into the air each year, the human component of the increase in carbon dioxide into the atmosphere each year is 3 % of .5%, or just .015%.

        Oh. Ouch. Bzzzt. That’s a big fail on Accounting 101. The human component of CO2 added over and above the net and sum of other CO2 emitted into the atmosphere is a rising 3%, like an interest rate on the full working capital of a business in a year. The rise from 280 to 390 ppmv CO2 in 260-odd years tells us that the actual rate of contribution to CO2 by humanity in excess of the carbon cycle’s ability to absorb it is less than 3%, but it is still positive, treated as compounded rate. Art Horn’s specious 0.015% attribution is so baseless as to be without meaning. Why are you using him for your argument? Do you want yourself to look bad?

        Why not go directly to http://www.aaas.org/spp/rd/ if discussing R&D requests?

        If we do, then we see that despite growing rates of weather disasters the US government is spending less and less every year on climate and weather research. That in and of itself tends to falsify the claim that disasters pay scientists handsomely. Otherwise, we’d expect the rate to go up. (I felt I had to state that last sentence explicitly for those readers who can’t tell up from down, as it appears I’m replying to one now.)

        Year by year, the 2003 request http://www.aaas.org/spp/rd/04pch16.htm and later indicate substantive drops in many areas of research funding, and only modest increases, despite the disasters of the past decade.

        And much of this is research that would have happened without regard to AGW, C- or otherwise. There’s essentially zero money spent on climate change by the US government in response to climate change itself. We know the climate change is real. We know the government isn’t responding to it with spending.

      • Chief Hydrologist

        ‘A brief review of his other blog entries reveals he’s more of a politically opinionated hack with a chip on his shoulder who will say anything regardless of how wrong to score points…’

        Does anyone think…projection?

      • Bart R

        No. It is YOU who have misunderstood.

        The premise was that “disaster” or “catastrophe” sells well.

        The billions of taxpayer dollars currently funded to global warming research are going there (arguably) because politicians feel there is a potential “catastrophe” from “global warming” on the horizon, as they have been indoctrinated to believe by IPCC, and they want to find out what is causing it and how it could be avoided with policy actions.

        IOW were there no IPCC and hence no posited global warming “catastrophe” on the horizon, politicians would not allocate billions of dollars to fund global warming research programs.

        Cause and effect at work here, Bart.

        That the media love potential “catastrophe” stories and have, thus, jumped on the dire IPCC forecasts like a fly on a cow patty, is obvious.

        And then there are all the guys who really benefit financially from the hysteria (Al Gore for one, but also green lobby groups and many industrialists who see some “gravy” flowing their way).

        [Has nothing to do with whether climate researchers themselves are “getting rich” – I do not believe that this is the case, even if a few scientists turned advocates, like James E. Hansen, have done quite well.]

        Max

      • Chief Hydrologist | October 6, 2012 at 1:38 pm |

        Yeah, I thought it, but I didn’t want to stoop to such a low blow against Max.

      • manacker | October 7, 2012 at 8:45 am |

        I’d think as the guy framing the question, I’d be the better interpreter of what I meant by it than some foreigner. Wouldn’t you?

        So you’re in error when you claim, “The premise was that “disaster” or “catastrophe” sells well.”

        Which is it? Disaster or catastrophe? Be precise when translating, please. To a native speaker, they are not exactly the same thing.

        Because if we’re discussing DAGW vs. CAGW, then the apparently commonplace definition appears to have developed for CAGW is that climate sensitivity with feedbacks is non-negligible(trivial to prove by virtue of the fact of previous known changes in climate that couldn’t be accounted for by a low-feedback climate system); while I haven’t heard a definition of DAGW, I’d venture that were disasters plausibly attributed to AGW it would suffice. We already know to fair confidence that extreme weather is frequently AGW-induced. In fact, we know it to a mathematical certainty, as a simple outcome of Chaos Theory.

        As for ‘sells well’, it appears you’re also mistaken there. While disaster movies sell well, real-life disaster sells miserably by every measure. We can’t get people to remember how many disasters there have been, we can’t get them to think about them well in advance without prompting or reminders. Disaster bounces off the public awareness like water off a duck’s back. It’s a non-seller. Impending disaster, where someone may be about to die.. I’ll grant that is a big seller. After they’ve passed, unless one can exploit a human-interest angle on misery, the media just are never interested.

        Back to the point, you’ve mistaken the premise. The premise is, “scientists get rich from disasters.”

        “The billions of taxpayer dollars currently funded to global warming research are going there (arguably) because politicians feel there is a potential “catastrophe” from “global warming” on the horizon, as they have been indoctrinated to believe by IPCC, and they want to find out what is causing it and how it could be avoided with policy actions.”

        And here you introduce another false premise.

        First, it appears you’re speaking of US taxpayer dollars, which as a foreigner I’m not sure you’re well-equipped to discuss, as you seem to prefer socialism as your economic system over there in Euro-land. And if you’re not talking about American tax dollars, who cares?

        Second, when I go to the root source of your root source and read their detailed reports on submissions for climate science funding, it turns out almost all of the funding requests are for things that would have happened notwithstanding AGW, like research on hurricanes and tornadoes, or studies that are needed not because climate change sells well but because things that do sell well — like crops — require accurate knowledge of the start and end of growing season which is changing due to AGW. So it isn’t even barely arguable that this spending is due catastrophe on the horison. If a fair judge were attributing the cause of such extra spending, they’d have to rule that it was the people who caused AGW in the first place by burning carbon who were to blame for the extra burden on taxpayers.

        And what’s with the parentheses around global warming? Weren’t you one of the people asserting earlier and often that no one denies global warming? Explain your self-contradiction.

        “IOW were there no IPCC and hence no posited global warming “catastrophe” on the horizon, politicians would not allocate billions of dollars to fund global warming research programs.”

        What a mindboggling and ill-informed position to take.

        Global warming certainly preceded the IPCC, as you well must realize. Absence or presence of an IPCC does not alter climate sensitivity, the GHE, AGW caused by burning of carbon, the loss of Arctic Sea Ice, or in most ways that can be measured more than a small fraction of the taxpayer dollars you falsely claim are spent because of them. Most of the spending goes to rote scientific research that has been stuck in the climate category mainly because when you say ‘meteorology’ to politicians they think of television weathermen, who in the USA (you’d know, were you not a foreigner) are very poorly regarded as pretty-faces who couldn’t handle reporting, music or interviews. The spending either would have happened anyway, or the increases are due mainly to the large changes in climate that have already come to pass requiring new studies to update information that has changed as a result.. except for the large swath of funding used to research how to put oil drilling rigs in the Arctic now that it’s ice-free in the summer, and such other tax subsidized research for the benefit of private industry.

        “Cause and effect at work here, Bart.”

        The only cause apparently at work is a case of confirmation bias; it’s effect, begging the question to the point of absurdity.

        That the media love potential “catastrophe” stories and have, thus, jumped on the dire IPCC forecasts like a fly on a cow patty, is obvious.

        The media? The Murdoch-owned media like Fox that consistently denies AGW is real? Keeping in mind that the IPCC’s forecasts have been among the milder of the forecasts as a group. Half your friends who oppose AGW and the IPCC do so because good science conflicts with their new ice age hypotheses and cosmic chaos zodiacism. What proportion of media reports related to weather and climate do you think Americans have seen that cite chapter and verse the IPCC forecasts, other than in disparagement?

        Because in America, what sells better than disasters is science-bashing. But I see you’re spreading that practice over in Europe, too, so you must be aware of that.

        “And then there are all the guys who really benefit financially from the hysteria (Al Gore for one, but also green lobby groups and many industrialists who see some “gravy” flowing their way).”

        Al Gore started rich, and was in a good position to choose any topic to profit off of by public speaking. I’m sure his wife would have been happier had he chosen to speak out against profanity in music, for instance, and he’d have made at least as much money from that.

        [Has nothing to do with whether climate researchers themselves are “getting rich” – I do not believe that this is the case, even if a few scientists turned advocates, like James E. Hansen, have done quite well.]”

        Hansen did better as one of the many climate researchers in the world who almost all came to the same conclusion about climate (by a ratio of some 33:1) than he would have as a leading expert on the atmosphere of Venus? I doubt that. Venus is a hot, exotic, alien world; when Hansen left Venus to focus on down-to-Earth issues he couldn’t have predicted that space would fall out of the public eye so dramatically, or that climate’s zenith was coming. By all measures, Hansen was taking a huge risk in his career, and solely because he cared about the legacy we leave his grandchildren’s generation.

        So I’d have to say you are practicing an irrational and unfounded form of mudslinging here, and don’t have a leg to stand on.

      • Bart R makes a subtle point about CAGW that I had missed until now. Catastrophe is a mathematical expression for a discontinuous large jump in a system, and doesn’t relate to human outcomes. There is a branch of mathematics called catastrophe theory. In this sense the title CAGW distinguishes it from a more imperceptible or more gradual AGW, making it more like a step function that relates closely to the idea of tipping points. This is a mathematical definition I could use, as I was reluctant to use it from the human outcome meaning, because you can’t have a purely scientific theory about human impacts.

      • JimD, Catastrophe theory and Chaos theory are closely related. They both show that a system is more “sensitive” to impacts at different points in time and space.

        So it is kinda of odd for you to consider catastrophe theory for the C is AGW and not in the AGW itself, especially since so many of the “skeptics” are not skeptical of the potential impact of a doubling of CO2, but of the wisdom of defining “A” sensitivity of climate to a doubling of CO2.

        Like the denial of the “Climate Science” community that there are longer term natural “unforced variations” that are not only not unforced, but are somewhat predictable and are just a natural part of the complex fluid dynamics of the planet.

        http://redneckphysics.blogspot.com/2012/10/can-climate-be-predicted.html

        You and others became convinced before considering the complexity.

      • Cap’n –

        especially since so many of the “skeptics” are not skeptical of the potential impact of a doubling of CO2,…

        How many is “so many?”

      • capt. d., the difference between warm paleoclimates and now is the CO2 content. Skeptics have not explained the last billion years of climate change before invoking unforced variations in the present climate. The CO2 change is putting us back tens of millions of years in atmospheric constitution. In tennis terms, they have made an unforced error by ignoring the paleoclimate lessons and laws of physics.

      • “Unforced error” would be a good title for a topic post.

      • JimD, Unforced Error would be a great term for climate science. The internal oscillations are real Jimbo, Tsonis, Douglas and a few others are applying different methods to isolate synchronization and determine the settling times, that is advancing climate science.

        Saying that CO2 cause warming 5.0 million years ago is called ignorance. The system is non-ergodic so what impact CO2 had then will not be the same now.

      • Joshua, “Cap’n –

        especially since so many of the “skeptics” are not skeptical of the potential impact of a doubling of CO2,…

        How many is “so many?”

        Hard to say, but the list appears to be growing. Aster, Stott, Tsonis, Douglas, Schwartz are just a few with recent papers.

      • The firm belief that paleoclimate was all unforced is an error. The skeptics are “jumping the shark” if they push it to that extreme. They have to believe something was forced.

      • JimD, “The firm belief that paleoclimate was all unforced is an error. ” No one said, “all” unforced, you interpretation is the error. “unforced variations” is a joke term used by climate scientist. Impact do not travel instantaneously through oceans. There are various settling times that vary by latitude and thermal mass. The time required to “settle” for each relevant thermodynamic boundary layer is misinterpreted as unforced when they are just delays or decays rates that differ. That is just Fluid Dynamics.

    • > I’m sure the USA could bottle and export disaster like nobody else […]

      There seems to be a trend there:

      http://www.stockwatch.com/Quote/Detail.aspx?symbol=DIS&region=U

  19. What caught my eye this week – Al “We’re all going to die from global warming” Gore claiming that altitude was the reason Obama was an empty suit in his first debate against Romney.

    Wait, no, I’ve got it… Anthropogenic CO2 warmed the air in Denver, and the excess heat inhaled by Obama caused his brain to melt like Arctic sea ice. Or is it that it froze like Antarctic sea ice? Either way, it has to be the fault of big oil and Heartland.

    • What caught my eye this week is that GaryM entered into an electoralist mode.

      • Willard,

        Since the future of the CAGW gravy train will likely be decided in a little over 4 weeks, I am surprised it isn’t being discussed even more braodly.

      • GaryM,

        When you say “will likely”, does it mean there’s a “> 66%” probability?

        If so, may I have your code and data, pretty please with some sugar on it?

      • Most of the observed decrease in CAGW funding expected after November 6, 2012 will very likely be due to the observed decrease in progressive political power concentrations.

        “Very likely” as used in this comment shall have the same meaning as the term is defined in the IPCC AR4 – ie. we don’t really know, but we claim a confidence level >90% anyway.

      • > Most of the observed decrease in CAGW funding expected after November 6, 2012 will very likely be due to the observed decrease in progressive political power concentrations.

        Does not sound like a prediction, but like an estimate based on an analog simulation.

        This “CAGW funding” is interesting: does it include David Wojick’s 100k to build the Heartland Institute K-12 program?

      • willard

        When someone says “will likely…in 4 weeks”, you don’t need “code and data”.

        All you have to do is wait 4 weeks.

        Max

        PS Was Gary referring to the US presidential election?

      • Willard and Gary

        If you watched the Romney-Obama debate you’ll recall that Romney stated he would look at each government spending program critically and only ensure funding for those that are really needed.

        Let’s see how he views the billions of taxpayer dollars being spent on global warming research, if and when he becomes the next US President.

        On va voir.

        Max

      • Manacker,

        I’m afraid that when someone says something like “will likely…in 4 weeks”, waiting 4 weeks will only tell us if the prediction was correct, if it was a prediction. And whatever the result of that prediction (or else), we do need code and data, since what we need to audit how justified this claim is. And since this prediction (or else) is based on something else than GaryM’s gut feeling or wishful thinking, we don’t need to wait four weeks to see the code and data.

        Perhaps I’m misunderstanding the seriousness of GaryM’s claim, which was only meant as an electoralist sloganeering?

      • willard, the expected federal budget cuts do not include my little Heartland project, but they may include NSF’s $33 million climate education propaganda project.

      • David Wojick,

        Are you implying that the expression “expected federal budget” is equivalent to “CAGW funding”?

        As far as I am concerned, your K-12 propaganda project could very well be subsumed under this heading. Unless, of course, you promise not to mention CAGW.

  20. Chief Hydrologist

    Of course if you squint at it right and skew your head – any interpretation of wood for trees trendology can prove whatever you wish. Of course if sub-decadal to millennial natural variability has anything to do with anything – it is best to wait as long as it takes for things to turn around. Theory and data notwithstanding.

    Unlike El Niño and La Niña, which may occur every 3 to 7 years and last from 6 to 18 months, the PDO can remain in the same phase for 20 to 30 years. The shift in the PDO can have significant implications for global climate, affecting Pacific and Atlantic hurricane activity, droughts and flooding around the Pacific basin, the productivity of marine ecosystems, and global land temperature patterns. This multi-year Pacific Decadal Oscillation ‘cool’ trend can intensify La Niña or diminish El Niño impacts around the Pacific basin,” said Bill Patzert, an oceanographer and climatologist at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif. “The persistence of this large-scale pattern [in 2008] tells us there is much more than an isolated La Niña occurring in the Pacific Ocean.”

    So perhaps there is some minor suggestion that the world is not warming for a decade or three more – but it is best to concentrate on 3mm/year of ocean rise. The latter will have by definition dire consequences for the poor and oppressed. That it was minus 5mm last year was a blip caused by La Nina. Oh wait. It is best not to wonder why such minor changes of global temperature and sea level are of consequence at all – best to simply repeat the memes of the cult of AGW groupthink space cadets. It saves having to think at all and supplies the thrill of confirmation of your own cosmic importance and a little moral frisson. We all need a bit of frisson now and then.

    I guess I should get serious and suggest that carbon is not a rivalrous good – that there are many points where practical interventions could be made and perhaps we should get a little inventive. But it just seems like groundhog day again.

    • Chief Hydrologist | October 6, 2012 at 3:38 am |

      And I see Australia is leading the world in its contribution to reducing CO2, by getting rid of that noxious Barrier Reef thingie. 50% reduction in those nasty CO2 emitting corals in just a quarter century? Well done Oz.

      Was that a hydrology project?

      • Chief Hydrologist

        Well let’s see – 48% percent storms, 42% percent crown of thorns and 10% bleaching. A few big storms? We ain’t seen nothin’ in recent times to match the mega storms of previous centuries. Recruitment for the crown of thorns is said to respond to nutrient enrichment from runoff. This is something I have been talking and writing about and working on for 25 years. My disappointment is that we have wasted a generation pursuing AGW nonsense instead of concentrating on the present. It is the reason why species are still disappearing. Conservation farming is a big answer for this – now if only we could manage landscapes more generally better.

        There was a recent coral conference in Cairns we discussed on this blog. Where were you. The sad thing is that we are far from lonesome in the world.

        I am a diver and environmental scientist – you are a duplicitous piece of …

      • Chief Hydrologist | October 6, 2012 at 5:58 am |

        25 years of talk and writing, and 50% loss of coral? Perhaps if you only talked, it would be 49.99% loss instead?

        I somehow doubt the wasted generation pursuing AGW can take the credit for Australia’s success at ridding the world of coral, any more than one could blame the Spice Girls for the phenomenal achievement.

        And really, 48% storms? Do you actually believe that? Almost half of the coral loss is because of something that had absolutely no effect on coral area in the mega storms of previous centuries?

        Do you have any actual data?

      • “his is something I have been talking and writing about and working on for 25 years. My disappointment is that we have wasted a generation pursuing AGW nonsense instead of concentrating on the present. It is the reason why species are still disappearing.”

        What drivel.

        AGW has impeded action on COT by zero, zip, nada.

        It was recognised as a huge problem when i was studying coral reef biology back in the 80’s. And it was well-kown that far too little was being spent on research and action. AGW had nothing to do with that.

        A certain arch-conservative, reflexively anti-environment state govt, otoh………

      • Chief Hydrologist

        The data is in the report. Check it out why don’t you? The coral grows back – the point is to reduce the occurence of disturbance by reducing runoff of nutrients.

        And the opportunity cost of the cult of GW groupthink space cadets is enormous. Instead of resources going to landscpae management – it all went on feel good fairy floss.

        You don’t know much environmental science or hydrology do you?

        I am making a list – it seems highly in vogue. I have webnutcolonoscope as the attack smurf and you as Delusional Spice.

      • Latimer Alder

        @michael

        ‘It was recognised as a huge problem when i was studying coral reef biology back in the 80′s. And it was well-kown that far too little was being spent on research and action’

        Somebody studying coral reef biology knew that ‘far too little was being spent on research’

        Wow. That’s a BIG surprise! A bunch of researchers think that far too little is being spent on their own pet subject.!

        Why am I somewhat underwhelmed by this shocking piece of news?

        In today’s bumper edition of Non News this week:

        Bishop of Rome says ‘I see a lot of attractive traits in Catholicism’,

        Bruin the Bear reveals his arboreal defecation obsession,

        Lawyers walking paycheque Mike Mann ‘Why I’m suing everybody I have ever met, corresponded with. thought about, been in the same country as…and a load of people I haven’t even contemplated yet and

        Michael the Researcher ‘I want more money’

        buy now…sure to be a sell out!

      • Chief Hydrologist

        So Mick is an Australian as well. Studying coral biology no less. Well Mick – I think you are an obnoxious cult of AGW groupthink green/neo-socialist space cadet.

        Bjelke-Petersen hasn’t been in power since 1987 – Labor has been in power for most of the intervening period. It seems a bit of a long bow to blame Sir Joh for something that happended since 1985. You may be suffering a bit of an acid induced flashback. I suggest you take two bongs and see your Reiki therapist in the morning.

      • Skippy,

        ” It seems a bit of a long bow to blame Sir Joh for something that happended since 1985.”

        Read what I wrote.

        Idjit.

      • Chief Hydrologist

        ‘A certain arch-conservative, reflexively anti-environment state govt, otoh………’

        So which 80’s government were you referring to? Liar and fool – not a good look.

      • Sorry skippy,

        Didn’t realise you were so slow.

        I’m typing this slowly, so you can understand.

        Failure to address COT adaquetely at time I was referring to (1980’s) clearly had nothing to do with attention being diverted by concerns over AGW.

        OTOH – Conservative anti-environment pollies – definitely.

        Geddit?

      • Chief Hydrologist

        I remember reading the 1st IPCC report in 1990. Since then the issue has dominated the environomental agenda. Things such as landscape management essentially dropped off the public radar. Crown of thorns is control is about landscape managment – and in this the responsibility since the late 80’s was primarily with Labor governments – and the arch conservative.

        ‘Interviews with trochus divers from the Torres Strait indicate that crown-of-thorns (COTS) outbreaks may have occurred in the early part of the 19th century. However, the first documented outbreak was recorded from Green Island in 1962. It was the first of three major COTS outbreaks, which have had a major impact on many reefs of the Great Barrier Reef. The other two outbreaks occurred between 1978–1991 and 1993–2005.

        Put together, these COTS outbreaks account for 42 per cent of coral damage on the Great Barrier Reef since the mid 1980s. Only cyclones account for a larger proportion of loss of coral cover (48 per cent).

        COTS outbreaks follow a pattern whereby they tend to spread south from the Cairns region, migrating to the Innisfail region between three and five years later, hitting the Townsville area five to eight years later, and reaching as far south as the Mackay region about 12–15 years after the start of the outbreak.’ GBRMPA

        So Sir Joh should have solved the problem but not Peter Beatie? Amazing. It is typical of pissant progressives – that first of all they make a dumb statement and then lie and insult to defend it to the death. It is bizarre to try to make a political point of a politician who has not been in power for 25 years – someone coming from a different era – for something that happened in the last 27 years. You are truly pathetic.

      • As your own quote shows -COT has been a major problem since the 1970’s.

        AGW had zero impact on the response throughout the 1980’s and minimal through the first half of the 90’s.

        If you think AGW has stopped action on COT you’re living in fantasy land.

        I remember being at Michaelmas Cay in the early 80’s and thinking it was pretty nice……until someone showed me a photo of the same place in the 1930’s.

        I guess the failure to address sedimentation and run-off was also down to AGW.

      • Chief Hydrologist

        We lost half out seagrasses well before that and the reasons for that were obvious – crown of thorns not as muchat the time – the solutions were obvious but progress was starved for oxygen and resources. We have wasted a generation and – despite such things as the Blueprint for a Living Continent – http://www.wentworthgroup.org/uploads/6.%20blueprint_for_a_living_contintent.pdf – things are little improved. When people think environmental pressure – they think climate change. When they think water – they think climate change. When they think biodiversity – they think climate change. It is utter nonsense.

        There is just so much space and no more in the realm ofthe public arena – in economic terms there is an opportunity cost. We have a $10 billion fund for carbon and a many billion tax plus many more billions more for renewable energy – but hardly anything at all for wide scale landscape management. There is so little room and so little resources for feral species, fire regimes, restoration of lands and riparian areas, reversing habitat fragmentation, etc. These are the measures of terrestrial and aquatic health and not the utter nonsense that comes from the obsession with carbon that is the cult of AGW groupthink space cadets. It is such a recipe for failure – and yet where is the impetus for change? Yes the failure to address landscape pressures has lost in the competition with a psychopathological obsession with industry and carbon – and it is still far from improving. Yet all you can think of is blaming Sir Joh – forgive me but I think you’re barking mad.

      • Sure, we must keep our room clean, else it becomes unlivable.
        ===============

      • “Yet all you can think of is blaming Sir Joh ” – Skippy.

        Skip, believe me, you have no need to try to be stupid.

        Where was your billions for ‘landscape management’ in the 1970’s, the 1980’s????

        Didn’t exist.

        People who blame climate science for the failure to address other problems (especially ones that existed long before any concerns about CO2) are not engaging in a rational discussion.

        They are grinding their political/ideological axes.

      • Chief Hydrologist

        It is difficult to imagine something less rational than your nonsense. It is you grinding some delusional axe from decades ago still about a politician long dead. Why is that – Hippy Mick? Isn’t it time you joined the 21st century?

  21. Sea level fans may be interested in the new paper “The 2011 La Niña: So strong, the oceans fell”, see http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2012/2012GL053055.shtml . Don’t take it as the last word however.

    • Funny, I thought with the advent of the big global chillar, all that rain would have formed new, LIA-style glaciers.

    • The Skeptical Warmist (aka R. Gates)

      Fortunately GRACE satellite measurements show us exactly where that ocean water mass went to, and very little of it went to the cryosphere in building glaciers. It mainly fell as rain in areas that saw huge flooding events. In the back of your mind, keep the thought: Greenhouse warming= accelerated hydrological cycle. It will serve you well.

      • “Fortunately GRACE satellite measurements show us exactly where that ocean water mass went to, and very little of it went to the cryosphere in building glaciers. It mainly fell as rain in areas that saw huge flooding events. In the back of your mind, keep the thought: Greenhouse warming= accelerated hydrological cycle. It will serve you well.”

        So more hydro power and more water for irrigation?

      • Chief Hydrologist

        The evidence is not clear cut and simple cult of AGW groupthink space cadet memes is rather silly.

        http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2009/11/11/pan-evaporation-trends-and-its-relation-to-the-diagnosis-of-global-warming-comments-on-a-new-article-by-roderick-et-al-2009/

        There is data – but given the short length is inadvisable to draw any conclusion. Simple theories are of no use at all and contaminate even what should be the most sophisticated public communications.

        http://www.globalwaterintel.com/archive/12/5/market-profile/accelerating-water-cycle.html

        This for instance is quite bizarre. The ocean/surface stores are ultimately a zero sum game and don’t contribute to ling term sea level chnges. The differences in groundwater stores can however be decadal and longer infuence – but we are talking millimetres.

        So what are the implications of this? You might say “more water – that’s good”. However, if these trends continue there will be an indication that the water cycle is spinning faster, and with it some negative things certainly happen. One is the increased land contributions to global mean sea level rise. People don’t think much about the land contributing to sea level rise, but it does in a significant way, in addition to the ice sheets.

        Given that we will be seeing an increasing frequency of storm events in the future, when you get an extreme event sitting on top of a generally rising sea level, it can have a great impact.

      • R. Gates

        Before one gets too carried away with projected future catastrophic sea level rise or Antarctic ice mass loss and where this is going, based on GRACE results, check:

        http://www.agu.org/journals/gl/gl1122/2011GL049277/body.shtml

        Our observation that GIA uplift is misrepresented by modeling (weighted root-mean-squares of observation-model differences: 4.9–5.0 mm/yr) suggests that, apart from a few regions where large ice mass loss is occurring, the spatial pattern of secular ice mass change derived from Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) data and GIA models may be unreliable, and that several recent secular Antarctic ice mass loss estimates are systematically biased, mainly too high.

        http://www.agu.org/journals/gl/gl1122/2011GL049277/2011GL049277.pdf

        While monthly measurements of the gravity field by GRACE are heavily contributing to knowledge of changes at non‐secular time‐scales [Chen et al., 2009; Velicogna, 2009], they have been limited in their direct contribution to improving our understanding of secular Antarctic ice mass change. This is mainly because separating ice mass change from total mass change, uniquely measured by GRACE, critically requires the accurate subtraction of the gravitational signature of mass movement in the mantle due to GIA, which is a secular signal. However, large discrepancies exist between models of Antarctic GIA (compare Figures 1a and 1b) due to a reliance on poorly constrained knowledge of the spatio‐temporal evolution of the ice sheet since the Last Glacial Maximum [Anderson et al., 2002] and of Earth mechanical properties [Ritzwoller et al., 2001]. Estimates of M_ Ant ice are dominated by the consequent GIA uncertainty [Velicogna and Wahr, 2006]. Importantly, an error in a GIA model is seen as a systematic error in GRACE‐derived M_ Ant ice; it is not a random error

        http://geodesy.ceegs.ohio-state.edu/course/refpapers/Han_JGR_GRACE_aliasing_04.pdf

        the analysis indicates that the daily soil moisture and snow depth variations with respect to their monthly mean produce a systematic error as large as the measurement noise over the continental regions.

        http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/09/06/grace-under-fire/

        all measurements before GRACE showed increasing ice in Antarctica, as they do today.

        Max

  22. SOLAR BLOW TO LOW CLOUD COULD BE WARMING PLANET

    By Philip Ball

    For the climate sceptics who doubt that human release of greenhouse gases is the main cause of global warming, one of the more plausible alternatives is that changes in the Sun might be responsible. Researchers in Denmark now show how and where a link between global cloudiness and solar activity could affect climate in unforeseen ways.

    Henrik Svensmark and Nigel Marsh of the Danish Space Research Institute in Copenhagen have focused on cosmic rays. These are very-high-energy rays that are similar to X-rays, but are packed with even more energy. In the latest issue of Physical Review Letters, Svensmark and Marsh reveal evidence that a decrease in solar activity allows more cosmic rays to enter the Earth’s atmosphere, and that this in turn affects cloud formation.

    The idea that cosmic rays can influence cloud formation was put forward by Svensmark in 199723, when he showed that there was a correlation between total cloud cover over the Earth and the influx of cosmic rays produced by catastrophes in our Galaxy. The rays are thought to collide with particles or molecules in the atmosphere, leaving them electrically charged, or ‘ionized’. These ionized particles then seed the growth of cloud water droplets.

    The heat output of the Sun rises and falls roughly every 11 years. This ‘solar cycle’ is usually traced out by the recurrent appearance of sunspots, although the change in the Sun’s heat output is tiny — about 0.1. This is too small to have a direct effect on climate. But various indirect influences are possible, and the cosmic rays fall into this category.

    The Sun helps to protect the Earth from cosmic rays. It constantly releases charged subatomic particles. These stream through the Solar System as the solar wind, carrying with them an imprint of the Sun’s magnetic field. It is these ‘field rays’ that interact with, and partially shield the Earth from, cosmic rays.

    The strength of the solar wind depends on the level of solar activity, and so varies with the sunspot cycle. When the solar wind blows less forcefully, more cosmic rays streak through our atmosphere.

    Clouds have a strong yet subtle effect on climate. Clouds that form low in the sky are relatively warm and made up of tiny water droplets. These tend to cool the planet by reflecting sunlight back into space. High clouds are colder, consisting mostly of ice particles, and they can have the opposite effect of warming the Earth by trapping heat.

    By studying satellite measurements of different cloud types since 1980, Svensmark and Marsh have found that only low-altitude clouds (less than 3.2 kilometres above the Earth) seem to vary in step with the rise and fall of the cosmic-ray flux. Clouds higher than these appear insensitive to changes in the flux. “It is imperative to understand which cloud types are influenced by galactic cosmic rays,” the researchers say.

    They argue that the imprint of the solar magnetic field in the solar wind has increased over the past century. So the shielding from cosmic rays will have increased, decreasing the formation and cooling influence of low clouds and providing a possible contribution to the observed global warming of the past 100 years.

    http://www.nature.com/news/2000/001206/full/news001207-6.html

  23. Re science fraud in retracted papers:

    What about the science fraud of AGW/CAGW basic premises in the Greenhouse Effect energy budget of KT97 and kin?

    I’ve posted something on this here Myrrh | October 6, 2012 at 6:53 am but it hasn’t come out at the bottom of the page appearing instead before posts two days ago:

    http://judithcurry.com/2012/10/02/rs-workshop-on-handling-uncertainty-in-weather-climate-prediction-part-i/#comment-249173

    It’s much worse than the example I give from Richard Courtney that the ‘models’ are all arbitrarily tweaked and all different describing worlds other than our Earth, yet we’re supposed to kow tow to the idea that ‘models prove the science is real and consensus justified’, but the basic premise of “anthropogenic forcing” itself has never be shown to be a physical reality.

    How can it be? The real world physical properties of Carbon Dioxide are incapable of being the ‘supermolecule’ of the models, and so the supermolecule of all the “97% scientist consensus”. This is blatant science fraud, that it has been introduced into the general education system now makes it difficult to see. No wonder then that those who know this is complete physical idiocy want “science” to be re-defined.

  24. It’s not a secret that academia, particularly the humanities, skews heavily left.

    For the simple reason that they are politically funded, and the left is for more politics.

  25. The recently released UAH September 2012 global lower tropospheric temperature anomaly is +0.34 deg. C, making it the third warmest September in the 33-year history of this series. Only 2009 and 2010 had warmer Septembers, with anomalies of +0.38 and +0.48 respectively.

    • Latimer Alder

      @Max_OK

      So its cooled since 2009 and 2010?

      Thought it was a bit chilly.

      • The UAH anomalies show the globe has cooled since the beginning of the century if you look at the data the right way.

        http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:2000/plot/uah/from:2000/trend/plot/none

        You won’t see the cooling unless you turn your monitor up-side-down or stand on your head.

      • …whatever it takes.

      • Re Latimer Alder |comment, October 6, 2012 at 2:50 pm

        Latimer, the topic is “Week in review 10/5/12.”

        The September UAH global temperature anomaly was released during the week in review, which is news for the week, and that’s why I posted about it.

        Your characterization of my post as “entirely unprompted” is puzzling.

      • Latimer Alder

        @max_Ok

        OJ – I understand why you posted it.

        But whether unprompted or not you can not have your high ground cake ‘I take the long view,,,,,,’ and eat it ‘look children the last month was third highest’

      • Latimer,

        Again I am puzzled by your comment. You should know that 33 years is as “long view ” as you can get with UAH data. The series doesn’t go back any farther than that.

        Please re-read my post , and note that I put the September 2012 UAH anomaly in the context of the series’ 33-history.

        So I’m not trying to “have my cake and eat it too.” In fact I don’t even like cake, so if I had some, I wouldn’t try to eat it too. I would just give it away.

        It’s past my bedtime. Good Night or Good Morning.

    • No, it’s warmed since 2011. You must have misplaced your thinking cap.

      The UAH anomalies show the globe has cooled since the beginning of the century if yo look at the data the right way.

      • Latimer Alder

        @max_ok

        Let me put it another way in case I was not clear.

        It is a bit cooler now than it was 2 and 3 years ago. And last year was quite a lot cooler than it was 2 and years ago. Yes? Or No?

        If no, where am I wrong?

      • You are correct, if your vision of climate change spans a measly 3 year period. I take a broader view of the UAH anomaly, and consider the entire 33-year history. This means I’m 10 times smarter than you or, looking ate it another way, only 1/10th as dumb as you.

      • And it’s cooler than it was 1000, 2000 and 5000m and 8000 years ago, and 5, 10 and 50 million years, and most of the past 500 million years. In fact the planet is damned cold and well below its normal operating temperature. It’s performing like a car running with the choke out (for those who understand what that means).

      • Peter is right.

        Dang these modern unreliable surface temp records and these bloody ‘paleo-reconstructions’ , but we sure as hell know exactly the state of the global temp 5000 yrs ago.

        LOL.

      • Michael

        Don’t laugh too loudly.

        Remember that “he who laughs last…”

        In general it is commonly known that the subjective interpretation of dicey proxy data from carefully selected time periods of our geological past can provide “evidence” for almost anything one wants to prove. (Sort of like reading tea leaves.) Therefore paleo-climate studies and their conclusions are generally to be taken with a large grain of salt.

        To be more specific, these studies may give some useful information on rough temperatures of the distant past, but are practically worthless when it comes to attribution of climate changes.

        So Peter Lang probably has a valid point regarding past temperatures, while climatologists, such as Richard Alley, who cherry-pick periods in out geological history to prove attribution of climate changes to “the climate control knob, CO2″, do not.

        Lesson to be learned: The devil’s always in the detail, Michael.

        Max

      • “nterpretation of dicey proxy data from carefully selected time periods of our geological past can provide “evidence” for almost anything one wants to prove. (Sort of like reading tea leaves.) ” – max

        Then I take it you don’t realise that Peter is referring to a single (1) proxy for his global temp 5000/8000 yrs ago??

        LOLing hardest.

      • Latimer Alder

        @Max_OK

        You say

        ‘You are correct, if your vision of climate change spans a measly 3 year period. I take a broader view of the UAH anomaly, and consider the entire 33-year history’

        Hmmm

        How then I can reconcile that view with the original entirely unprompted post from you

        ‘The recently released UAH September 2012 global lower tropospheric temperature anomaly is +0.34 deg. C, making it the third warmest September in the 33-year history of this series. Only 2009 and 2010 had warmer Septembers, with anomalies of +0.38 and +0.48 respectively.

        That September was ‘third warmest’ seems to have some special significance for you …and you were keen to draw it to our attention…which belies your claim to be ‘taking the broader view’ and ‘consider[ing] the entire 33-year history.

        You are probably a climateer, but even you guys must realise by now that you cannot have your cake and eat it.

      • I, like almost all “skeptics,” don’t trust any of the ways that we measure warming. The supposed “records” are all bogus – and manipulatde and doctored by AGW cultists who are intent on destroying life as we know it in their quest to install a tyrannical one-world government that will take us back to the Stone Age.

        But of course as we hears “skeptics” say all the time (just after we state that “skeptics” are not monolithic), almost all “skeptics” agree that the Earth is warming.

        Obviously, since we don’t trust any of the scientific evidence, we all just take it on faith that the Earth is warming. Who needs evidence?

      • True skeptics are skeptical about things they like as well as things they don’t like. People skeptical only about what they dislike are lacking in the integrity necessary to be true skeptics.

      • Joshua

        Don’t “take it on faith that the Earth is warming”.

        It has warmed, in fits and spurts, since 1850, with two statistically indistinguishable warming cycles (early- and late-20th century) of around 30 years each, a slightly less prominent late 19th century warming cycle and two 30-year cycles of slight cooling in between, all on an axis of underlying warming of around 0.06C per decade.

        The same surface temperature record tells us that it has stopped warming for now (since 1998 or 2001). Trenberth has referred to this “unexplained lack of warming” as a “travesty”, opining in an interview that the “missing heat” may be radiated “out to space” with “clouds” acting as a “natural thermostat” (an opinion that seems to make sense). The UK Met Office has simply said it could be due to natural variability.

        How long the present slight cooling will continue is anyone’s guess. Will it become another ~30-year cycle of slight cooling as we have already seen before?

        Who knows? Not me. Not you. Not IPCC. Not James E. Hansen.

        We’ll just have to wait and see, Joshua.

        Max

      • Manacker,

        You have the perfect example right under your nose.

        > Trenberth has referred to this “unexplained lack of warming” as a “travesty” […]

        What should scientists do when confronted with such an enigma?

        Do they ditch out the data or the theory?

        Ditching the theory renders the data meaningless:

        > To create data you need a theory.

        http://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/post/805840691

        If you ditch your data, how will you be able to do empirical science?

        You have all the epistemological problems all under your nose, Manacker, and yet you play ad hoc games.

        Let’s all embrace uncertainty.

        ***

        For those interested in paying due diligence to Manacker’s touchdown dance, here’s the exchange between Senior and Trentberth:

        http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2010/04/16/is-there-missing-heat-in-the-climate-system-my-comments-on-this-ncar-press-release/

        Lots of interesting discursive patterns in that exchange.

      • A measure of Willard’s corruption: He reads Pielke Pere and still flaps the alarmist claptrap.
        =============

      • Sooner or later, dearest aoidos,
        Humans must embrace both
        Uncertainty and corruption
        The latter being the only certainty
        Of which two famous instances are
        Death and taxes.

  26. The Klimazwiebel reference cited showed that climate alarm skepticism is strongest in the USA, the UK and Australia and suggested that English-language blog sites had much to do with this.

    I can imagine that this is true.

    At first, almost all of the blog sites were openly conveying the same message as IPCC and using censorship or “comments” by the site moderator to ensure that opposing or contradicting views were pooh-poohed or simply cut out.

    But then this changed. Several new English-language sites popped up in the USA, the UK and Australia, which allowed opinions that conflicted with IPCC’s “consensus” position.

    These sites are now more popular than the “pro-IPCC” sites.

    People are slowly getting better informed.

    Climategate helped open many people’s eyes – this was also all in English, with primarily UK (plus some US) “actors”, as was the book by Steven Mosher and Thomas W. Fuller, which gave a blow-by-blow description of the affair. Andrew Montford’s book on the Hockeystick affair was also in English.

    Several other books have been written on the subject of “climate change” and, again, most of these are in English language.

    So it is probably safe to say that the English-speaking general public is generally better informed on the scientific and policy issues surrounding the ongoing debate.

    I see that here in Switzerland. Those Swiss acquaintances, who do not speak fluent English or read English-language books and articles, and rely primarily on mainstream media articles in their own language for information, are generally more poorly informed on these issues than those who do.

    Makes sense to me.

    Max

    T

    • “People are slowly getting better informed.”

      Yes, thanks to the internet more and more people believe the greenhouse effect is a myth and the Earth is only 6000 years old.

      • Thank you for your comment. We need to shut down the internet immediately.

      • thanks to the internet more people believe the greenhouse effect is a myth

        That’s because the people peddling the greenhouse effect have been found to be utterly untrustworthy. Don’t blame the messenger.

      • Uh wait, you ARE blaming the messenger…

      • Ur…right. Quick, somebody shoot the messenger so the damn facts stop getting out.

      • lolwot

        thanks to the internet more and more people believe the greenhouse effect is a myth and the Earth is only 6000 years old.

        The first part of your statement would be correct if modified to the “catastrophic greenhouse effect”, as the evidence cited here has shown.

        The second part sounds like BS to me.

        Data?

        Max

    • Max

      Are you a Swiss?

    • > Propagandists use this technique to persuade the audience to follow the crowd. This device creates the impression of widespread support. It reinforces the human desire to be on the winning side. It also plays on feelings of loneliness and isolation. Propagandists use this technique to convince people not already on the bandwagon to join in a mass movement while simultaneously reassuring that those on or partially on should stay aboard. Bandwagon propaganda has taken on a new twist. Propagandists are now trying to convince the target audience that if they don’t join in they will be left out. The implication is that if you don’t jump on the bandwagon the parade will pass you by. While this is contrary to the other method, it has the same effect: getting the audience to join in with the crowd. The Institute of Propaganda Analysis suggests we ask ourselves the following questions when confronted with this technique. What is the propagandist’s program? What is the evidence for and against the program? Even though others are supporting it, why should I? As with most propaganda techniques, getting more information is the best defense. When confronted with Bandwagon propaganda, consider the pros and cons before joining in.

      http://mason.gmu.edu/~amcdonal/Propaganda%20Techniques.html

  27. PIOMASS calculated arctic sea ice volume for September is critically low.

    Over 80% reduction since 1979. More than half remaining volume lost since 2006. Zero imminent?

    • lolwot

      You got tour seasons wrong here. It’s early October and the long, cold Arctic winter is about to set in (as it does every year).

      Again the Arctic sea ice will grow from its all-time late summer low of 4.0 million square km (43% below the 1979-2000 baseline) to around 14.7 msk end-April 2012 high (1.8% below the baseline).

      Happens every year lolwot.

      At the same time Antarctic sea ice, now at 19.2 msk (2.7% above the 1979-2000 baseline) will begin to shrink to around 8 msk end April 2012 low (9.2% above the baseline).

      This also happens every year.

      Yawn!

      Max

      • Nice denial of a downwards trend. You should turn your denial professional and get heartland funding.

      • lolwot

        Who’s denying what?

        Don’t be silly.

        Late summer Arctic sea ice has declined significantly (over 40%) while late winter Arctic sea ice has declined very slightly, i.e. 1.9% since the 1979-2000 baseline. IOW the seasonal summer losses essentially come back in winter.

        Late summer Antarctic sea ice has grown significantly (9.2%), but at a lower rate than Arctic decline, while late winter Antarctic sea ice has grown only very slightly, i.e. 2.7% since the same baseline. IOW the seasonal summer losses are smaller but do not recover as well in winter as in the Arctic

        That’s what I wrote before and those are the facts as reported by NSIDC.

        Do you deny that Antarctic sea ice is growing (as IPCC did in AR4)?

        Max

      • I posted that the PIOMASS arctic sea ice volume model suggests over 80% reduction since 1979. More than half remaining volume lost since 2006.

        You posted something that *sounded* like disagreement. It only sounded like disagreement mind you, it was actually more of a diversion. An obfuscation kind of thing I guess.

      • Max

        1970-2000 was the warming phase of the globe. Why are some surprised that the sea ice are melting?

        I am sure if we take for the sea ice the trend for the period 1940 to 2000, the drop will not be that much, because it is the ice that was formed during the cooling phase from 1940-1970 that has been melting during the warming phase 1970-2000.

      • Girma

        You are right, of course. Prior to satellite observations there were other periods of Arctic warming (notably in the 1930s/1940s), with a period of cooling from then until the 1970s.

        http://meteo.lcd.lu/globalwarming/Chylek/greenland_warming.html

        http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2006/2006GL026510.shtml

        We provide an analysis of Greenland temperature records to compare the current (1995–2005) warming period with the previous (1920–1930) Greenland warming. We find that the current Greenland warming is not unprecedented in recent Greenland history. Temperature increases in the two warming periods are of a similar magnitude, however, the rate of warming in 1920–1930 was about 50% higher than that in 1995–2005.

        Russian studies (Polyakov et al.) confirm smaller ice extent in the 1940s, which then recovered by the 1970s to a new high, before the modern satellite record started.

        I once analyzed the temperature record at Ilulissat, Greenland, mouth of the Sermeq Kujalleq or Jacobshavn glacier (record goes back to the early 20th century)..

        This showed a sharp warming over the first half of the 20th century and a very slight cooling since then, with an overall very slight cooling trend over the entire century.

        From around 1945 to the late 1970s there was cooling, and it has warmed again since then.

        The data all point to a cyclical nature of Arctic temperature and sea ice extent, not that much different from the global record.

        Max

      • I suspect cyclic Arctic ice is one of the reasons for the persistent attempt, centuries ago, to find the Northwest Passage.
        ===================

      • “although extensive uncertainties remain, especially before the sixteenth century—both the duration and magnitude of the current decline in sea ice seem to be unprecedented for the past 1,450 years.”

        http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v479/n7374/full/nature10581.html

        “The ice loss that we see today — the ice loss that started in the early 20th Century and sped up during the last 30 years — appears to be unmatched over at least the last few thousand years”

        http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/06/100602193423.htm

        “Changes in the extent of seasonal ice were investigated using historical and satellite observations for the period 1870–2003. The seasonal ice zone (SIZ) has been gradually expanding since 1870, with a marked acceleration over the past three decades, and has migrated north to encompass all peripheral Arctic seas. ”

        http://www.agu.org/journals/ABS/2008/2007GL032507.shtml

      • The Skeptical Warmist (aka R. Gates)

        For those who have any notion that the decreasing Arctic sea ice over the past few decades is something of a shorter-term cycle, see:

      • The Skeptical Warmist (aka R. Gates)

        Obviously Max you’ve not grasp the true nature and significance of the volume loss in Arctic sea ice and what it means in the long run, and neither, might I point out, have most of the models predicting the rate of sea ice decline for the Arctic. The models are still catching up to reality (except, it seems, for PIOMAS).

    • The Skeptical Warmist (aka R. Gates)

      An ice free Arctic by 2020 quite possible, by 2030 almost a certainty. That’s one tipping point that has already been crossed.

      • R. Gates, you write “An ice free Arctic by 2020 quite possible, by 2030 almost a certainty. That’s one tipping point that has already been crossed.”

        Do you have a prediciton as to what is goint to happen to Antarctic sea ice? Will it continue to have a negative correlation with Arctic sea ice, and keep on setting more and more maximum extent records in September of each year? Or will it, at some time, follow your alleged trend of Arctic sea ice, and, at some time in the future, will Antarctic sea ice at maximum start to decrease in extent? And if so, about when?

      • The Skeptical Warmist (aka R. Gates)

        Many models show Antarctic sea ice eventually (later this century) following the same downward trend as Arctic sea ice, but then, the models have been wrong about how fast the Arctic sea ice would decline, so who knows?

      • R Gates

        In order to write my next aticle on the Arctic i spent some time last week at the Scott Polar institutute in Cambridge going through the archives. Probably the most intriguing item was a contemporary letter from a clairvoyant who had been asked to try to find the location of the lost Franklin expedition.

        I made a lot of notes, but you might find this of interest as it is a composite of my impressions of the stuff i read, starting with a book;

        ‘Observational data of the drifting station 1950-51-by m somov
        Volume 1 of 3 of this Russian north pole station on an ice floe”

        Middle of june onwards ‘the melting of the snow and ice took place very quickly although the air temperature remained close to freezing’
        ‘the sun shone…could walk about without a coat…some even tried to get a sun tan.’
        ‘because of the thaw an enormous amount of water accumulated on the ice’
        ‘walking was only possible if one wore high rubber boots reaching above the knees’ (because of the water sitting on the ice.
        ‘many problems because of the thawing.’

        Described how later in the season some high spots became dry and these were little hillocks in a sea of icy water sitting on solid ice.

        My Note; Arctic obviously greatly affected by how sunny it is, by storms, rip tides, much of the water is actually sitting on ice and the terrain of cliffs and headlands and floating ice often overlaid with fog made it difficult to see to navigate -the old time explorers didn’t have sat nav or radar and might have found say the north west passage if they had modern technology. Also there is a great deal of ice breaking by ordinary ships as well as ice breakers today. The old wooden ships would have been very cautious about getting into pack ice that would not deter modern vessels.
        —– ——–

        I couldnt help wondering
        a) Whether the north east and north \west passages would have been discovered earlier if our ancestors had the advantage of modern navgational aids
        b) How satellites can distinguish between open water and water floating on top of ice.
        All the best
        tonyb

      • The Skeptical Warmist (aka R. Gates)

        Tony,

        Very interesting, as usual Tony. Certainly there is a natural cyclical component to the Arctic sea ice, which seems to be the noise now riding upon an external forcing and related feedbacks. The current trajectory of Arctic summer sea ice seems to be pretty dramatically pointing to an ice free condition sometime in the near future (5 to 15 years?). This certainly has not happened in recorded human history. It would take an equally (or perhaps greater) dramatic cooling of the Arctic and associated waters entering the Arctic to turn this trajectory around. Some opposite forcing great enough to counter anthropogenic forcing. A large, or series of large volcanic eruptions could do it I suppose. Certainly something akin to the Toba eruption of around 70,000 years ago could…but then, we’d have a whole new set of issues to deal with and the state of the sea ice would be distant concern at best.

      • Chief Hydrologist

        Most warming in recent times was entirely natural. Cooling is certainly on the cards over the next decades.

        There is a decadal influence on ice cover.

      • Chief Hydrologist

        Feels like groundhog day again.

      • R gates

        thanks for your kind comments. Here is the article behind the link you posted showing a graph of the last 1450 years of arctic sea ice

        http://www.skepticalscience.com/Arctic-sea-ice-hockey-stick-melt-unprecedented-in-last-1450-years.html

        its comprised of data from tree rings and an unrepresentative ice core.Hmmm. It appearsfrom thisto Newfoundland that the sea ice levels during the LIA and the MWP were around the same, which makes one wonder how the Vikings managed to get around and how their Bishops visited them in Greenland.

        Ice levels were low for hundreds of years around the 11th century. Something also seems to have been happening around the 1550’s when the British mounted their first expedition to find a sea route from Europe to China-The North East passage. This route was based on a map from a few decades earlier drawn by a russian explorer..Theres an interesting book about in the Scott polar archives.

        Its qute clear from the available material that ice levels have fluctuated considerably in the past. How today fits in I cant comment until I have evaluated all the material I have gathered

        tonyb

      • The Skeptical Warmist (aka R. Gates)

        Tony,

        Given your keen interest in the LIA causes, etc. you might want to check out this paper:

        http://www.clim-past-discuss.net/8/4817/2012/cpd-8-4817-2012.pdf

        Greenland ice cores examined in high resolution over the past 4000 years. Of particular interest related to the LIA is of course the volcanic data and the solar data, namely large negative forcings from both, with big time volcanic activity seeming to kick off the whole party in about 1250 A.D. Volcanic activity then occurred at intervals throughout the LIA, with of course the negative forcing from the Maunder and Dalton solar minimums.

        Overall, and excellent paper (especially for its very fine temporal resolution. .

  28. The date is Octrober 6th 2012. There are currently no tropical cyclones in the North Atlantic region. To date there have been 18 named storms, 8 hurricanes and 1 major hurricane (Cat. 3 or greater). No major storm has made landfall on the USA so far in this hurricane season.

    Now I know that the hurricane season does not end until 30th Novemebr, but all the indications are that the really major hurricane effects for the North Atlantic region are over for this season. I know this could turn out to be wrong. But it looks like we are going to be setting an even greater record for the length of time between major hurricanes making landfall on the USA, and no sign whatsoever, that hurricane frequency and intensity are increasing as a result of CAGW.

    • Japan has been affected by 15 typhoons so far in 2012, which I thought was interesting.

      • JimD, that would be related to the shift in the ENSO “trend” which appears to trigger the AMO. The one biggest flaw with the models is that they do not include realistic ocean oscillation data. Other than that, the models are pretty impressive.

  29. lolwot says , 6/10 @8.36am, that polls confirm that scientists are the most trusted people in regards ter science…
    Some of us have jest lost our faith in polls post Lewandowsky. Polls employing fake data and where a desired outcome is ter be achieved … fer noble cause of course.

    • How convenient for you to lose your “faith” in polls just in time for me to post some inconvenient poll data.

      That way you needn’t process it and can go on believing the myth that no-one trust climate scientists!

  30. Sample survey question:
    Who would you most trust?
    (a) gypsey fortune tellers
    (b) Car salesmen
    (c) Climate scientists

    • How unfortunate for you that the poll included.

      -Climate Scientists
      -Other kinds of Scientists
      -Television Weather Reporters
      -The Mainstream News Media

      And the poll results show the most trusted group is Climate Scientists. I guess most people polled were using common sense!

      • Oh, and don’t forget – industry/business.

        The types who fund front groups like Heartland.

        And you know their level of public trust – almost zero.

      • Most people who say they trust climate scientists, do so for political correctness reasons. Which is no doubt the motive of whoever ran this poll.

      • Let’s see your data.

      • “Most people who say they trust climate scientists, do so for political correctness reasons. Which is no doubt the motive of whoever ran this poll.”

        Two sentences and two conspiracy theories.

      • Oh I get it, let’s pretend like children that there are no ulterior motives shall we ? You trust the likes of Lewandowski too do you? And are a Climategate denier as well?

      • Just show us the data.

      • I myself would probably answer climate scientists, but I would think it was kind of a rigged question. If it had also had IPCC in there as well it would have been a better question. Eventually science will get it right. I don’t know what that answer will be, but my conviction right now is that many of the dangers are being exaggerated and it needs more science.

        If there was a question about who would you trust more with medical advice, it would shock no one that people would say doctors. Kind of lame that you are making a big deal out of such a stupid question.

      • ” If it had also had IPCC in there as well it would have been a better question.”

        I reckon 99% of the population don’t even know what the IPCC is.

        In the UK when people hear IPCC they think of the Independent Police Complaints Commission

    • Beth

      Me too. I love ‘em. An’ I only got pick-pocketed once.

      Max

  31. (e) gipsy fortune teller

    • Poor Beth – takes refuge in nonsense.

      • Is this the same Max who can’t even read focus group results and understand them?

        Yikes.

      • Michael

        Naw.

        That’s Max_OK.

        ‘Nuther guy.

        Max_not from OK

      • Max,

        You seem to forget about your touchdown dances on your own line of 20:

        Do you have an RSS reader?

        If not, please go get one.

      • Willard

        Like the ancient Sphynx, you speak in riddles.

        Max

      • Manacker,

        An RSS reader can help you track the comments of a website:

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/News_aggregator

        With an RSS reader, following conversations becomes possible.

        Please try one.

      • A fan of *MORE* discourse

        A whole new meaning to “trickle down” climate-change economics, eh?   :?:   :?:   :?:

        Australian tycoon sails Northwest Passage:
        Racks up thousands in alcohol fines on the way

        The forbidding Northwest Passage killed Sir John Franklin and confounded James Cook, but it appears to have been a breeze for a booze-laden Australian luxury yacht that sped through the High Arctic leaving behind a trail of illegal fireworks, paintballs and bounced cheques.

        Details of the raid were carefully omitted from the expedition’s official blog, TrackingFortrus.com. “Due to some weather, we decided to stay in Cambridge Bay for a few extra days,” reads a Sept. 10 post.

        An accompanying photo set shows ATV-mounted passengers corralling Cambridge Bay-area muskox into a defensive formation and then posing alongside the mammals in mock disco poses.

        As the yacht headed to Tuktoyaktok, they were overheard asking by radio if anyone with a float plane would be willing to bring them a new supply of alcohol.

        It is notable that by short-term monetary economic measures, this bad behavior had strictly *positive* value, in “stimulating” the local economy.

        Just imagine how wealthy the locals would become, if these events happened daily, eh?   :(   :oops:   :cry:   :?:

      • Walter Starck famously observed so poignantly that being taken over by a mania leads to a disconnect from the real world and it is that disconnect that, often leads to a zenith of zealotry… just before increasingly obvious reality finally forces them to make some small admission of error.. While there is good scientific evidence that atmospheric carbon dioxide is increasing from the burning of fossil fuels, and that carbon dioxide does indeed absorb infared heat radiation of certain frequencies, it is purely speculation that this will cause a climate catastrophe.

      • Fanny

        Sounds like this Aussie group did almost as much damage up north as that shipload of environmentalists that got themselves stuck in the Antarctic sea ice and had to get rescued or the aborted Arctic excursion of environmentalists wanting to get to the North Pole to “prove” that the ice was thinning, who got stuck in the ice.

        At least this Aussie bunch didn’t need an expensive rescue mission.

        Max

      • A fan of *MORE* discourse

        manacker posts  “… and I for for one welcome our new booze-fueled tycoon overlords!”

        Manacker, as an alternative to short-sighted corporate valuation, please let me commend to you the longer-sighted values of communities like Season’s End, in particular their terrific new video series Climate Change in Colorado: Beyond Seasons’ End

        Because that’s the real point, eh Manacker?

        Ideology-first economists who ask “What is the optimal depreciation rate of ecosystems like Yosemite, Denali, and Yellowstone?” are totally missing the point, eh?   :?:   :?:   :?:

        These economic idiots appreciate “the price of everything & the value of nothing”, eh?   :shock:   :shock:   :shock:

        That ideology leads to swiftly to destruction by booze-fueled morons, eh?   :shock:   :shock:   :shock:

      • Fanny

        Morons are morons, whether they are “booze filled” or on a quest to “prove” that the Arctic ice was disappearing (and then getting bogged down in it, so they had to be saved) or on a quest to the Antarctic to “prove” some other horrible environmental evidence of global warming (and then getting stuck in the ice, so they had to be rescued).

        Max

      • A fan of *MORE* discourse

        manacker posts  [ … various bizarrely insubstantial fables … ]

        What planet do you live on, manacker? It does not appear to be a planet inhabitated by serious foresighted people, eh?

      • Fan

        Oh come now Fan, citing an icelandic example to illustrate melting actic ice-whatever next?

        Even Scott Mandia acknowledges the warm climate Iceland enjoyed in the Mwp and they are enjoying again now.

        http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/lia/decline_of_vikings_iceland.html

        I’ive been to iceland and its a fascinatng place, but very few other countries can benefit from ‘renewable’ geo thermal energy.

        As for the ice breaker going through the North East passage, the British made their first expedition to find the route in 1553 during a warm period. If they had ice breakers and modern navigational aids they may have made it (some say the Russsians did make it around the same time)
        tonyb

      • A fan of *MORE* discourse

        Iceland’s President Olafur Grimsson

        “What happens to the ice in the arctic, in the Himalayas, and in Antarctica will have a profound effect on every nation, on every continent.”

        “And the melting of the ice in the last four years has been much more dramatic than anybody predicted ten years ago. And therefore, we need all to be gravely concerned about the effect and the impact of this for everybody on planet earth.”

        Hmmmm … so the Icelanders have elected an uncommonly intelligent president, eh Climatereason? ;)   :smile:   :grin:   :lol:   :!:

        The Iceland voters appreciate that “Nature cannot be fooled”, eh? ;)   :smile:   :grin:   :lol:   :!:

        And so “We must all hang together, or we will all hang separately”, eh? ;)   :smile:   :grin:   :lol:   :!:

        Smartly done, Icelanders! ;)   :smile:   :grin:   :lol:   :!:

      • I read he supports a law that would jail idiots who post stupid smiley faces

      • Rob

        Their President obviously does not know the history of his own country, whilst Fan seems to have a over supply of smileys and an undersupply of historical knowledge.

        Rather than putting him in jail though why don’t we just fine him $10 a smiley the money to be paid to denizens monthly-thats 200$ just from his post above

        With my first pay out I could buy a gallon of petrol which costs one smiley fine here in the UK. Its no fun having a green govt who enacted a climate change law that is slowly bankruptng the country and threatening to caiuse powe cuts within three years.
        tonybr

      • Is shale gas in the USA really such a lost cause ?

  32. Say Lolwot and Michael, “Consensus is the last refuge of the scoundrel.’
    H/t Samuel Johnson.

  33. @gates
    So you say CO2 affects the ocean heat directly – ie not via the well-known greenhouse effect on the atmosphere? Which would mean that even if the greenhouse effect on the atmosphere didn’t exist, the oceans would still warm.

    How?

    • So @Gates is in effect saying the greenhouse effect is a red herring (sorry, couldn’t help myself) ? – the oceans are not warming as a result of the air warming. So, something else then. Well that’s impressively radical.

      • The Skeptical Warmist (aka R. Gates)

        Erica,

        The oceans are warming as a result of the alteration of atmospheric chemistry– i.e. increased amounts of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. This is no different than putting on a thicker jacket in the wintertime to keep your core body temperature warmer. The ocean is the Earth’s non-tectonic core body. Net energy flows from ocean to atmosphere. Thinking about this issue from an energy flow perspective and what is thermodynamically possible is the best way to grasp it.

        Now, from this basic warming effect of increased greenhouse gases we must then look at all the feedback effects, positive and negative, that result from warmer oceans, such as warmer ocean currents moving energy to toward the poles, more energy at deeper levels of the oceans from downwelling, acceleration of the hydrological cycle, changes to the cryosphere, etc.

        All this is not to say that increased greenhouse gases do not also warm the atmosphere as well, at least the troposphere, for certainly they do, but this warming of the troposphere is not then transferred into the larger energy sink of the ocean, but only regulates how much heat is transferred back from ocean to atmosphere.

      • Chief Hydrologist

        ‘In summary, although there is independent evidence for decadal changes in TOA radiative fluxes over the last two decades, the evidence is equivocal. Changes in the planetary and tropical TOA radiative fluxes are consistent with independent global ocean heat-storage data, and are expected to be dominated by changes in cloud radiative forcing. To the extent that they are real, they may simply reflect natural low-frequency variability of the climate system. ‘

        http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/figure-3-23.html

        Hey I guess these low fequency variations are real. Feels like groundhog day again.

      • Skeptical … Gates (say why don’t you get a shorter handle?)

        “…The oceans are warming as a result of the alteration of atmospheric chemistry– i.e. increased amounts of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere
        … Net energy flows from ocean to atmosphere”

        So what are the consequences of this changed chemistry of the atmosphere, on the temperature of the ocean, and the net energy flow from ocean to atmosphere ?

        Presumably for the temperature of the ocean to increase due to the net energy flow from ocean to atmosphere having decreased, the temperature of the atmosphere at sea-level must have increased, due to the chemical changes to the atmosphere (the CO2/greenhouse effect).

        In other words, the chain of events in this scenario is
        (1) first the atmosphere warms, a result of increased CO2 chemistry
        (2) later the oceans warm, a result of a lower net energy flow from ocean to atmosphere, which is a result of a lower ocean-atmosphere temperature gradient, which is result of a higher sea-level atmospheric temperatures.

        So unless we the atmosphere first warming, we cannot attribute ocean warming to this. It must be due to some other reason/s. And although there has been atmospheric warming for 100+ years there hasn’t been any since about 1998. And yet the oceans are still warming, you say.

        So unless there is a ~15-year lag, the oceans must be warming for that other reason/s. And which also means CO2 is off the hook.

      • The Skeptical Warmist (aka R. Gates)

        Erica,

        You still seem to not grasp the basic energy flow within the system. The atmosphere doesn’t warm the ocean, but only serves as a governor to restrict the flow of energy from the ocean back to space. The vast majority of energy in the ocean comes from sunlight. The ocean serves as a storage battery for this energy. The atmosphere serves as a resistor to the release of that energy back to space. The greater the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, the greater the resistance to the release of that energy, and since the amount of energy entering the oceans from sunlight varies only slightly over time, when you increase resistance to the release of that energy as we’ve done through the increasing greenhouse gases, the oceans will inevitably gain energy, ad they have been doing by about .5 x 10^22 joules per year over the past 50 years very consistently.

      • R Gates
        Nowhere do I suggest or assume that net heat flows from atmosphere to ocean. Indeed I take your comments regarding the reverse effect on board in toto, along with the notion that the atmosphere temperature acts as a governor of heat transfer from ocean to atmosphere. So I really don’t understand why you feel the need to point this out.

        I won’t repeat my whole earlier post, but merely note that in terms of your own argument, a necessary precondition for ocean warming is atmospheric warming, since as you mention the latter governs the former.

        The problem here though, is that the latter hasn’t been happening since 1998, and yet you say the oceans have continued warming. So whatever is warming the oceans, it isn’t a warmer atmosphere slowing down the loss of heat from the oceans to itself.

      • Erica,

        The past 10 years have been the warmest 10 year period for tropospheric temperatures and the past 10 years have been the warmest 10 year period for ocean heat content, both as measured by modern instruments and when compared to a composite of the best paleoclimate data we have. I’m not sure what you mean by suggesting that the atmosphere hasn’t warmed along with the oceans? Also, it should be pointed out, the past 10 years have been the highest 10 year period for CO2, methane, and N2O levels in somewhere around a million years. Do you honestly think these all are not related?

        Those who deny these basic facts certainly deserve a different title other than “skeptic”.

      • R Gates
        Much of what you say here I agree with, but yet again you duck the point put to you. Let me again state it, starting from a little earlier in the discussion.

        In response to the well-known observation that average atmospheric temperatures have risen for about 14 years now, you made the following argument

        (1) oceans temperatures HAVE still been rising.
        And since they are a far greater heat sink, this means the earth is still warming.

        (2) The net energy flow is ocean->atmosphere, not atmosphere->ocean, in view of their relative temperatures.

        (3) With (2) in mind, the atmosphere governs heat loss from the ocean; the warmer the atmosphere is, the less the ocean will cool into it.

        Now (2) and (3) taken together, mean that for ocean temperature to rise by this mechanism, the atmospheric temperature must first rise.

        Your problem for your theory is : the atmosphere has in fact NOT warming these 14 years, yet the oceans you say HAVE still warming. So whatever is warming the oceans, it is NOT a warming atmosphere.

        So what is it ?

    • Rising CO2 reduces the energy heading into space. If that causes an imbalance then the planet will accumulate energy until balance is restored. That alone doesn’t tell us where the energy will be accumulated. Over a number of years the ocean could accumulate energy but the atmosphere does not.

      • “Rising CO2 reduces the energy heading into space.”

        That conclusion might be result of the incorrectly solved Earth heat transfer problem. The surface is cooled by non-radiative modes pre-dominantly, while the atmosphere is cooled by radiation exclusively. Over 90% of the planetary cooling power is the atmospheric radiation, not the surface radiation.

    • The Skeptical Warmist (aka R. Gates)

      Sullivan,

      You must think about net energy flows in the ocean-atmosphere system to really grasp the significance of increasing greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. The majority of the energy that enters the ocean is from SW solar radiation, and it is only then transferred to the atmosphere at a rate based partially on the steepness of the thermal gradient between the ocean skin layer and the atmosphere. Greater greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere alter the thermal gradient right at the ocean skin layer. The very top of the ocean skin layer is continually affected by LW radiation coming from the atmosphere. In fact, the LW can’t penetrate much beyond that very top ocean skin layer, but that’s all it needs to penetrate to alter the thermal gradient across the skin layer. If the top of the ocean skin layer is slightly warmer with increased greenhouse gas warming, it means the thermal gradient across the ocean skin layer becomes less steep, energy flows less readily from ocean to atmosphere, and the oceans accumulate energy.

      The warming of the bulk of the ocean mass from increased CO2 and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is not mainly from the direct warming of the oceans by the atmosphere (this is thermodynamically impossible), but rather, the fact that increased greenhouse gases act as a governor or control nob to regulate the rate at which energy is transferred from ocean to atmosphere. This is, in a sense, no different than how a jacket keeps the core of your body warm on a cold winter day. There is no energy being imparted from the jacket to your body, but the jacket serves to control the rate at which your body loses energy to the colder air outside the jacket. In this case, the oceans represent your body’s core, and similarly overall, the net energy flow is from your body’s core to the jacket, just as the net energy flow is from the ocean to atmosphere, and not the other way around.

      • David Springer

        “Greater greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere alter the thermal gradient right at the ocean skin layer.”

        Linky?

        Thanks in advance for supporting this statement with experimental data published in a peer reviewed journal. Real Climate and Skeptical Science don’t count as peer reviewed journals, by the way. They count as blogs and might lead you to the literature but they themselves are not the literature.

      • R Gates
        Restated in your terms then : for the ocean-atmosphere gradient to become less steep and so inhibit ocean-to-atmosphere heat transfer, the atmosphere at the surface must have warmed up (due to increased CO2, let’s assume).

        But of course it hasn’t for the last decade or more.
        Which means that if indeed the oceans are warming, it cannot be because of the atmosphere (and therefore also not because of CO2 levels).

    • Sullivan, simply put, the sun heats the ocean and the CO2 prevents that heat from escaping so easily. Standard stuff.

      • David Springer

        It’s not that simple when the ocean is free to evaporate in response. This is “standard stuff” over dry land because rocks aren’t free to evaporate but it’s different over water. The standard stuff as you call it includes three means of heat leaving the earth’s surface – latent, radiative, and conductive. Each path, when available, will carry a portion of the energy away from the surface proportional to its resistance. DC electrical circuits work the same way with parallel resisters and so do manifolds in fluid pipelines. Over dry land we have only two paths from surface to atmosphere – conduction and radiation. If we give the radiative path more resistence, which happens with more CO2, the only possible response is a rise in surface temperature. Adding a latent path changes things because increased evaporation doesn’t require an increase in surface temperature but rather an increase in the latent heat of vaporization which is afforded by the increased downwelling radiation. A pound of water vapor at 15C carries a hugely larger amount of energy of than a pound of water at 15C. In fact as evaporation happens the skin layer becomes colder than the water below it because evaporation removes more heat than is absorbed to cause the evaporation. That’s because the extra energy picks off the warmest water molecules closest to a phase change and leaves the colder ones behind.

        Feel free to give an alternative physical explanation for why the skin layer is cooler than the water below it. Good luck!

      • David Springer

        “Over dry land we have only two paths from surface to atmosphere – conduction and radiation. If we give the radiative path more resistence, which happens with more CO2, the only possible response is a rise in surface temperature.”

        Some elaboration is in order for that. What happens is that the higher temperature allows more energy to escape radiatively through the atmosphere’s IR window. More energy will also escape by conduction through a higher delta-T between surface and air causing what’s called thermals that can be seen as shimmering over the desert and can be ridden by sailplanes and raptors. You need a spectroscope to see the increase in energy in the IR window but it’s there and was observed by high flying aircraft with downward-looking instruments.

      • David: ‘Over dry land we have only two paths from surface to atmosphere – conduction and radiation…’ My thirsty tomato plants tell me there is plenty of evaporation from their leaves, as from all green plants undergoing photosynthesis.

      • David Springer

        Your tomato plants on are on moist land, obviously, or they could not transpire. I specifically stated *dry* land.

      • @Jim D

        simply put, the sun heats the ocean and the CO2 prevents that heat from escaping so easily. Standard stuff.

        Yes, and which must obviously warm the atmosphere in the process – which we know is NOT happening. So either the standard stuff is plain wrong, or natural variation is swamping it.

      • The Skeptical Warmist (aka R. Gates)

        Sullivan,

        The past 10 years were the warmest 10 year period in the troposphere on instrument record, with ocean heat content also being at its highest recorded levels. These are the basic facts. Natural variability may have dampened this period to not have been even warmer, but we should not expect this to continue.

      • R. Gates

        You state:

        The past 10 years were the warmest 10 year period in the troposphere on instrument record, with ocean heat content also being at its highest recorded levels. These are the basic facts.

        The first part is true, in that the cooling trend of the recent decade has been less pronounced than the warming trend of the previous decade, so that, by definition, the temperatures for the most recent decade are higher on average. Duh! (4th-grade arithmetic).

        Ocean heat content claims are a bit more dicey. There were no reliable measurements before around 2003, when ARGO measurements replaced the old spot measurements from the expendable XBT devices (which introduced a warming bias). The ARGO measurements have NOT shown increases in ocean heat content, but rather slight cooling (referred to by team leader, Josh Willis, as a “speed bump”). So we cannot say with any certainty that “ocean heat content is at its highest recorded level”.

        Let’s not use clever “wordsmithing”, in order to deny that both the atmosphere and the ocean appear to be cooling at present, even if only very slightly.

        Max

        .

      • The Skeptical Warmist (aka R. Gates)

        Max,

        With a high degree of confidence we can say that the past 10 years were the warmest 10 year period of lower troposphere and warmest 10 year period of ocean temperatures on instrument records. There is no clever words-smithing going on here at all. This is simple and straight forward. Your insistence that our data for the oceans does not allow us to make this statement is quite in error. We have a high degree of confidence that the oceans are at their highest levels of heat content in quite some time.

        Fortunately, we can also know several of the reasons why the past 10 years were rather flat (at a higher levels) in the troposphere based on known physical forcing mechanisms. These being (in no particular order of importance):

        1). A series of moderate volcanoes increasing aerosols
        2) A cool phase of the PDO favoring more and stronger La Nina periods whereby less heat is released from ocean to atmosphere
        3) A less active sun
        4) An increase in human aerosols from China and other regions in Asia.

        A most telling piece of data comes from last years La Nina. Normally of course we see lower tropospheric temperatures during La Ninas as less net energy is released from ocean to atmosphere, and such was the case last year– with one big difference. It was the warmest La Nina year on record.

      • RGates

        It is interesting that the worlds most scrutinised temperature data set has shown a marked decline over the last decade (although it remains as a high level) This year it has been at the levels of 1730 and two years ago it was at the same level as the first year in the CET record,1660).

        http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/

        As regards this being the warmest La Nina on record, when was this record established?
        tonyb

      • The Skeptical Warmist (aka R. Gates)

        Tony,

        I left this link for you elsewhere, Just wanted to make sure you saw it. Great article on the record from the Greenland Ice Core, especially of interest to you might be the big increase in volcanic activity just prior to the start of the LIA (and during as well). Also of course the Maunder and Dalton shown in this study:

        http://www.clim-past-discuss.net/8/4817/2012/cpd-8-4817-2012.pdf

      • R Gates

        Here is the source of your claim about this being the warmest La nina on record

        “Global temperatures in 2011 have not been as warm as the record-setting values seen in 2010 but have likely been warmer than any previous strong La Niña year, based on preliminary data from data sources compiled by the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO).

        http://www.wmo.int/pages/mediacentre/press_releases/pr_935_en.html

        Note the qualfication of ‘likely’. It seems the first records appear to have started around a century ago but were suspect as Tahiti pressure measurements were largely missing until the 1980’s so the full picture could not be seen.
        tonyb

      • The Skeptical Warmist (aka R. Gates)

        Tony,

        2011 was the warmest La Nina year on record. This is significant, as it continues to set the baseline for increasing temperatures higher, with the natural variations of ENSO, PDO, and solar cycles fluctuating on a continually increasing longer-term baseline. Interesting that even a weak solar cycle and cool phase of the PDO, along with increased aerosols could not bring this La Nina down lower.

      • RGates

        Many thanks for the link to the LIA/Greenland study. It looks very interesting and even better, it is not behind a paywall.

        As I may have said to you before, one of my projects is to try to trace the change in the climate from MWP to LIA. In fact I am going to the Met Office library tomorrow to borrow Jean Groves book on the LIA and also research more material.

        We are fortunate round here to have some good records locally of the period from 1100 to 1400AD, some of which I recently researched at the Medieval Exeter Cathedral. I am concentrating on the 1250AD decades as this appears to be the recognised period of the LIA start, largely because of ice cores.

        However, blessed if I can find any downturn in the climate during that period-for example no monies paid to the poor for hardship from the Cathedral. I wonder if the volcanoes around 1250 emitted lots of sulphur which got recorded in the ice cores but didn’t actualy affect the climate. However its early das and hard evence of the downturn around 1250 might of course come to light.

        Anyway, many thanks for the link.
        tonyb

      • The Skeptical Warmist (aka R. Gates)

        Tony,

        One last graph for you that is worth studying. Shows the coincidence of volcanic activity and global temperatures over the past 800 years or so:

        Will the full article here:

        http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2012/02/the-mysterious-missing-eruption-of-1258-a-d/

      • Incredible. People are disputing the standard stuff, and I didn’t even get to the part about the warmer ocean resulting in more water vapor in the atmosphere which is a positive feedback.

      • More water vapour in the atmosphere is negative feedback, it’s called the Water Cycle. Without water our real atmosphere would be 67°C .., think deserts.

        Moist, hot air rises because lighter than air, and as water vapour reaches the cold heights it releases its heat, heat always flows from hotter to colder, and condenses back to liquid water or ice forming clouds and it then comes back down to the Earth’s suface – all pure clean rain, and fog and dew, is carbonic acid as water and carbon dioxide have a great attraction for each other, water in the atmosphere sweeps up into its arms all the carbon dioxide around; in this carbon dioxide shares the same residence time in the atmosphere as water, 8-10 days. Water has a very high heat capacity and transfers this from the surface to the cold heights and away through evaporation.

        That is the Water Cycle. That is what is basic in the real world.

      • > That is the Water Cycle. That is what is basic in the real world.

        Thales agrees with Myrhhh:

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thales#Water_as_a_first_principle

      • Jim D | October 7, 2012 at 12:12 pm said: ”warmer ocean resulting in more water vapor in the atmosphere which is a positive feedback”

        Jimmy boy, water is NOT a “”positive feedback””, but a ”POSITIVE STARVEBACK”!!!

        Water vapor makes milder climate – day and night temperature closer. Minus water vapor = extreme between day and night. Overall temperature is always the same!!!

        Same as: if you have in the left pocket $90 and in the right one $10 – then you put from from the left into the right pocket another $30 = you will have $40 in one $60 in the other, instead of $90 to $10; but that’s not going to make you richer or poorer. On mid pacific islands the difference between day / night is 3-5C, in Sahara difference between day and night is 30C

        Blaming water vapor and CO2, but referring as ”green” is the biggest hippocricy, since the homo-erectus invented the language. No wander you are lacking capacity to understand the most simple facts, coordinating everything to fit the Hansen’s lies, is turning you into a cuckoo. Your attitude is bordering on fanaticism and lunacy. Get a doze of reality: . http://globalwarmingdenier.wordpress.com/2012/07/20/water-vapor/

      • > Blaming water vapor and CO2, but referring as ”green” is the biggest hippocricy, since the homo-erectus invented the language.

        Quite an understatement.

        God I miss bender.

      • Particular Physicist

        Jim D : more water vapor in the atmosphere which is a positive feedback.

        Even though this means more albedo ?

      • Albedo, the foaming cleanser
        Puts the sparkle back in the denser.
        =============

      • The Skeptical Warmist (aka R. Gates) | October 7, 2012 at 12:39 pm said: ”With a high degree of confidence we can say that the past 10 years were the warmest 10 year period of lower troposphere”

        Gates, learn something that is correct for a change, and can be replicated every day: – when ”lower troposphere” warms up extra -> vertical winds INCREASE, instantly; and equalize in a jiffy!!! 1] in Sahara, in 12h ”lower troposphere” cools by 35C, yes, in 12h. 2] in Fiji, in those same 12h, cools only by 4-5C; because day temperature is not much different than night temp – because: proportion in difference of temperature between lower and upper troposphere is much less!!!

        So, repeat after me: -”a] when is no H2O, or CO2, or any other pollutant in the upper atmosphere, to intercept some of the sunlight – the colder is there, but the hotter it gets closer to the ground -> the MORE vertical winds speed up, and equalize in a jiffy, not in 10 years, not in 10 years, not in 10 years”. Don’t be same sleaze as Tony Brown, when confronted by real proofs, have some dignity and admit that your fanaticism is completely wrong AND back to front. If you are interested to learn what’s correct and what’s wrong, why is wrong, on my blog

  34. Well, Max, *IF* they showed yer the data that verified their claims of

    (a) unprecedented global warming and
    (b) the data confirming CAGW due to rising levels of man produced carbon emissions

    *THEN* you and others like yer would have the opportunity ter critically analyse and test their claims. But considering the efforts Steve McIntyre went to ter get the Hocky Stick data, don’t hold yer breath waiting )

  35. The data certainly does confirm CAGW as real. To see why lets review the three primary effects of rising CO2:

    1) disruption of radiative flow in the atmosphere because CO2 is a strong greenhouse gas
    2) A drop in surface ocean pH because of increased absorption of CO2 into the upper ocean.
    3) Increased plant fertilization because CO2 is “plant food”

    Through these three primary effects CO2 touches almost all aspects of ecosystems, weather and climate on land and in the ocean. Secondary effects include but are not limited to:

    – increasing ocean, land and atmospheric temperatures
    – reductions in glaciers, ice sheets, snowcover, etc
    – raising sea level
    – altering the amount and properties of clouds, which in turn alters the amount of sunlight received by the Earth
    – altering weather and climate patterns
    – altering ecosystems and food chains

    What guarantee do we have that these impacts will be small enough to avoid catastrophe? Unfortunately the predictive science is still a work in progress and can’t yet offer us any guarantees.

    Maybe we can find an example from Earth’s history where CO2 rose as fast as it was doing today and no catastrophe occurred? Unfortunately no such luck. No-one has found evidence of any past CO2 rise as sharp and fast as the current one.

    So what CAGW catastrophes could conceivably occur? Examples include (but are certainly not limited to):

    – die back of the amazon rainforest
    – collapse or slowdown of the thermohaline circulation
    – alteration of other ocean currents
    – massive release of carbon trapped in permafrost
    – mass extinctions triggered by alterations of ecosystems
    – increased droughts and floods in some areas
    – alteration of regional weather patterns with disastrous impact
    – crop failures and famines

    Until the science is good enough to disprove all the above potential catastrophes (and more), CAGW is real. It’s important to make the world aware of this CAGW threat so that decisions can be made. After-all it would be bad if people one day woke up to disaster and exclaimed: “But I didn’t know that could happen!”

    • “The data certainly does confirm CAGW as real.”

      It doesn’t.

      Andrew

    • @lolwot

      The data certainly does confirm CAGW as real. To see why lets review the three primary effects of rising CO2: …….

      So…..because we see increased plant growth etc, therefore there is Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming.
      Genious.

    • Latimer Alder

      @lolwot

      You cite

      ‘ A drop in surface ocean pH because of increased absorption of CO2 into the upper ocean’

      Please provide links to actual observational evidence showing that this theoretically possible effect is actually happening. Then we can all assess the strength of this part of your case.

      Thanks.

    • lolwot

      I get a “déjà vu all over again” feeling when I read your long post listing “potential catastrophes” from AGW, based on three main contributing factors
      – increased global temperature
      – decreased ocean pH
      – plant response to increased atmospheric CO2.

      This has all been refuted on another thread, where I have demonstrated, based on actual real-life data, that factors 1 and 3 are likely to have a positive, rather than catastrophically negative, impact for humanity and that we do not know enough about the constraints, extent or environmental response to any human CO2-caused ocean pH changes (factor 2) to conclude that these would have “catastrophic” consequences.

      Let’s not rehash the same old, tired arguments that have already been shot down once.

      It gets boring.

      Max

  36. A fan of *MORE* discourse

    For all who enjoy cartoons, it turns out that Josh’s Royal Society — Handling Uncertainty in Climate cartoons *ARE* available on-line.

    On the other hand, the link that Judith Curry supplies still points (in the end) to Marc Fleurbaey and Stéphane Zuber’s dry-as-dust analysis Climate policies deserve a negative discount rate.

    Please let me say, that Judith Curry is IMHO showing excellent judgement! Josh’s cartoons describe climate-change issues from a short-term childish perspective … whereas Josh never touches the long-term adult perspective of Fleurbaey and Zuber’s analysis!

    Is Judith Curry asking us all to reflect, that rational climate-change debate requires a GROWN–UP focus?   :?:   :?:   :?:

    Is Judith affirming (in effect) “Rational climate-change skepticism must embrace long-term implications and responsibilities.”   :?:   :?:   :?:

    LOL … good luck with *THAT* enterprise, Judith! ;)   :smile:   :grin:   :lol:   :!:

    Every politician, huckster, demagogue, and con-artist bases their “con”  … upon the premise that *MANY* folks prefer to live in a Josh-style cartoon universe! ;)   :smile:   :grin:   :lol:   :!:

    • The failure of AGW pseudo-scientists to admit Mann’s ‘hockey stick’ is nothing more than a religious symbol and the Left’s refusal to concede that the Earth has been in a cooling trend for the past 10,000 years is a moral breach that dishonors reason.

    • WUWT was also caught acting unethically in allowing commenter Smokey to be supported in his discussions by a WUWT Mod – dbs – who was actually Smokey.

      Smokey and dbs appear to have been missing from WUWT for quite some time now.

      http://wottsupwiththat.com/2012/08/29/reach-for-the-stars-now-becomes-retreat-to-the-past/#comment-4516

    • Latimer Alder

      Wow

      If these two pretty minor supposed ‘transgressions’ are the worst you can find, then I think that WUWT must be doing a pretty good job of getting you guys severely worried. Maybe I’ll start reading it more closely.

      Compared with Climategate it looks like AW is pretty squeaky clean.

      • These are by no means the worst, they just happen to going on right now.

        Should we discuss the hypocrisy of berating Muller for science by press release followed by Watts’ own press release about his draft surface stations project? Or his lack of willingness to publish his code or data? Or his unwillingness to accept that he is wrong when patient scientists try to explain to him in words of one syllable where he misses the point? Or his ad hom attacks and willingness to release personal details about posters he disagrees with?

        Probably not the time and place to go in to these here but there are plenty of other blogs that record these issues for posterity.

      • Latimer Alder

        @louise

        ‘there are plenty of other blogs that record these issues for posterity’

        Sorry – still not convinced that these are very bad misdemeanours. Not like forgery or career threats or any of the climategate shenanigans. It may be that Mr Watts does some things that you dislike, but you’ve not made a case that he’s the evil archcriminal of the climate battlefield that you would like him to be.

        But in case anybody’s interested, please place links to the ‘plenty of other blogs’ that you cite so we can read all about them.

      • > Not like forgery or career threats or any of the climategate shenanigans.

        Look, an abstract squirrel.

        > [Y]ou’ve not made a case that he’s the evil archcriminal of the climate battlefield that you would like him to be.

        Mindreading a strawman.

      • Latimer Alder

        @lolwot

        I agree that it is bad practice to provide graphs without correct attribution.

        So how do you feel about this one

        which you cited in your post here earlier today

        http://judithcurry.com/2012/10/05/week-in-review-10512/#comment-249271

        Th graph has absolutely no information to help track down is original source, Nor does the link you provided…to a ‘sceptical science’ picture gallery.

        Sauce for the goose, my dear lolwot, is sauce for the gander.

      • Latimer Alder

        @louise

        Did you check the date on the article that Connolly (the same guy who keeps getting banned from wiki??) complains about?

        Here it is

        http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/10/when-the-ipcc-disappeared-the-medieval-warm-period/

        The date is March 2010. Two and a half years ago. Only just after the glorious liberation of Climategate.

        And the supposed error was in a piece clearly labelled

        ‘Guest post by Frank Lansner’

        So whatever your beefs with Watts (and boy has he got you all worried), if you need to say that

        ‘they just happen to be going on right now’

        about an article that old, then you really really are clutching at straws. You need to find some real dirt Louise, otherwise you are just serving to enhance his already influential reputation

      • > The date is March 2010. Two and a half years ago.

        Indeed, an old article karaoking an old myth about the MWP and the IPCC. The karaoke usually contains a refrain about the Deming Affair:

        http://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/tagged/DemingAffair

        The Deming Affair is an important ingredient in our good Bishop’s political hit job.

        ***

        > Only just after the glorious liberation of Climategate.

        Look, squirrel, this time not an abstract one.

        It even has a name: YesButClimategate.

      • Steven Mosher

        Liberating the mails. hmm that one has not gotten the traction I thought it would.

      • My strange tractor broke down straight out of the bifurctory.
        ==============

      • When will people admit George Bush got it right? So long as global warming is a political issue — and that is all it will ever be until the Western economy falls on its face like it did in Greece — AGW it will never be anything more than the blame game for the 47%’rs (until they become more than 50% at which time they will simply re-write history and none of this will have happened).

      • Speaking of George Junior, here would be a number to audit:

        > 3 trillion and beyond.

        http://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/post/3650541306

        That’s an estimate of the Irak occupation, which might be considered a bit more than the Bush administration’s 2003 projections of a $50 billion to $60 billion.

      • Wy not blame Allah?

      • allahaudit.org does not seem to be taken.
        Go for it:
        Fame and fortune awaits you.

      • What is your recommendation to the children in the Muslim world, learn more about capitalism or wear a bomb belt?

      • If you kill their parents, they’ll wear a bomb belt.

      • Very interesting, please continue.

    • Latimer Alder

      @lolwot

      Shock horror. Watts mislabelled a graph and failed to provide attribution.

      If that is the worst crime he has committed, then you guys are really having to resort to clutching at straws.

      • Compare and contrast:

        Latimer Adler:

        > Shock horror. Watts mislabelled a graph and failed to provide attribution.

        William M. Connolley:

        > [Considering the source of the author’s graph, Frank Lansner] was deliberately lying to his audience. But more amusingly, all his audience is so incompetent that they fail to realise they are being lied to. […] The discussion the segues off into boreholes but Lansner never gives an honest answer, or even addresses the real point. Oh, and don’t get me started on how incompetent his fig 2 is.

      • Latimer Alder

        @willard

        Do you have a substantive point to make?

        If so, please make it clearly and directly.

        Thanks.

      • He’s got a bass case, ‘splodin’ in bills.
        ===========

      • Apologies to the Parrot Catcher; he was a much better man.
        ===============

      • Latimer Adler,

        Connolley’s point was to provide evidence that Frank Lansner lied to Willard Tony’s audience, and that most of his audience did not even bother to audit (paraphrasing with the relevant operative word) Lansner’s claim before raising their pitchforks. And that when audited, Lansner did not acknowledge his mistake.

        Connolley’s point was not what Watts mislabelled a graph. It was not even the main point. It was not even Watts anyway.

        So my point would be that you have caricatured Connolley’s point. In other words, you did not pay enough due diligence before trying to minimize Connolley’s point. Not unlike Willard Tony’s audience did, incidentally.

        Thank you for providing me a chance to clarify what I meant.

      • Latimer Alder

        @willard

        If the worst charge you can lay at my door is that I ‘caricatured’ Connolly’s point then I will sleep easy in my bed at night, secure in a job well done.

        In UK we call it ‘taking the piss out of an arrogant smug git’, but if you feel ‘caricaturing’ more suits the Climate Etc audience, I’m cool with that.

        That you and Connolly can get so violently excited by a 30 month old occurrence in a guest post on a voluntary blog just shows how much Watts work has got you all terrified. Not so long ago it was beneath your notice as you sheltered in the haven of Real Climate. Those were the days – when people tuned in to Schmidt and Mann to hear the party line. Now nobody listens to them and you are running scared of a TV weatherman

        Just imagine what would happen if McIntyre’s indefatigable forensic skills were combined with Watts’ wide readership………

      • Latimer Alder

        @willard

        I forgot to congratulate you on writing a post that was almost comprehensible without a higher degree in riddle solution. You’re learning. Keep it up!

        And If I were AFOCBS I’d give you an encouraging smiley.

      • Latimer Adler,

        Since the only thing you did was to caricature Connolley’s points, and that you would not care less about the skill of your reading, then I am glad that we’re in violent agreement. Well done!

        ***

        You now claim:

        > Not so long ago it was beneath your notice as you sheltered in the haven of Real Climate.

        I’d like you to substantiate that claim. As far as I can recall, I have not commented much on RC. Perhaps you’re cool with saying falsities?

        ***

        You also claim:

        > [Y]ou are running scared of a TV weatherman.

        I’d like you to substantiate that mindreading. As far as I’m concerned, Willard Tony is such an easy target that I don’t think it is worth my time paying due diligence the the mud he slings day in day out. This is the second reading of my mind you are providing us so far free of charge in this thread alone.

        ***

        > Just imagine what would happen if McIntyre’s indefatigable forensic skills were combined with Watts’ wide readership………

        It is not difficult to imagine, since Willard Tony karaokes about anything that gets out of CA. For instance, just today we have this:

        > Over at Climate Audit, Steve reports on the Update for the FOI for the Wahl Attachments[.]

        http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/07/questions-on-the-cru-email-backup-server/

        And also this:

        > This new paper in GRL takes on the well-known buckets-vs-inlets issue (Steve McIntyre also visited the issue several times) related to ship based sea surface temperature measurements and as a result, produces an improved dataset.

        http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/07/resolving-the-biases-in-century-scale-sea-surface-temperature-measurments-reveals-some-interesting-patterns/

        ***

        Speaking of Willard Tony and the Auditor, this bit is interesting.

        > Anthony sent me his draft paper. In his cover email, he said that the people who had offered to do statistical analysis hadn’t done so (each for valid reasons). So I did some analysis very quickly, which Anthony incorporated in the paper and made me a coauthor though my contribution was very last minute and limited. I haven’t parsed the rest of the paper.

        http://climateaudit.org/2012/07/31/surface-stations

        The first comment from that same thread comes from Ron Broberg:

        > Any chance that the list of stations and their site ratings will be made available soon?

        This question has yet to be answered in that thread. Do you know if and when it was made available?

        There’s this other question from Ron Broberg:

        > Will you [the Auditor] continue your association with the paper if the relevant data (stn ids and siting classifications) is not made public and archived in a timely manner?

        No direct answer to that question in that thread. But we do have this declaration from the Auditor:

        > Anthony had asked me long ago to help with the statistical analysis, but I hadn’t followed up. I had looked at the results in 2007, but hadn’t kept up with it subsequently.

        http://climateaudit.org/2012/07/27/anthonys-announcement/

        This contrasts with Willard Tony’s:

        > This pre-publication draft paper, titled An area and distance weighted analysis of the impacts of station exposure on the U.S. Historical Climatology Network temperatures and temperature trends, is co-authored by Anthony Watts of California, Evan Jones of New York, Stephen McIntyre of Toronto, Canada, and Dr. John R. Christy from the Department of Atmospheric Science, University of Alabama, Huntsville, is to be submitted for publication.

        http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/29/press-release-2/

        Has this been corrected yet?

        Many thanks!

      • Steven Mosher

        “Just imagine what would happen if McIntyre’s indefatigable forensic skills were combined with Watts’ wide readership……”

        The readership would vanish. Anthony has a very simple formula. It’s not what most critics think. That’s because they don’t read it without reacting emotionally. Intellectuals can suspend their emotional reactions and figure it out. You can practice this skill by reading things like letters to Penthouse and analyzing their rhetorical structure. Or watching Vivid and commenting on the cinematography.

        If you look at it dis passionately it will be really clear, but you have to bracket what you believe and look at the thing itself.

      • It’s Bill James and Red Smith.
        ==========

      • Latimer Alder

        @willard

        I don’t believe you find Watts so much beneath your notice as you claim…..you are happy to write derogatory posts about him here…and it seems that you have borrowed his given name for your moniker here. Indeed you are so pleased with your likeness to ‘Willard Tony’ that you have used it in 8 separate postings in this thread alone.

        Hardly the behaviour of one who is quite so insouciant as you would like us to believe.

        As to the stylistic point, please read my post and you will see my remarks are addressed to ‘you all’ (plural, including Connolly).

        I’ll take no lessons from you on

        ‘ would not care less about the skill of your reading’, when you clearly are incapable of reading my posts.

        But I’ll give you another silver star for an almost comprehensible post.

        Elsewhere you write

        ‘I find that “delphic gnome of cryptic doom” has some stylistic merit. ‘

        I fear you may be in a very small minority holding this view. read Nostardamus when I was about 15 and thought it was crap. Your adoption of a similar style just makes me believe that you haven’t wit enough to organise your thoughts in a coherent and logical manner, nor writing skills enough to put them on (virtual) paper. So I mostly just scroll past them.

        Persuasive it is not.

      • Say what you will about Wikipedia, but the community at least knows how to police the site.

        In contrast, the selective policing of this site against crackpot theories is very mysterious.

        I notice that elsewhere Latie went after a crackpot in a rare move. Is that what William Connelly should do? Just occasionally remove edits to a Wikipedia page? It takes work to revert the onslaught of entropy of the crackpot variety.

      • Well sure Wikipedia polices its site very well – since its whole intention is to police thought for political correctness.

        Over here at Climate Etc, by contrast, people are interested in promoting thought, and getting to the truth. Which admittedly does mean the odd crackpot gets a foot in door. Heck, even that hysterical dribbling moron tried to combine Mathusianism and cornucopianism is tolerated.

      • Latimer Adler,

        You can believe what you will about my opinion of Willard Tony. What you can’t do is to accuse me of being incapable of reading your posts. This has been clearly shown false over and over again. I don’t recall an exchange between us where this cheap trick served you well.

        Quite frankly, that’s a trick that does you a disservice. Your last comment clearly shows that your main objective is to talk about me. My comments mainly clarify Louise’s point, while paying due diligence to your spit.

        Thank you for your stylistic remarks. You don’t know how much they mean to me. In fact, you might know, if we’re to believe in your mindreading skill.

        Your mindreading skill is way more impressive than your reading skill, Latimer. Just take that last reply of yours. Where have you addressed anything I said in my comment? Sometimes, it’s as if you’d think no one would notice when you flea.

        You’re just fixating on ad hominems, Latimer. What is your expected value for such a tasteless strategy? It might be better to stick to YesButClimategate and its personalized derivatives: you were once renowned to outsource IT deps, that means I can talk about climate models as if I knew anything about them, and that’s notwithstanding the fact that your formation in chemistry justifies you mocking any idea of the acidification of the ocean because it does not meet your terminological standards, etc.

        You should not challenge me on reading anything, Latimer. You clearly do not have the stuff to do that. There once was a robot whose ringtone was to “read the blog”. I did.

        God I miss that robot.

    • David Springer

      It was a guest post by Frank Lanser on WUWT. Quite true Frank should have supplied an attribution. I might note the unattributed portion of the graph in question also appears on Skeptical Science without attribution too. Don’t forget to condemn them with equal vigor for allowing it to be reproduced in their website. ;-)

      http://www.skepticalscience.com/hockey-stick-own-goal.html#41289

      P.S. No lawsuit has ever been filed for a violation of a Gnu Public License agreement which can only be violated by failure to attribute the original source.

      P.P.S. I’m sure Connelly could remedy this heinous act of copyright infringement by contacting Anthony and asking for an attribution to be added. Watts is honest to a fault AFAIK and I’ve had a fair amount of interpersonal dealings with him to establish that. You’re barking up the wrong tree as usual.

      • Is appearing in the comments section of SKS exactly the same as appearing in the article section of SKS?

  37. Amazing, this revisionist reframing of the candidates own views concerning energy policy.

    Mitch Romney actually wrote a book in 2010 placing him squarely in the camp of those concerned over natural resource limitations. From “No Apology; The Case for American Greatness.” , on page 232, here are consecutive paragraphs interspersed with my comments:
    “In recent years, there’s been a view in Washington that we should simply ‘let the market work’ by taking a hands-off approach, rather than adopt a proactive and comprehensive set of energy policies. That prescription is exactly the right one in most economic sectors, but it falls short when it comes to energy. And it ignores the fact that we have policies in place right now that distort how the energy markets function.”
    This shows that the government should be proactive when it comes to funding energy strategies, and leave the free-market to selling french fries, etc. Hello alternative energy research and funding, and kudos to the non-Luddite Mitt.
    “Our own policies interfere with free-market mechanisms. We subsidize domestic oil and gas production with generous tax breaks, penalize sugar-based ethanol from Brazil, and block investment in nuclear energy. Our navy assumes the prime responsibility for securing the oil routes from the Middle East, effectively subsidizing its cost. Thus, we don’t pay the full cost of Middle East
    oil, either at the oil-company level or at the pump.”

    Oil prices are now $5 a gallon in California, blamed on refinery problems. Yea, sure. Mitt knows that this is a global issue.
    “Market economists also identify a number of externalities – real costs that aren’t captured in the price of fuel – the most frequently cited of which are the health-care costs of pollution and the climate costs of greenhouse gases. There is a further externality: potentially leaving the next generation in the lurch by using so much oil and energy ourselves – domestic and imported – that our
    children face severe oil shortages, prohibitively expensive fuel, a crippled economy, and dominion of energy by Russia and other oil-rich states. No matter how you price it, oil is expensive to use; we should be encouraging our citizens to use less of it, our scientists to find alternatives for it, and our producers to find more of it here at home.”

    Mitt is no contradictory Malthusian cornucopian. He appears to be a realist, at least in his writing. Who knows what he thinks personally, or if his religious beliefs differ. Notice how he uses the word “dominion” when it comes to Russia and its fossil fuel resources. Of course, a Dominionist would use the word dominion.
    “Many analysts predict that the world’s production of oil will peak in the next ten to twenty years, but oil expert Matt Simmons, author of Twilight in the Desert: The Coming Saudi Oil Shock and the World Economy, presents a compelling case that Middle Eastern oil production may have already reached its peak. Simmons bases his contention on his investigation into the highly
    secretive matter of the level of reserves in the Saudi oil fields. But whether the peak is already past or will be reached within a few years, world oil supply will decline at some point, and no one predicts a corresponding decline in demand. If we want America to remain strong and wish to ensure that future generations have secure and prosperous lives, we must consider our current energy policies in the light of how these policies will affect our grandchildren.”

    That paragraph sums up his realist concerns over fossil fuel resource limitations, and the need to pursue alternative strategies in line with mitigation and adaptation views of those concerned over climate change.

    It is also strange that Romney is now apologizing over all sorts of stuff he has said in the past. Quite the title for a book, eh?

    • Webby

      Government policy to decrease US dependency on oil imported from the Middle East could include:

      – open up federal lands to oil and gas exploration, including shale
      – allow construction of the Keystone pipeline
      – maintain tax incentives for oil and gas exploration
      – look at EPA regulations to see where these are counterproductive
      – support selected basic research for new energy sources

      IMO it would NOT include

      – throwing away taxpayer funds for corn to ethanol schemes
      – wasting taxpayer money on “renewable” operations, such as Solyndra
      – enacting cap and trade schemes or direct carbon taxes

      Mitt Romney may or may not agree with my list, but I/m sure he has a list of his own – and it is not the same as the list of Barack Obama.

      Max

      • Max, Mind your own country of Switzerland. Realistically the shale currently being fractured is bottom of the barrel. Keystone is zero sum. Spend money on alternatives like there is no tomorrow.
        That is shorter Mitt.

      • The Keystone imports oil.

      • More accurately, the keystone improvements increase he throughput of Canadian oil to other parts of the world. The bitumen gets imported to the US, then refined and shipped elsewhere. There are already refineries in the midwest for US needs.

      • So it could also increase our exports? If so, far out man.

      • Yea, it is ledger magic to ‘hide the decline’ of crude oil.

        A double entry bookkeeping system good for TPTB and their precious balance sheets.

      • JCH

        Yeah. Keystone imports oil – but NOT from the Middle East, but from a friendly US neighbor.

        Big difference.

        Max

      • Webby

        We were discussing potential differences between US President Obama and his rival for the office, Romney, as regards energy policy, i.e. how to reduce US dependency on imported crude oil from Middle East.

        The shale oil/gas potential is huge in the USA. This seems to be bogged down in the regulatory process. Exploiting this needs higher priority, as this will also create much needed US jobs.

        The Keystone pipeline will not only bring an oil source from a friendly neighbor but will also create US jobs at a time when this is important.

        Alternate energy sources sound great and research work here could be subsidized with taxpayer funds – not corn-ethanol boondoggles or failed operations like Solyndra, but real basic research work.

        All sounds good to me. (Sort of an “all of the above” policy, right?)

        Max

        .

      • “The shale oil/gas potential is huge in the USA.”

        No it’s not. It’s bottom of the barrel stuff, like scraping off the sides of the peanut butter jar.

        More alternative energy research, agreed.

  38. Michael Hart

    “JC note: I am still at the UK, the RS uncertainty workshop is over.”

    Are you sure? :)

  39. One more real sceptic (not the pretend kind that believes in the Greenhouse Effect) being banished from the discussion on AGW.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Marcel_Leroux

    Connolley up to his usual tricks of hiding the opposition to AGW. Too scared to allow opposing views to be heard? Or maybe just paid well to do this?

    Lucy Skywalker has a page on Marcel Leroux which Connolley can’t censor, from it:

    “Leroux argues in his book “Global Warming: Myth or Reality? The Erring Ways of Climatology” that the case for global warming is based on models which, with their insufficiencies in the understanding and explanation of weather phenomena, are not reliable to support this prediction. He also poses the question if warming may be considered a benefit in some regions.

    On the causes of climate change, he writes in a section entitled “Conclusion: The greenhouse effect is not the cause of climate change”: ”

    ——-

    The “Greenhouse Effect” has nothing to do with climate change. It is deliberately faked fisics from the outset. A creation of an impossible world, a fantasy, in which all the basic properties and processes are from deliberate changes to the properties and processes of matter and energy in real world physics. A deliberate Con.

    This AGW v CAGW infighting is irrelevant to my scepticism, you both believe in the same basic physical nonsense of the KT97 in which the Water Cycle has been excised, in which there is no rain in the Carbon Life Cycle, in which the direct thermal energy from the Sun is magically blocked by some unknown invisible greenhouse glass shell and so incapable of reaching the Earth’s surface or that the Sun gives off very little heat and plays no part in heating the Earth, and, its (direct heat transfer by radiation thermal infrared) properties and processes have been given to shortwave, claiming visible light the main heating energy of land and oceans – all impossible in the real world.

    What don’t you understand about the word “impossible”?

    Your carbon dioxide is some freak comic cartoon supermolecule wearing its knickers on the outside which has impossible properties and does impossible things.

    Carbon Dioixide is a trace gas incapable of forming an “insulating blanket” around the Earth, unless you redefine insulating blankets as being practically 100% hole. Even doubling carbon dioxide the blanket is still all hole.

    Carbon Dioxide cannot physically accumulate in the atmosphere for “hundreds and even thousands of years” because a) carbon dioxide cannot defy gravity; it is one and half times heavier than Air, and b) it is fully part of the Water Cycle; all pure clean rain is carbonic acid and in this it shares the same residence time in the atmosphere as water, 8-10 days.

    Carbon Dioxide cannot store heat; it has a heat capacity even less than oxygen and nitrogen and releases any heat it absorbs practically instantly.

    What does one have to do to get you “AGW/CAGW climate scientists” to focus on the lack of basic science logic in this your basic premise?

    You would not have to lie about the properties of Carbon Dioxide if it really could do what you claim.

    You can continue to ignore this real science challenge from a Greenhouse Effect sceptic, but it does you no credit.

    • What does one have to do to get you “AGW/CAGW climate scientists” to focus on the lack of basic science logic in this your basic premise?

      Well you could start off by enrolling in a Physics class , then maybe go to Uni, do a PhD and then they might start to think you know what you are talking about.

      • That’s it is it? No explanation of how Carbon Dioxide which is one and half times heavier than Air can defy gravity? This is your, generic, claim. Surely you have some explanation? You claim is that it is well mixed and can’t be unmixed, where’s the science?

        You can test it for yourself that it’s fake, get some vinegar and bicarb of soda and mix, pour the invisible carbon dioxide produced onto a burning candle to put it out. Carbon dioxide is heavier than air, it therefore separates out from air, it will displace air to sink to the ground and it will sink displacing oxygen without which the candle can not continue to burn. That’s real world physics. Your claim is falsified before you ever made such a claim. That’s why everyone who knows this very simple basic real world physics knows you are telling silly porkies about carbon dioxide..

        ..no one who knows this takes you seriously.

        No explanation either of how a trace gas can majik itself into a thermal blanket which is practically 100% holes? No explanation of why you have no rain? When in the real world all pure clean rain is carbonic acid. No explanation why you don’t have the Water Cycle at all?

        No, you fetch. These are your basic claims to your claim that there is such a thing as the Greenhouse Effect. I’m the one challenging you to produce the physics.

      • Whoa? CO2 is heavier than O2 and N2, but it gets up in the atmosphere anyway? That is almost as mind boggling as the Brazil nut effect.

      • Explain how it defies gravity to stay up in the air as it’s one and a half times heavier than air and a simple empirical test in your own kitchen can show that it will sink in air, displacing oxygen and nitrogen.

        When you’re thinking about that, and hopefully exploring it, you might then progress to wondering how it ever manages to rise in air..

        ..you might even, shock horror, begin to understand that the Greenhouse Effect has excised convection and gravity and weight of molecules and volume of molecules and attraction of molecules, you might even come to understand that there is no sound in the make-believe fictional world of the Greenhouse Effect..

        Deal with my science challenge first.

      • Chief Hydrologist

        I had to look up Brazil nuts – but had to go with this one. The take home message is that bears are very smart and people aren’t. No bears were harmed in the making of this video.

      • Myrrh,

        Explain how it [CO2] defies gravity to stay up in the air as it’s one and a half times heavier than air and a simple empirical test in your own kitchen can show that it will sink in air, displacing oxygen and nitrogen.”

        Ok that’s not such a stupid question. If we fill a balloon with Helium it will float upwards, but a CO2 balloon will sink even faster that an air filled balloon.

        On the other hand we know that the atmosphere is made of a mixture of gases and we can observe that they don’t separate out like the gases in a balloon. If they did there would be a layer of pure CO2 at sea level just a few metres thick which wouldn’t make life possible at low altitudes. Plants wouldn’t be able to grow on mountains – they do need CO2. Then there would be separate layers of oxygen, argon, nitrogen, etc

        So why doesn’t this happen? There are the effects of convection and wind turbulence which do keep the atmosphere well stirred up. Those two are probably enough on their own but in addition there is the process of diffusion, and you might want to take a look at what Thomas Graham wrote in 1833:

        gases of different nature, when brought into contact, do not arrange themselves according to their density, the heaviest undermost, and the lighter uppermost, but they spontaneously diffuse, mutually and equally, through each other, and so remain in the intimate state of mixture for any length of time

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffusion

      • A bit more on the above:

        If you Google, you can find warnings about the dangers of argon gas which is used in some types of welding. There are cases of garage mechanics working in vehicle inspection pits who have been suffocated when argon gas has leaked and, because it is heavier than air, it has fallen into the lowest part of the garage, and displaced the air around it.

        So if the gas is not properly mixed to start with, it can behave in the way you describe. But once its mixed it can’t unmix itself. There is no danger from the small quantity of argon in the atmosphere; that’s not going to suffocate anyone.

      • Does the mixing or otherwise of CO2 in the air change the basics of the greenhouse effect though ? My wild guess would be No.

      • tempterrain | October 6, 2012 at 11:31 pm | Myrrh,

        Explain how it [CO2] defies gravity to stay up in the air as it’s one and a half times heavier than air and a simple empirical test in your own kitchen can show that it will sink in air, displacing oxygen and nitrogen.”

        Ok that’s not such a stupid question. If we fill a balloon with Helium it will float upwards, but a CO2 balloon will sink even faster that an air filled balloon.
        On the other hand we know that the atmosphere is made of a mixture of gases and we can observe that they don’t separate out like the gases in a balloon.

        Nope, we don’t observe that at all. We observe that gases separate out. Carbon Dioxide will not spontaneously rise into the atmosphere because it is heavier than Air. Methane lighter than air rises up and away from the surface. Water vapour lighter than air rises up and away from the surface. The last is called evaporation, you don’t have it because you don’t have the Water Cycle.

        If you had the Water Cycle you would know that without water the Earth would be around 67°C, that the greenhouse gas water cools the Earth. If you had the Water Cycle you wouldn’t be teaching that Carbon Dioixide accumulates in the atmosphere because it is brought back to the surface in rain. All pure clean rain is carbonic acid, which comes first from attraction of molecules, (you don’t have attraction, you have magic molecules bouncing off each other at great speeds in a container as per AGW fisics imaginary ideal gas), the “greenhouse gas” Water Vapour clears the atmosphere of Carbon Dioxide and in this Carbon Dioxide has the same residence time as water in the atmosphere, 8-10 days.

        Lighter than air gases will always rise in air and heavier than air gases will always sink, unless work is done to change that.

        This is vital knowledge in some industries, life situations such as breweries and volcanic venting. In mines methane is a very well-known hazard because lighter than air it will rise and form a layer at the ceiling, and it will not diffuse back into “well-mixed” unless work is done to change that. Before very recent times the way to test for and get rid of a methane layer in a new mine was for someone covered in wet towels to enter the mine with a lit candle on a long stick..

        If they did there would be a layer of pure CO2 at sea level just a few metres thick which wouldn’t make life possible at low altitudes.

        This is a standard AGWSF meme rebuttal, which confuses the innocent. It is describing the AGW static atmosphere and not the dynamic atmosphere we have around us. It is no rebuttal, it is out of context. It does not show that Carbon Dioxide is not always sinking because heavier than air. It does not show that Carbon Dioxide is “well-mixed” as AGW claims.

        Carbon Dioxide being heavier than Air will always sink displacing air unless work is done to change that.

        Plants wouldn’t be able to grow on mountains – they do need CO2. Then there would be separate layers of oxygen, argon, nitrogen,

        Very few plants grow on mountains because Carbon Dioxide sinks in air, it will always spontaneously sink displacing air to come to the lowest point on the surface, plants grow smaller and smaller the higher up the mountain because the higher the mountain the less Carbon Dioxide there is to sustain plant growth, ever heard of the tree line? Plants take in Carbon Dioxide through stomata on the underside of their leaves for photosynthesis using visible light to convert to chemical energy, not heat, in the creation of sugars and they can’t do this if there’s no carbon dioxide around at the level above the ground they need it.

        So why doesn’t this happen? There are the effects of convection and wind turbulence which do keep the atmosphere well stirred up.

        Another AGW sleight of hand. This time by referring to actual real world properties and processes, but which are irrelevant to AGW fisics. You don’t have convection, so you don’t have wind, you have only radiation in empty space.

        You cannot use real world physics to pretend you are answering my challenge.

        AGWSF fisics says that Carbon Dioxide is well-mixed because it spontaneously diffuses by its own molecular momentum into the empty space atmosphere bouncing off other molecules and so becoming well-mixed.

        You want to use “convection” and “wind”? Then bring back heat transfer by conduction and convection, but you’ll have to bring back real gas molecules first. But, even with convection Carbon Dioxide is still heavier than air and it is not always windy.., we don’t live in ceaseless wind, our atmosphere is not in permanent turbulence.

        And, because you don’t have wind because your imaginary gases don’t have volume you might not understand this, all wind does is move Carbon Dioxide from one place to another – wind is not a wooden spoon stirring up the atmosphere until it is ‘well-mixed’, wind is not the gods at the four corners having a who can blow the hardest contest.. Wind is volumes of atmosphere, the fluid gas Air, on the move through differential heating of volumes of air, winds are convection currents.

        Hot Air rises, Cold Air sinks. As volumes of air are heated at the surface they become less dense, lighter, and colder more dense heavier air will flow beneath because colder air is heavier – this is how we get our great wind systems at the equator.

        At the equator the land and water are heated intensely by the Heat of the Sun, which is thermal infrared, which is the Sun’s thermal energy on the move to us – thermal energy is heat, heat transferred by radiation is thermal infrared – which AGWSF has excised from its fictional world’s energy budget.

        This intensely heated by heat land and water at the equator becomes very much lighter than air and rises and flows to the poles, the colder heavier air at the poles sinks beneath and flows towards the equator. This is what wind is, CONVECTION currents. You don’t have it.

        This is how real heat is transferred in a fluid medium, liquids and gases are fluid mediums. The atmosphere is a heavy volume of fluid, gas, subject to gravity and weighing a ton on your shoulders, a stone on every square inch of your shoulders.

        These great convection currents of lighter hot fluid air rising and flowing to the poles from the equator and heavier cold fluid air from the poles sinking beneath and flowing to equator displacing it do not cross into each other’s hemisphere. There is no ‘global well-mixed gases’ from real convection currents in our atmosphere, from real winds.

        This would still be the pattern of movement from very hot air rising at the equator and very cold air sinking from the poles if there was no other factor involved, but the Earth also rotates and this has an effect on the direction these great winds take, look up Coriolis effect.

        As above so below. In the atmosphere volumes of the fluid gas air on the move which are convection currents are called winds, in the ocean convection currents are volumes of fluid liquid water on the move and are called currents. These arise as huge volumes of fluid liquid water are differentially heated and these volumes separate by differences in weight. Hot water is lighter and will rise to the surface and as it does so colder heavier water will sink and flow beneath. Look up the Thermohaline circulation. This is the huge, huge, convection system of heat transfer in a fluid liquid medium – by volumes of fluid liquid water heated at the equator flowing to the poles and rising because lighter and volumes of heavy cold liquid water at the poles sinking beneath and flowing back towards the equator. This is also affected by the rotation of the Earth, but also by the land masses in their paths.

        Those two are probably enough on their own

        And I remind that you do not have either: “There are the effects of convection and wind turbulence which do keep the atmosphere well stirred up”.

        You do not have gases which rise and sink in air because lighter or heavier, how can you have convection? You do not have winds because winds are convection currents and you do not have convection because you do not have real gases which rise when lighter and sink when heavier because your gases have no weight, no mass subject to gravity so your ideal gases thoroughly mix and can’t be separated out..

        but in addition there is the process of diffusion, and you might want to take a look at what Thomas Graham wrote in 1833:

        gases of different nature, when brought into contact, do not arrange themselves according to their density, the heaviest undermost, and the lighter uppermost, but they spontaneously diffuse, mutually and equally, through each other, and so remain in the intimate state of mixture for any length of time

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffusion

        Well, they clearly don’t, we know in real physics that real gases separate out by weight. So it appears from your extract that he didn’t know what he was talking about.

        Please fetch where he said this so we can look at the context.

        “Diffusion” in AGWSF fisics refers to its own version of molecules which are ideal gas and not real. It has taken the basic imaginary ideal gas and made its property-less nature the property of gases in the AGW Greenhouse Effect world.

        The imaginary ideal gas at very high temperatures very low pressures does not describe any real gas, no real gas obeys ideal gas law.

        “ideal” and “real” are technical terms in this, ideal is an imaginary gas stripped of properties of volume, weight, attraction, without mass, not subject to gravity, now used as convenient starting off point in calculations which have to then add in by other formulae the missing properties, volume etc. Van de Waals happened..

        The AGWSF descriptions of its gases comes from these descriptions of the imaginary ideal gas as “in a container” in an imaginary lab, where these massless hard dots of nothing spontaneously diffuse into the space of the container bouncing off the container wall and each other in elastic collisions because they have no attraction; having no volume there is just empty space around them. See if you can find a comparison with real gases in a container.

        This is what AGWSF has used to design its fictional atmosphere, deliberately excluding real gas properties and processes, it has excised the voluminous fluid gas atmosphere around the Earth and replace it with this imaginary radiation only empty space populated by imaginary ideal gas molecules zipping around bouncing off each other – that’s why you don’t have heat transfer by convection, you don’t have volumes of gas to convect, and that’s why you don’t have separation of gases by weight, because your gases have no weight they are not subject to gravity.

        A very important point to bear in mind, if you’re at all interested in following my argument, is that AGWSF fisics has no internal cohesion, it doesn’t care that its explanations don’t make sense and here they will sometimes give Brownian motion as another reason besides the convection and winds you give (you’re the first I’ve met who used the term “convection”.

        If you look to the bottom of the wiki page on diffusion you referenced you’ll see a very good explanation of why scent sprayed into the air in a classroom and ink poured into a glass of water is not Brownian motion, but convection. (Reminding you that AGWSF does not have convection.., if you had convection you would have real gases and you would have heat transfer by conduction and convection, radiation is insignificant in this except in the direct concentrated heat energy from the Sun which is capable of doing work, ‘backradiation’ from upwelling is dissipated, waste heat, useless for doing work).

        Here: a post I wrote the other day on exactly this misuse of Brownian motion AGW memes: http://joannenova.com.au/2012/10/man-made-global-warming-disproved/#comment-1131109

        Now, you have to bear in mind that what I’m trying to show of the sleights of hand used by AGWSF to confuse by tweaking real world physics, swapping and excising properties and processes and taking laws out of context.

        Here, the basic radiation only AGWSF Greenhouse Effect world is the empty space ideal gas radiation only atmosphere. But, AGWSF has a department producing rebuttal memes where they will pull in anything else they can in order to confuse further.

        Brownian motion is premised on real volumes of fluid existing, you don’t have that, you have empty space and not the real world atmosphere of a heavy voluminous ocean of gas air. It’s the way fluid volumes move particles, like pollen. Brownian motion is on a minute scale, nanometres, it is absurd to give this a reason carbon dioxide ‘diffuses rapidly through the air in a classroom’ or even more ridiculous, ‘rapidly diffuses in the atmosphere globally to thoroughly mix’, even if carbon dioxide wasn’t part of the medium..

        All these ‘reasons’, you’ve added ‘convection’, are irrelevant to the basic atmosphere of AGWSF’s imaginary world where the atmosphere is empty space and the gases have no volume and heat is transferred by radiation.

        And such a real world atmosphere is subject to gravity, Carbon Dioxide cannot accumulate in it, carbon dioxide cannot defy gravity to accumulate for hundreds and thousands of years in our real atmosphere. Your use of convection is out of context sleight of hand, because your magic imaginary ideal gases can’t convect.

      • Sorry, in a bit of a rush at the end and didn’t check for coding properly. I think Tempterrain will be able to work out what is his post and what mine.., if there’s anyone who’d like me to repost corrected for coding, let me know.

      • Myrrh,

        You’re obviously wrong and your argument is with nature, not me. If you were right about CO2 not being well mixed then then be no plant growth at high altitudes. The last time I looked there was.

        Regards

        Peter

      • Latimer Alder

        @myrrh

        Give up on this one. You’re wrong.

        Or present some empirical data that shows a well-stratified atmosphere…

        CO2 at the bottom (MW 48)
        O2 next (32)
        N2 next (28)
        H2O top (18)

        It ain’t like that….jets burn oxygen at the top as well as the bottom of the atmosphere. And you can fly above the H2O clouds.

        The atmosphere is pretty well mixed.

      • Latie going after a fellow skeptic.
        What makes Myrrrhh special in this regard?
        He is not that special, as he is but one of the 30+ skeptics with crackpot theories that comment here.
        What provokes this selective policing?
        Is Springer setting an example?

      • David Springer

        myrrh

        The gold standard for atmospheric CO2 concentration is taken at 11,000 feet above sea level at Mauna Loa Observatory. What’s your pseudoscientific explanation for how it’s possible that Mauna Loa readings are within a few parts per million of readings at sea level all over the world?

      • David Springer

        webhubcolonoscope

        I suspect Myrrh is a CAGW double agent. I can’t be sure. See Poe’s Law for why I can’t be sure.

      • Latimer Alder | October 8, 2012 at 3:35 am | @myrrh

        Give up on this one. You’re wrong.

        Or present some empirical data that shows a well-stratified atmosphere…

        I have never claimed that the atmosphere is stratified..

        That’s an AGWmeme response and is what would happen in your AGWSF world because you claim your magic molecules are so well mixed they cannot be unmixed, that is, you don’t have gravity or convection. You don’t have gravity or convection because your magic molecules are based on the imaginary ideal gas without properties of mass, weight, volume, attraction..

        So, strawman, from the real world I have given you examples where real gases do stratify, do separate out, and stay separated if the conditions which allowed them to separate out do not change. Methane rising to layer at the ceiling of mines is a common phenomenon in the real world, carbon dioxide layering at the floor of mines and breweries also, they will stay separated out unless work is done to move them.

        In the real world gases have mass, weight, volume, attraction, are subject to gravity. That’s how we get convection in the first place, because gases lighter than air rise and gases heavier than air sink.

        That happens spontaneously unless work is done to change the direction, just like heat spontaneously always travels from hotter to colder.

        I have been trying to explain to Tempterrain, that because you have unreal molecules you cannot use real molecule physics in rebuttals to me. Because convection and winds don’t exist in your world of empty space radiation only SB, your imaginary molecules cannot form them.

        However, they do exist in my real world, because in the real world we have convection and winds created by our real fluid gas molecules. So I can use convection etc. to explain what happens in our real atmosphere. In our real world’s atmosphere winds will move carbon dioxide around, in our real atmosphere carbon dioxide will sink if there’s nothing else happening to change that, in our real atmosphere every time it rains it rains carbon dioxide and water, carbonic acid.

        You don’t have any weather in your AGW world. You don’t have any weather in your imaginary world because your gases can’t create weather. You don’t have the Water Cycle. You don’t have rain in the Carbon Life Cycle.

        Here, an example of the way this subject is presented since AGWScienceFiction fisics was introduced into the education system, you, generic, don’t notice what is missing..:

        http://dilu.bol.ucla.edu/home.html

        But now that I’ve drawn your attention to it, see if you can spot it.

        Note also this line: ” Much of the earth’s carbon is contained in the atmosphere which serves as a reservoir, and that is where we will begin our explanation.”

        The atmosphere a resevoir for carbon?? You mean carbon dioxide don’t you? Only in your fictional world where it can defy gravity and accumulate, and where a trace gas can be called a reservoir without any sense of embarrassment..

        Compare: “The ocean contains 50 times more dissolved CO2 than is contained in the atmosphere.”

        http://iceagenow.info/2012/08/lynching-carbon-dioxide/

        I don’t know if that 50x figure is correct, I haven’t investigated it. But that in the real world the ocean hold huge amounts of carbon dioxide we know, and that the atmosphere can’t hold it we know..

        So, what’s missing from the Carbon Life Cycle in the ucla.edu spiel?

        The atmosphere is pretty well mixed.

        No it isn’t, it is always separating out by weight and it is always separating out by attraction with water vapour. Carbon dioxide for the most part is local, it will be moved around locally first. It might get into some of the bigger wind systems, like the strong one heading straight for Hawaii, which gives really great surfing, carrying even more carbon dioxide to an area already producing huge amounts of it from the great volcanic hot spot in the warm sea creating volcanic islands with continuously active volcanoes and with thousands of earthquakes every year – and where the mythical “well-mixed background” is being measured from the top of the worlds highest active volcano. Not that you’d know all this from the AGW spiel which claims it is a “pristine” spot for measuring the mythical “background” levels, “pristine” defined as being free from local production..

        Local levels of carbon dioxide around the world are no different from what they were when Keeling first began his measurements there, the general science of the time used an average of 400 ppm. This Keeling curve increase was created by him taking a low local figure and claiming it was “well-mixed background”. There is no such critter. Carbon dioxide is lumpy and local unless it gets into some of our big winds which will move it around any considerable distance.

        Not easy, but see if you can find some actual surveys done, they’re ongoing.

        Here’s one from the Amazon measuring wet and dry season.
        From the high 300’s to over 500 ppm on the example page: LBA-ECO TG-07 Seasonal Trace Gas Profiles in Brazilian Amazon Forests: 2004-2005

        http://daac.ornl.gov/LBA/guides/TG07_Trace_Gas_Profiles.html

        Remember the point I’m making in my arguments against the fictional Greenhouse Effect, that the fisics has been changed by the trick of tweaking real physics. This sleight of hand begins with the Keeling claim that there is such a thing as “well-mixed background” and this unproven claim is accompanied by the meme “that he was taking measurements of this outside of local production as he decided it could be measured from anywhere in the world”. So he decided to measure it from this great local production where he could tweak his figures at will…

        But local production is what it is all about, different ecosystems will produce different amounts and that may or not travel out of the local area.

        You can’t change the properties of real gas molecules to ‘fit in’ with that unproven claim of Keeling’s that there is this “well-mixed background level”, because you end up with no atmosphere at all and no winds and no rain. You have only empty space and imaginary clouds and not the heavy, fluid, voluminous ocean of Air around you..

        ..you might not be able to hear this, you have no sound in your world.

      • “I suspect Myrrh is a CAGW double agent. I can’t be sure. See Poe’s Law for why I can’t be sure.”

        Then perhaps dozens of these cranks are agent provocateurs. In which case, its worse than I feared. The skeptics are left with no counter theories and have to rely on cut-bait theories offered up by a few stooges chumming for suckers.

        This place is a circus, no doubt about that.

      • Temp’s advice is “enrolling in a Physics class , then maybe go to Uni, do a PhD”.

        Do these courses come complete with Data Hiding and Leftist Political Bias, or do you need do take those as extras ?

  40. The continued funding of the IPCC is continuing the funding of haughty haute academia’s feamongering theatrics…

  41. A fan of *MORE* discourse

    Latimer Alder and Peter Lang … the substance of your comments on this topic have been eminently suitable for juvenile Josh-style cartoons … but in regard to substantive analysis of climate-change, not so much, eh?

    Life’s more complicated — and more serious — than willfully ignorant Josh-style cartoonery, ain’t it Latimer and Peter?   :?:   :?:   :?:

  42. Chief Hydrologist

    In early June 2012, a group of scientists who had each spent years studying the earth’s biosphere from many different aspects felt compelled to come forward with a very clear warning: all the life forms on earth faced a human-created, planet-wide tipping point whose consequences would be difficult at best but catastrophic without adequate preparation and mitigation. Their paper in the 6 June 2012 issue of Nature said:

    Localized ecological systems are known to shift abruptly and irreversibly from one state to another when they are forced across critical thresholds. Here we review evidence that the global ecosystem as a whole can react in the same way and is approaching a planetary-scale critical transition as a result of human influence.

    A confluence of trends: overpopulation; the continuing destruction of both terrestrial and marine ecosystems; and, climate change—they are described as all interlinked—are creating a world very different from the one in which we live today and the epoch in which recorded human history has taken place, 18th-century mini-ice age and all.

    “It really will be a new world, biologically, at that point,” warns Anthony Barnosky, professor of integrative biology at the University of California−Berkeley, and lead author. “The data suggest that there will be a reduction in biodiversity and severe impacts on much of what we depend on to sustain our quality of life, including, for example, fisheries, agriculture, forest products and clean water. This could happen within just a few generations.

    “My view is that humanity is at a crossroads now, where we have to make an active choice. One choice is to acknowledge these issues and potential consequences and try to guide the future (in a way we want to). The other choice is just to throw up our hands and say, ‘Let’s just go on as usual and see what happens.’ My guess is, if we take that latter choice, yes, humanity is going to survive, but we are going to see some effects that will seriously degrade the quality of life for our children and grandchildren.”

    From FOMBS reference above. At long last he has linked to something that has at least some substance. Was this not discussed – I do recall looking at the paper some time ago? Regardless. Chaos in ecosystems? Has been shown in eutrophic waterways for instance. Nutrients build up in the water column and at some point there are feedbacks from sediments and the condition of the water body shifts. It is very hard to get it back. So we have seen dramatic shifts in ocean conditions off North America, Europe and parts of Asia – for instance – but also widespread in local waterways.

    What is happening in many places is serious enough without invoking dire scenarios of the future – which is likely to be counter productive and which – in complex dynamical systems – cannot be supported on any rational basis. The couplings and feedbacks – like in climate – are far too uncertain for calculation.

    The impacts have little to do with climate change from whatever source and will not be solved by a carbon tax. The problem are to do with land use and management and management of the global commons. This requires new and innovative ways of human co-operation. Paradoxically – these ways may need to be rediscovered.

    A practical and effective response to many of these these issues – including atmospheric carbon dioxide – is conservation farming.

    To regain what we have lost requires a broader vision. ‘The activist is not the man who says the river is dirty. It is the man who cleans it up.’ Ross Perot

    • Just on a point of information: Rivers don’t actually need “cleaning up”. They are, almost always, naturally clean unless someone pollutes them. So I’m not sure who the “man who cleans it up” might be unless he’s the one who was causing the pollution initially.

      • Chief Hydrologist

        Congrats this is a new height in pointless quibbles. Not even close to true however – because rivers can be out of regime for actions taken a hundred years ago and more. From the state of lands that emerged from the dustbowl in America – for instance – working it’s way through anoxic zones in the oceans. Feral animals and plants have dramatic impacts on waterways and riparian zones – this obviously doesn’t have an immediate cause. Many of these problem need both individual and collective responses to past practices – and it includes changing practices. The quote from Ross Perot I thought was good and included it because it emphasised personal resonsibility.

        I think you have the soul of a newt and the understanding of a gnat – so why don’t you try rising above your natural inclinations for a change.

  43. Joy (fomd),
    I see you’re still in there pitching. Personal (but sincere) question. Don’t you ever get tired?

  44. Thx Chief fer the Yamanaka Iriai, commons of Mt fuji,inspirational film.

    • Chief Hydrologist

      It is brilliant – and you can see the parallels to Elinor Ostrom. Perhaps they should give a Nobel to Yamannaka village.

      The struggles so remind me of something. We the people …, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity…

      This is the only source of enduring power.

  45. Another paper has just been accepted in the journal Geophysical Research Letters that identified multidecadal cycles in the historical mean sea level observations from many ocean basins. A research team led by Don Chambers from the University of South Florida examined tide gauge records from across the globe and found oscillations with a period of about 60 years in all ocean basins except the Central/Eastern North Pacific. Chambers et al., note that a 60-yr quasi oscillation has previously been identified in other earth/climate systems including ocean circulation, global mean surface temperatures, large-scale precipitation patterns, and atmospheric pressure, among other things. Many of these cycles can be traced back hundreds of years—an indication of a natural (rather than manmade) origin.

    Chambers and colleagues note that given the strong possibility for such cycles in the global sea level data, that care must be taken when attempting to identify accelerations, as they, in fact, simply be upswings in the natural oscillatory behavior. For instance, in most ocean basins, the bottom of the cycle was reached in the 1980s and an upswing has been occurring since then—precisely when the IPCC notes that the rate of sea level rise has been increasing. For this reason, Chambers et al. note:

    The 60-year oscillation will, however, change our interpretation of the trends when estimated over periods less than 1-cycle of the oscillation. Although several studies have suggested the recent change in trends of global [e.g., Merrifield et al., 2009] or regional [e.g., Sallenger et al., 2012] sea level rise reflects an acceleration, this must be re-examined in light of a possible 60-year fluctuation. While technically correct that the sea level is accelerating in the sense that recent rates are higher than the long-term rate, there have been previous periods were the rate was decelerating, and the rates along the Northeast U.S. coast have what appears to be a 60-year period [Figure 4 of Sallenger et al., 2012], which is consistent with our observations of sea level variability at New York City and Baltimore. Until we understand whether the multi decadal variations in sea level reflect distinct inflexion points or a 60-year oscillation and whether there is a [Global Mean Sea Level, GMSL] signature, one should be cautious about computations of acceleration in sea level records unless they are longer than two cycles of the oscillation or at least account for the possibility of a 60-year oscillation in their model. This especially applies to interpretation of acceleration in GMSL using only the 20-year record of from satellite altimetry and to evaluations of short records of mean sea level from individual gauges.

    http://bit.ly/P5RNUS

    • Multidecadal Oscillation in the global mean surface temperature:

      http://moyhu.blogspot.com.au/2012/09/empirical-model-wuwt-style.html

    • Chief Hydrologist

      Nice sea level paper Girma – it shows the now familiar decadal pattern. Sea levels are a much better source of ocean ocean heat content data than available otherwise.

      As for the potential comments from Delusional Spice – who really gives a rat’s arse.

      I am starting a list – it seems all the rage.

      Bart – Delusional Spice
      webnutcolonoscope – the attack smurf
      tt – the delphic gnome of sensitivity
      willard – the delphic gnome of cryptic doom
      lolwot – numbnut

      Collectively cult of AGW groupthink space cadets.

      There are many more but I have to wait for the muse to hit.

      • Latimer Alder

        @chiefie

        A Fan = A Purveyor of Complete BS

      • Chief Hydrologist

        Dr what’s his name? FOMBS – i thought – Fan of More BS – so we are thinking in parallel.

      • You gotta go back on your meds, man.

      • Chief Hydrologist

        Just stay away from the kool-aid – Bart. Your arguments are getting awfully flaky – although that could just be your natural style,

        The world is not warming for a decade or three more – space cadet. Gee I wonder if that is in the peer reviwed literature. Oh wait it is.

      • Thank you, Chief:

        http://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/post/33088128559

        WebHubTelescope should have known better.

      • Don’t encourage him.

        You can see as clearly as any of us that Robert Ellison’s losing the wit and clarity that once made his invective worth reading.

        I have to believe there’s an organic cause for him to have faded so quickly, and hope he gets the treatment he needs. I mean, he’s not that old.

        It would be good if he got back to his old self, when his taunts had some sting and his barbs cut deep. Or he could at least stay on topic.

      • BartR,

        I find that “delphic gnome of cryptic doom” has some stylistic merit.

        We should encourage good style. Positive reinforcement might have a better success rate than negative one.

        But since you almost ask, I find quite “Delusional Spice” begs too much questions and that “A Purveyor of Complete BS” is tasteless. In an e-salon, being tasteless is worse than being wrong, I believe. But since we shan’t expect less from our Latimer Adler.

        And as far as the overall contribution from our hydrologist-in-chief is concerned, I believe it speaks for itself.

      • Chief Hydrologist

        The list of course is a reference to climate clowns – the jibe of tasteless hurts the most willard. But of course – we can hardly complain if pearls are not cast before swine. FOMBS is a suitable epiphet for somene who is incapable of framing a logical argument – but merely strews smilies and quite irrelevant links. For what purpose I have never been able to divine. Obvious but apt.

        You will find that I quoted one of FOMBS links below – although he failed to understand the implications of this study. As I explain in some little detail below – the problems of chaos in ecosystems are not predominately that of carbon dioxide. Just as the problems of coral in the Caral Sea are not primarily that of warm oceans. Warming is a problem that has itself been overstated and is complicated by natural variability. Catastrophic global warming is, btw, defined as greater than a 2 degree rise in global average temperature. Not my definition – but one that is floating about the zeitgeist like a disembodied wraith. I describe myself as a climate catastropist – in the sense of Rene Thom. Thom’s field was indeed the mathematics of catastrophe – the essential processes being equivalently tipping points, chaotic bifurcation, phase transitions or catastrophes. So this goes to sensitivity – a complex dynamical system is exquisitely sensitive at saddle nodes but not notably otherwise. Nothing is denied – it simply works differently to how most people fondly imagine. It is a new paradigm that is little understood.

        Attack smurf has multiple levels of derision – without being as rude and repulsive as the smurf himself. One wonders why the extremes of abusive rage? Delusional Spice – well I guess you had to be there when the Spice Girls were introduced as a discoursive element. One wonders with Bart why the so frequent descent into incoherent rage from mere intellectual diagreement? Why the vehemence of personal attacks? My conclusion is that it is a psychopathology of global warming groupthink – the cult of AGW groupthink space cadets.

        And I would suppose that wit and wisdom withers in an environment of abuse and insult. One line snarks typically dropped into the mix like piles of dog doo from the usual suspects. C’est la geurre climatique.

      • That’s guerre, Chief. The U hardens the G sound.

        My beef against “Delusional Spice” is not spice, but “Delusional”. Something softer would be better. Capitallista Spice? Old Schmuck Spice? Show that you’re better than me!

        Nicknames are supposed to be affectionate. I like Attack Smurf for that reason. Something with “smiley” or “many faces” would be nice for Fan. Just Fan is nice too, like Chief is enough for you, Chief.

        I also contend that this not hurt me much. It does sadden me a bit, but I will survive. I doubt this community will, if people continue like this.

        Besides, just think how much more abusive you could be by staying polite…

        :-)

        ;-)

        :-o

        >:->

        PS: You’re YesButTribalism sucks, btw. Please continue.

      • Fascinating –

        One wonders with Bart why the so frequent descent into incoherent rage from mere intellectual diagreement? Why the vehemence of personal attacks? My conclusion is that it is a psychopathology of global warming groupthink –

        Now consider a few minor revisions:

        One wonders with [Chief] why the so frequent descent into incoherent rage from mere intellectual diagreement? Why the vehemence of personal attacks?

        Ever the true master of unintentional irony, that Chief.

        Now while I don’t buy arguments that selectively attribute such behaviors to one side of the debate as opposed to the other (an attribution for which there is no evidence, and which runs against the explanatory evidence we have that helps us to understand why so much tribalistic behavior and selective logic is so ubiquitous in the climate debate) — I will offer the following revision also in hopes that Chief might suddenly, in spite of the contrary evidence he’s provided thus far, gain some insight:

        My conclusion is that it is a psychopathology of [“skeptical”] groupthink space cadets.

        Read. Think. And learn, Chief.

      • Chief Hydrologist

        There are perhaps three defining qualities of a pissant progressive such as Joshua –

        1. tunnel vision;
        2. repetitive and quite trivial argument;
        3. a conviction of moral superiority and a refusal to review essential assumptions;
        4. tunnel vision.

        It’s groundhog day again Joshua. We have had this discussion – there is no moral equivalence between the cult of AGW groupthink space cadets and ordinary citizens of the west with an understanding of our enlightenment heritage. You are for whatever it is you are for Joshua – the agenda that dare not be declared. We are for democracy, free markets, free peoples, the rule of law and sustainable economic growth. There is no meeting point – there is no rapprochement.

        C’est la guerre.

      • Latimer Alder

        @chiefio

        You are right. The alarmists here are really reduced to arguing about trivia. Maybe the slow decline of Real Climate and the other alarmist propaganda sites has forced them to try to think for themselves..betraying just how difficult they find this long forgotten process.

        We see Joshua forever trying to discover some tiny disparity between different pieces of Judith’s writings. He really must have a terribly boring life if that is the best way he can think of to pass the time. But maybe his brain is so trivial that he can conceive of nothing more important.

        Then we had Connolly and Willard in a complete fluff (aided and abetted by a badly briefed Louise) because they had ‘discovered’ that way back in March 2010 a guest contributor at WUWT had used a graph (claimed to have been posted at Wikipedia) without attribution. And the contributor hadn’t had the grace to admit he was wrong when an alarmist told him so. Wow.

        Even in the heat of the moment, it is really really difficult to imagine that such a transgression would be much more than a 6-hour wonder. To get one’s knickers all twisted and dampened about it 2 and a half years later
        really betrays a total lack of perspective.

        I’ll confess now, lest Joshua and/or Willard indulge themselves in a little low-quality private sleuthing in an attempt to blacken my name. It was indeed me that was seen riding my bicycle on the pavement (sidewalk) for about 20 yards this morning. I was trying not to have to ride through the huge puddle that had developed in the torrential rain. I am that guilty guy. I throw myself upon your collective mercies!

        Be gentle with me, I beg.

  46. Is there a 60-year oscillation in global mean sea level?

    Key Points
    There is a 60-year oscillation in the majority of long tide gauge records
    The signal is consistent in phase and amplitude in many ocean basins
    This has important implications for quantifying sea level acceleration

    ABSTRACT

    We examine long tide gauge records in every ocean basin to examine whether a quasi 60-year oscillation observed in global mean sea level (GMSL) reconstructions reflects a true global oscillation, or an artifact associated with a small number of gauges. We find that there is a significant oscillation with a period around 60-years in the majority of the tide gauges examined during the 20th Century, and that it appears in every ocean basin.

    http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2012/2012GL052885.shtml

  47. Some gems from Georgia Rep. Paul Broun, who sits on the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology:

    “Scientists all over this world say that the idea of human-induced global climate change is one of the greatest hoaxes perpetrated out of the scientific community.”

    “All that stuff I was taught about evolution and embryology and Big Bang theory, all that is lies straight from the pit of hell..”

    “I don’t believe that the earth’s but about 9,000 years old. I believe it was created in six days as we know them. That’s what the Bible says.”

    http://jonathanturley.org/2012/10/06/rep-paul-broun-r-ga-an-anti-science-legislator-who-serves-on-the-house-committee-on-science-space-and-technology/

    • Max_OK

      Well that must all be true. It says so in Conservapedia :-)

      http://conservapedia.com/Age_of_the_Earth

      http://conservapedia.com/Global_warming

      • I take no sides in the always entertaining evolution debate and agree with Jim Cripwell that it doesn’t seem to have much relevance to a discussion as to whether Global Warming is anthropogenic or not, whether in either case it is catastrophic, or whether the remedies proposed (demanded?) by the climate experts would in fact halt the changing of the climate, establish the ideal climate, and stabilize it indefinitely, as they seem to imply.

        That said, it may be a good time for all concerned to read Fred Reed’s little essay on evolution and evolutionists that he wrote on March 7, 2005:

        http://www.fredoneverything.net/EvolutionMonster.shtml

        I do note that Fred’s description of the reaction of evolutionists when when questioned about the details of evolution is remarkably similar to the reaction of Climate Experts when their ‘CO2 is the rheostat that controls the climate of the Earth’ axiom is questioned.

      • Bob,

        TT’s argument purports to show that the criteria to exclude AGW as a scientific theory could very well exclude evolution as a scientific theory.

        Unless one can come up with a more refined criteria, TT’s point stands.

        To see how TT’s point works, let’s take this other claim:

        > Evolution theory doesn’t seem to have much relevance to a discussion as to whether Global Warming is anthropogenic or not, whether in either case it is catastrophic, or whether the remedies proposed (demanded?) by the climate experts would in fact halt the changing of the climate, establish the ideal climate, and stabilize it indefinitely, as they seem to imply.

        The same criteria could be applied to the scientificity of AGW theory:

        > The scientificity of AGW theory doesn’t seem to have much relevance to a discussion as to whether Global Warming is anthropogenic or not, whether in either case it is catastrophic, or whether the remedies proposed (demanded?) by the climate experts would in fact halt the changing of the climate, establish the ideal climate, and stabilize it indefinitely, as they seem to imply.

        The fact that AGW theory is scientific or not is independent from all the questions raised.

        In other words, your claim is completely irrelevant to the point TT is addressing.

    • One more link:

      http://conservapedia.com/Creation_Ministries_International

      Jim Cripwell might want to have a word with these guys about the lack of empirical evidence for Darwinian Evolution. They don’t seem to have thought of that one. As far as I know no evolutionist has any real measured data to explain how humans evolved from apes. So Evolution can be nothing more than an unsubstantiated hypothesis. Right, Jim?

      • tempterrain

        “Those guys” (claiming there was no empirical evidence for Darwinism) are wrong. See:

        http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

        We’ve gone through this before, but somehow you keep trying to create a parallel between Darwinism (the theory of Evolution) and CAGW.

        Sorry.

        No sale.

        Evolution is science, CAGW is not.

        Max

      • So where’s the empirical evidence? Where’s the evidence of repeatable experiments?

        I can’t see any!

        You do know what empirical means, I presume?

      • tempterraine writes “So Evolution can be nothing more than an unsubstantiated hypothesis. Right, Jim?”

        I do wish people would refrain from putting words in my mouth, and claim that I am saying things I have written nothing about. So far as I am aware, I have taken no stance whatsoever on evolution. In my opinion, there is lots of empirical evidence to show that evolution is a completely valid scientific theory. However, I would suggest that Climate Etc. is absolutley the wrong place to discuss these sorts of red herrings.

        As I have noted before, the proponents of CAGW are getting absolutley desperate. Nothing is going right for them. CAGW is off the politicla agenda in most governments. The UK is desperately trying to work out how not to commit economic suicide because of the Climate Chage Act. The empirical data is showing that CAGW is a hoax.

      • Jim Cripwell

        This is one of tempterrain’s favorite red herrings, intended to side-step a real debate on the CAGW premise.

        It gets shot down each time, but tt keeps trying to bring it back to life.

        The reason is obvious: tt is unable to provide the empirical evidence to support his CAGW premise, so he must change the subject.

        Max

      • Jim Cripwell,

        “In my opinion, there is lots of empirical evidence to show that evolution is a completely valid scientific theory. ” Like what? Give me some examples.

        It’s not a red herring. I’m just trying to understand why you keep harping on about “empirical evidence” when its AGW but you seem happy to accept other scientific theories when there’s also a problem with what might be termed the classic approach to science. Like that all experiments have to be repeatable.

        How can scientists conduct repeatable experiments to show that apes evolved into humans? OK we start with a male and female ape. They have baby apes. So, first we discover the secret of everlasting life, then we watch what happens to the generations over a couple of million years, by which time the baby apes have evolved to become homo sapiens. Then we write up the experiment in a paper, and submit it to Nature. Except that language has changed over two million years and its now called nyzxycbz. Our paper is then read by a scientist who is sceptical of our findings so he decides to repeat the experiment. He starts off with with two apes……..

        Do you see what I’m getting at? The classic approach to science sounds fine in theory. But, in practice, there is a need to recognise the realities of the situation.

      • TT you write “Do you see what I’m getting at?”

        No I dont see what you are getting at. And I refuse to get into any sort of discussion of subjects which I think are completely irrelevant to CAGW.

      • Jim Cripwell and Max,

        Would $250,000 make you both a little more interested?

        Kent Hovind has offered a big prize to anyone who can show there is empirical evidence to show Evolution exists.

        You could do the same thing with AGW. You only need to change one word in this sentence.

        “I have a standing offer of $250,000 to anyone who can give any empirical evidence (scientific proof) for evolution . My $250,000 offer demonstrates that the hypothesis of evolution is nothing more than a religious belief. ”

        Are you starting to see why there is a genuine parallel, now? If you can’t don’t say ‘no’. Just think about it a bit longer until you do.

      • “Jim Cripwell,

        “In my opinion, there is lots of empirical evidence to show that evolution is a completely valid scientific theory. ” Like what? Give me some examples.”

        One can assume the lab is the geological fossil record.
        Just as an eclipse of the sun and the star position is lab
        in which one can prove the star light is bent by gravity-
        empirical evidence for Einstein’s theory.

        So the “lab work” of finding fossil records has conducted
        by scientist in the field. And the lab work has not found
        modern human which is +1 million years old, instead it
        has found human like fossil records.
        No one has found a star which light has not been bent,
        and no one has found modern human +1 million years old.
        Until such time we must assume that empirical evidence
        is sufficient until something else if found shows this to be wrong.
        So you can look for bones, or you examine bones found and that
        is the empirical evidence.

      • gbaike,

        I would agree with you. But, I doubt you’ll be able to claim your prize.

        Let’s be clear what ‘empirical’ means to start with. The word empirical denotes information acquired by means of observation or experimentation. Empirical data is data produced by an observation or experiment.

        So, it’s clear that with observations of fossils we are collecting empirical evidence. It’s the same with observations of the atmosphere, again measurements are empirical.

        But, if you put that argument to them, the creationists and climate deniers will switch over to the second meaning of the term and say something like “Ah, but there’s no experiments involved here which are repeatable. The hypothesis isn’t falsifiable therefore the data isn’t empirical”

        Different denialisms. Same method of argument.

      • “But, if you put that argument to them, the creationists and climate deniers will switch over to the second meaning of the term and say something like “Ah, but there’s no experiments involved here which are repeatable. The hypothesis isn’t falsifiable therefore the data isn’t empirical” ”

        Yes, but I assume they talking about 1 C from doubling CO2 and/or
        the positive feedback which gives broad range of possible warming, such as 1 C to 8 C. Which btw, has “no consensus”. Whereas some warming of around 1 C seems to have “more consensus”.
        And I am willing to assume for sake of argument the that doubling of CO2 will cause about 1 C of warming.
        But I am also willing to assume for sake of argument a doubling of CO2 will not cause any significant warming. And I am willing to entertain the notion that increasing CO2 levels may cause cooling- but not very much cooling.
        I not willing to accept that doubling of CO2 will cause will cause more than 3 C of warming or cooling.
        And this I base on empirical evidence.
        And would interested in any empirical evidence which could make me doubt my assumptions.

      • > Yes, but […]

        Thanks for playing, as would say bender.

        Oh bender, bender, bender.

      • gbailkie,

        gbailkie

        So you are “willing to assume for sake of argument the that doubling of CO2 will cause about 1 C of warming.” (1 deg C is acceptably low?) but you aren’t ” willing to accept that doubling of CO2 will cause more than 3 deg C of warming or cooling.” (You don’t like the sound of that? 3 degrees is getting to be too high?)

        Well that doesn’t sound very scientific. The answer is what it is, regardless of how willing we might be to accept it. There have been a number of climate sensitivity studies directly from empirical observations, independent of models.

        Lorius 1990 examined Vostok ice core data and calculates a range of 3 to 4°C.
        Hoffert 1992 reconstructs two paleoclimate records (one colder, one warmer) to yield a range 1.4 to 3.2°C.
        Hansen 1993 looks at the last 20,000 years when the last ice age ended and empirically calculates a climate sensitivity of 3 ± 1°C.
        Gregory 2002 used observations of ocean heat uptake to calculate a minimum climate sensitivity of 1.5.
        Chylek 2007 examines the period from the Last Glacial Maximum to Holocene transition. They calculate a climate sensitivy range of 1.3°C and 2.3°C.
        Tung 2007 performs statistical analysis on 20th century temperature response to the solar cycle to calculate a range 2.3 to 4.1°C.
        Bender 2010 looks at the climate response to the 1991 Mount Pinatubo eruption to constrain climate sensitivity to 1.7 to 4.1°C.

        The climate deniers will claim these studies aren’t empirical. But they are just as empirical as the work Evolutionary Biologists do with fossils.

      • “Lorius 1990 examined Vostok ice core data and calculates a range of 3 to 4°C.
        Hoffert 1992 reconstructs two paleoclimate records (one colder, one warmer) to yield a range 1.4 to 3.2°C.
        Hansen 1993 looks at the last 20,000 years when the last ice age ended and empirically calculates a climate sensitivity of 3 ± 1°C.
        Gregory 2002 used observations of ocean heat uptake to calculate a minimum climate sensitivity of 1.5.
        Chylek 2007 examines the period from the Last Glacial Maximum to Holocene transition. They calculate a climate sensitivy range of 1.3°C and 2.3°C.
        Tung 2007 performs statistical analysis on 20th century temperature response to the solar cycle to calculate a range 2.3 to 4.1°C.
        Bender 2010 looks at the climate response to the 1991 Mount Pinatubo eruption to constrain climate sensitivity to 1.7 to 4.1°C.

        The climate deniers will claim these studies aren’t empirical. But they are just as empirical as the work Evolutionary Biologists do with fossils.”

        And how does any of the above dispute my assumption that a doubling of CO2 does not cause more the 3 C warming.

        I assume there various factors which cause cooling- and have as large or larger effect upon global temperature than an effect from CO2 from doubling or halving global CO2 levels. Example:

        http://www.lakepowell.net/sciencecenter/paleoclimate.htm

        And we have been in an Ice Age for last 10 million years or so, and the average global temperature during this period is somewhere around 5 C cooler as compared to most of Earth’s history. And this Ice Age period can not be explained, by any stretch of imagination, to have any dominate or important relationship to CO2 levels. And rising CO2 levels follow warming.

    • Chief Hydrologist

      …for us physicists believe the separation between past, present, and future is only an illusion, although a convincing one Albert Einstein

      Events merely exist in spacetime. ‘This idea is called the ‘block universe’ idea; the term was coined by William James. Advocates of the block universe commonly thibk that the notion of time’s flow is simply a mistake or else that it is a subjective feature of psychological time to be explained, say, by a person’s having more memories and more information at later times. ‘

      In 1952, in his book Relativity, Einstein writes:

      ‘Since there exist in this four dimensional structure [space-time] no longer any sections which represent “now” objectively, the concepts of happening and becoming are indeed not completely suspended, but yet complicated. It appears therefore more natural to think of physical reality as a four dimensional existence, instead of, as hitherto, the evolution of a three dimensional existence. ‘

      The idea arises from the special theory of relativity – and in particular time dilation. Tiime dilation is itself beyond much doubt – having been demonstrated with atomic clocks and satellites. Obviously in a four dimensional universe that doesn’t evolve – evolutionary theory makes no sense at all. A bit less than an unsubstantiated hypothesis – it is flatly inconsistent with a key theory of the physical universe.

      • Just for the fun of it..

        The idea arises from the special theory of relativity – and in particular time dilation. Tiime dilation is itself beyond much doubt – having been demonstrated with atomic clocks and satellites. Obviously in a four dimensional universe that doesn’t evolve – evolutionary theory makes no sense at all. A bit less than an unsubstantiated hypothesis – it is flatly inconsistent with a key theory of the physical universe.

        Einstein’s ideas about time are ridiculous..

        You end up with someone who is running quickly down the corridor of a train getting to the next station later than someone sitting still in a carriage of the train, who gets there faster.

        You want to pretend that this describes the world around us, up to you. But you must stop promoting that this has been proved by “atomic clocks and satellites”, it most definitely hasn’t been. There is a real world explanation for atomic clocks and it has nothing to do with Einstein’s ideas.

        When I looked into this I worked out where Einstein had gone wrong, he was projecting his own internal subjective perception onto the objective world around us.

      • > Einstein’s ideas about time are ridiculous.

        Myrrh for the win!

      • Chief Hydrologist

        You remiss of me – I now know that Einsteins ideas are ridiculous. Why didn’t I figure that out before? Must be relativistic groupthink. In the real universe – If you run backwards fast enough on a train you get there before you started . How obvious when you really think about it.

        Actually Myrrh – there is no paradox at all because it is all based on relativistic iniertial frames rather then relativistic subjective perceptions. Easier to think of one person being ejected from the train at high velocity and returing to the train at the station when it arrives. The subjective time of the passenger who stayed with the train is perhaps 10 hours – but the subjective time for the other passenger is perhaps 2 hours.

        At slower speeds – ‘Yes, clocks do run more slowly. Planes travel about a million times more slowly than c (so γ is about 1.0000000000005), but atomic clocks are very precise and so this tiny effect effect can actually be measured. In 1971, J. Haefele and R. Keating took atomic clocks on airliners travelling both East (with the Earth rotating underneath them: we could call these “slow frames”) and West (these planes have the Earth’s rotation speed plus their own, and return to where they came from). Apart from some complications due to the gravitational field variations and their acceleration (which are dealt with by general relativity), this is like the twin paradox, and it gave results in agreement with the relativistic prediction. (See the original paper by J.C. Hafele and R. E. Keating, Science 177, 166 (1972) for details.’

        It is all based on the invariance of the speed of light. How weird is that?

        http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/einsteinlight/jw/module3_weird_logic.htm#weird

        But I contend that in a four dimensional universe which does not evolve – things are a whole lot more mysterious.

      • Chief Hydrologist

        How remiss of me.. ? It has been a long day of aeroplanes and cars.

      • Max,

        Bringing in the topic of Relativity as a illustration of what is often called the scientific method, would have been sensible. Not that Chief did that.

        Relativity studies are possible using classical definitions of the scientific method. If we are in any doubt about what happens to moving clocks, or clocks in a gravitational field, then it is quite possible to conduct an experiment. If a flaw in the experimental procedure is discovered, the experiment can be refined and repeated. That’s not possible, in the same way, either with Climate science or studies into Evolution.

        So does that mean that Climate Science and Evolution aren’t scientific theories? They don’t meet accepted standards of scientific investigation? They are little more than alternative quasi-religious views? We all know that’s exactly what creationists and climate deniers do say. They would say that , wouldn’t they?

        But what it really means is that there isn’t a single the scientific method, but rather there has to be a flexibility which is imposed by practical realities.

      • Chief Hydrologist

        ‘In experimental philosophy, propositions gathered from phenomena by induction should be considered either exactly or very nearly true notwithstanding any contrary hypotheses, until yet other phenomena make such propositions either more exact or liable to exceptions. This rule should be followed so that arguments based on induction be not be nullified by hypotheses.’ Isaac Newton

        The proposition is of competing paradigms. In this case evolution that is impossible in a four dimensional universe. It the words of Einstein – since ‘there exist in this four dimensional structure [space-time] no longer any sections which represent “now” objectively, the concepts of happening and becoming are indeed not completely suspended, but yet complicated.’ Such that there seems some fundamental difficulties in our understanding of time and evolution is not proof that life does not need God but that God does not need evolution.

        Th point with climate is that there is much science that suggests te AGW – while not completely suspended – is yet complicated. The satellite measurements of TOA radiative flux is one such experimental data that shows that cloud radiative forcing was by far the dominant cause of warming in the satellite era.

        ‘In summary, although there is independent evidence for decadal changes in TOA radiative fluxes over the last two decades, the evidence is equivocal. Changes in the planetary and tropical TOA radiative fluxes are consistent with independent global ocean heat-storage data, and are expected to be dominated by changes in cloud radiative forcing. To the extent that they are real, they may simply reflect natural low-frequency variability of the climate system.’ IPCC AR4 s 3.4.4.1

        That there are low frequency climate variations is beyond much doubt.

        The other fundamental difficulty is with the underlying physics of Earth’s climate system. This is not simple cause and effect but a global spanning system of dynamical complexity.

        Like the ideological committment to a simple idea of evolution – the simple climate memes of the cult of AGW groupthink space cadets are profoundly unscientific.

      • Actually Myrrh – there is no paradox at all because it is all based on relativistic iniertial frames rather then relativistic subjective perceptions.

        Nope, all based on Einstein’s subjective perception.

        His enduring oft used example was how time slowed when with a pretty girl..

        Which is how I worked out where he went wrong, after seeing how ridiculous it was that two people travelling on the same train would get to the next station at different times if one was running and the other sitting still with the runner getting there after the one sitting still. Silly.

        So, subjective perception. The example I came up with was bats. Bats hear the world in slow motion, great adaptation for focusing in on their prey, but it is purely subjective. Neither the insect nor the bat are travelling at different speeds in the objective world, and the bat isn’t travelling faster than it would be in order to slow down the time he is hearing the sound of the insect’s wings.

        The description I was given as an explanation, was someone sitting in the kitchen waiting for his meal would get to tomorrow faster than the partner rushing around the kitchen preparing the meal..

        I mean, sheesh. Their speeds of movement have nothing to do with the time it takes for them both to get to tomorrow. Show the mechanism ..

        And his gravity is ridiculous too – doesn’t work in 3D space, that silly rubber mat being distorted.

        Easier to think of one person being ejected from the train at high velocity and returing to the train at the station when it arrives. The subjective time of the passenger who stayed with the train is perhaps 10 hours – but the subjective time for the other passenger is perhaps 2 hours.

        You what? You just said it wasn’t subjective. Either they get to the next station at the same time, given their relative position in the train, or the person travelling faster on the train gets there slower. What you have to show is how travelling faster actually physically slows time for that person and how that person gets there later, because that is the theory. Aging of twins the classic example for this, but that is a distraction, two people on a train gets you back to thinking realistically about this.

        At slower speeds – ‘Yes, clocks do run more slowly. Planes travel about a million times more slowly than c (so γ is about 1.0000000000005), but atomic clocks are very precise and so this tiny effect effect can actually be measured. In 1971, J. Haefele and R. Keating took atomic clocks on airliners travelling both East (with the Earth rotating underneath them: we could call these “slow frames”) and West (these planes have the Earth’s rotation speed plus their own, and return to where they came from). Apart from some complications due to the gravitational field variations and their acceleration (which are dealt with by general relativity), this is like the twin paradox, and it gave results in agreement with the relativistic prediction. (See the original paper by J.C. Hafele and R. E. Keating, Science 177, 166 (1972) for details.’

        Hmm, well I’ll read it if I can find it. But all that I see they’ve done is claimed that their relativity theory explained it. Rather like Einstein using simple gravity and the well known property of light waves bending around corners to show that his theory of gravity was right..

        Somewhere I have a description of what is really happening, I’ll have a look for it tomorrow.

      • P.S. Missed this:

        It is all based on the invariance of the speed of light. How weird is that?

        Yes, now that’s really weird, since light slows down in our atmosphere and some fourteen times more travelling through the ocean.. and, the different wavelengths separate out, generally the longer wavelengths get though better than the shorter – blue visible gets bounced around a lot in the atmosphere being smaller, red a bit bigger is punchier, but in the ocean bigger is at a disadvantage. The reason we get all the brilliant separation of colours in a diamond:

        http://www.physics4kids.com/files/light_intro.html

        http://www.jupiterscientific.org/sciinfo/slowlight.html

        I’ve put the above link in because it reminds me so much of AGW arguments, the ‘oh Einstein was only talking about a vacuum’.

        I’m with the last poster here, he doesn’t get an answer either..

        http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=4106364

      • Brandon Shollenberger

        Holy… I go a while without an internet connection, and the first comment I see in my RSS Reader is from Myrrh, claiming general relativity is wrong. Is there anything that won’t be disputed by people on this site? I mean, how can anyone seriously dispute the invariance of the speed of light?

        For those who don’t already know the obvious, light never slows down. When light reaches the ocean (or anything else, really), it gets absorbed and re-emitted over and over. That absorption and re-emission takes time causing light to appear to move more slowly. In actuality, light doesn’t travel more slowly in mediums such as water; it simply has its path interrupted over and over.

      • Brandon
        For those who don’t already know the obvious, light never slows down. When light reaches the ocean (or anything else, really), it gets absorbed and re-emitted over and over. That absorption and re-emission takes time causing light to appear to move more slowly. In actuality, light doesn’t travel more slowly in mediums such as water; it simply has its path interrupted over and over.

        To the lowly layman, since the net result is that light takes a longer time to get through a medium such as water – due to absorption and re-emission interruptions you say – this means its journey has been at a lower speed. Isn’t this what explains refraction btw?

      • Brandon Shollenberger

        Handel, the distinction rarely matters in that effectively, the light traveled from one point to another in a longer period of time. The only reason I brought it up is Myrrh tried to say that proves light doesn’t have a single, constant speed when in reality it just shows light often gets absorbed and re-emitted. Simplifications can be useful at times, but they shouldn’t be used to “prove” something that’s only true because one is using an over-simplification.

        And yeah, this is what gives rise to refraction.

      • Brandon Shollenberger | October 8, 2012 at 9:38 pm | Holy… I go a while without an internet connection, and the first comment I see in my RSS Reader is from Myrrh, claiming general relativity is wrong.
        Is there anything that won’t be disputed by people on this site?

        It’s still a theory… When you can come back with proof that it exists do let us know, I’d be interested to have proof that someone running down a corridor of a train slows down time and arrives at the next station later and having aged less than someone sitting still in a carriage..

        I mean, how can anyone seriously dispute the invariance of the speed of light?

        For those who don’t already know the obvious, light never slows down. When light reaches the ocean (or anything else, really), it gets absorbed and re-emitted over and over. That absorption and re-emission takes time causing light to appear to move more slowly. In actuality, light doesn’t travel more slowly in mediums such as water; it simply has its path interrupted over and over.

        Right, exactly what happens in in the astmosphere, as others have noted, it’s called reflection/scattering when blue visible light is absorbed by the electrons of nitrogen and oxygen and re-emitted, how we get our blue sky.

        So how much is the blue light heating the atmosphere since your AGW claim is that “all electromagnetic energy is the same and all absorbed creates heat”?

        In the ocean visible light is slowed down because it is not absorbed. It is delayed by the water molecules as it tries to get in on the water molecules dance but can’t and is passed through to the next, called transmitted.

        So how much is visible light heating the oceans when it is not absorbed at all?

        But, all that means it is like sound, it’s just that because light travels so very much faster it’s not easy to see the attenuation.

        But come on now, the really interesting bit is how does travelling faster slow down aging? How does someone travelling really really fast slow down time so that his actually really real physical body stops aging at the speed the body ages and the speedy twin comes back younger than the twin not travelling?

        How does not taking as long to get somewhere physically slow the body processes? Does the heart beat slower? Does the rate of molecular exchanges in the body slow down? Why or why not? How does less time do this? Or, how does speed itself do this? How does it happen??

        It’s all very well for you who have no damn answers to the simple irrationality of this to pretend you are all so clever and anyone questioning you too dumb to see it, but science is all about providing empirical proof and you don’t even have any explanation of how the twin comes back younger, you just say he does, so there blah blah.

        Just because you can think of more examples of how weird is that doesn’t mean you’ve actually provided any work to show your basic premise isn’t B.S.

      • Chief Hydrologist

        The most important aspect to remember is the constancy of light in a vacuum for observers moving at different relative velocities wrt to the source. Thus we move from Galilean relativity (the absolute relativity intrinsic to the theories of Newton and Darwin for instance) to the new relativity of the space/time continuum – which does not evolve but exists in 4 dimensions in eternity

        ‘Einstein’s Relativity differs from classical relativity, because of the way he looked at time. Before Einstein, people thought time to be absolute, which is to say that one big clock measures the time for the entire universe. Consequently one hour on Earth would be one hour on Mars, or one hour in another galaxy. However, there was a problem with this concept. In an absolute time frame the speed of light cannot be constant. Roemer found that the speed of light is finite and has a certain, quantifiable velocity (usually abbreviated with “c”), which at first implies Galilean relativity. This would mean that while the Earth rotates at a velocity of v, light emitted in the direction of the Earth rotation must be c + v, while light emitted in the opposite direction would travel at c – v, relative to an outside observer.

        In 1881, A. Michelson conducted an experiment which proved that this is not the case. With the help of an apparatus that allowed measuring minute differences in the speed of light by changes in the resulting interference patterns, Michelson observed that the speed of light is always the same. No changes whatsoever. The experiment has been repeated later with greater precision by Michelson and E.W. Morley.’

        From this in the greatest leap of scientific imagination ever made emerged the special theory of relativity. It has been proved many times.

        http://www.physlink.com/education/askexperts/ae433.cfm

        The train analogy used by Einstein was an explanation of this fact of the constancy of the speed of light for observers in different inertial frames moving relative to each other and to the source of the light. Time dilation emerged from the mathematics of the Lorenz contractions which integrated the new constant into the necessary relationships with time, mass and length.

      • Brandon Shollenberger

        Myrrh, you’re making a fool of yourself:

        So how much is the blue light heating the atmosphere since your AGW claim is that “all electromagnetic energy is the same and all absorbed creates heat”?

        I scoffed at you for disputing well-known aspects of the universe with no apparent knowledge to base such off of. You respond by saying I have an “AGW claim” despite not knowing what my position is on the matter. Even worse, you give a claim that appears to be one nobody holds because it’s silly, though it’s hard to tell for sure because you screwed up the grammar. But the real problem is you say:

        So how much is visible light heating the oceans when it is not absorbed at all?

        If you really think no light is absorbed by the oceans… I don’t think there’s anything I can say to you. I’m not going to try to explain to you physics taught in high school if you can’t figure out something one learns in elementary school science classes. I mean, seriously, how do you think things like plankton can exist? Then again, you do say:

        It’s all very well for you who have no damn answers to the simple irrationality of this to pretend you are all so clever and anyone questioning you too dumb to see it, but science is all about providing empirical proof and you don’t even have any explanation of how the twin comes back younger, you just say he does, so there blah blah.

        I don’t think people are too dumb to understand time dilation. It’s strange and unintuitive. However, you did a lot more. You claimed to know a scientific theory, which not only is accepted by all scientists, but also is used in much modern technology (such as GPSs), is wrong while showing you lack even the most basic knowledge of the subject. For example, you claimed the fact light “slows down” when not in a vaccuum means the speed of light is not invariant.

        If you proclaim millions of people are wrong while saying things which are stupidly untrue, well… maybe you are too dumb to see. After all, all you have to do is look up time dilation on Wikipedia to get your answers.

      • Brandon Shollenberger

        I should point out while I scoff at Myrrh, there is nothing wrong with someone finding general relativity strange and confusing. The problem is it being strange and confusing doesn’t make it untrue. And it doesn’t mean we need an explanation as to why it is what it is. Science often describes what we observe without offering an explanation for what we observe.

        Every kid learns you can eventually force people to run out of answers by just asking, “Why?” in response to everything. That’s because at some point answers run out. There was a point when we were that way with gravity. People could reasonably wonder why gravity worked the way it did, but that curiosity didn’t diminish the calculations based on what we knew of gravity. In the same way, it’s reasonable to wonder why things like time dilation happen, but that doesn’t mean we should stop acknowledging that they do happen.

        (Of course, there have been some ideas put forward to explain both gravity and time dilation. But even if they turn out to be right, it’ll just mean we get stuck on some other question.)

      • Chief Hydrologist | October 9, 2012 at 6:23 am

        Sorry, concentration probs and sticky keys, my reply to you posted here:

        http://judithcurry.com/2012/10/05/week-in-review-10512/#comment-251170

        RobotRollCall posting here is where I first began thinking of the problem: http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/fjwkh/why_exactly_can_nothing_go_faster_than_the_speed/c1gh4x7?utm_source=Triggermail&utm_medium=email&utm_term=10%20Things%20In%20Tech%20You%20Need%20To%20Know&utm_campaign=10ThingsTech_NL_022211

        There’s no connection between the arrow changing direction to slow time once movement in space begins, it’s not there.

        Aspden: “Ask yourself why, if four-space has any meaning, all the experiments which are said to present data supporting such theory present those results in the familiar units of three-space with time as a separate dimension.”

      • Brandon Shollenberger | October 9, 2012 at 7:38 am |

        If you really think no light is absorbed by the oceans… I don’t think there’s anything I can say to you. I’m not going to try to explain to you physics taught in high school if you can’t figure out something one learns in elementary school science classes. I mean, seriously, how do you think things like plankton can exist?

        Plankton exists because visible light is not absorbed by the ocean, water is a transparent medium for visible light, which means, visible light is not absorbed by the molecule of water but transmitted through unchanged. If water absorbed visible light there would be no life in the oceans.

        Plankton does absorb visible light, and visible light does not heat plankton, plankton converts visible light to chemical energy, not heat energy.

        The energy direct from the Sun, beam, which is capable of heating the oceans is the energy which AGWScienceFiction fisics has excised from the Greenhouse Effect, thermal infrared; which is the Sun’s thermal energy, actual heat, on the move to us transferred by radiation, which is one of the three methods of heat transfer. The Greenhouse Effect doesn’t have convection either.

        AGWSF has given the property of thermal infrared to visible (the meme “shortwave in longwave out”) instead. Visible light is not a thermal energy, it cannot heat water.

        It takes intense heating of water and land at the equator to give us what we have in the real world, our huge wind and dramatic weather systems.

        Unless you can prove that visible light is capable of doing this, and that the ‘Sun’s beam heat doesn’t get through the atmosphere and plays no part in heating land and ocean’, then you are forced to admit the Greenhouse Effect energy budget is B.S.

        This is an AGWSF sleight of hand to create the illusion that the thermal infrared measured ‘downwelling from the atmosphere’ comes from ‘backradiation’ from the claimed ‘shortwave heating land and oceans’. It’s a magic trick, a con.

        Cons, magic tricks, are created by sleights of hand to confuse the eye and ear, and mind, and the use of “absorbed” is another such trick, a play on word meaning. Absorbed in the ocean can mean actual physical absorption which does create heat or can mean the more general attenuation, for whatever reason, which includes absorption creating heat.

        AGWSF establishes by another meme “all electromagnetic energy is the same and all creates heat when absorbed”, which is obviously false as this consists of different wavelengths/photons/particles which are distinctly different from each other by their properties, size and so on, and processes as for example in photosynthesis which is conversion to chemical and not heat energy, and in reflection/scattering which is emission of the same wavelength after being physically absorbed by the electron of the molecules, as blue visible is absorbed by the electrons of the molecules of nitrogen and oxygen.

        If the meme “all absorption creates heat”, then how much is blue visible light heating the atmosphere?

        I don’t think people are too dumb to understand time dilation. It’s strange and unintuitive. However, you did a lot more. You claimed to know a scientific theory, which not only is accepted by all scientists, but also is used in much modern technology (such as GPSs), is wrong while showing you lack even the most basic knowledge of the subject. For example, you claimed the fact light “slows down” when not in a vaccuum means the speed of light is not invariant.

        Please see my post to Chief Hydrologist re GPS:

        http://judithcurry.com/2012/10/05/week-in-review-10512/#comment-251170

        If you proclaim millions of people are wrong while saying things which are stupidly untrue, well… maybe you are too dumb to see. After all, all you have to do is look up time dilation on Wikipedia to get your answers.

        Counter-intuitive is the paradigm shift from thinking the Sun revolves around the Earth to viewing ourselves orbitting the Sun, but we do have the capacity to appreciate the logic inherent in the Earth revolving around the Sun and we have empirical evidence for it.., this is not the word applicable to Einstein’s theory.

        “After reviewing 54 explanations, Al Kelly concludes: ‘Journals appear to be hungry for any article that will support the lesser ageing of the travelling twin. It does not matter how daft are the reasons given.’”

        http://www.davidpratt.info/relativ.htm

        Anyway, my science challenge still stands, prove that visible light from the Sun heats land and water at the equator to the intensity these are actually physically heated which is what gives us our wind and weather systems.

        Try it.

      • Brandon Shollenberger

        Myrrh, I was going to make a more lengthy response, but quite frankly, it’s not worth it. I mean, arguing oceans don’t absorb light but things in the ocean do is bad enough, but you constantly say things that are both stupid and untrue:

        Plankton does absorb visible light, and visible light does not heat plankton, plankton converts visible light to chemical energy, not heat energy.

        If you want to say stupid things about basic biological truths, you can. You can also say stupid things like the ocean doesn’t absorb light because water doesn’t. I’ve lost what little interest I had.

        Either millions of people are wrong, or you, someone who says stupidly untrue things about basic topics, are wrong. I know which I’d bet on.

      • So that is where psychiatry got this technique. Physicists and children understand relativity… I see a pattern.

        “Every kid learns you can eventually force people to run out of answers by just asking, “Why?” in response to everything.”

        Go, produce something people.
        Have fun too.

      • Brandon Shollenberger | October 9, 2012 at 10:44 pm | Myrrh, I was going to make a more lengthy response, but quite frankly, it’s not worth it. I mean, arguing oceans don’t absorb light but things in the ocean do is bad enough, but you constantly say things that are both stupid and untrue:

        “Plankton does absorb visible light, and visible light does not heat plankton, plankton converts visible light to chemical energy, not heat energy.”

        If you want to say stupid things about basic biological truths, you can. You can also say stupid things like the ocean doesn’t absorb light because water doesn’t. I’ve lost what little interest I had.

        You can pretend you understand biology and electromagnetic energy from the Sun, but showing yourself ignorant about photosynthesis which uses visible light to convert to chemical energy, not heat energy, in the creation of sugars and showing yourself ignorant that water is a transparent medium for visible light which any elementary text book from the tried and tested science of Optics explains, shows you know nothing of the physical real world properties and processes around you.

        That you’ve lost interest in it shows you have no interest in science, which is the exploration of the differences in the real physical world around us.

        Either millions of people are wrong, or you, someone who says stupidly untrue things about basic topics, are wrong. I know which I’d bet on.

        Millions of applied scientists using real basic facts from real physics are the people who understand what the different electromagnetic waves can and can’t do. You (generic) have no concept of the real world, but it’s obvious you have no interest in understanding it and would rather believe a clever manipulation of basic physics to promote the con that is AGW than face the reality that this is a con.

        The Greenhouse Effect doesn’t exist. The comic cartoon energy budget of KT97 and kin is a joke, representing an imaginary world – sans Water Cycle, sans rain in the Carbon Life Cycle, sans gravity because sans real molecules with weight, volume, attraction, sans real heat from the Sun, sans sound…, sans the whole heavy voluminous fluid real gas atmosphere around us. I do appreciate it is difficult to come to terms with the fact that the world you have been taught to think real physically is nothing but an illusion, but if you had any interest in real science climate or otherwise, you would actively engage with what I’m saying and would check out for yourself if the information I’m giving you makes sense.

        So it’s not about millions of people believing what you do, it’s about you personally not willing to interact with what I’m saying.

      • Its really nonsense to bring Relatavistic theory into either Evolution or Climate change.

      • Why, both could use a little time dilation :)

      • tempterrain

        You write:

        Its really nonsense to bring Relatavistic theory into either Evolution or Climate change.

        And it’s also “nonsense to bring Evolution theory into a discussion of Climate change”

        But you did so.

        Some reading material for you regarding scientific evidence of evolution to clear up your misconceptions that this theory is based upon the same “non-scientific” pseudo-science as the CAGW premise:

        Evidence of evolution

        http://anthro.palomar.edu/evolve/evolve_3.htm

        As a result of the massive amount of evidence for biological evolution accumulated over the last two centuries, we can safely conclude that evolution has occurred and continues to occur. All life forms, including humans, evolved from earlier species, and all still living species of organisms continue to evolve today. They are not unchanging end-products.

        And

        The evidence for evolution has primarily come from four sources:
        1. the fossil record of change in earlier species
        2. the chemical and anatomical similarities of related life forms
        3. the geographic distribution of related species
        4. the recorded genetic changes in living organisms over many generations

        [The first three of these are based on physical observation while the last is based upon reproducible experimentation.]

        29+evidences for macroevolution

        http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

        The alleged fallacies of evolutionary theory

        http://philosophynow.org/issues/46/The_Alleged_Fallacies_of_Evolutionary_Theory

        Perhaps the best-known philosophical criticism of evolution has been put forth by Karl Popper, who once claimed that “Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research program” (Unended Quest, 1976). Famously, Popper retracted his comments, once it was explained to him that there was quite a bit more to the theory of evolution than he had understood from a cursory examination of the subject: “I have changed my mind about the testability and logical status of the theory of natural selection; and I am glad to have an opportunity to make a recantation” (Dialectica 32:344-346).

        There’s more empirical scientific evidence out there. All you have to do is look.

        Max

      • Max,

        My previous reply to your comment appeared in the wrong spot. Its in the thread just above this.

        Yes I would agree with you that objections, on the grounds of scientific method (empirical evidence, experimental repeatability etc) to Evolutionary theory are largely nonsense. The creationists are just playing the game of setting an impossible standard and claiming a win when Evolutionary scientists can’t meet it.

        Just like climate deniers play the game of setting an ……..

      • Darwin’s theory of evolution has been corroborated by experimentation as well as by observation of physical evidence, as demonstrated to you. It has endured for well over a century and withstood all attempts at scientific falsification.

        CAGW has been dreamed up by IPCC to fit a political agenda of the UNEP (which the theory of Evolution never had). It is not corroborated by experimentation or observation of physical evidence, nor has it withstood attempts at scientific falsification. In fact, it is being falsified, as we speak, with no warming occurring for 15 years during which GHG concentrations, including CO2, increased to record levels.

        BIG difference between the two, TT, whether you believe so or not.

        CAGW bears more resemblance to “intelligent design” hypotheses than to Evolution.

        But the whole “Evolution” waffle is simply a side track to get away from discussing CAGW. So let’s get back to the topic at hand here, i.e.the validity of the CAGW premise.

        Max

      • TT,

        Look at this part of Manacker’s citation:

        The evidence for evolution has primarily come from four sources:
        1. the fossil record of change in earlier species
        2. the chemical and anatomical similarities of related life forms
        3. the geographic distribution of related species
        4. the recorded genetic changes in living organisms over many generations

        It seems that Manacker accepts the idea that one can find many lines of evidence to “corroborate” one’s hypothesis.

        Now, look at the section Consistency Among Observations from the Technical Summary of the AR4:

        Changes in the atmosphere, cryosphere and ocean show unequivocally that the world is warming. […]

        Both land surface air temperatures and SSTs show warming. […]

        The warming of the climate is consistent with observed increases in the number of daily warm extremes, reductions in the number of daily cold extremes and reductions in the number of frost days at mid-latitudes. […]

        Surface air temperature trends since 1979 are now consistent with those at higher altitudes.[…]

        Changes in temperature are broadly consistent with the observed nearly worldwide shrinkage of the cryosphere. […]

        Observations of sea level rise since 1993 are consistent with observed changes in ocean heat content and the cryosphere. […]

        Observations are consistent with physical understanding regarding the expected linkage between water vapour and temperature, and with intensification of precipitation events in a warmer world. […]

        Observations of changes in ocean salinity independently support the view that the Earth’s hydrologic cycle has changed, in a manner consistent with observations showing greater precipitation and river runoff outside the tropics and subtropics, and increased transfer of freshwater from the ocean to the atmosphere at lower latitudes. […]

        Although precipitation has increased in many areas of the globe, the area under drought has also increased. Drought duration and intensity has also increased.

        http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/tssts-3-4.html

        The parallel is striking, don’t you think?

    • Yep. There are some real idiots out there. This guys nonsense is only slightly worse than the doomsday nonsense that has been going on for the last 50 years.

  48. Money and politics, irresistible conjunction. Judith’s link above:

    http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/story/2012-09-27/science-social-science-politics/57849042/1

    Keeping a wall of separation between church and state was thought to be important in democratic societies. Similarly keeping a wall of separation between science and sociology- instrumentalism is also important to humanities most objective creation, hard science critical ‘conjecture-refutation-investigation’ of the natural world.

  49. Let me bring this out as a new part to this thread.
    novandiscosid writes “Jim Cripwell has posed a serious question, one which I also believe has been insufficiently discussed.”

    First, thank you very much for this vote of confidence in my question. So far as I can make out, the way that no-feedback climate sensitivity has been estimated is based on physics that is simply just plain wrong, as opposed to my previous idea that it was dubious.

    If the physics used to estimate no-feedback climate sensitivity is wrong, which it almost certainly is, then it follows, as night follows day, that the value of about 1.2 C for a doubling of CO2 is also wrong. Not just wrong, but wrong, wrong, wrong. So every other numeric value that is based on this wrong number of 1.2C for a doubling of CO2 is also completley wrong.

    This means that the position of our hostess that there is uncertainty in what the effect of adding CO2 to the atmosphere is, is also just plain wrong. It isn’t that there is uncertainty. We have the certainty that any numeric values which have been claimed show that CAGW is real, are just plain wrong. There is no uncertainty. The certainty is that no-one has come anywhere close to proving that CAGW is real.

    • Jim Cripwell

      You raise a good point.

      One can be rationally skeptical of IPCC’s CAGW premise (as defined several times on this site) for several reasons.

      Our hostess has expressed that she is skeptical of this premise, because of the many uncertainties involved regarding human attribution of past warming and the resulting model-based “feedbacks”, which result in a 2-fold to 4-fold increase in the 2xCO2 temperature response and tIPCC’s future warming projections.

      However, she apparently accepts that there is a perceptible GH effect plus “all the rest”:

      – that CO2 is a GHG,
      – that CO2 levels are increasing (at a constant exponential rate of around 0.5% per year),
      – that humans emit GHGs (principally CO2),
      – that these human emissions contribute to the atmospheric increase and
      – that temperature appears to be rising since 1850 (in fits and spurts with an underlying warming rate of 0.06C per decade).

      You are also skeptical of the CAGW premise.

      As I understand it, you go one step further than our hostess, in that you are also skeptical “that there is a perceptible GH effect” from CO2 (i.e. a “clear sky no-feedback” 2xCO2 temperature response of around 1 degC, as posited by IPCC), since this hypothesis has not been validated by empirical scientific data.

      Have I got it right?

      Max

      PS A well-known skeptic of the IPCC “CAGW premise” is Richard Lindzen. He apparently accepts the GH concept, but has estimated that the “clear sky no-feedback” 2xCO2 response is around 0.65 deg C, and that the net impact from feedbacks is neutral, so that his estimate of the 2xCO2 CS including feedbacks is around 0.6-0.7 degC.

      Another is Roy Spencer. He apparently also accepts the AGW concept, itself, but also concludes that the 2xCO2 CS including feedbacks is around 0.6-0.7 degC.

      • Max, you write “As I understand it, you go one step further than our hostess, in that you are also skeptical “that there is a perceptible GH effect” from CO2 (i.e. a “clear sky no-feedback” 2xCO2 temperature response of around 1 degC, as posited by IPCC), since this hypothesis has not been validated by empirical scientific data.”

        Not quite. What you have written is absolutely correct. But I go one step further now that I understand things better. No-feedback climate sensitivity is an abomination in physics, in that it can never be measured. There can never be any empirical data to support any numeric value, such as 1.2 C. However, hypothetical estimations of it’s value could be useful, if, and only if, these estimations are based on sound physics.

        The Planck method of estimating 1.2 C for a doubling of CO2 makes the explicit assumption that “the structure of the atmosphere does not change”. Now, quite clearly, if there is some sort of forcing on the atmosphere, the structure of the atrmosphere WILL change. So this assumption is just plain wrong. The excuse given is that this is alright, since the change in lapse rate, which is the inevitable result of a change of atmospheric structure, can be regardcd as a feedback. The change of lapse rate never was, nor never will be a feedback, so this excuse is based on false physics.

        Hence the whole basis in physics which it is claimed can be used to derive the number 1.2 C for a dounling of CO2, is just plain worng. So the no-feedback climate sensitivity value is wrong on many different levels. Not only is it an abomination in physice, the physics used to derive it’s value is wrong. And the empirical data gives a strong indication that it’s value is, in facvt, indistiunguishable freom zero.

      • Why don’t you go ask Held? He has a blog. He was a co-author on one of the papers JC cited in her article on no-feedback sensitivity.

      • JCH you write “Why don’t you go ask Held? ”

        Why would I need to ask anyone? I have stated what I believe to be scientific facts, and I hope that, if I am wrong, someone will point out that I am wrong and where I am wrong.

      • This question:

        > Why would I need to ask anyone?

        is answered by the end of the next one:

        > I hope that, if I am wrong, someone will point out that I am wrong and where I am wrong.

      • I agree with Jim Cripwell.
        The basis of the calculation of the temperature increase AT THE SURFACE is as follows:
        1. Calculate what energy must be radiated to Space by the planet. Calculate the temperature of a perfect blackbody which would radiate that amount of energy.
        2. Calculate what temperature increase is required in the perfect blackbody to make up the shortfall (“Radiative Forcing”, the energy imbalance at the Tropopause).
        3. Assume that this temperature increase must apply to the whole of the Troposphere because the Lapse Rate is Constant.

        This leads to the absolute nonsense that a 4W/m^2 imbalance at the Tropopause forces a change in Surface Forcing (the only way the surface temperature can change is if there is a change in SURFACE FORCING) which increases the Surface Temperature by 1.2DegC.
        But to do that requires between 8W/m^2(no evaporation!) and 12.5W/m^2 additional Surface Forcing. [This is derived from calculation of the Surface Energy Balance, and confirmed by the sensitivity of the surface temperature where I live to changes in insolation. This is 15DegC difference between summer and winter for a change of 150W/m^2 in insolation]
        In the no-feedback case, where does this forcing come from? It is up to proponents of the 1.2DegC uniform increase in Tropospheric temperature to show that there is no violation of the First Law of Thermodynamics. It seems to me that unarguably there is such a violation in their calculations.

        That violation is caused by 3 things:
        1. The assumnption that the planet is a blackbody, or that cold gases behave in accordance with Stephan’s Law is incorrect.
        2. The assumption that the lapse rate must always be exactly -6.5DegC/km is incorrect.
        3. The assumption that the whole atmosphere responds to an energy imbalance at the Tropopause is incorrect.

      • novandilcosid,

        Would you mind if I go post your comment and Jim’s question on Isaac Held’s blog?

        You can go post it by yourself:

        http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/blog/isaac-held/

        I could also write him an email to take a look here if you wish.

        Many thanks!

      • willard you write “Would you mind if I go post your comment and Jim’s question on Isaac Held’s blog?”

        Thank you very much indeed. I would be very grateful if you contacted Isaac Held on my behalf. You could even give him my email address of bf906@ncf.ca, and he could contact me directly, if he wished. I can only speak for myslelf.

      • Will do.

        Do you mind if I try to contact Science of Doom too?

        The latter would a longer shot, since SoD’s patience seems a bit shorter.

      • Jim,

        Email sent.

        I’ve entitled the email **The Curious Case of Jim Cripwell**.

        I hope you do not mind.

        Best,

        w

      • willard, why work graveyard on the first day of the week if that is the way you feel. You don’t really get double gold you know. Hang in there.

      • Tom,

        No worries. My work is mostly done. Millenarists can now sleep at peace.

        250,000 comments.

        Wow.

        Just wow.

        Is there not a time of service to man upon earth? And are not his days like the days of a hireling?

      • Steven Mosher

        Why dont you head over to Lucia’s look up steveF and take your beating there in public for all to see. Just go there and ask to re open the sensitivity thread. there you find people who doubt CAGW, but who dont doubt known . they will gladly kick your ass. My wager is that you wont try that. You dont want a debate. and you dont want to learn anything.

      • moshe shoves the mild-mannered SteveF into the phone booth and rips off his coat and tie, revealing a big Scarlet letter. Stay tuned for the next week’s serial of Climate Super Heroes.
        =====================

      • Willard, you write “I’ve entitled the email **The Curious Case of Jim Cripwell**.”

        Very many thanks indeed. I have tried to get other people to be interested in my ideas in the past, without any success. Thanks for your help. Maybe I will have better luck this time.

        To Steven, a similar message. I have tried sending my ideas around; no-one seems to be interested. At least on Climate Etc. they get printed.

        To anyone else. I am proud of what I write. I use my real name, and have given everyone where I live, email address etc. If anyone wants to copy what I have written, then please be my guest and use it; anyhow you want.

      • Willard

        Don’t be a dullard.

        Jim Cripwell has asked for empirical scientific data supporting the “clear sky no-feedback 2xCO2 temperature response estimate” of around 1C.

        You have provided nothing but blah-blah.

        Max

      • “The Curious Case of Jim Cripwell” by Willard the dullard

        Sounds like a potential best-seller.

      • Willard, I have visited Isaac Held’s blofg but I could not find anything about the Curious Case of Jim Cripwell. If you see that something has appeared on the blog concerning me, would you please let me know somehow?

      • andrew adams

        Jim Cripwell,

        Speaking with all the authority of someone with no qualifications in physics whatsoever, it seems to me that your objections are misplaced. You seem to be saying that the 1.2C “no feedback” response is invalid because it doesn’t take into account changes in lapse rate, but it doesn’t include those changes by definition so I don’t see why it is “wrong”, it is just a different measure to the one you are looking for. I don’t see why it is meaningful to point out that this will not be the actual measured temperature change at the earth’s surface, no-one actualy says otherwise.

        As for “empirical” evidence of the 1.2C figure, well obviously it is not something that can be directly observed in isolation given the earth’s atmospheric conditions. But we can compare observations of radiation emitted by the earth with calculations based on our theoretical understanding (which includes Planck’s law), and they are pretty spot on. That surely indicates that the principles on which the 1.2C figure is calculated are sound.

  50. mal de mer… say Max,

    Moby Dick
    Vengeance! Black blood! Aye!
    Doubloons to him that harpoons
    the greenpeace dinghy.

    h/t David Bader.

  51. Again, let me bring this out as a new part of the thread. I refer to willard (@nevaudit) | October 7, 2012 at 11:05 am

    willard you write “Without any physical explanation, what you’re saying does not matter much for climate science. ”

    I wonder why you carefully say “climate science”, and not physics in general. Is climate science somehow special, that the normal scientific method no longer applies? I base my arguments, not on climate science, but the scientific method.

    I disagree completely with what you have written. The hypothesis of CAGW will always be on the table, until someone can prove that it is wrong. I cannot prove that it is wrong, and I am not even trying. All I am trying to do, is point out where the physics of what is claimed to be support for CAGW is either highly dubious, or just plain wrong.

    In the case of the data we have on global temperatures, all I point out is that there has been no change in trend in the temperature/time graphs, since we have had reasonable data from around 1850. Do you claim that this statement is wrong? I know it is a negative statement, but if there has been a change in trend, then where is it?

    And that is really all I am claiming in the way of physics. What I then go on to deduce is that there is a strong indication that the total climate sensitivity for CO2 is indistinguishable from zero. Is this decuction wrong, and if so why?

    • Jim Cripwell,

      A quick reply to this:

      > I wonder why you carefully say “climate science”, and not physics in general. Is climate science somehow special, that the normal scientific method no longer applies? I base my arguments, not on climate science, but the scientific method.

      I say “climate science” because if I said “physics”, I would be asking for a “physical interpretation of physics”, a claim which would be circular at best.

      Claiming that your signal processing tricks amounts to a physical argument escapes me. Perhaps you should try to submit your “physical” argument to Science of Doom or John Nielsen-Gammon.

      If you never opened a book about philosophy of science or epistemology, I advise against using “Yes but the scientific method” against me. Please stick to your signal processing tricks. I have no interest into getting into curve fitting debates, but I sure have an interest about what is pompously called “the scientific method” by patzers like you.

      Besides, I’m still waiting for you to substantiate that I’m putting words in your mouth.

      • Willard you say “Besides, I’m still waiting for you to substantiate that I’m putting words in your mouth.”

        I wish I could believe you, that when I show where you have put words in my mouth, that you will enter into a digniified scientific debate on what I claim is physics. But I doubt it. Proponents of CAGW will NEVER enter into a scientific debate on CAGW, because they know if they do, they will lose.

        What you wrote was “Perhaps Jim Cripwell should stop by John Nielsen-Gammon’s blog and try his signal processing tricks.”

        So far as I am aware, I have never mentioned “signal processing tricks”. So these are the words you put in my mouth, and which I have never uttered.

      • Jim Cripwell,

        I have not said that you were calling your signal processing tricks “signal processing tricks”.

        This is what I claim your “scientific” arguments are: pure and simple signal processing tricks.

        These are words I put into my mouth, not yours.

        Besides, I’m not sure what you have in mind by “scientific debate on CAGW”. I’m not even sure that CAGW is a scientific claim. Which claim do you wish to debate, and where exactly have you read it?

        If you wish for a scientific debate, you should debate like a scientist among scientists.

        If you’re so tough, go argue with the tough guys. If you insist in keeping with your cheap rhetorical tricks, you’ll be an easy pick.

      • CAGW Match. In this corner…..
        ================

      • Willard

        Do you “deny” that IPCC has made claims that most of the observed warming since ~1950 was caused to greater than 90% likelihood by increased human GHG concentrations and that this represents a serious potential threat to humanity and our environment, unless actions are undertaken to curtail human GHG emissions (principally CO2)?

        FYI, it is THIS claim that is frequently referred to as “CAGW” (for potentially “catastrophic AGW”).

        Just to clear up your apparent confusion on this.

        Got it now?

        Max

  52. Global Temperature Natural Variability
    An image easy to remember

    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/EarthNV.htm

    Earth has its ‘zing’ originating in the core and the sun has its cycles.
    When two are in phase the oceans absorb more energy, when two are out of phase the oceans cool.
    Jean Dickey of NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena:
    One possibility is the movements of Earth’s core (where Earth’s magnetic field originates) might disturb Earth’s magnetic shielding of charged-particle (i.e., cosmic ray) fluxes that have been hypothesized to affect the formation of clouds. This could affect how much of the sun’s energy is reflected back to space and how much is absorbed by our planet. Other possibilities are that some other core process could be having a more indirect effect on climate, or that an external (e.g. solar) process affects the core and climate simultaneously.

  53. David Wojick

    Just over 100 comments to go for 250,000. Today or tomorrow?

  54. When I see the ‘Recent Comments’ list filled with ‘willard’, ‘BBD’, and ‘Lousie’, I think it’s reasonable to conclude that the message isn’t taking too well. Let’s comment some more, why don’t we? and that’ll make us feel better.

    Andrew

  55. Judy,

    Thanks to your newly implemented trackbacks, I could read this very interesting digest at Willard Tony’s, courtesy of the The Science and Environmental Policy Project (sepp.org):

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/07/weekly-climate-and-energy-news-roundup-65/

    Wow. Just wow.

    Wowowowowow.

    Wow.

    It seems that the SEPP editorial tag team has some comments on some of your posts.

    Please check them out!

  56. David Wojick

    Counting down to 250,000 comments. Wonderful. The debate personified.

      • David Wojick

        Very funny.

      • David Wojick

        If you are referring to the fact that there seem to be multiple debates here, they are all part of a single complex logical form which I call the issue tree. I discovered the general form on October 14, 1973 so have an anniversary coming up.

      • Steven Mosher

        No he is not referring to that, he is referring to something else. Over there.
        These things are not part of any “issue” tree. of course in your mind everything is a part of the tree. because you “discovered it”. wow the columbus of thought.

        If you want to argue that tree structure is a handy device for organizing things. I’m sure no one would disagree.

  57. Cloud-Radiative Forcing and Climate: Results from the Earth Radiation Budget Experiment
    Ramanathan et al

    http://bit.ly/NHKTpM

    The study of climate and climate change is hindered by a lack of information on the effect of clouds on the radiation balance of the earth, referred to as the cloud-radiative forcing. Quantitative estimates of the global distributions of cloud-radiative forcing have been obtained from the spaceborne Earth Radiation Budget Experiment (ERBE) launched in 1984. For the April 1985 period, the global shortwave cloud forcing [-44.5 watts per square meter (W/m2)] due to the enhancement of planetary albedo, exceeded in magnitude the longwave cloud forcing (31.3 W/m2) resulting from the greenhouse effect of clouds. Thus, clouds had a net cooling effect on the earth.

  58. Particular Physicist

    BBD : Just read Shakun et al. (2012). All is explained ;-)

    Ah, the “although I’m a devout believer in it I haven’t a clue how to explain it, so just go away and read xyz and don’t come back till you agree with me” gambit.
    Sheer desperation.

  59. Climategate emails

    The following are some of the controversial ClimateGate emails, grouped by category, main source is the list at WattsUpWithThat.com[1]. A number of them reveal devastating weaknesses in the methodology surrounding multi-proxy isotopic dating methods involving tree rings (Dendrochronology), ice cores, and coral, since the same clique of scientists behind the Global Warming fiasco is the same group involved in evolutionist dating methodologies. Key quotes are in bold:

    http://creationwiki.org/Climategate_emails

  60. On Attaining the 250,000th:

    At Judith’s agora where debating denizens hang out,
    ‘You show me your paper and I’ll show yer mine.’
    Posting graphs that separate the woods from the trees,
    Arguing the politics, left and right, and the economics.
    Telling jokes and spouting haiku gnomic poetry,
    It’s where ignorant, and less ignorant, (depending
    On yer point of view,) armies clash by night,
    And also day, depending on time zone, some write
    At dawn, high noon or burn the midnight oil.
    Oil! – It’s crucial ter the debate, energy as cornucopia
    Or enemy of Gaia,….where are we heading? Weather
    Unprecedented, black swan event, or jest more of the same?

    Here Judith’s measured reasoning prevails
    Like gentle rain that falls upon the place beneath…
    (Depending of course on ENSO, ocean gyres and trade winds…)

    Ultimately its nature that rules, regardless of the models’ oracular
    Projections, there’s the rub, though doubtless those dis-satisfied,
    Their theories down the drain, will find a way ter put a spin on it or
    Maybe wipe clean the slate, drop it down the memory hole.

    But don’t fergit, it’s on the record, here at
    The Climate Etc agora.

  61. “JC note: I am still at the UK”

    Whilst in the UK, one should use the local idiom and say “in the UK”. I don’t really know what “at the UK” means ;(

  62. Thx Girma and Max, ‘ah lahk’ gentle rain too. )

  63. Paul Vaughan

    Solar Cycle Frequency/Length, Antarctic Ice Specific Mass, & Terrestrial Geomagnetic Field Jerks:

  64. BBD, “The d-O18 is upside down” Yes it is, as I said I am comparing timing of changes. The paper I linked to was also comparing the timing of changes. At a perturbation, the temperatures and CO2 are in phase, then develop the inverse relationship. The Martin d-O18 data had more data points and I plotted that against CO2 to compare the change points. I do have one chart where I have the wrong series plotted, but not the particular plot you linked to.

    When I said “inverse relationship” that was a poor choice of words. How about, there “develops an inverse relationship?” Since they do start “In Phase” then drift. I marked up the things I am looking at in that chart. Notice the CO2 at the 0ka versus 125ka. Also note the in phase bump at 80ka versus the out of phase bump at 100ka. Those would interesting anomalies.

    That is the Lea Galapagos with the Martin 2002 d18O, notice the marked delays and how the Atlantic and Pacific d18O drift apart after 100ka and the pulse at 80ka that impacted the Galapagos SST and the ATLANTIC d18O.

    This could generate a Bi-Polar SeeSaw from the Southern Hemisphere.

    For the CO2 and Glacial relationship for the past 20 million years, I have mentioned that that relationship appears to be drifting.

    I showed you that plot of the tropical oceans where the E. Pacific has been doing its own thing for a while even changing to a positive slope ~800ka ago.

    I appreciate you pointing out mistakes, when they are actual mistakes, but looking for changes in phase relationships, it is easier to leave d18O inverted.

    Now what is entertaining is this conversation started with unforced variations where I said that the mixing efficiency of the Antarctic Circumpolar Current can change the internal dynamics of the system causing temperature changes. Stott mentioned that there could also be impacts on CO2 due to the mixing efficiency and there does appear to be “inversions” of the CO2 temperature relationship after the initial change from glacial to interglacial. The Bottom Water Temperature (Mg derived), not d18O does tend to rise prior to an interglacial transition and fall after the transition, an indication of the mixing rate of the deep oceans.

    Since you are concerned with ocean heat capacity, I thought you might notice that, or is the Mg derived degrees C in the Martin et al 2002 inverted?

    • You shameless fraud. You had no idea that those δ18O curves were upside-down. Not an inkling. Worse still, your nonsense claims arepredicated on the inverted curves and *fall apart* when they are presented in the correct orientation.

      And now you’ve dodged away from the relevant thread and started up again down here to try and *hide* just how badly you screwed up. Well, anyone wishing to see what an absolute fool you made of yourself can click here. Read up a few comments to get the full context.

      I have seldom seen such nakedly self-serving dishonesty. Not even in the sewer of the climate debate. It is contemptible and comical all at once.

      • BBS, believe what you wish but since the Martin et al paper was comparing the Mg derivation of temperature to the d18O it was pretty easy to notice which one had C degrees next to it. Besides I embarrassed myself with inverted delta18O a while back :(

        Remember, http://judithcurry.com/2012/10/05/week-in-review-10512/#comment-249914 Timing not temperature.

        From the middle of both of the last two glacials, Pacific (TR163-31P) bottom water temperature rose while CO2 fell. Then started dropping as CO2 rose. There was a difference with the Atlantic (M16772(22) which was in phase with CO2 until ~60ka, unless the Mg data is inverted which I doubt.

        “The deep water temperature changes during MIS 3 may reflect changes in the temperature or relative contribution of Antarctic Bottom Water and play a role in the “bipolar seesaw.”

        The Atlantic and Pacific cores have different relationships with SST and CO2 for most of the period between interglacials. Plot it yourself or

        I am definitely capable of making mistakes, but that certainly looks like an inverse relationship leading up to deglaciations.

      • CD

        BBS, believe what you wish</blockquote.

        No. You aren't getting away with this.

        You muddled up. Your δ18O curves were inverted and you made absurd claims based on this comedy-grade gaffe. It is perfectly obvious that you didn’t realise what you had done until I pointed your mistakes out to you. And now you are lying about that.

        It’s not the error that I object to – we all screw up – it’s the dishonesty now that is impossible to let pass.

        In common decency you need to *admit your error* and take down the post on your blog here.

        And you need to do it right now. It’s too late for your credibility, but you might salvage a shred of dignity if you admit your error rather than carry on trying to bluff your way out of this.

        The choice is yours: harmless buffoon or actively dishonest buffoon. How do you wish to be regarded?

      • CD

        BBS, believe what you wish

        .

        No. You aren’t getting away with this.

        You muddled up. Your δ18O curves were inverted and you made absurd claims based on this awful gaffe. It is perfectly obvious that you didn’t realise what you had done until I pointed your mistakes out to you. And now you are lying about what happened.

        It’s not the error that I object to – we all screw up – it’s the dishonesty now that makes my blood boil.

        In common decency you need to *admit your error* and take down the post on your blog here.

        And you need to do it right now. It’s too late for your credibility, but you might salvage a shred of dignity if you admit your error rather than carry on trying to bluff your way out of this.

        The choice is yours: harmless buffoon or actively dishonest buffoon. How do you wish to be regarded?

      • The captain refers to his blog as a trash blog. It’s full of chum, designed to lure in the unsuspecting skeptical bonehead.

      • WebHubTelescope | October 9, 2012 at 7:34 am |
        The captain refers to his blog as a trash blog. It’s full of chum, designed to lure in the unsuspecting skeptical bonehead.

        Oh, sort of like the counterpart to RealClimate and Skeptical Science (and, for that matter, Nature).

      • BBD: “I have seldom seen such nakedly self-serving dishonesty.”

        Further proof that BBD does not review his comments before posting.

      • Careful, Tom. There’s always some powder and shot left over for you, if you push it.

    • Steven Mosher

      Oh Captain, my captain. BBD righteously busted you. And you are handling it worse than Mann handled upside down tiljander.

      • Steven I don’t know if it is worse :) The point that, in that case, that comparing the timing of decay did not depend on orientation I think is valid. Upside down or not the trajectory of the decay from perturbation varies between all three data sets. That would cause an internal oscillation, which was the original point I was making.

        BBD linked to a paper that estimates the origin or the bi-polar “seesaw” in the north ca 19ka, and I am showing a divergence at ca 80ka and the Southern Oceans are more sensitive to precessional orbit influences than obliquity.

        A labeling mistake on my part does not change the anomaly noticed by many others beside myself.

  65. This place is a circus, no doubt about that.

    This from Web, who can’t bring himself to criticize the systematic corruption of science by hiding data etc etc. In his view, the educated bias and fraud of the politicized climate establishment is preferable to allowing the odd crank to have his say.

    • Tomcat, what’s eating you? Can’t you handle criticism of your own kind? Look around you. You are surrounded by 40+ crackpots that regularly comment on this site. It’s tough not being dragged into the gutter.

      • You are surrounded by 40+ crackpots that regularly comment on this site. It’s tough not being dragged into the gutter.

        Hear, hear. I was forced to call someone a fraud and a buffoon recently. Strong stuff, at least for me.

      • BBD, that would a promotion.

        “The oscillations represent a 3D phenomenon, linked to the intricate interaction between two deep-water formation sites in the North Atlantic. The oscillations of the oceanic circulation are accompanied by air-temperature variations of approx. 4 ˚C over Greenland and 0.8 ˚C over Antarctica. The timing of these air-temperature changes is in accordance with the seesaw concept.

        http://web.mit.edu/aklocker/www/files/pdf_files/oscillations_EGU05.pdf

        :)

      • The timing of these air-temperature changes is in accordance with the seesaw concept.

        And you are stupid. I have told you N times that this see-saw is triggered by AMOC shutdown. You won’t listen, you won’t read, and worst of all, you won’t admit your mistakes.

        Dialogue is therefore impossible.

      • BBD
        Having trouble following this. Can you point us to the Captain’s dishonesty please?

      • sullivan

        That’s because the captn is trying to hide what he did by dodging away from the original discussion and starting again here. Go upthread to here, read then click the link to go right back to the *original* discussion.

        In a nutshell, Captn made a hideously amateurish mistake – he got two curves upside-down. Worse, he didn’t realise because he didn’t bother even to read the actual paper he’d appropriated the core data from. Worse by far, he then tried to push a nonsense argument based on the mistakenly inverted curves.

        But worst of all, when confronted with his comedy-grade error, he refused to admit what he had done, claimed he ‘knew’, claimed it didn’t make any difference (FFS) and generally turned up the flow of BS to maximum.

        It was a *classic* demonstration of dishonesty when caught out faking. One of the most egregious I have ever seen. Unforgivable and permanently discrediting.

      • Sullivan

        You do also know that CD has *seriously* way-out ideas I trust? He’s not just bluffing; he’s a wingnut. For example, this man believes that there was no permanent ice in Antarctica before ~800ka. Yes, seriously. See here.

        Take my well-meant advice and give the captain a wide berth ;-)

      • Sullivan, I made an error labeling a chart I was working on for a blog post. I used d18O not converted to temperature and had the chart axis labeled degrees C. I did miss that since I typically just use the generic “anomaly” until I have double checked everything. So I was promoted to Fraud and Baffoon form Clown :)

        http://redneckphysics.blogspot.com/2012/10/promotion-to-fraud-and-buffoon.html

      • BBD
        The situation seems to be that you say the captain got some graphs upside-down; and he says he didn’t, and advances some argument on it, contrary to the one you are trying to push.

        Here at Climate Etc we call these events ‘disagreements’, and simply move on. Rome wasn’t analyzed in a day.

        I note elsewhere the captain does admit to getting some other graph upside-down, so it’s far from clear he doesn’t admit mistakes.

        I am in no position to evaluate this disagreement, but I have so say, BBS, your shrill tone suggests you sense he has some point or other you are reluctant to face.

      • BBD

        CD was clearly wrong, in as much permanent Antarctica ice is much older than he states. However, judging by the uncharacteristic smileys emanating from him (generally left to Fan) I wonder if it is embarassment rather than dishonesty that is at work here?

        tonyb

      • climatereason, “CD was clearly wrong, in as much permanent Antarctica ice is much older than he states. However, judging by the uncharacteristic smileys emanating from him (generally left to Fan) I wonder if it is embarassment rather than dishonesty that is at work here?”

        The embarrassment was over the labeling of the chart which I missed. I had made that mistake earlier and revised a post as a “Do Over” because of that.

        The “permanent” Antarctic ice is a different issue. There is a change in the slope of the Eastern Tropical Pacific SST ca 800ka from negative to positive. Following that change the 41ka glacial cycle changed to ~60 to 100ka. The scour pattern of the Drake Passage indicates that erosion is likely a potential cause of the changes over the past 5 million years and Antarctic ice fixed on the volcanic islands east of the Drake Passage could hold ice sheets under some condition. At ~2.2ma ago there is a large abrupt change in the average tropical SST that could easily be caused by a major change in the Antarctic ice sheets. The from ~1.5ma ago there was a more rapid decrease in global tropical SST.

        I am suggesting that major events related to Antarctic ice sheet orientation are involved and that the current “permanent” Antarctic ice condition began ~800 to 1.5 ma ago, which established a new Antarctic Circumpolar Current regime.

        Since the range of estimated Paleo Climate sensitivity to CO2 forcing varies for 0.7 to 9 C depending on the epoch considered, that may indicate that ACC has considerable impact on climate sensitivity.

        It is a theory that I am pursuing that appears to be unpopular.

      • Sullivan

        I am in no position to evaluate this disagreement,

        But you will anyway:

        but I have so say, BBS, your shrill tone suggests you sense he has some point or other you are reluctant to face.

        You were initially correct Sullivan. You don’t understand what’s going on here. In these circumstances, silence is the wisest policy.

      • As you doubtless realise, BBD, I was referring to my not commenting on the merits of the science you two are on about.

        That though does not preclude an evaluation of how the exchange is conducted. This is rather like the fact that you don’t need to be a scientist to know that hiding data is unscientific. Your ongoing shrillness and attempts to silence the captain serve increasingly to suggest you are hiding something you’d rather others didn’t realise.

      • Forget it captn. Talking to you is a waste of time – you are dishonest.

      • BBD
        Once again nothing but desperate resorting to vacuous name-calling from you.

      • Sullivan

        Calling me ‘shrill’ is a rather childish and self-serving mischaracterisation. You simply want to make me look ‘bad’ so Cappy looks ‘good’. This is the level you are obliged to operate on because you don’t understand the actual argument.

        To call this both partisan and weak is a double understatement. But at least we all know where you’re coming from.

      • BBD
        As you keep trying to ignore, it’s the style rather than the substance at issue here. And yes, repetitive name-calling is shrill.
        You can either keep digging yourself deeper, denying everything, or change to a new tune and start debating like a mensch – likely get you a broader audience.

      • Sullivan

        Above, you asked for some clarification as to why I characterised Cappy as dishonest. I responded with directions for you to follow the discussion here.

        You obviously have not troubled to read the admittedly long exchange or you would understand how daft you were to say:

        You can either keep digging yourself deeper, denying everything, or change to a new tune and start debating like a mensch

        You are joining this exchange *very* late. You have missed the debating.

        I have typed this slowly. I hope it helps.

      • BBD
        It seems you are the one not following your exchange with CD too closely. He has explained his rationale, and also owned up to mistakes.
        It’s pretty clear now that your shrill claims of his dishonesty, are themselves just dishonesty on your part.
        However, just draw a line under your wrongdoings are start behaving properly, and you will I’m sure derive much benefit here.

      • Sullivan

        CD has fooled you, that much is clear. But you are apparently foolish, so this is unsurprising.

        Bye bye now.

    • Your continued refusal to criticize alarmist fraud-science dully noted Web. Which can only mean you put politics before science as a matter of principle.

      So where do you get off criticizing others so vehemently ? Your type is the lowest of the low. Far from being dragged into the gutter, you are leading the charge.

      Letting a handful of cranks comment is the price we pay for open debate. But then open debate is a concept you mendacious politicos just don’t get at all, is it ?

      So sort your dirty act out and start meriting your visitation rights here.

  66. WebHubTelescope | October 9, 2012 at 12:30 am |

    [The shale oil/gas potential is ] bottom of the barrel stuff, like scraping off the sides of the peanut butter jar.

    A signature blunder by Climate Etc’s most senior crank.

  67. Climate Weenie offers an overview of the benefits of a warming world,
    @ 8/10, 11.30 am, of plant stomata resistance to drought from more CO2, of lengthening crop growing seasons .. of lessening human mortality rates from winter diseases… brings ter mind lines from Walt the bard:

    ‘Roots and leaves themselves are these.
    Scents brought to men and women from the wild woods and pond-side,….
    Frost mellowed berries and third month twigs offered fresh
    to young persons wandering out in the fields when the winter breaks up,…. Buds to be unfolded in the old terms,
    If you bring the warmth of the sun to them they will open and bring form, colour and perfume to you …’

    Leaves of Grass.

  68. ‘Yes’ to Lomberg’s list of practical health initiatives and education for young children but preferably not via aid programs to kleptocrat governments.
    Bueno de Mesquita ‘ Democracies & Dictatorship’ EconTalk podcast argues the poor results of foreign aid programs distributed this way.

  69. Sure Lewandowski was ‘peer’-reviewed. By pals who are also state-funded statist ideologues. (see ClimateAudit for a good analysis of how the whole thing was fudged. Horrendous, even by the standards of the Climategate lot).

  70. Chief Hydrologist | October 9, 2012 at 6:23 am |

    ‘Einstein’s Relativity differs from classical relativity, because of the way he looked at time. Before Einstein, people thought time to be absolute, which is to say that one big clock measures the time for the entire universe. Consequently one hour on Earth would be one hour on Mars, or one hour in another galaxy. However, there was a problem with this concept. In an absolute time frame the speed of light cannot be constant. Roemer found that the speed of light is finite and has a certain, quantifiable velocity (usually abbreviated with “c”), which at first implies Galilean relativity. This would mean that while the Earth rotates at a velocity of v, light emitted in the direction of the Earth rotation must be c + v, while light emitted in the opposite direction would travel at c – v, relative to an outside observer.

    In 1881, A. Michelson conducted an experiment which proved that this is not the case. With the help of an apparatus that allowed measuring minute differences in the speed of light by changes in the resulting interference patterns, Michelson observed that the speed of light is always the same. No changes whatsoever. The experiment has been repeated later with greater precision by Michelson and E.W. Morley.’

    From this in the greatest leap of scientific imagination ever made emerged the special theory of relativity. It has been proved many times.

    I’ve now found the pages I remembered and from the first http://www.engology.com/articlerelativity.htm
    Special Relativity Right or Wrong? by Al Kelly

    “A test done in 1926, by Michelson & Gale, first showed that the speed of light was not the same Eastward and Westward around the Earth. They constructed a rectangular circuit of over a mile in periphery. This was a Sagnac test on a disc of diameter 9,500,000 m diameter (the diameter of the Earth at that latitude). In the case of the Earth at the equator, the difference between the times taken in opposing directions is 414.8 nanoseconds. This result is enormous when considered against the accuracy (one million times better than that) required to-day of standard clock-stations. The difference between the times going Northward and Southward around the globe is zero. The International Telecommunications Union (ITU) sets the rules for synchronising clock stations.
    Synchronising Clocks upon the Earth

    A signal sent Westward around the globe has to allow for the fact that it travels at the speed of light (c) plus the rotational speed of the Earth at that Latitude (v), giving c+v. A signal sent Eastward has to allow for the fact that the speed of the signal is c-v. According to Special Relativity theory, the speed of light is a constant. Not only that, but the direction is not supposed to matter to Special Relativity; going East, West or North should have the very same speed. As shown in the diagram, a ground clock station at A is to be synchronised with a ground station at B, via a satellite S. The signal sent from A to B travelling in the same direction as the spin of the Earth takes less time than in the reverse direction. A third defence that is used is that the c+v and c-v are only average figures and that the instantaneous velocity of the light signal is always equal to c. On a perfectly circular circuit the c+v (in one direction) is the velocity that would be measured at a million spots on the circumference; how then can the average become c? Take v as 250,000 km/s. In a million measurements the speed of the signal is 550,000 Km/s while the claim is that the instantaneous speed is 300,000 km/s. Bunkum. The ITU apply the necessary correction and call it “a relativistic correction, for the rotation of the Earth”. But it is not a relativistic correction. A person at a fixed position sends signals Eastward and Westward around the globe. There is no relative motion concerned. How then is it that the signals arrive back at different times? There is only one sensible explanation. The signals are travelling at different speeds around the globe. Taking the speeds to be c±v in the opposing directions agrees exactly with the experimental result. A test was done in 1976 in which an atomic clock was transported on an aeroplane from Washington (USA) to Tokyo. Also, a signal was sent between the two clock-stations. A correction had to be applied to the signal exactly as described above, while the transported clock needed no correction. Despite this, the ITU claims that a correction of 207.4 nanoseconds has to be applied to the time on a clock brought around the Earth at zero height and very slowly; these stipulations ensure that there can be no correction due to General Relativity (height over sea level) or to Special Relativity (speed). This correction is a nonsense. The President of the organisation in Paris which oversees these rules wrote to the author “you are right stating that the Sagnac effect is not relativistic”. That is an honest answer. For the sending of signals from one site to another, their rules work fine. Saying the correction is ‘relativistic’ is a misnomer. The rules are wrong in the case of physical transportation of a clock from one site to another, but that is very rarely done, and can conveniently be overlooked. There is also a correction applied to the clocks that ride on a satellite, to keep them in synchronisation with clocks on the ground. This is also supposed to be a relativistic correction. But, there is virtually no relative motion between the satellite clock and the ground station; the only relative motion is caused by the slight variation in the orbit of the satellite from an ideal orbit. The correction applied is huge; it can amount to as much as 7,500 nanoseconds per day in a typical case; the clock is preset to alter by this amount each day, so that it will keep the same time as the clock fixed to the ground. It is calculated from the absolute velocity of the satellite compared with the absolute velocity of the ground station clock, in relation to the centre of the Earth, as it orbits around the Sun. This correction is due to this absolute velocity, and not to the relative velocities of the satellite clock and the ground clock. A very simple assumption would fit all of the these necessary corrections. If we assume that the signals travel with the Earth, upon its orbit around the Sun, but do not adapt to the daily spin of the Earth, this fits the facts. In this case, the absolute velocity of the satellite versus the ground station accounts for the correction applied to the satellite clock; the c±v of the signals sent around the Earth is explained simply by the spin of the Earth affecting the speed of the signal. What could cause the signals to behave in this fashion? If light and gravity went together, on the Earth’s orbit around the Sun, then the result would be fully explained. We must then take it that the Special Theory of Relativity is not correct and that Time and Space are absolute, not relative. The speed of light is no longer sacrosanct. But, what about the many many experiments that fit Relativity theory? A thousand things may fit a theory but, if one fact does not, the theory fails. In the words of Huxley “the great tragedy of science – the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact”.”

    My bold. “Sensible” being the key word here..

    The really ugly fact is that Einstein’s relativity theory is claimed to be the reason for the adjustment, and it has nothing to do with it.

    The second link I remembered is this one: http://haroldaspden.com/index.htm and his wife made a telling remark:

    “A little insight – Wendy remembers that the title ‘Physics without Einstein’ was chosen because Harold was frustrated when papers were turned down because “the equations didn’t have relativistic corrections”!”

    “His work clearly explains why the Michelson-Morley experiment and Einstein’s theory of relativity were most assuredly not the so-called “death-knell” of Aether theory, but rather, have been misrepresented as such. Explaining this from first principles allowed Harold to predict various fundamental values of certain particles and constants before they were demonstrated experimentally by others, giving great confidence that incorporating his work into the mainstream will allow for a much more complete and unified overall theory of physics.”

    This was a man who knew how to make things work. I think it was from an Aspden analysis, I’ll see if I can find it.., he gave the Sagnac science explanation and in telling said if Einstein’s relativity was correct it would mean that the distance between New York to some other city, don’t recall off hand, would be greater in one direction than the other. I was delighted at the time to find this because I’d just concluded that the train example was a load of crock.

    So my challenge on this remains because no method is ever given of the twin analogy, how does this happen? Anyway, I think my analysis of how Einstein made his mistake, that he confused subjective experience for objective reality, stands.

    I’ve also just found this paper which might interest you: Einstein’s Transverse Doppler Effect Proven Wrong
    The Complete Proof Joseph A. Rybczyk

    ” Beyond the point where the two treatments merge and the new formulas give virtually identical results to Einstein’s formulas, the new formulas become somewhat erratic. This disadvantage of the new formulas is a direct result of their dependency on a triangle that is now becoming indiscernible from a straight line. Thus, Einstein’s formulas are required after that point is reached. In the other direction, however, where the distance to the source decreases, it is Einstein’s formulas that become unreliable, and the shorter the distance the less reliable the results.”

    http://www.mrelativity.net/MBriefs/Einstein's_Transverse_Doppler_%20Wrong_1.htm

  71. Myrrh
    If light isn’t absorbed by the ocean, why is the bottom of the ocean dark?

    • Tomcat | October 10, 2012 at 1:40 am | Myrrh
      If light isn’t absorbed by the ocean, why is the bottom of the ocean dark?

      Well, if you ever decide to take a real interest in my argument instead of repeating the silly rebuttal the AGWScienceFiction’s meme producing department churns out to avoid answering direct questions and to avoid producing empirical evidence requested, you might get enough information about the real world to work that out for yourself.

      My science challenge still stands, prove that visible light from the Sun heats land and water at the equator to the intensity these are actually physically heated which is what gives us our wind and weather systems.

      To work that out you will need to know how direct visible from the Sun is different from the direct thermal infrared from the Sun, you will need to know what our real atmosphere is and what the properties and processes of the real gases which comprise our real atmosphere actually are.

      In the real world the invisible heat from the Sun is not stopped by some ‘invisible barrier like the glass of a greenhouse preventing this direct heat from entering the atmosphere and reaching the Earth’s surface’, which is the AGWSF claim for its fictional world.

      In the real world the beam heat is the Sun’s thermal energy on the move transferred by radiation, one of the three methods of heat transfer the others being conduction and convection.

      In the real world this invisible thermal infrared is what we all actually feel as heat because we can feel it heating us up as we absorb it, and it is this real direct thermal energy from the Sun which is capable of heating matter of land and water. This thermal infrared which is the Sun’s heat radiating to us and arriving in around 8 minutes is particularly intense at the equator. This real Sun’s thermal energy which is heat which is radiating to us reaching and heating us at the Earth’s surface which is the invisible thermal infrared heats the land and water directly by moving the molecules of matter into vibrational states. The vibrational states are also called heat, because these are all the same heat. It takes real heat to heat matter, to move matter into vibration which is kinetic energy, which is heat.

      The real land and water at the equator heated intensely by the Sun’s direct thermal energy which is the invisible thermal infrared then heat the the heavy ocean of real gas air above them which is our atmosphere. These heated real gases become less dense and lighter than the real gas fluid ocean above them and becoming lighter they rise. In the real world hot air rises and cold air sinks and as these volumes of gas air heated at the surface rise they move towards the poles, because in the real world heat always flows from hotter to colder, at the poles the volumes of hot air lose their heat and becoming colder and denser they sink, flowing back to the equator beneath the volumes of rising hot air, diplacing them. These are called winds, winds are volumes of real gas air on the move created by the differences in weight between the less dense lighter hotter volumes of air and the denser heavier colder volumes of air which is our fluid gas atmosphere; winds are convection currents in the heavy voluminous real gas ocean around us. This is our basic wind system, these convection currents do not cross into each other’s hemispheres.

      This is the basic convection current system in the heavy ocean of real gas around us, to that is added the Coriolis effect because of the real Earth’s spin.

      Now, please take time to understand what I’m saying here. That is the description of the real world, with real direct heat from the Sun which is longwave infrared, thermal infrared, and with a heavy real gas ocean of air around us as the real world’s atmosphere.

      In the real world this real heat from the Sun which is able to heat the land and water intensely at the equator to create this our huge real gas wind system, has been excised. Has been thrown out for the comic cartoon Greenhouse Effect.

      The GreenhouseEffect fictional world does not have our real Sun and our real gas atmosphere and our real Earth, it has a make-believe one instead. In the AGWSF make-believe world the Sun’s heat, thermal infrared, is blocked from entering the atmosphere, though they don’t explain by what exactly, don’t explain how, instead, the Sun’s shortwave heats their fictional Earth’s land and water. In the real world this is impossible.

      You claim it isn’t impossible. I’m challenging that and at this point I’m not interested in discussing anything else with you, because I would like you to concentrate on just the physics necessary to create the huge wind system that we have around the Earth. That wind system is real. It exists. it is created by the intense heating of land and water at the equator.

      This is a direct science challenge to your AGW claims that ‘shortwave from the Sun heats land and water’, your AGW meme “shortwave in longwave out”. I am asking you to show exactly how visible light from the Sun heats land and water at the equator to get us great wind system.

      If you (generic) can’t do this, if you can’t show how visible light from the Sun actually, physically moves the molecules of land and water into the vibration states which is heat then you are simply telling lies about it being ‘well proven’.

      And it is a lie, which is why none of you ever comes back with any of the necessary physical detail, because your claim is fiction, not physical fact. You have nowhere to go to look for the detail of the physics involved, the empirical evidence, because there is none. You cannot show how visible light from the Sun heats land and water.

      Visible light from the Sun works on the electronic transition level, not on the vibrational which is heat, it cannot move matter into vibrational states which is heating matter. It doesn’t have the power to do that, it’s energy is too small to effect such a change on matter. Your teachers have lied to you.

      Just because there are millions of you now telling the same lie, doesn’t make it true.

      Take the science challenge to the AGW claim as I have presented it.

      • “My science challenge still stands, prove that visible light from the Sun heats land and water at the equator to the intensity these are actually physically heated which is what gives us our wind and weather systems.”

        Most of the energy from the sun is visible and near infrared:
        “Near-infrared spectroscopy (NIRS) is a spectroscopic method that uses the near-infrared region of the electromagnetic spectrum (from about 800 nm to 2500 nm)”

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near-infrared_spectroscopy

        Visible light:
        A typical human eye will respond to wavelengths from about 390 to 750 nm

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visible_spectrum

        graph of Sunlight spectrum:

        Wiki quote:
        “Sunlight’s composition at ground level, per square meter, with the sun at the zenith, is about 527 watts of infrared radiation, 445 watts of visible light, and 32 watts of ultraviolet radiation.”

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunlight

        Of the 527 watts of near infrared most energy would I suppose be in the 800 to 1200 nm part of near infrared part of spectrum. And according to above graph fair size chunks of this spectrum are blocked by H2O in the atmosphere.
        And of course most of sunlight reaching the earth surface is infrared- therefore the infrared has to do most of the heating of earth.
        But our statement suggests that visible light does not heat surface of Earth. Which would mean only, all or some of the 527 watts infrared light
        would heat the surface.
        One way I could prove that visible light does warm the surface is comparing the amount heating which Sun does on the Earth surface with
        the surface of the Moon. Earth about 80 C and the Moon about 120 C.
        If look above graph: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Solar_Spectrum.png
        As said chunks are missing from the infrared spectrum. But what appear missing is larger chunk from visible light. And I *guess* if one only considered the missing infrared spectrum, this is not enough energy to allow lunar surface to reach 120 C. Or a difference of 40 C.
        BUT a significant part of the earth surface is water and surface of ocean does not get much above 30 C, part of explanation may have to do with water poorly absorbing the energy of visible light. And when you consider at tropics one has more than 70% surface being ocean- one could be somewhat right- meaning may infrared is doing +80 % of the warming of tropics or +90 % of tropical ocean.

      • gbaikie – the standard AGW claim is that it is mainly visible light which heats land and oceans, there’s a bit of UV and around 1% near infrared. More often than not, that I’ve seen, uv and near infrared are ignored and heating of land and oceans attributed to visible alone.

        “The Earth receives energy from the Sun in the form of visible light and ultraviolet radiation, which is then re-radiated away from the surface as thermal radiation in infrared wavelengths. Some of this thermal radiation is then absorbed by greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and re-emitted in all directions, some back downwards, increasing the amount of energy bombarding the Earth’s surface. This increase in downward infrared radiation has been observed through spectroscopy, which measures changes in the electromagnetic spectrum.”

        http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect-advanced.htm

        “Most of the sun’s energy that falls on the Earth’s surface is in the visible light portion of the electromagnetic spectrum. This is in large part because the Earth’s atmosphere is transparent to these wavelengths (we all know that with a functioning ozone layer, the higher frequencies like ultraviolet are mostly screened out). Part of the sunlight is reflected back into space, depending on the albedo or reflectivity of the surface. Part of the sunlight is absorbed by the Earth and held as thermal energy. This heat is then re-radiated in the form of longer wavelength infrared radiation.”
        http://www.columbia.edu/~vjd1/greenhouse.htm

        “The Sun, which is the Earth’s only external form of heat, emits solar radiation mainly in the form of visible and ultraviolet (UV) radiation. As this radiation travels toward the Earth, 25% of it is absorbed by the atmosphere and 25% is reflected by the clouds back into space. The remaining radiation travels unimpeded to the Earth and heats its surface.”

        http://www.greenhouse-warming.org.uk/01.php

        It’s standard AGW Greenhouse Effect fisics that the predominant electromagnetic wavelength doing the actual heating of the matter of Earth’s surface is visible light. This is simply not physically possible in the real world. Visible light from the Sun is not capable of moving matter into vibrational states which is what it takes to raise the temperature of matter. Impossible, visible light works on the tinier electronic transition level and, since water is a transparent medium for visible light it couldn’t heat it anyway. Visible light, and uv and near infrared, are not thermal energies. We can’t even feel them, let alone feel them as heat. They can’t heat us or the land and ocean.

        It takes the heat energy of thermal infrared to actually heat land and water and it takes intense heating of this at the equator to give us our winds and weather. It is what we all feel as heat because that’s what it is, we, and matter generally, absorb it and it raises our temperature. It is well known in applied science that thermal infrared from the Sun is heat and that this heat is the real energy doing the heating. That this has been totally excluded is ridiculous in itself, but the claim that visible light heats the land and ocean is just so off the wall it’s mind-blowing to think that they’ve actually got this accepted as if fact and not the fiction it is.

        I really can’t understand they’ve managed to get away with promoting this absurd fisics for so long.

        I was shocked to find that NASA who had been teaching that the heat we feel form the Sun is the invisible longwave infrared, and that near infrared isn’t hot at all, was now teaching that infrared was blocked from entering the atmosphere, in line with the AGW energy budget cartoon.

        Knowing how much physical data, such as temperatures, are manipulated to continue the AGW meme, they’re not going to show how much actual thermal infrared is reaching us direct from the Sun. I don’t know where to go to be sure of finding unadulterated measurements. If you have any ideas on this..

      • Myrrh : the standard AGW claim is that it is mainly visible light which heats land and oceans

        Interesting, I always thought the standard AGW claim had something to do with CO2.

      • Brandon Shollenberger

        Erica:

        Interesting, I always thought the standard AGW claim had something to do with CO2.

        It does. CO2, and other greenhouse gases, absorb infrared radiation. When they do, they radiate some of it down toward Earth. The more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, the more infrared radiation gets absorbed, and thus the more more gets radiated downward.

        The key to this is when the sun’s light reaches Earth, very little of it is in infrared wavelengths. But, when it reaches the Earth’s surface, (some of) it is absorbed by things that re-radiate (some of) it on infrared wavelengths. This conversion means energy re-radiated from Earth gets blocked better by greenhouse gases than the energy originally reaching it.

        It’s relatively basic science, but don’t expect Myrrh to believe, or even understand, it.

      • Brandon Shollenberger

        The conversation between Erica and myself continues below:

        http://judithcurry.com/2012/10/05/week-in-review-10512/#comment-253076

      • Brandon Shollenberger | October 12, 2012 at 4:17 pm mislead: ”It does. CO2, and other greenhouse gases, absorb infrared radiation. When they do, they radiate some of it down toward Earth. The more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, the more infrared radiation gets absorbed, and thus the more more gets radiated downward”

        WRONG Brandon, wrong! NO heat from CO2 molecules is radiated down to the ground! listen very carefully: CO2 during the day goes high up, same as fog (if you want to know why / how, just ask). The heat CO2 molecules absorb up high, cannot radiate it downwards – because the air is made from oxygen and nitrogen, they are PERFECT INSULATORS. They collect the heat from the ground and are taking it up, to be wasted.

        CO2 + H2O as ”shade-cloth effect gases”, NOT greenhouse gases – intercepts part of the sunlight -> less of it comes to the ground, simple logic = upper atmosphere warmer than in clear sky; but on the ground cooler than in clear sky (milder climate). Which means: proportion in difference of temp of the ground and upper atmosphere less = ”vertical winds that are cooling the planet, slow down (days cooler / nights warmer). Yes, horizontal winds cool your french-fries, vertical winds are cooling the planet, When is no that ‘shade-cloth effect” from CO2 / H2O; on the ground hotter – upper atmosphere cooler – that makes the difference in warmth much greater -> vertical winds speed up. That is the ”self-regulating effect” that both camps overlook – that’s why both camps are wrong / the WHOLE atmosphere cannot warm up simultaneously more than normal for more than few minutes!!!!!! BECAUSE THE VERTICAL WINDS / the convayer belt, SPEED UP, instantly! Start getting used to reality; your crap is getting boring. laws of physics, man!!! http://globalwarmingdenier.wordpress.com/2011/08/29/hello-world/

      • “gbaikie – the standard AGW claim is that it is mainly visible light which heats land and oceans, there’s a bit of UV and around 1% near infrared. More often than not, that I’ve seen, uv and near infrared are ignored and heating of land and oceans attributed to visible alone.”

        If so it seems wiki doesn’t agree with the standard AGW claim.
        But I always thought it’s about 1/2 infrared and 1/2 visible [roughly].
        It would also say that in space environment it’s also roughly 1/2 and 1/2.
        Though in space environ it seems there slightly more visible light.
        Or the difference between sun zenith and clear day 1000 watt per square meter and space 1360 watt per meter- the 360 watts lost is mostly in the visible part of spectrum

        And to dispute this *seems* to require disputing plank curve.

        Perhaps there was confusion involved with assuming shortwave is same as visible light. Because if one is talking about shortwave light [not just meaning visible light] then the energy of sunlight is comprised mostly of this wavelength.

        “It’s standard AGW Greenhouse Effect fisics that the predominant electromagnetic wavelength doing the actual heating of the matter of Earth’s surface is visible light”

        So according to wiki that would mean they imagine that the *445 watts per square meter of visible light at zenith on clear day* is only part of sunlight heating earth. Which seems plainly wrong.
        But I would not count on skepticalscience to provide accurate information- I have never found anything useful at that site.

        “This is simply not physically possible in the real world.
        Visible light from the Sun is not capable of moving matter into vibrational states which is what it takes to raise the temperature of matter.”

        And this is where we disagree. I agree the visible light may not do much in terms of warming Earth and you think it doesn’t do any amount of warming. And seems one can see this difference in color- black will get little bit warmer. Or take your primary color in terms of paint. Mix them to get a very dark color- that color should get slightly warmer than single color or white paint.
        Or take glass prism and split the light, isolate a color and magnify a part of it, it should heat similar to using magnifying glass with normal light. And if you did this careful, I would guess the blue part should be hotter than color more to the red
        Or similarly if you simply magnify sunlight, it not the point where the light focused into smallest area [and is white light] the hottest point?

      • gbaikie – I think perhaps you’re not really familiar with the AGW Greenhouse Effect Energy Budget claim, as KT97 and kin, and taught throughout the education system, the official AGW version.

        This AGW claim is, that Visible Light from the Sun and not Thermal Infrared from the Sun is the driving force of heating the Earth’s surface.

        AGW Greenhouse Effect has removed the direct heat, the direct thermal infrared from the Sun, removed it completely. Taken it out of its AGW Greenhouse Effect energy budget.

        The thermal infrared we in the real world receive from the Sun is what we actually feel as heat, because it is heat. It is the Sun’s thermal energy transferred to us by radiation, it is the specific thermal infrared wavelengths.

        We cannot feel visible light or the other shortwaves, visible light isn’t capable of heating the Earth’s surface as AGW Greenhouse Effect Energy Budget claims. In the real world this is impossible.

        It takes great power to heat up matter. It takes the great power of the Sun’s actual heat energy to heat up matter. This is what heats matter at the equator to give us our huge wind and weather systems. Visible light from the Sun is not capable of doing this.

        It is junk science. It is so idiotic