by Judith Curry
A few things that caught my eye this past week.
Lindzen
The Weekly Standard has an extensive article on Richard Lindzen, What Catastrophe? This is a very good article, not just on Lindzen but on the state of debate in climate science.
The Age
John McLean has a must read essay in The Age: Lack of Accountability Clouding the Climate Change Debate. Excerpt:
The reality is that the IPCC is in effect little more than a UN-sponsored lobby group, created specifically to investigate and push the ”man-made warming” line. With no similar organisations to examine other potential causes of climate change, it’s only the IPCC voice that is heard. But the IPCC’s voice isn’t heard in context and with all the necessary caveats; it’s distorted via the UNFCCC and others who imply that the IPCC is the sole scientific authority on climate matters.
Michaels
Pat Michaels has a new article Putting Headlines Ahead of Science. Michaels addresses the following profound question: This leads to the question: do the journals’ propensity for flashy research result in biased research?
David Gelemter
David Gelemter has a mind boggling but interesting essay The closing of the scientific mind. Excerpt:
Science is caught up, also, in the same educational breakdown that has brought so many other proud fields low. Science needs reasoned argument and constant skepticism and open-mindedness. But our leading universities have dedicated themselves to stamping them out—at least in all political areas. We routinely provide superb technical educations in science, mathematics, and technology to brilliant undergraduates and doctoral students. But if those same students have been taught since kindergarten that you are not permitted to question the doctrine of man-made global warming, or the line that men and women are interchangeable, or the multiculturalist idea that all cultures and nations are equally good (except for Western nations and cultures, which are worse), how will they ever become reasonable, skeptical scientists? They’ve been reared on the idea that questioning official doctrine is wrong, gauche, just unacceptable in polite society.
Bob Tisdale
Bob Tisdale announces he is retiring from full time blogging (see post at WUWT). The issue is financing, I wish there was some way to make blogging pay. In any event, I would like to show my appreciation for Bob’s careful ocean data analysis, and wish him well in his new job.
Merchants of Doubt – the movie
I kid you not. Ex-Ebay President Jeff Skoll is making a movie, see [link].
And the movie he’ll release a year ahead of schedule? It’s called Merchants of Doubt based on the bestselling book about how climate change deniers have adopted the same techniques as the tobacco industry in influencing public opinion. The film, explains Skoll, aims to “explain to people why there’s still so much doubt in public about climate change when there’s almost unanimous consent among scientists. Basically, the fossil fuel industry is funding campaigns for disinformation and misinformation.”
I can’t wait to see the casting.
Thanks, Judith.
Good luck Bob.
Sorry to hear about this, Bob. Guess the fossil fuel industry somehow forgot to put you on the payroll, which is odd given your value. Hope you’ll continue to contribute. Your work otherwise would be sorely missed.
Thank you, Bob, for all your work.
Thanks for all the information you have provided. Good luck in the future!
Thanks, Bob!
Mr. Tisdale, Thanks for your huge contributions to our understanding of ENSO and other phenomena. If you are taking a fulltime job, which is my guess, your employer is fortunate indeed. You have a first rate intellect and a first rate work ethic. God bless you, Sir.
One small token way to show appreciation to Bob for his work in climate science is to buy one of his e-books. I purchased his most recent book on El Nino and La Nina yesterday, “Who Turned Up the Heat?” and found it to be very helpful in understanding basic ocean/atmosphere interaction mechanisms at work on what I believe are important naturally occurring phenomena affecting global average surface temperatures.
I hope you find retiring from the climate debate as difficult as I have–I think I’ve quit four times now, only to return. In any event, best of luck.
Martin Johnson answered an ad for a cook on the Snark, and thereby voyaged. He was a failure as a cook, but his skills at photography saved his bacon. I think Bob’s heard of an opening for a Polar Chef.
=======================
See also: Tisdale, Bob. “New Book: ‘Climate Models Fail.’” Scientific. Bob Tisdale – Climate Observations, September 24, 2013. http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2013/09/24/new-book-climate-models-fail/
There’s a debate? No one told me. I thought we were just endlessly recycling tribal talking points.
As for the Polar Chef position – I have a great recipe for honey/soy penguin kabobs. Beat that Bob Tisdale.
Chef Hydrologist | January 5, 2014 at 12:40 am |
“There’s a debate?”
Yes.
“No one told me.”
Your lack of knowledge knows no bounds.
“I thought we were just endlessly recycling tribal talking points.”
As Chief Recycler I resent the insinuation.
Chef Hydrologist | January 5, 2014 at 12:40 am |
“I thought we were just endlessly recycling tribal talking points.”
Don’t be talking smack about tribal life, paleface.
Thanks for all the kind words.
Chef Hydrologist: My albatross fricassee is to die for.
Judith
Judging by recent comments from a variety of ‘Chief’s’ on nothing in particular I think the denizens are restlessly pacing up and down and looking for fresh meat to tear into.
tonyb.
Careful there Tony. I can separate you from your water with a single roundhouse kick.
Glad to hear about this. That’s one less source of misinformation on the internet,
It’s his macedoinic oceanic ratatouille bouillabaise that is ambrosic theobromic.
Not to mention theophyllic,
Or theologic.
=========
Don’t sweat it numbnut – you’re still around.
Any Maxy – you have 2 ideas – recycling old poeple through the compost and I don’t need no friggin’ book learnin’ – and an adolescent fantasy about fast cars and faster women.
lolwot says: “Glad to hear about this. That’s one less source of misinformation on the internet,”
I present data in graphs, lolwot. There’s no misinformation there. I provide links to the sources of the data so that anyone can verify what I present. There’s no misinformation there, lolwot. I describe what’s blatantly obvious in the graphs. There’s no misinformation there, either. I compare model outputs to data in graphs, lolwot. There’s no misinformation there. When someone states that I’m a “source of misinformation”, they are broadcasting their ignorance about what I’ve done.
Have a nice day.
you claim that “the warming of the global oceans has been caused by naturally occurring, sunlight-fueled, coupled ocean-atmosphere processes, not anthropogenic greenhouse gases.”
which is wrong. Not supported by the data.
Bob Tisdale provides lots of interesting tidbits for “skeptics” to chew on, but his general long-term perspective and analysis of ocean to atmosphere sensible and latent heat flux is incomplete, and can lead to faulty conclusions. To call it misinformation might be a bit extreme (or not) but certainly it is so incomplete that it can lead the unsuspecting to false conclusions and a false perspective on both ENSO and anthropogenic climate change.
lolwot, “which is wrong. Not supported by the data.”
It is actually, or at least a lot of it. Most of the ocean heat uptake which produced a portion of the Trenberth “missing” heat is due to changes in internal mixing. Shifting of the polar sea ice extent and response of the Brewer-Dobson circulation to the larger hemispheric energy imbalance. The “consensus” is only that the IPCC is confident that at least half of the warming from 1951 is due to anthropogenic causes, not specifically GHG related atmospheric forcing.
Check this out,
http://www.stormsurfing.com/cgi/display_alt.cgi?a=glob_250
If that model is right, in a few days the Arctic polar vortex will break down for the second year in a row where from about 1990 to 1997 it didn’t break down at all. There is normally some Sudden Stratospheric Warming event every other year with only the strongest causing an actual vortex breakdown. When those jet stream waves crash to the pole there is a great deal of energy lost to space. That heat is “missing” because of poor instrumental coverage and it appears no one even suspected that there was a cycle to the SSW events a decade or so ago. The Arctic ozone hole was a bit of a surprise along with the impact of polar mixed phase clouds.
While you have been steadfastly defending the party line, climate science has been sneaking up on a few things missed in the models.
Capt.
Get out of here with your science. Next you will be saying that ocean heat content is consistent with changes in radiant energy flux at toa.
http://www.met.reading.ac.uk/~sgs02rpa/PAPERS/Loeb12NG.pdf
Chef Bouillabaisse, ” Next you will be saying that ocean heat content is consistent with changes in radiant energy flux at toa.”
Really? I am shocked. I had just noticed that the much maligned AMSU data for the lower stratosphere tracked the OHC extremely well. I hear that the stratosphere is one of those uber-sensitive regions that should be very responsive to a wide variety of “forcings”. The stratosphere is pretty close to the TOA though. Not quite there, but pretty close.
Captain Calamity,
I have added your site to my favourites. We should work on the assumption that SSW happens in response to atmospheric instability – and let’s face it when isn’t the atmosphere unstable.
http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/Butler_2011_ENSO_SSW_zps1146ad8c.jpg.html?sort=3&o=87
http://www.columbia.edu/~lmp/paps/butler+polvani-GRL-2011.pdf
But just what the significance of SSW is – is a little difficult to say.
What seems more relevant to the location of the jet stream is the pattern of low and high pressure in the polar and subpolar reegions.
e.g. http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/ao31.jpg
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/daily_ao_index/month_ao_index.shtml
And what causes that to change? – http://glisaclimate.org/sites/default/files/20130806_RBRood_Arctic_Oscillation_NPS_v0_2.pdf
Chief Bull Sitting, “But just what the significance of SSW is – is a little difficult to say.”
That is actually simple. A SSW is an indication that energy is being relieved from the system. The problem is there is no proper classification of the impact/magnitude of events. Now that they are recognized and somewhat predictable that should change.
The tricky part is that a stable polar vortex thermally isolates the highest latitudes from the rest of the surface. Interpolating temperatures for that region produces garbage.
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-InRzTrJd89w/UsGyQtSHaZI/AAAAAAAAK3Q/RdHviDsvh30/w740-h343-no/GISS+artifact.png
Since the stratospheric circulations and ozone transfer to the poles increase the pole average temperature by about 50C degrees (~53Wm-2), disruption of the circulation/transfers can easily offset CO2 forcing.
Think of it like this, CO2 has its highest impact at the poles, but only if the polar circulations are stable. They aren’t.
Captain Credulous,
The idea of a thermostat for the Earth’s heat engine – i.e. thunderheads penetrating the tropopause – is plagued by the unreliability and sparsity of data.
Don’t get me wrong – I like a song and dance as much as the next guy – but the only conclusion I can come to is that the thermostat seems better characterised as a chaotic oscillator than regulator.
CPO Snarky, “but the only conclusion I can come to is that the thermostat seems better characterised as a chaotic oscillator than regulator.”
You can look at it either way. The weight on a pressure cooker is not a bad analogy or as I prefer just the lid on a pot rattling. When pressure is building not much happens then at pressure the response can be rhythmic or more chaotic. So little or no variability is accumulation and variability is release. Most of the data we have is for the building phase so it might be a good idea to not get so hung up on how you try to describe the transition. Detrended Fluctuation Analysis is as good a starting point as any to build a more realistic description.
Captain Doubtful,
First the Earth systes balloon water bomb and now as bubbling cauldron. You guys should settle on a metaphor.
Personally – I like the water bomb. Let’s experiment.
Short Order Cook Skippy,
Metaphors a plenty in a complex system. Liquid water holds the majority of the heat, water vapor distributes the majority of the heat and dry gases try to retain the heat. The pot lid is the dry gases above the water vapor dry gas boundary. The polar vortex would be like an air curtain the lid rides on. Break down the air curtain and the lid rattles. Thermal isolation of the Antarctic makes a tighter lid than the imbalanced Arctic.
When the Arctic lid is stable, you get your almost polar amplification. Almost polar because the stable vortex helps retain heat below the Arctic circle not above. Since the majority of the land amplified warming is in the 30N-60N range, “polar” amplification is a bit of a theory miss along with the tropical tropospheric hot spot.
advective heat transfer is not exactly a radiant model forte.
Captain Crook,
The tropo hot spot derives from increased evaporation in a warmer world – another simple idea little difficult to track in complex world.
A subset of eight stations with sufficient records (at least 1882–2008) is used to calculate lower Arctic temperature anomalies over the extended period 1880–2008. The correlation coefficient for the years 1950–2008 between unsmoothed annual temperature of
the above 1950–2008 time series (calculated from all 25 stations) and 1950–2008 time series calculated using only the 8 stations having long term records is 0.94, suggesting that even the limited number of long term time series stations covering 1880–2008 represent the average temperature anomaly within the 64 to 70 N belt reasonably well. [6] The high Arctic (70 to 90 N) temperature anomaly has been calculated for the years 1950–2008 using twelve stations (Figure 1). To estimate of the temperature changes in earlier years we have included additional stations that have full coverage for 1910–1940 or 1940–1970 periods
One could of course eschew allegory – and use data and science instead. Now that’s a novel idea.
https://fehm.lanl.gov/source/orgs/ees/ees14/pdfs/09Chlylek.pdf
Skip to the loo,
“The correlation coefficient for the years 1950–2008 between unsmoothed annual temperature of
the above 1950–2008 time series (calculated from all 25 stations) and 1950–2008 time series calculated using only the 8 stations having long term records is 0.94, suggesting that even the limited number of long term time series stations covering 1880–2008 represent the average temperature anomaly within the 64 to 70 N belt reasonably well.”
Yes, they do correlate quite well for that period. The correlation from 1880 to 1920 though is not very impressive and the correlation is growing less impressive since 2005. Then again most of the high latitude warming is in winter, known as Arctic Winter Warming meaning the relationship between surface energy and surface temperature is a bit more complex. In the lower latitude regions of the higher north, 45 to 55 degrees, most of the warming is in April and May which could very easily be related to more intense farming practices. In winter there is a distinct anti-phase relationship between these regions where the higher energy temperatures, those closer to zero, decrease while the lower energy temperatures, those closer to -30 increase causing an increase in temperature even though average energy decreases I am absolutely thrilled to death that temperature anomalies correlate well close to a baseline period in a region where temperature is less representative of energy /sarc
You can also compare the differences in the warming rates of Tmax and Tmin which indicates there was an odd shift in the diurnal temperature range beginning in ~1985.
There was a big + swing in the Tmin day over day annual average, I suspect there was a large warming event in the Atlantic on the western coasts of Europe and Africa.
R. Gates, a Skeptical Warmist says, regarding my work: “To call it misinformation might be a bit extreme (or not) but certainly it is so incomplete that it can lead the unsuspecting to false conclusions and a false perspective on both ENSO and anthropogenic climate change.”
My understandings of ENSO are supported by data: sea surface temperature data, sea level data, ocean currents data, ocean heat content data, depth-averaged temperature data, warm water volume data, sea level pressure data, cloud amount data, precipitation data, the strength and direction of the trade winds data, downward shortwave radiation reanalyses, and downward longwave radiation reanalyses.
The coupled ocean-atmosphere processes of ENSO are well understood. Yet climate models still cannot simulate even the most basic of those processes. Until the models are able to properly simulate those processes and the processes associated with the multidecadal variations in the sea surface temperatures of the North Pacific and North Atlantic, climate scientists will be stumbling around in the dark—as they are today.
Ciao!
lolwot, the statement you quoted—which is from one of my sea surface temperature updates, I believe—is supported by ocean heat content data and satellite-era sea surface temperature data. One simply has to divide the oceans into logical subsets to see it. And I believe you have it backwards—there are no peer-reviewed, climate model-based studies that explain how and why the oceans warm when and to the extent they do—so your understanding of global warming is based on your beliefs, not on data:
http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/the-manmade-global-warming-challenge.pdf
I would not have made the statement if I could not support it, lolwot.
See ya.
Cap’n Crunchy,
Yes the correlation pre 1950 was precisely zero. It is a little difficult to have a correlation if there is no data.
Which is why they took great pains to show a correlation after 1950.
Please show at least a modicum of common sense in your prevarication, dissimulation and distraction. You never know – you might slip it past the casual observer.
Rear Admiral Gilligan,
Funny,
From their paper, “However, the fact that this ratio was much different during the early 20th century warming and especially during the
1940–1970 cooling suggests that there are physical processes that are not yet fully understood or properly described by the current AOGCMs.”
Which is the point of my comments, “ask why instead of regurgitate.”
During “global” warming periods they find a high Arctic amplification of roughly 3 times and “During the cooling from 1940–1970 the Arctic amplification was extremely high, between 9 and 13” that would be an anti-phase relationship.
I don’t care how wonderful their 1950 to 2008 correlation is, there is other data being used and interpolated out to 1200 km by GISS. For 50N-90N the interpolation difference looks like this.
https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-vzt_y8HIv_A/Ustgd0y6ZoI/AAAAAAAAK4g/bSBQcdgyjZA/w627-h400-no/GISS+high+latitudes+interpolation.png
There paper also has this to say, ” However, there is no reason why aerosol induced cooling should be 9 to 13 times stronger in the Arctic compared to the global mean.”
There is a reason, it is called a stable polar vortex. Since Tmin tracks SST quite well with an amplification of 2 and Tmax tends to be more impacted by aerosols, solar, clouds etc., a high correlation to Tave is like pissing yourself in a dark suit. As far as I am concerned their ’09 paper was obsolete in ’08.
ps – ‘ However, there is no reason why aerosol induced cooling should be 9 to 13 times stronger in the Arctic compared to the global mean. A more plausible explanation might be found in changes in ocean thermohaline circulation.’
There is no reason for such a large aerosol cooling – just not – and these are not concentrated populations or burning forests.
Not sure why you bring it up – but it is a reasonable argument from Chylek.
“The film, explains Skoll, aims to “explain to people why there’s still so much doubt in public about climate change when there’s almost unanimous consent among scientists”
The laughable belief that there’s some overwhelming consensus on “climate change” must be overturned. In my opinion it should be a primary goal among skeptics. I don’t see why some impartial polling firm can’t be employed to design some sort of statistically valid survey. It would be expensive yes, but well worth it. People tend to ignore me when I suggest this, though I still don’t get why. If it could be shown that there are real divisions in the scientific community, the whole debate would change profoundly.
Or some skeptic could do a scientific study. Why haven’t they?? Every study to date has found a consensus.. Not to mention that almost every (if not all) scientific organization in the world accepts the theory.
You do realize that global warming is a Western pathology, right? And, in the West, it’s a Left versus right issue. In other words… it’s all political, capiche? All our increased intelligence is pretty much wasted if our survival as a species ever actually depends on the level of scholarship that is demonstrated in the field of climatology that outside Western civilization is likened to the science of ancient astrology.
Biased media reports a consensus. A real scientific consensus does not really exist outside the Clique. I have talked to hundreds of people and only a few express the extreme consensus.
See this: http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/WrittenEvidence.svc/EvidenceHtml/4191
“The laughable belief that there’s some overwhelming consensus on “climate change” must be overturned.”
There is no consensus belief on climate change, unless you make the proposition believed so vague as to be meaningless. Such a proposition is “The planet has been warming for 150 years.” Just about everyone subscribes to that belief, everyone including skeptics. But that belief could prove to be true while AGW and CAGW prove to be false.
The “consensus belief” challenge is a purely political challenge. The reins of power in the MSM must be wrested from the anti-science crowd that now holds them.
In general, for those who wish to hold themselves to high standards of debate, any claim of scientific consensus must be a claim about a rigorously formulated hypothesis. Anything less is just hot air. You will find only hot air in existing claims about a consensus on climate change. There is my challenge. If there is a consensus then please produce the rigorously formulated hypothesis that it is about.
Joseph
Suggest you wake up and start reading some of the relevant scientific literature. See: 1100+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarm
and
Climate Change Reconsidered II. Physical Science, NIPCC 2013
David, I would like to know how many actually individuals contributed to those papers and if how many pro-agw papers were written during the same time period. I am willing to bet the number of authors is small and the ratio of supporting papers vastly outnumbers those that don’t,
Joseph, if you’re reluctant to brave the denialist flat-earthosphere, fair enough. But do yourself a favor and read the foundational document of your own side’s consensus myth for yourself. Oreskes, Science, 2004.
You’ve no doubt been led to imagine it’s a peer-reviewed study. Wrong and wrong. It’s a completely unreviewable “Essay” that fails to exemplify the generic conventions of any known academic field. Where would Science even look for academics qualified or willing to pass comment on the first paper-counting farce ever published in that once-serious magazine?
You’ve no doubt heard that Oreskes found that every single paper (bar one or two, maybe) agreed with the “consensus view.” Wrong. You need to pay closer attention to Al Gore’s words: “not one paper disagreed.” See the difference? Read Oreskes’ fraudulent essay and you will.
And lest you be in any doubt about the quality of Naomi Oreskes as a human being, bear this in mind: when various critics tried to point out the factual and mathematical problems in her “essay,” she had the chutzpah to dismiss their responses as being “unable to pass the muster of peer review.”
Well *obviously* they couldn’t pass peer review. Because the entire game was beneath the dignity of any academic peer from the outset. Of course, Oreskes didn’t mention this—and her critics were naive enough to play into the very fiction she was perpetuating the moment they attempted to pen scholarly comebacks.
Joseph,
I wouldn’t bother with that list of supposed “sceptical” papers, it’s a pile of crap which has been widely debunked. Many of the papers are not peer reviewed, many are not “sceptical” papers by any reasonable definition, many of those which do challenge the mainstream science are by a small group with close connections to the oil industry.
Meanwhile Brad Keys argues against Oreskes’ survey based on what you might have heard about it, rather than what it says. I guess you might possibly have heard that she found that every paper supported the consensus, but she doesn’t say that, she says that some explicitly supported it, some implicitly did so and about 25% took no position either way. What she also said, significantly, was that not one actually disagreed with the consensus.
Brad then invites us to speculate what kind of person Naomi Oreskes is. Well I wouldn’t know from personal experience but she seems to be well respected by her colleagues. I guess we might also speculate what kind of person Brad Keys is – well from the comments in this thread he appears to be the kind of person who stoops to making vile smears against people he disagrees with
http://judithcurry.com/2014/01/03/week-in-review-10/#comment-432551
Draw from that what conclusions you will.
There is an easy default judgement to be made about those who still defend the Piltdown Mann’s Crook’t Hockey Stick, and Oreskes’ 97% Pinocchio Nose.
True believers in squat.
============
No one has demonstrated that Oreskes did not do what she said she did or that she did not get the results she said she did. I’m not sure it’s her who has the “Pinochio nose”.
> Draw from that what conclusions you will.
Don’t forget to add to that Brad’s own impressions of himself:
https://twitter.com/BradPKeyes/status/419793778040258560
Not that being better than someone whom you should not name and ignore means much, but still.
LOL… this is the thanks I get for advocating tolerance of/empathy with your tedious pedantry, willard? Lesson learnt!
Willard, I don’t think anyone could be in any doubt as to Brad’s opinion of himself.
Seems that our beloved Bishop has taken a sudden interest in the shareholding relationship:
https://twitter.com/aDissentient/status/419898183507259392
Let’s hope Mr. Meanie doesn’t see that interest as a smear in the making.
For all that matters is the truth, right?
Andrew,
Just in case there’s one person in the universe that disagrees with you:
https://twitter.com/BradPKeyes/status/419976851058982912
Andrew:
“well from the comments in this thread he appears to be the kind of person who stoops to making vile smears against people he disagrees with”
The mind boggles to imagine the integrity a person would demonstrate (to you, that is) by making vile smears against people they *agree* with.
That aside: yes, well done for noticing that I “disagree with” Oreskes.
And since the rules of science—and the epistemological role granted to consensus by said rules—are not a matter of opinion, that’s rather bad luck for Oreskes, isn’t it?
I must admit having been somewhat blindsided by the fact that an, er, healthy self-esteem was considered a strike against one’s character in certain quarters.
Oh well. I’m sure this won’t be of interest to the ego police:
“6) The blog reports describe Mr. Schulte as a medical researcher. As a historian of science I am trained to analyze and understand scientific arguments, their development, their progress, etc., and my specific expertise is in the history of earth science. This past summer I was invited to teach a graduate intensive course at Vienna International Summer University, Vienna Circle Institute, on Consensus in Science. I do not know why a medical researcher would feel qualified to undertake an analysis of consensus in the earth scientific literature.”
Hear hear! “As a historian of science,” Oreskes is “trained” to count papers, and not make more than one or two major mistakes when trying to recall the size of each pile. We skeptics really ought to have the humility to remember who we’re “refuting.”
In closing, I think I speak for all followers of Ms Oreskes’ adventures in voicing my disappointment that she *still* hasn’t revealed who asked her to dance at the Vienna Circle Summer Consensus Ball. There’s such a thing as *too much* modesty, Professor!
“I wouldn’t bother with that list of supposed “sceptical” papers, it’s a pile of crap which has been widely debunked. Many of the papers are not peer reviewed, many are not “sceptical” papers by any reasonable definition, many of those which do challenge the mainstream science are by a small group with close connections to the oil industry.” – andrew adams.
Andrew why are you making things up? The list has never been debunked and every single argument made against it is either a lie, misinformation or strawman argument – all of which are rebutted in extensive detail in the “Rebuttals to Criticism” section.
Every single counted paper on the list is peer-reviewed. I challenge you to find a single counted paper that is not.
It is a strawman argument that papers on the list are claimed to be “skeptical papers”, rather all the papers are only claimed to support skeptic arguments.
None of the authors have a close connection to the oil industry.
I added two more general rebuttals for nonsense like this,
http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html#Rebuttals
Criticism: The list has been debunked.
Rebuttal: The list has never been debunked. All known criticisms of this list have been rebutted or a change made to correct the issue. The existence of a criticism does not make it true. Invalid criticisms of the list have been repeatedly shown to be based on lies, misinformation or strawman arguments. In most cases these long rebutted criticisms are now years old and have no relation to the current version of the list. Clarifications and updates are made to the list when necessary.
Criticism: Papers on the list are not peer-reviewed.
Rebuttal: Every counted paper on the list is peer-reviewed. Critics have been repeatedly asked to provide an example to support their false allegation, yet always fail to do so. The list also includes supplemental papers, which are not counted but listed as references in defense of various papers. These are proceeded by an asterisk (*) and italicized so they should not be confused with the counted papers. There is no requirement for supplemental papers to be peer-reviewed as they have no affect on the list count.
Autocorrection:
I wrote that,
““As a historian of science,” Oreskes is “trained” to count papers, and not make more than one or two major mistakes when trying to recall the size of each pile.”
In fact her worst mistake was misreporting the search term she’d used, not the height of the stacks of paper she’d scraped together. And, to be fair, her search phrase was 3 words long, and she *did* succeed in remembering 2 of them. And come on, it was just an Essay—it’s not as though anyone with half a brain would mistake it for a serious, non-fiction article of any known scholarly genre on earth—let alone cite it in a Nobel-prize-winning infomercial for the carbon-exchange tulip-bubble!
So I can only hope that, as the years go by, you folks will find it within yourselves to forgive and even—who knows?—forget my vile paper-counting smear, which was the innocent mistake of a man who’s not even a “trained” “historian of science.”
Any other errors in this conversation are the sole property of people who disagree with me.
For example, look at the first thing written by the first believalist in the thread. “Joseph” muses:
“Or some skeptic could do a scientific study. Why haven’t they?? Every study to date has found a consensus.”
No offense, mate, but you’re all over the place. What are you asking for: “a scientific study”? Or a study capable of finding, or not-finding, “a consensus”?
I mean, you do realize that science doesn’t care about such inanities, and that Oreskes’ “essay” had no precedent, and no place, in a “science” journal, don’t you?
Dear God… you *DO* know this, don’t you?
*Please* tell me the climate movement’s dumbing-down of the muggle understanding of science hasn’t been as successful as all THAT…!
Continuing our survey of silliness….
Andrew Adams, for some reason, puts his name to the following advice:
“I wouldn’t bother with that list of supposed “sceptical” papers, it’s a pile of crap which has been widely debunked.”
Yes, and what a fascinating and damning observation that is: that the vaunted peer-review system has somehow allowed *1,100* pieces of “crap” to enter the literature… on the AGW topic *alone!*
If this is true—and, let’s face it, it isn’t—then I presume you’re an ardent advocate of dismantling the entire, catastrophic joke of a system, Andrew. Not to mention that you must wrestle nightly with the question: how on earth was this permitted to happen in the first place, and without anyone but you raising the alarm?
I don’t think I’m being melodramatic in asking you: will you EVER trust science again?
“many of those which do challenge the mainstream science are by a small group with close connections to the oil industry.”
Really? There are CRU papers on Poptech’s list?
“Meanwhile Brad Keys”
Who?
“Brad then invites us to speculate what kind of person Naomi Oreskes is. Well I wouldn’t know from personal experience”
So you don’t know. Thanks for the heads-up.
“but she seems to be well respected by her colleagues.”
So, again, you offer no opinion or knowledge of your own. Great.
You are, however, exhibiting a confusion all too common in this forum. Listen, Andrew: Oreskes doesn’t *have* colleagues. She is *peerless.* There *is* no academic field for paper-counting. She is the pioneer of her methodology, which, I assure you, is not likely to outlive her.
willard:
“Not that being better than someone whom you should not name and ignore means much, but still.”
Sigh. All right, willard, I don’t want to blow your mind, but… newsflash:
The *reason* Andy and I tiptoed around typing your name was nothing more than our humane, if futile, hope that we might avoid triggering off whatever script you used to scour Twitter for any and all mentions of yourself, which you then re-inflict in full html Technicolor on the innocent readers of unrelated websites.
I’ll admit it: it (honestly!) never occurred to me that you’d spend your time collecting for your ever-thickening willard scrapbook *manually.* The old-fashioned way. By eavesdropping.
Oh well, chalk another one up to the poverty of my imagination!
Brad,
No, I offered no opinion of my own about Oreskes. I’ve never met her or had any kind of interaction with her.
You are rather missing the point about my statement that you smeared Oreskes because you disagreed with her. You are of course perfectly entitled to dispute and criticise her survey and its findings, if that’s all you had done I wouldn’t have bothered to respond and I’m sure that Oreskes herself would not lose any sleep about it. But that’s not what you did, you made a bogus accusation of anti-Semitism against her. And to answer your point elsewhere in this thread, “bogus” doesn’t imply you didn’t mean it, it means the accusation does not have any foundation. It’s a smear.
Is it possible I was a bit too harsh on Andrew’s belief in Naomi Oreskes’ “colleagues”?
Just to be clear, I do remain confident that there exists no faculty lounge—in any university—set aside for the refection and convivializing of scientific paper-counters. Not even a kitchenette with one of those tiny microwaves. Not even if said paper-counters have been feted and begged to teach Paper Counting 101 (or to use the German idiom, “Consensus in Science”) in the capital city of Austria.
Even academia doesn’t take such nonsense seriously enough for one of those miniature clown microwaves.
However, it’s possible Andrew was thinking about, or at least talking about, the opinion of Oreskes’ *literary* ‘colleagues.’
In which case, no, I guess I *can’t* rule out the existence of a professional body of alt-history novelists who ideate about clandestine world control by disproportionately-influential people of a certain—how can I put this?—ethnoreligious DNA. For all I know, Oreskes probably does have colleagues in this field. Heck, they’ve probably been feted and begged to teach Conspiracy Theory 101 somewhere in the world. (Any advances on Austria?)
However, the temptation to apologize to Andrew weakens when he complains that [someone] “argues against Oreskes’ survey based on what you might have heard about it, rather than what it says.”
If you mean me, Andrew, then ¡au contraire, mon ami! My selection of adjective (“fraudulent”) is amply justified by what Oreskes alone has written.
Obviously I’m not asking you to read both pages of the “essay”—I’m a humane man, after all—but perhaps you can get as far as the third word of the title. What is that word, Andrew? It’s “Consensus”, isn’t it?
Would you like me to cut and paste the dictionary definition of “fraudulent?”
What I found particularly cheeky (sorry—that’s Australian for “fraudulent”) was Oreskes’ affected amazement at how few authors went out of their way to voice disagreement with a statement they were never asked their opinion on in the first place! (“Remarkable,” I believe she calls this phenomenon.)
Especially significant to Oreskes, presumably, is her discovery that so few papers from 1991 voice any objection to a statement first made by the UN in… the… year… 1995.
¡Remarquable!
In Oreskes’ defense, perhaps the intrinsic directedness of the arrow of time (familiar to most physicists and adults) isn’t on the curriculum for Trained Historians Of Ideas?
Humor forbids me to skip the rest of the story.
When Oreskes began to feel some heat over the false advertising inherent in her “Essay’s” title, she actually, seriously resorted to the following reasoning (if that’s the right word):
“In the original AAAS talk on which the paper was based, and in various interviews and conversations after, I repeated [sic] pointed out that very few papers analyzed said anything explicit at all about the consensus position. This was actually a very important result, for the following reason. Biologists today never write papers in which they explicitly say “we endorse evolution”. Earth scientists never say “we explicitly endorse plate tectonics.” This is because these things are now taken for granted. So when we read these papers and observed this pattern, we took this to be very significant.”
To repeat, the above is not one of those brilliant parodies you find at The Onion or ClimateNuremberg. Oreskes really made the Silence Equals Consent argument with a straight face: http://scienceblogs.com/strangerfruit/2007/08/31/oreskes-responds-to-schulte/
If you’re one of the minority of people to whom a mental reductio ad absurdum of the above rhetoric has *still* not occurred, seconds later, I can only say: congratulations. You’re the intended audience.
Andrew:
“But that’s not what you did, you made a bogus accusation of anti-Semitism against her.”
You may find this hard to believe, but I’m pretty much the LAST person to play the racism card in any given argument. Nor do I have the slightest time for allegations of “code words” and “dog-whistling.” In fact it’s just a couple of days ago that I retweeted (approvingly) a comment by Mark Steyn that, “If you hear the racist dog-whistle, you’re the dog; you’re the racist.”
So I don’t make my vile smear against Oreskes lightly.
I make my vile smear because Oreskes wrote a book reducing the climate-skeptical world to the occult machinations of four elderly scientists, *all* of whose surnames just so happen to rhyme with the names of the villains in *most* of European history’s rich, abominable tradition of conspiracy theories.
Since I’m the only person here—or at least among my many acquaintances—who seems to have been masochistic enough to read The Protocols of the Elders of Doubt from beginning to end for himself, I guess it’s inevitable that some commenters not quite believe me. Inevitable and uninteresting. Thanks anyway.
Brad,
Yes I’ve read Oreskes’ essay, and I’m perfectly aware of the word fraudulent. What I’m not seeing is any link between the two. She described what she did, what her findings were and the conclusions she drew from them. People might disagree with her methods or conclusions but they were not “fraudulent”. I think you are maybe misinterpreting the meaning of papers “disagreeing with the consensus position”. It doesn’t necessarily mean that the the paper makes an explicit statement that the authors disagree with a particular consensus statement (although it might), it could also mean that the findings of the paper contradict the consensus position in some way, for example a paper which claimed very low climate sensitity or attributed recent warming to non-anthropogenic causes. This is certainly how other skeptics see it because the criticisms I’ve seen from the likes of Monckton have been on the basis that certain “skeptical” papers were omitted from her search, not that the notion of “papers disagreeing with the consensus” is inherently unreasonable.
I don’t get your reference to papers in 1991 objecting to a statement made in 1995. Oreskes considered papers published between 1993 and 2003 and the FAR was published in 1990. Even then, it would still be possible to look at papers published pre-1990 and make a judgement as to whether they were consistent with the consensus position.
Andrew,
my imperfect memory has fooled me into letting Oreskes get away lightly. It looks like the stimulus statement wasn’t even published until 2001!
“The blog reports of the Schulte piece misrepresent the research question that we originally posed. It was, “How many papers published in referred journals disagree with the statement, “…most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations”? This statement came from the IPCC (2001) and was reiterated explicitly by the 2001 NAS report, so we wanted to know how many papers diverged from that consensus position.”
Time-travel pseudoscholarship. If you can actually suspend disbelief about this kind of thing (I can’t), the plot of Merchants of Venice will have you on the edge of your seat.
Further to the whole Judenhass issue, I forgot to say that if Oreskes is as anti-Semitic as her book, it would probably be her most sympathetic trait. She’s anti-SCIENCE, Andrew. She’s anti-SKEPTICAL. Where’s your sense of proportion? You’re getting defensive about trivia. You’re insisting Al Capone never cheated on his tax return. You’re Han Solo demanding to know, “WHO’S scruffy-looking?!”
Telling.
My source has it that at the latest AGU mash-up she put the eye on someone who wouldn’t hear of it.
==============
Brad,
Regarding the charge against Oreskes of anti-Semitism, OK I’ll accept your assurance that you don’t throw such accusations around lightly, but even so the fact that the four people you mentioned who all featured prominently in MoD had Jewish sounding names is hardly enough in itself to justify such a claim. I haven’t read MoD yet but I’ve read other accounts such as “Climate Cover Up” and the same names certainly crop up frequently and their actions are well documented. So unless you can demonstrate some implicit suggestion in MoD that their Jewishness (or Jewish-soundingness) has some deeper significance then I’m not buying it, especially as as far as I can tell (and I’ve looked) you are the only person to have actually made this connection.
Brad,
Well I agree that Oreskes’ essay isn’t that important in the overall scheme of things, so I’ll just make one final point on that subject. If the criterion is that a paper must disagree with the statement “…most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations” then any paper whose conclusions contradict or are incompatible with that statement would count, regardless of when they were published.
Joseph,
Consensus is a part of politics not science. The only part of the scientific method that mentions agreement between scientists is that experiments must be replicable. Climate science is a soft science and that’s the problem. It’s speculative and where no reliable answers demonstrable with experiment and replicable by others (review scientific method please) answers are chosen by personal and political appeal rather than objective truth.
Write that down.
Andrew:
“Well I agree that Oreskes’ essay isn’t that important in the overall scheme of things,”
Hang on, I didn’t say anything like that. I don’t agree.
Yes, *scientifically* it’s toilet paper. From the point of view of any academic discipline at all, for that matter, it’s infra dignitatem.
But *propagandistically* the “Essay’s” value would be difficult to exaggerate. It was, as I mentioned earlier, “the foundational text of your side’s consensus myth.” In other words, it is the most important piece of ostensible evidence for the most important ostensible argument your side ostensibly has going for it.
Andrew:
‘I haven’t read MoD yet but I’ve read other accounts such as “Climate Cover Up” and the same names certainly crop up frequently and their actions are well documented.’
Then I was wrong—Oreskes and Conway *do* have accomplices/colleagues in the character-assassination business. I apologize for doubting you.
I find Oreskes Oztensible, yeah, I like it.
====================
Andrew Adams,
Did Oreskes mention any woman?
How about a non-Caucasian?
> But *propagandistically* the “Essay’s” value would be difficult to exaggerate.
And yet Brad succeeds.
Brad,
Sorry, when you said
“You’re getting defensive about trivia.”
I thought you meant that the rights and wrongs of Oreskes’ paper was a trivial question.
Her survey and similar exercises are useful up to a point as they demonstrate to the public the extent to which the weight of scientific opinion is on one side, but in the end our side’s arguments rest on the underlying science itself. If the skeptics were able to produce a substantial body of science, which seriously undermined the mainstream position then such surveys would immediately become moot.
Then I was wrong—Oreskes and Conway *do* have accomplices/colleagues in the character-assassination business. I apologize for doubting you.
The actions they and others have described are well documented. It’s not character-assassination. However, your accusation of anti-Semitism remains so until you can provide something more substantial than her criticising the actions of some people with Jewish sounding names.
Willard,
As I mentioned to Brad I haven’t read Oreskes’ book so can’t answer your question direct, but from reading other sources the people involved tend to be old white guys.
Andrew:
“I thought you meant that the rights and wrongs of Oreskes’ paper was a trivial question. ”
Ah, OK—now your remark makes sense.
What I actually meant by “trivia,” though, was your focus on the least grave accusation against Oreskes, i.e. the least heinous of the three “anti-S” indictments.
Sinco O&C only mentioned old white guys, perhaps we ought to add sexist and anti-youth to Brad’s list.
***
What would have been the non-Jewish candidates available to O, Brad: Fred Seitz?
Only if he’s not Jewish, of course. Which we don’t know yet, even if his Wiki page doesn’t mention judaism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_Seitz
Perhaps O&C ought to have focused on Seitz.
Any other non-Jewish name Brad can offer would be fine too. His suggestions are most welcome, and perhaps also necessary, since we all know how Science ™ matters to Brad and that Science ™ advances better with constructive criticisms than by artful flourish.
First of all, willard, it’s called The Science™, and second, if you haven’t managed to pick up on my utter *contempt* for it, then my years of venemous, bilious polemic and right-wing death-merchant hate speech have been wasted.
And to get back to Al Capone’s tax statement: in what universe does “Seitz” sound “non-Jewish”?!
Andrew:
“Her survey and similar exercises are useful up to a point as they demonstrate to the public the extent to which the weight of scientific opinion is on one side”
Well of course they’re *useful.* For the purposes of a fraudulent program to pass off *opinion* as *evidence.* But if you were a scientist—which almost nobody is—then you’d know opinion must *never* be passed off as evidence. Opinion is not evidence, evidence is not opinion, you are not allowed to confuse them, and never the twain shall meet.
Ever.
No excuses.
So please stop trying to make excuses.
kim:
“My source has it that at the latest AGU mash-up she put the eye on someone who wouldn’t hear of it.”
Did this “someone” lodge a complaint about being hit on, or is that just one of the occupational hazards young female scientists are expected to put up with at scientific “mash-ups”?
> in what universe does “Seitz” sound “non-Jewish”?!
In the German world, perhaps:
http://www.houseofnames.com/seitz-family-crest
Only in The Science ™ do we find researchers playing by the ear instead of providing evidence.
You don’t by any chance inhabit the “German world,” do you, willard? I ask because (1). nobody else I know has ever uncovered the dark Gentile past of the Seitz family (so thank you for that—I’ve genuinely learned something, albeit about racial trivia); and (2). to my non-German ears, and I strongly expect to the average American ears, not to mention the sub-average ears of the average Merchants reader, “Seitz” sounds every bit as Ashkenazi as “Singer.” The nuances of the genealogical sciences are, as so often, rather lost on us whiteys.
Heh, Brad, it was the evil eye, but my source is nearly deaf to that sort of appeal.
==========
Ah yes—visual deafness; a great time-saver when in the same room as a craven knave.
willard:
“In this position, Seitz was in charge of the campaign to smudge the facts regarding the harmful effects of tobacco.”
Well, if WilConPedia says so, that’s good enough for me!
Brad Keyes: And to get back to Al Capone’s tax statement: in what universe does “Seitz” sound “non-Jewish”?!
What’s that about? “seit” is a stem in many German words, so why the Jewish inference? In the US, most German sounding names are non-Jewish.
My racial education continues. Ugh.
If I might just play devil’s advocate, Matthew:
What about German-sounding *scientists* in the US? Would you also say *they* tend to come from documented, third-generation-or-higher Christ-accepting lines on their mother’s side?
I’d say this thread is getting a bit silly (and creepy), but that would probably be a misuse of tense. I respect and thank our hostess for allowing it to go on for so long, but wouldn’t respect or thank her any less if she felt uncomfortable watching it continue down this particular path.
Incidentally, has anyone read Naomi Oreskes’ book “Merchants of Doubt”?
> if WilConPedia says so […]
Brad shoots the messenger, a poor excuse from The Science ™.
Due diligence we gather evidence instead, e.g.:
http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/mvz93d00
The YOU, in the title of that letter, is Dr. Seitz.
***
Was Robert Jastrow Jewish, by the way?
What’s your point, Willard? That Seitz was employed by RJ Reynolds?
Well yes: nobody, including Seitz, makes any secret of this. What I don’t see in that cut & paste from his employment contract is anything to suggest he was being paid to help dispute the tobacco-cancer link. Am I missing something in that slab of (notoriously illegible) all-caps, willard? Or are we just taking WilConPedia’s word—which would be something of a scholarly faux pas?
By the way, has anyone read a book called “Merchants of Doubt” (Oreskes, Conway)?
Brad Keyes: What about German-sounding *scientists* in the US?
I’d have to look into it, because I don’t know. You inferred first and are seeking justification post hoc?
I was thinking of Eisenhower and some athletes: Gehrig, Schoendienst, Schottenheimer. Would you accept engineers like Roebling?
Matthew,
Are you suggesting that the well-known American traditions of Jewish athletes and Jewish Presidents are reasonably good proxies for the relative frequency of Jewish people with German-sounding surnames in the science community?
Because I have my doubts.
Or should that be Doubts? I got them at a bargain price from a local merchant. He’s a real mensch—gave me a special deal, you know, Anglican to Anglican.
Willard:
“Was Robert Jastrow Jewish, by the way?”
Hmm. I think it’s unlikely a priori—most scientists I know don’t believe in any god.
But since “the German world” seems to have such information at its fingertips, why don’t you tell us, Willard?
Well, I can’t tell you how much I’ve enjoyed spending another morning working with you guys on the all-important question—”Is anti-science anti-skepticism author Naomi Oreskes *really* anti-Semitic, or do the names of the villains in her novel just make it sound that way?”—but I must be off. I can’t wait to see what progress you make in my absence. Parting advice, take it or leave it: read the freaking book.
> Is […] Naomi Oreskes *really* anti-Semitic [?]
I thought Brad only suggested that O&C was anti-Semitic.
You know, one of the anti-S he mentioned.
Many times he did suggest that O&C was anti-Semitic.
But now, I’m not so sure he would suggest that anymore.
In The Science ™ tradition, Brad did not provide much evidence for his suggestions.
A pity Brad has to go. Let’s hope he’ll find the time to continue our exchange over Twitter. There was something he was supposed to tell me about courage:
https://twitter.com/nevaudit/status/420397477380890624
Point taken, Willard. (See, this is why I’m more patient than others with your pedantry: because, much like a Philosophy degree, it very occasionally pays off.) It’s possible to write an anti-Semitic book without being an anti-Semite. Of course, that would be no less reprehensible than writing a sincere anti-Semitic book from the heart. Arguably it would be far worse.
Willard, why do you feel “Brad doesn’t provide much evidence”?
Is it because I didn’t find a Stoat quote agreeing with me?
For what it’s worth, I did provide what I would’ve thought was a self-sufficient justification for my “anti-Semitic” criticism of O&C right at the very start of the thread:
“The plot of Oreskes’ and Conway’s novel is that world opinion is being manipulated behind the curtains by a cabal of elders called Seitz, Singer, Jastorow and Nierenberg.”
Most people to whom I’ve mentioned this synopsis “get” the ethnoreligious connotation immediately. I submit that your ability to struggle with this is quite sparsely distributed in the population. Take that as a compliment if you prefer.
Willard, given that you seem to consider unproven accusations “smears”, I assume you’re doing everything you can to find evidence for your earlier cut’n’pasted allegation that “Seitz was in charge of the campaign to smudge the facts regarding the harmful effects of tobacco.”
And when we say “evidence”, we do not mean a Stoat-quote assertion… do we?
Do get back to us.
> It’s possible to write an anti-Semitic book without being an anti-Semite.
The question was if O&C is an anti-Semitic book. Brad claimed O&C was anti-Semitic, and substantiated this claim by ear. Now he boasts that “people” bought the story he was selling, a success that only counts as evidence in The Science ™.
The alternative story, the one we can find in O&C, is that Seitz, Jastrow and Nierenberg founded the George C. Marshall Institute, that Fred Singer is most of all Fred Singer, and that there is a connection between these actants and Exxon:
http://www.newsweek.com/global-warming-deniers-well-funded-99775
Brad might try to sell both stories and see which one his “people” buy.
***
Brad’s monkey-style Gish gallop might have better chances to work in another rhetorical setting.
Willard,
good to see you’ve given up trying to substantiate the allegation with which you (ipso facto) smeared Fred Seitz.
As for this new anecdote you’ve dragged into the conversation and deposited on the threshold like none-too-fresh catkill, it’s unclear what utility it possesses. Especially since “The plan, once exposed in the press, “was never implemented as policy.”” Not to mention that this (never-implemented) “plan” was contemplated in the relatively distant past, in climate-war terms.
Meanwhile, in the modern era, Exxon-Mobil would appear to have tweaked to where its real marketing interests lay and “switched sides.” Thus we read the impeccably “mainstream” (alarmist) Tom Wigley saying:
“In addition to seeing and catching up w/ you, I’m also quite intrigued by what Exxon-Mobil and the University of Arizona could do together on the climate change front.”
What *did* Exxon-Mobil and Tom Wigley wind up doing together on climate change? Dunno. The “interests” issue has never really, well, interested me beyond the basic who’s-on-which-side question. If you feel like doing some deeper research into it, please go ahead.
Now that we have charlatans who call academia home, recognizing natural variability from man-caused disaster is Western civilization’s big challenge.
Wagathon,
The greatest challenge to the survival of mankind is controlling our instincts and using energy to advance, rather than to destroy, other humans after:
1. The atomic bomb that destroyed Hiroshima on 6 Aug 1945, and
2. The 1,000 times more powerful Tsar bomb that the USSR exploded on 30 Oct 1961:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=16cewjeqNdw&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D16cewjeqNdw
Wagathon,
Would skeptics behave differently from Obama, Gore, Kerry , the Head of the UN’s IPCC et al. . . .
If convinced that mankind has not yet evolved to the stage that can safely have knowledge of the “powers beyond the dreams of scientific fiction” [See last paragraph of F. W. Aston’s Nobel Lecture on 12 Dec 1922]
The greatest threat to our survival and advancement is our inability to grasp that WE WILL HANG TOGETHER or WE WILL DIE SEPARATELY !
This is not an abstract moralistic idea, but a statement of fact for mankind at his current state of evolution.
Your quote is from a citizen scientist fighting for individual liberty and freedom from government experts and the liberal fascism of a tyranny of the majority.
Ben Franklin: “We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately.” (At the signing of the Declaration of Independence)
The Tsar bomb was actually 3,000 times more powerful than the Hiroshima one (a little more than that as Hiroshima’s was about 14 KT and Tsar about 50 MT)…
Thanks, Pedro.
Historical events of 1945-1968 suggest that humans had not yet evolved to a stage to benefit from Lord Aston’s report in 1922 that atomic masses offered mankind “powers beyond the dreams of scientific fiction.”
http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/chemistry/laureates/1922/aston-lecture.pdf
It may be all political but the fact is, Leftists will not accept fission, just as they refuse to see that all global warming and cooling is explained by natural causes–i.e., nominally, it’s the Sun, stupid.
Wagathon, all the rhetoric of leftists and rightists, atheists and religionists, bankers and communists cannot change reality.
The only question is how much pain will they endure and impose on each other before accepting reality?
The problem of course is that the whole arena of “climate science” has been corrupted by anti-science, anti-human political actors with PhD’s. Until these leading lights of “climate science” are thrown out on their ears and the Scientific Method used instead of the principles of Trofim Lysenko, “climate science” will remain a term of deceit and dishonesty.
Willis Eschenback asked the question here on July 25,2011:
“When members of your scientific community lie, cheat, and steal to further their own ends, should other members refuse to say anything bad about the wrong-doers?”
The refusal of the “climate science” community to uphold any standard of ethics, scientific or otherwise, with respect to Michael Mann, Phil Jones, Peter Gleick, or the rest of the frauds who lead the IPCC makes it clear that there is no interest in tipping the gravy train, no matter what the damage done to a country’s economy or the health of it’s citizens
blah blah blah It’s a conspiracy,..
Joseph: did you read the Blame Game post?
Basically this post points out clearly what “global warming” is all about: the transfer of money from rich nations (carbon emitters) to poor nations (victims). As others pointed out in the comments, if the data in fact show that “global warming” causes fewer, less catastrophic weather, will the “global warming” crowd support payments from the poor nations (beneficiaries) to the rich nations (carbon emitters)?
Oh, and Joseph, doesn’t this sound like a conspiracy theory to you:
“Basically, the fossil fuel industry is funding campaigns for disinformation and misinformation.”
“As others pointed out in the comments, if the data in fact show that “global warming” causes fewer, less catastrophic weather, will the “global warming” crowd support payments from the poor nations (beneficiaries) to the rich nations (carbon emitters)?”
Of course not, that’s illogical. If you fix someone’s car without asking them first they don’t have to pay you!
continued: but if you damage their car you bet they will want you to pay.
More like if you give them a ride, not fix their car. But thanks for confirming fits really about redistributing wealth.
“Basically this post points out clearly what “global warming” is all about: the transfer of money from rich nations (carbon emitters) to poor nations (victims).”
I don’t much evidence support transferring vast sums of money to the third world because of climate change, nor do I see ANY evidence that the work done by climate scientists is motivated by any transfer of wealth scheme.
This is the start: http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/patrick-goodenough/americans-spent-745b-3-years-helping-other-countries-deal-climate
And thankfully to date the UN, IPCC et al have not succeeded in driving more transfer.
“And thankfully to date the UN, IPCC et al have not succeeded in driving more transfer.”
I don’t see any US politician running on a platform that advocates for more assistance to developing countries.
Joseph | January 3, 2014 at 10:28 pm |
“blah blah blah It’s a conspiracy,..”
blah blah blah you don’t need a conspiracy for like minded people to act the same way – if I throw a meaty bone in a kennel I know all the dogs will rush for it – it works the same way throwing grants of public money out to universities
But, Chief, you can’t publish anything without peer review. And if they all know AGW is a hoax, then those who publish that work are conspiring to promote that hoax.
I don’t think of it as a hoax, more a shared hallucination or psychosis, delusions of grandeur.
It’s a classic, an ‘Extraordinary Popular Delusion and Madness of the Crowd’. This one is Grand Opera, spilling lushly into the audience.
==============
“Joseph | January 5, 2014 at 3:06 pm |
But, Chief, you can’t publish anything without peer review. And if they all know AGW is a hoax, then those who publish that work are conspiring to promote that hoax.”
—
Conspiracy talk is the last bastion of those who don’t have the data to back them up.
Joseph | January 5, 2014 at 3:06 pm |
“But, Chief, you can’t publish anything without peer review. And if they all know AGW is a hoax, then those who publish that work are conspiring to promote that hoax.”
It doesn’t follow from there being no need for conspiracy that there are no conspiracies.
Nonetheless in this case there was a conspiracy to avoid submitting papers to journals that published the politically incorrect climate science. Editors letting such things through have resigned soon after because publish or perish applies to the journals too.
“the fossil fuel industry is funding campaigns for disinformation and misinformation.”
Can their funding top this?:
“A searing new report says the environmental movement is not winning and lays the blame squarely on the failed policies of environmental funders. The movement hasn’t won any “significant policy changes at the federal level in the United States since the 1980s” because funders have favored top-down elite strategies and have neglected to support a robust grassroots infrastructure. Environmental funders spent a whopping $10 billion between 2000 and 2009 but achieved relatively little because they failed to underwrite grassroots groups that are essential for any large-scale change, the report says. ”
http://www.alternet.org/module/printversion/154290
I doubt it.
“the fossil fuel industry is funding campaigns for disinformation and misinformation.”
Well duh. If this wasn’t already clear when Shell’s corporate logo appeared all over Rajendra Pachauri’s softcore bodice-ripping book launch, it became obvious from the CRU email release.
For example, one alarmist scientist writes:
“Mike and Tim
Notes from the meeting with Shell International attached….
What ensued was necessarily a rather speculative discussion with the following points emerging.
1. Shell International would give serious consideration to what I referred to in the meeting as a ‘strategic partnership’ with the T[yndall] C[entre], broadly equivalent to a ‘flagship alliance’ in the TC proposal. A strategic partnership would involve not only the provision of funding but some (limited but genuine) role in setting the research agenda etc.”
and another alarmist scientist writes:
“I would think Tyndall should have an open mind about this and try to find the slants that would appeal to Esso.”
and another alarmist scientist writes:
“Subject: BP funding
…dear TC colleagues, it looks like BP have their cheque books out! How can TC benefit from this largesse? I wonder who has received this money within Cambridge University?
Cheers, Simon
BP, FORD GIVE $20 MILLION FOR PRINCETON UNIVERSITY EMISSIONS STUDY”
and another alarmist scientist writes:
“In addition to seeing and catching up w/ you, I’m also quite intrigued by what Exxon-Mobil and the University of Arizona could do together on the climate change front.”
Brad, ‘well duh’ is right on. For some reason many skeptics don’t like the evidence that AGW scam is funded by Big Oil and Big Money (banks, corporations, governments…) in general. It doesn’t fit into their left wing narative, I guess.
Brad, ‘well duh’ is right on. The AGW scam is funded by Big Oil and Big Money in general (banks, corpotations, governments).
It’s not new. It’s an ‘Extraordinary Popular Delusion and Madness of the Crowd’. This one is Grand, the Works.
=====================
Edim:
“For some reason many skeptics don’t like the evidence that AGW scam is funded by Big Oil and Big Money (banks, corporations, governments…) in general.”
Hmm—I was politically naive enough not to think of this before. A very interesting thought. If true, this would go some way towards explaining why skeptics don’t make nearly as much of such revelations as they could. After all, the CRU oil revelations are argument-stoppingly lethal ammunition in my experience. Because no matter how much rightoid climate calmists may dislike the news, leftoid climate alarmists are positively mortified by it.
There are cyclonic ironies in the claims and counterclaims about funding. It’s not possible for the cataclysmic damage of these cyclones to escape ultimate notice.
============
“Basically, the fossil fuel industry is funding campaigns for disinformation and misinformation.”
Well, I do indeed have serious doubts about the “greenhouse effect” allegedly caused by minuscule amounts of trace gases (with respect to the MASSIVE thermal capacity of the oceans).
But, outside of a few free drinking glasses that my now deceased parents may have received as a promotion from a gas station back in the 1960’s I have never received a dime from the “fossil fuel” industry. I think I donated them to the “GoodWill” when the time came to liquidate their estate. So the profits they gained from “evil” fossil fuels went to a good cause in the end.
How’s everybody making out in these nice cold days without “evil” fossil fuels ???
I did search for a “solar powered” snow-blower to use here in upstate New York, but there ain’t many choices out there.
Cheers, Kevin
Warmist climatology is religious tarot cards reading
”Fake Skeptics” climatology about the past is childish / conmen’s mythology
http://globalwarmingdenier.wordpress.com/q-a/
“With no similar organisations to examine other potential causes of climate change, it’s only the IPCC voice that is heard.”
And why is that? Any theories? Obviously NIPCC, Heartland, etc. are not counted as organizations and seem to be dismissed in a backhanded way by this statement, so who would be able to start an “organization”, and what would it look like, if not like these “think tanks” that they have dismissed?
The author of The Age article appears not to be aware of the whole skeptic side of the media and political lobbyists influencing half the US congress. You would think they didn’t exist from reading this. Have they been that ineffective? Perhaps this is encouraging in some way that some people just don’t notice them out there despite the noise they make in some limited circles like this.
That’s a good point Jim.
Climate skeptics as a whole are confused. There’s no other area of science where such a group of people exists with such a huge disparity in what they think the basic science shows. For example some of them think CO2 rise is natural. Some think the greenhouse effect is a hoax. Some think that the Sun is the cause, others think it’s an effect from gravity of the planets.
Ask a physicist about what dark matter is, or about which is right, string theory or super symmetry.
lolwot, you write “Climate skeptics as a whole are confused. There’s no other area of science where such a group of people exists with such a huge disparity in what they think the basic science shows. For example some of them think CO2 rise is natural. Some think the greenhouse effect is a hoax. Some think that the Sun is the cause, others think it’s an effect from gravity of the planets.”
I am afraid I don’t understand the point you are trying to make. All the things you mention are not mutually exclusive; they could all be true at the same time.
What you don’t take into account is that no-one, and I mean no-one, has the slightest idea what all the causes of natural variability are. There could be dozens of causes, most of which we probably know nothing about. So what is to be expected is that those scientists who believe that adding CO2 to the atmosphere, from current levels, has a negligible effect on anything except the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, are to be expected to believe all sorts of things. That is the nature of true skepticism.
It is far better to speculate on the things we think might be the cause of natural variations, rather than just spouting the dogma of the true believers in CAGW.
Climate skeptics are not a group. They never have been. They never will be.
“Climate skeptics are not a group. They never have been. They never will be.”
Very wrong. That’s like saying creationists are not a group. Just because the group is made up of disorganized individuals doesn’t mean the emergent behavior is not of a group.
The majority of skeptics take their lead from a few blog owners and major figures who frame the discussion. That’s why last week all skeptics were talking about an Antarctic expedition, and were all copying talking points off each other.
The blogs are like little industries that generates talking points for the group.
lowlot:
What are you doing here then?
Like you’re so full of original thought.
I suggest you take a long, hard look in the mirror.
It’s David Gelernter, from Yale. ….He was hurt, years ago, by a mail bomb from the Unabomber.
Smart man. …..Lady in Red
Interesting tone poem from Gelernter. His newspeg about Thomas Nagel’s book and its reception rang a bell as I had the pleasure of Nagel’s lectures on the history of moral philosophy in college. It seems some of his obsessions about subjectivity versus objectivity haven’t changed. I remember him saying that when other people claimed not to like chocolate he could only believe that it didn’t taste the same to them because how could somebody not like THAT taste?
Thank you Judith for this post. The CAGW tide is turning. I wonder where we’d be now if not for Climate Etc, Climate Audit, WUWT, Bishop Hill and the many other rationally skeptical web sites and the many professionals, mostly unpaid, who have critically reviewed climate research.
Why would they want to? They have the perfect “captive audience”
People aren’t going to stop using fossil fuels, simply because there is no alternative.
And why should they object to policies which push up the price of their product?
“And why should they object to policies which push up the price of their product?”
Because they are not the ones getting the extra money? Think about it – if competition forces, say 1c/gal profits on them, and someone else makes 5c/gal, yet the 1c/gal people are marginalised as “greedy” etc, who wouldn’t complain? And why wouldn’t they be right to?
I think you’re confusing the oil companies with the retailers
Some of the key points I’ve been attempting to make in comments on previous threads regarding pragmatic approaches, technologies and polices to reduce global GHG emissions over coming decades are summarised below.
1. Nuclear power will likely become a major component of the world’s energy supply this century. Nuclear fuel is virtually unlimited in the Earth’s crust and oceans. Nuclear energy is the safest way to generate electricity and, if it replaced coal fired power now, would avoid over 1 million fatalities per year.
2. Nuclear can be far cheaper than it is. It is economic in some countries now but not in countries which have access to cheap fossil fuels, or high labour costs, or small economies and small electricity demand, or high public opposition to nuclear.
3. The reason the cost of nuclear energy is higher than it could and should be is 50 years of anti-nuclear protesting and mis-information. This has led to excessive regulation which is inconsistent with the fact it is the safest way to generate electricity. The high costs – caused by excessive regulation and public’s nuclear paranoia which causes financial risk to investors – is preventing the world from having cheaper and safer energy. The high costs can be reduced, over time, by changing the regulatory and licensing regime, and by educating the public that nuclear is already the safest way to generate electricity and would save many lives if made cheaper so it is rolled out faster.
4. If the developed countries remove the many impediments to nuclear power and facilitate a freer market in energy technologies, competition will bring costs down. Increasing production, rollout and experience in all parts of the industry will reduce costs. Innovation and competition will produce new models, new generations and new technologies faster as competition and rollout increases.
5. The cause of the high costs of nuclear needs to be removed for any nuclear technology to become economic. Blocking Gen III+ from being as cheap as it could be is blocking development of all nuclear, including Gen IV.
6. It takes a long time to develop new technologies and to get them to where they are economically viable and competitive with the existing, more mature technologies. It’s taken light water reactors (LWR) sixty years to get to the current state of maturity. LWR’s are safe and, in terms of maturity and cost competitiveness, way ahead of the next generation, Gen IV, reactors.
7. It will take decades for Gen IV to be economically competitive. At the moment they are costly and have many problems to solve. It will take time for them to mature, just as it has taken time to get LWR’s to where they are now. It is not credible to claim Gen IV will be a serious competitor for LWR’s or likely to make a major contribution to global electricity generation in less than two to three decades, no matter what the researchers working on them and their advocates claim.
8. Light water Small Modular Reactors (SMR) are likely to have a shorter time until they are commercially viable. SMRs are needed for many reasons as explained on p1 here under “Why SMRs”: http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2013/05/22/1300195110.full.pdf and coped here: http://judithcurry.com/2013/12/31/open-thread-4/#comment-431274
9. One of the tactics employed by anti-nukes is to delay progress by diverting discussion to Gen IV.
‘Small Nuclear Power Reactors’ include so-called Gen III+++ and Gen IV reactors.
e.g. http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Nuclear-Fuel-Cycle/Power-Reactors/Small-Nuclear-Power-Reactors/
There has recently been a renewed interest throughout the world in small
nuclear units for generating electricity and for other applications. A re
port by the World Nuclear Association discussing the advantages of small
modular nuclear reactors (SMRs) over traditional nuclear reactor designs,
states that “modern small reactors for power generation are expected to
have greater simplicity of design, economy of mass production, and reduced siting costs. Many are also designed for a high level of passive or
inherent safety in the event of malfunction.”
Generic approvals for factory build units and the ability to use a variety of fuels in designs for a variety of purposes are practical advantages. Some of these are designed for long operation without refueling – and then to be returned intact to the factory. Passive safety and the ability to recycle conventional waste without reprocessing – 270,000 tons of the stuff sitting in leaky drums and ponds – are critical selling points. The fact that waste from advanced nuclear fuels cycles is dangerous for hundreds of years rather than hundreds of thousands would seem to be the clincher.
Not getting the technology right before rushing to implement was the problem in the first place. And now we seem to be rushing to solve a problem – over a 20 year plus timeframe – that Lang doesn’t think exists. Odd indeed.
And I always will argue for multiple lines of energy technology – rather than putting all the eggs in one basket. Can for instance the Lockheed Martin skunk works or Lawrencevile Plasma Physics succeed in sustained fusion for instance? It would make everything else obsolete.
Misrepresentation, disengenuous and dishonest. And the usual snarks and personalisation that is included in many comments.
We need to progress with what is available quickest, while continuing with RD&D on future technologies. I’m not arguing against that, just arguing for pragmatism.
No one is arguing against multiple lines of energy technology, certainly not me. I’ve made the points clear. I’m arguing for whatever is likely to become economically viable fastest. That means don’t delay progress by arguing there will be better technologies in the distant future if we wait. The problem is to remove the impediments to all nuclear. They are regulatory, licensing, labour force required by regulations and public paranoia. That applies to the cost of all nuclear technologies. We need to address that, and to make progress wer need to educate the public. Arguing to delay until there is something better in the future, is not helpful.
It would help if you could stop your incessant snarking.
Lang has said both things.
That CO2 is not a problem and that it will take 20 years to bring down the cost of nuclear energy. Snark – like beauty – are in the eye of the beholder apparently. Having that in mind – perhaps it is not me that is the problem.
Having in mind as well the admittedly non-problems of conventional nuclear – waste, leaks, meltdowns, proliferation, decommissioning – and the resultant anti-nuclear hysteria – perhaps it would be just as well to have a Plan B technology with none of these non-problems and a more user friendly profile.
Just the facts – maam – and a PR suggestion.
http://news.yahoo.com/exclusive-turmoil-east-west-center-hawaii-energy-team-194803521–business.html
Just like a teenager to not understand their actions. So how would you power the modern world without fossil fuel s or nuclear? Wind and solar not matter what you think or have been told won’t be up for the task for 50 years or more, the world will be post modern society with little kingdoms run by the very rich with the rest of us living as they did 200 years ago by then.
https://twitter.com/TheClimateCult/status/419480747523579904
My comment on the site about Mercator Projection and global warming apparently was not deemed relevant–i.e., that the AGW’s greenhouse analogy is no more apt than comparing the abortion of a future violinist to trimming fingernails.
The continuing unfolding of natural variability makes it easier to recognize the superstition and ignorance of Western climatology and the hubris of climate prediction experts. Many have fallen under the spell of supposed experts and we have only ourselves to blame for our lack of diligence and our failure to see the self-appointed gurus of global warming for who and what they really are. Daniel Kahneman reminds us that, “overconfident professionals sincerely believe they have expertise, act as experts and look like experts. You will have to struggle to remind yourself that they may be in the grip of an illusion.”
The continuing unfolding of natural variability climate change
fixed it for you
fixed or suffering from the illusion of skill?
William celebrate’s Cato’s precision:
> Cato gets it right: Emeritus Professor of Meteorology at MIT, where he was the Alfred P. Sloan Professor.
http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2014/01/04/another-one-bites-the-dust-2
willard (@nevaudit) | January 4, 2014 at 3:21 pm | Reply
> Cato gets it right: Emeritus Professor of Meteorology at MIT, where he was the Alfred P. Sloan Professor.
Science advances one funeral at a time. ~Max Planck
Mi Cro | January 4, 2014 at 8:35 am |
You make it sound like it’s an either-or. Price of solar is dropping 20% or more a year, and expected to do so for the next decade at least. Price of wind isn’t doing quite so well, but then it has less far to fall to beat fossil in many locations for many purposes.
While frack isn’t all it’s ballyhooed to be, it surely beats oil and coal hands down most of the time.. and the number of people proposing no nuclear at all is remarkably tiny.
It is a man of straw and hypocrisy to suggest as you have that the ‘modern world’ cannot be powered with lower fossil fuels, and the idea of failing to apprehend the consequences of their actions teenagers are so tarred with is not exclusive to them, considering the consequences of unrestrained burning of what are after all precious resources valuable for other uses like making plastics, pharmaceuticals — almost all aspirin in the world is made from petrochemicals — industrial process chemicals, and fertilizers while producing particulate pollutants and CO2 without paying a fair market price for these actions imposed on us all by the few.
The expected lifetime cost of a new solar installation today is lower than the expected lifetime cost of a new fossil installation today, for electricity generation stations with 50 year lifespans, in almost all cases, without counting the cost of diminishing the resource wealth of nations, pollution or AGW. Why pretend it’s otherwise?
It would seem to be a good thing to store as much energy as we can before the end of the Holocene. Are you doing your part, Bart R?
=====================
kim | January 5, 2014 at 12:21 pm |
The end of the Holocene that isn’t expected for another 20,000 years?
How would it seem to be a good thing to store energy for 20,000 years?
What storage medium is efficient on a 20,000 year scale?
Bart – extremely interesting. Could you please provide a link to estimates of a cost of solar vs fossil installations?
http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/electricity_generation.cfm
So thanks wag – the threadings gone to hell again.
There was a poisonous ingredient, salvered by Her Royal Tastress.
====================
Slipped in by a dangerous chef, not you, Chief Hydropolargist.
================
‘When Sideshow Bob was released from prison, Cecil hired him to work for his company building a new hydroelectric dam along the river, proudly telling him that he was Springfield’s “Chief Hydrological and Hydrodynamical Engineer”. Cecil’s true intentions, however, were to skim money from the dam project’s contract, build a poor quality dam, and frame his brother for the resulting destruction (mainly due to his still being sore about Sideshow Bob getting the part of sideshow on Krusty’s show).’ Simpson Wiki.
Cecil spent four years in clown school (“I’d thank you not to refer to Princeton that way”).
There seems to be a problem with unqualified and incompetent pretenders. Is there no quality assurance on this site?
http://simpsons.wikia.com/wiki/Cecil_Terwilliger?file=Cecil.png
So here we have ARGO OH anomalies.
http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/5b9238d6-531c-4bdf-8428-0a8dc2ef4488_zpse867aa58.jpg.html?sort=3&o=0
It finally stopped calculating. It looks like an overlay with the MEI would be interesting. It shows a relentless increase in ocean temperature – not.
Still not sure if I did it right – I know let’s find out.
The software and the data can be found here – in one package.
http://www.argo.ucsd.edu/Marine_Atlas.html
By all means download it. Narrative can take you so far – nowhere in fact.
Hey, I didn’t know you were voiced by David Hyde Pierce. Now that really is special.
I didn’t say I was Cecil – Richard – but we all have our mentors. At a guess I’d say yours is Chad Morgan. Warning – bad language ahead.
Chief Hydrologist,
Have you considered starting your own blog? You could “quality assure” to your heart’s delight.
Are you complaining that our gracious hostess is declining to bend to your will, or that the conversations do not go in accordance with your wishes?
Have you ever considered that an insane person may not be as stupid as you think? I can point to a good few minds far more brilliant than I could aspire to being, who probably fit the diagnostic picture of being barking mad.
I know you disagree that the world is cooling – and that of course defines me as insane by your definition. The facts don’t quite appear to support your assertions in either regard. I apologise if this is content free in the context of The Week in Review, but there it is.
Live well and prosper,
Mike Flynn.
Chief Hydrologist,
Is the Earth cooling or warming – or maybe staying the same?
Simple question. I assume you have a simple answer.
Depending on your answer, I have a follow up query.
If you do not wish to pass on the knowledge gained from your 50,000 hours or so of study, I understand.
Live well and prosper,
Mike Flynn.
Hello Mike: to cut to the chase, the answer to your follow-up query all global warming is the result of capitalism and the Earth is doomed until America accepts Eurocommunism.
Wagathon,
Thanks.
I have been accused of both being to the left of Karl Marx, and to the right of Attila the Hun, on different occasions.
Looks like I’m covered whether the globe warms or cools!
What happens if Europe accepts Obamaism? Is that the same or different? Only joking, I’m apolitical. No offence intended.
Live well and prosper,
Mike Flynn.
Global warming has become nothing more than the Left’s permanent campaign against the American free enterprise system and Judeo-Christian heritage. The next time you hear a climatist say warming is Made in America — as if a violent change in the weather is proof of the AGW theory — stop and think for a moment: “The fact is that the ‘null hypothesis’ of global warming has never been rejected: That natural climate variability can explain everything we see in the climate system.” ~Dr. Roy Spencer
No I have no simple answer – just data.
http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/5b9238d6-531c-4bdf-8428-0a8dc2ef4488_zpse867aa58.jpg.html?sort=3&o=0
Chief Hydrologist,
I can understand your reluctance to form an opinion based on your link. I agree it’s pretty meaningless.
Would you be able to provide a simple answer if you had more data? There should be plenty about. I am surprised you don’t have at least an opinion on whether the globe is warming or cooling.
Live well and prosper,
Mike Flynn.
I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one: ‘O Lord make my enemies ridiculous.’ And God granted it. – Voltaire
What? Warming and cooling at different times too subtle for you Flynn?
Chief Hydrologist,
The trend over the last 4.5 billion years will do. I assume you like trends. The longest trend there is. No chance of cherry picking. Just remember, the trend is your friend. Three choices – warming, cooling or unchanged.
And your answer?
Live well and prosper,
Mike Flynn.
Warming – cooling – or neutral?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vostok_Petit_data.svg
Oh dear – the ‘theory’ seems to be that Sun, clouds, ice, snow, dust, have no effect on climate – merely the slow process of radioactive decay in the mantle and perhaps slow cooling from the core. Some 0.05W/m2 – and the changes are geologically slower than that.
‘The global climate system is composed of a number of subsystems – atmosphere, biosphere, cryosphere, hydrosphere and lithosphere – each of which has distinct characteristic times, from days and weeks to centuries and millennia. Each subsystem, moreover, has its own internal variability, all other things being constant, over a
fairly broad range of time scales. These ranges overlap between one subsystem and another. The interactions between the subsystems thus give rise to climate variability on all time scales.’ http://www.atmos.ucla.edu/tcd/PREPRINTS/Math_clim-Taipei-M_Ghil_vf.pdf
It is one of the madder theories on the interweb – and no answer I give is right because reality is far different to the theory and the theory is always right. Just look at the 4.5 billion year temperature reconstruction. Therefore the world is cooling no matter what. The construction of mad narratives is not unique to Flynn of course – or to skeptics – but it is one of the strangest.
“Twelve voices were shouting in anger, and they were all alike. .No question, now, what had happened to the faces of the pigs. The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.”
― George Orwell, Animal Farm
I can’t help seeing the broken threading as a metaphor. The proliferation of cheap barnyard snark is a major disencentive for any wider and more serious involvement from any informed source. Your site has probably terminally imploded Judy. There really is nothing left to be said amidst the carping, ignorance and let’s face it – absolute madness. Other than the endless round of the same tribal talking points that seems to be most of the so-called discourse – along of course with mean spirited trivial snark and passive/aggressive hostility.
Although it has failed to produce its intended impact nevertheless the Kyoto Protocol has performed an important role. That role has been allegorical. Kyoto has permitted different groups to tell different stories about themselves to themselves and to others, often in superficially scientific language. But, as we are increasingly coming to understand, it is often not
questions about science that are at stake in these discussions. The culturally potent idiom of the dispassionate scientific narrative is being employed to
fight culture wars over competing social and ethical values.
Nor is that to be seen as a defect. Of course choices between competing values are not made by relying upon scientific knowledge alone. What is wrong is to
pretend that they are.
http://www.lse.ac.uk/researchAndExpertise/units/mackinder/pdf/mackinder_Wrong%20Trousers.pdf
Not that there is usually anything more to the ‘science’ than narratives – data less and descending to looking at published science all to rarely. When not based entirely on a metatheory of what ‘the science’ says. It amounts to carping by unwashed and uninformed climate warriors of the blogosphere in vain attempts to silence dissenting voices. Not merely of ‘skeptics’ or of ‘warmists’. I think they are all largely as full of nonsense as each other. But of brilliant scientists pioneering a new understanding of the Earth systems – something ultimately much more dynamic and complex than simple causality or the simple memes of the climate warrior would suggest. The whole is greater than the parts – with immense implications for both models and climate.
The warmists do not merely not understand – but it seems much more deep seated than that. More an inability to process conflicting information that seems part of the human condition. They have staked too much on the outcome. But perhaps this goes for both sides.
Using a new measure of coupling strength, this
update shows that these climate modes have recently
synchronized, with synchronization peaking in the year
2001/02. This synchronization has been followed by an
increase in coupling. This suggests that the climate system may well have shifted again, with a consequent break in the global mean temperature trend from the post 1976/77 warming to a new period (indeterminate length) of roughly constant global mean temperature.
ftp://starfish.mar.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/pub/ocean/CCS-WG_References/NewSinceReport/March15/Swanson%20and%20Tsonis%20Has%20the%20climate%20recently%20shifted%202008GL037022.pdf
No amount of science seems to get though – yet this is the critical aspect of climate. Climate is wild – it can and will shift unpredictably in the current century. We have little control of this – but what we could do is minimise the rate of change in Earth systems. We could of course build resilience in communities and ecosystems in many different ways. We could rethink environmental and social policy – as the McKinder document says. What seems clear is that non-warming over decades will derail any rational or pragmatic response. It simply won’t work – it is a culture war and one that will be decided in this decade by the iron rule of the thermometer. There will be winners and losers – but for the moment each side frantically seeks a supposed advantage. At the end of the day – it seems unlikely that the progressive left can avoid losing on ‘global warming’ as the world stubbornly refuses to warm.
A remarkable, yet oddly predictable failure. Where have all the flowers gone?
=========
It seems the urge to perfection, to a sinless man, by its essence creates a box too small to encompass the human condition.
=============
The moving hand … the mercurial rule of the thermometer… allegory for the times.
When you don’t know what causes global warming, any explanation may sound like a good one — until you know better. AGW modelers based their climate predictions on CO2 and perhaps for some they really didn’t know any better. Nevertheless, we subsequently have learned that models based on CO2 are false: we now know that CO2 is not the cause of global warming. We also now know the real cause: take out the cyclic influences of the ENSO system and the answer is obvious. It’s the sun, stupid!
The activity of the government-education complex has engaged in its desperate search for even an iota of evidence to finger to the bogeyman CO2 as the bad actor in the non-crisis called `global warming.’ Climatology has been the modern-day equivalent of panning for gold. This time, however, instead of intrepid explorers breaking new ground and facing unknown dangers in a rugged frontier, we have incompetent public schoolteachers scratching for government climate change research dollars to feather their pampered nests.
“The resulting CO2 signal exhibits no systematic correspondence with the geologic record of climate variations at tectonic time scales.” (Daniel H. Rothman, Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels for the last 500 million years)
But… what does it say about the MSM? Nothing really — mostly, they’re just that stupid and that is what the Left hope :
“In Antarctica, a gaggle of “climate scientists” and “journalists” who set off hoping to show the world that Antarctic ice was melting ended up getting their ship stuck in record levels of ice cover — in the summer. The Media Research Center found that 98 percent of the network news stories on the warmists’ inconvenient meeting with reality failed to mention the real story: that the ship was on a “climate research” mission. Still, the saga served as an important illustration of how ridiculous the alarmist movement was beginning to look and how the establishment press is trying in vain to cover it up. In reality, Antarctic sea-ice cover hit a new record in 2013 — for the second year in a row.” (Alex Newman, “Global Warming Alarmism Melting as Record Cold Sweeps Nation”)
Did you catch that? The Lefties, “… ended up getting their ship stuck in record levels of ice cover — in the summer.” (see, Ibid.)
Reality is stranger than fiction and nothing is stranger than a bunch of pampered academics pretending to be against the comfort, safety and security that the modern age offers — even to them who have nothing of value to offer society than the example of their own superstition, ignorance and self-defeating nihilism.
A vigorous spectrum of interdecadal internal variability presents numerous challenges to our current understanding of the climate. First, it suggests that climate models in general still have difficulty reproducing the magnitude and spatiotemporal patterns of internal variability necessary to capture the observed character of the 20th century climate trajectory. Presumably, this is due primarily to deficiencies in ocean dynamics. Moving toward higher resolution, eddy resolving oceanic models should help reduce this deficiency. Second, theoretical arguments suggest that a more variable climate is a more sensitive climate to imposed forcings (13). Viewed in this light, the lack of modeled compared to observed interdecadal variability (Fig. 2B) may indicate that current models underestimate climate sensitivity. Finally, the presence of vigorous climate variability presents significant challenges to near-term climate prediction (25, 26), leaving open the possibility of steady or even declining global mean surface temperatures over the next several decades that could present a significant empirical obstacle to the implementation of policies directed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions (27). However, global warming could likewise suddenly and without any ostensive cause accelerate due to internal variability. To paraphrase C. S. Lewis, the climate system appears wild, and may continue to hold many surprises if pressed.
http://www.pnas.org/content/106/38/16120.full
http://www.pnas.org/content/106/38/16120/F3.expansion.html
Shall we bring together all of the most critical ideas in contemporary climate science? The warming from greenhouse gases is at most 0.08 degrees C/decade, no one is predicting strong warming over the next the next decade or so at least – except the partisans of the climate war – above all that climate is wild and that climate shifts – plural – are inevitable this century? Well almost all – sensitivity in a wild climate is γ in the Michael Ghil schematic.
http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/Ghil_fig11_zpse58189d9.png.html?sort=3&o=57
http://www.atmos.ucla.edu/tcd/PREPRINTS/Math_clim-Taipei-M_Ghil_vf.pdf
Of course science has ceased long ago to have any bearing on the peurile banter that passes for discourse here.
The example of the flu shot in the medical industry may be a good example of what we see going on with the AGW special interests in the global warming industry—i.e., not much common sense and a lot of statistical gimcrackery.
According to a recent study in The Lancet, research results showed that the flu vaccine was only seen to be effective in preventing influenza in 1.5 out of 100. But, you don’t sell flu shots with that sort of information.
So, how does the flu shot industry deal with reality and get away with pushing 60% effectiveness rates to sell their product? According to the numbers, more than 97% of the control group – people who did not receive the shot – never got the flu at all – i.e., 2.7% ever caught the flu.
The study showed that 1.18% of the treatment group actually caught the flu—i.e., 43% of those who got the flu, got it anyway despite being vaccinated. But, 1.18% is less than 2.7% who got the flu, right?
So, if you want to hype your results, instead of claiming your vaccine lowered the infection rate by 1.52% (2.7% – 1.18%)– which is what the research found – you claim instead the vaccine was about 60% effective in preventing the flu (i.e., 100% – 43% or 57%). Capiche?
You could actually link to the CDC – which explains all this in much greater depth than I care to examine. The decrease in infection rates is 60% plus or minus a great deal for different years and different cohorts.
After last year I am reducing my risk.
Assume the CDC is totally righteous in supporting vaccine manufacturers’ claims that the flu shot decreases influenza infections by 60%. Still, it only amounts to preventing 1.5 adults out of 100 from coming down with influenza.
That’s what the facts say. But, you may be one of those 1.5. So, that might be good enough… but, what about the risk of complications from getting the shot?
Yeah – 6 months of a chronic chest infection that felt like it nearly killed me has changed the risk assessment. More than halving the risk of infection is better than 50/50.
http://www.health.gov.au/internet/immunise/publishing.nsf/Content/immunise-influenza-qanda#side-effects
So from a bit of light hearted analysis of the Gelernter essay with the Lady in Red to the din of battle in the climate war – is but a step. If the affray is all there is – we shall take up arms reluctantly but with cold eyed determination. Me and my trusty steed Shibboleth. We shall ask and give no quarter. We occupy the high ground of science and technology and shall reign down humiliation and defeat on the enemy scrabbling to defend the indefensible. We shall take back the future of western civilisation for the ideals of the scientific enlightenment. We shall battle for a bright future for humanity.
Expect no mercy – no tolerance for fools – no retreat. In this new arena of the culture wars no compromise is possible – no treaty with the enemy feasible. It never was. All there is – is victory to be grasped and defended.
Winner takes all. So by all means let’s play.
The climate war will be won or lost on the mercurial rule of the thermometer this decade.
http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/5b9238d6-531c-4bdf-8428-0a8dc2ef4488_zpse867aa58.jpg.html?sort=3&o=0
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_December_2013_v5.6.png
I haven’t succeeded in generating an ARGO txt file – to compare to the MEI.
But I have sent of an email asking for help from the US Government.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/enso/mei/ts.gif
Comparing numerical values of the MEI with ARGO shows some intriguing connections.
Is it premature to declare – mission accomplished? Sure – this is all too much fun to quit yet – not boring at all.
I’m sorry to hear about your chest infection. Did it start with the flu?
@Generalissimo Skippy
“….. it is a culture war and one that will be decided in this decade by the iron rule of the thermometer.”
Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on your ‘team’) the ‘progressive left’ is in charge of the thermometers. Or, as another famous ‘progressive’ explained: “Those who vote decide nothing. Those who count the vote decide everything.”
The critical instruments are the satellites not he surface records. John Christy and Roy Spencer?
Damn the threading. That was a reply to Bob.
A renaissance man – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Gelernter – more admirable the more I learn.
And a martyr to the extremes of progressive violence.
I too found the essay to be remarkably perspicacious. Just the person for the times.
We must make the building of a free society once more an intellectual adventure, a deed of courage. What we lack is a liberal Utopia, a programme which seems neither a mere defence of things as they are nor a diluted kind of socialism, but a truly liberal radicalism which does not spare the susceptibilities of the mighty (including the trade unions), which is not too severely practical and which does not confine itself to what appears today as politically possible…Those who have concerned themselves exclusively with what seemed practicable in the existing state of opinion have constantly found that even this has rapidly become politically impossible as the result of changes in a public opinion which they have done nothing to guide. Unless we can make the philosophic foundations of a free society once more a living intellectual issue, and its implementation a task which challenges the ingenuity and imagination of our liveliest minds, the prospects of freedom are indeed dark. But if we can regain that belief in power of ideas which was the mark of liberalism at its best, the battle is not lost.
F.A. Hayek – Studies in Philosophy, Politics and Economics (1967)
“Unless we can make the philosophic foundations of a free society once more a living intellectual issue, and its implementation a task which challenges the ingenuity and imagination of our liveliest minds, the prospects of freedom are indeed dark.”
F.A. Hayek – Studies in Philosophy, Politics and Economics (1967)
___________
Let’s see, since 1967 I have lost lead freedom, asbestos freedom (maybe earlier), seat-belt freedom, and light bulb freedom. I don’t know how I have managed to go on living. HA HA !
Oh I almost forgot I also have lost the freedom to run up a big hospital bill for the public to pay if I can’t afford to pay it.
This Hayek guy sure knows how to exaggerate. I wouldn’t take him seriously.
There can be no doubt that some minimum of food, shelter, and clothing, sufficient to preserve health and the capacity to work, can be assured to everybody. … Nor is there any reason why the state should not assist the individual in providing for those common hazards of life against which, because of their uncertainty, few individuals can make adequate provision.
Where, as in the case of sickness and accident, neither the desire to avoid such calamities nor the efforts to overcome their consequences are as a rule weakened by the provision of assistance – where, in short, we deal with genuinely insurable risks – the case for the state’s helping to organize a comprehensive system of social insurance is very strong. There are many points of detail where those wishing to preserve the competitive system and those wishing to super-cede it by something different will disagree on the details of such schemes; and it is possible under the name of social insurance to introduce measures which tend to make competition more or less ineffective. But there is no incompatability in principle between the state’s providing greater security in this way and the preservation of individual freedom.
To the same category belongs also the increase of security through the state’s rendering assistance to the victims of such ‘acts of God’ as earthquakes and floods. Wherever communal action can mitigate disasters against which the individual can neither attempt to guard himself nor make provision for the consequences, such communal action should undoubtedly be taken.
There is, finally, the supremely important problem of combating general fluctuations of economic activity and the recurrent waves of large-scale unemployment which accompany them. This is, of course, one of the gravest and most pressing problems of our time. But, though its solution will require much planning in the good sense, it does not — or at least need not — require that special kind of planning which according to its advocates is to replace the market.
Many economists hope, indeed, that the ultimate remedy may be found in the field of monetary policy, which would involve nothing incompatible even with nineteenth-century liberalism. Others, it is true, believe that real success can be expected only from the skillful timing of public works undertaken on a very large scale. This might lead to much more serious restrictions of the competitive sphere, and, in experimenting in this direction, we shall have to carefully watch our step if we are to avoid making all economic activity progressively more dependent on the direction and volume of government expenditure. But this is neither the only nor, in my opinion, the most promising way of meeting the gravest threat to economic security.
In any case, the very necessary effort to secure protection against these fluctuations do not lead to the kind of planning which constitutes such a threat to our freedom.
—The Road to Serfdom, pp 148-49
In Hayek’s world a social contract is forged in the fires of democracy. This is easily flexible enough to incorporate a wide variety of government actions. Indeed some laws on worker safety, consumer rights, child labour, environmental regulation or simple road rules are essential to a rule of law that fulfills the most basic of requirements of law – the protection of the populace from powerful, unconscionable or simply reckless actors.
The economic controls are another matter – but are in fact mainstream in rationally run economies.
I suppose he will argue that this is not the system of government instituted by the founding fathers. Such a profound thinker that he is.. JC SNIP
From the article:
The Bakken is a world class play. This is due to its operators, as it has been developed faster and better than anyone could have imagined. Not only are wells producing better, but also from multiple intervals as the Three Forks’ four benches will produce significantly more resource than the middle Bakken. Using the month of September to compare their gross production, I have listed the operators in order by rank. I also included the number of operated rigs.
…
The above companies have excellent production numbers. Continental had Bakken production of 94500 Boe/d in 3Q13. This was 51% growth over Q312. Its 2013 Wahpeton density test is attempting 660 foot spacing. Continental has three 660 foot tests around the Nesson Anticline in 2014. Its Hawkinson density test has been a big success testing 1320 foot in zone spacing. Continental’s well costs have decreased from $9.2 million in 2012 to $8 million last year. It estimates 2014 well costs at $7.5 million. Continental’s average Bakken EURs are 603 MBoe. Hess’ net production forecast is 64 to 70 MBoe/d in 2013. Spud to spud days have decreased from 45 to 24 from 1Q11 to 3Q13. From 1Q12, drilling and completion costs have decreased from $13.4 million to $7.8 million. Hess’ average Bakken EUR is 625 MBoe. Whiting’s 3Q13 Bakken production was 92800 Boe/d. It is currently doing four middle Bakken and one Pronghorn Sands density test. All five are 8 wells pilots. Whiting’s new cemented liner completions have shown large improvements in IP rates. One of these wells were 97% better than the original offset well using the 60-day IP rate. EOG Resources was the first to develop a frac technology that concentrates on fractures closer to the well bore. This is driving better recoveries. In its Antelope and Core prospects, average 30-day IP rates are 50% better year over year. The industry well cost average for 2012 was $11.3 million. This decreased to $9.2 million in 1H13.
Bakken producers continue to see improvements in costs, initial production rates, and time. The key for 2014 may be differentials as production has caught up with infrastructure. I do believe the Bakken operators are setting up for a good year, but the refiners may benefit more.
…
New greenfield refinery projects are popping up in North Dakota, but only one would be considered medium sized.
…
These projects are great for North Dakota, keeping Bakken crude in the state. Most of these projects are years away, so we won’t see much in-state refining for years. For 2014, I have Bakken crude selling on average $13 less than WTI.
…
The initial influx of crude sent to the coasts provided relief to North Dakota operators. Now that production has increased and surpassed logistics, it will continue to weigh on realized Bakken prices. Another issue is U.S. refining capacity. U.S. and Canadian crude continues to replace foreign. In 2010, the U.S. imported approximately 7 million barrels of oil per day. That same year, the U.S. and Canada produced a little over 8 million barrels per day. In 2013 we imported approximately 5 million barrels per day and produced almost 11 million barrels per day. Over that time the U.S. economy improved significantly, and so has the consumption of refined products. The same can be said for abroad to a lesser extent. 2014 production will improve to over 12 million barrels per day. Below I have provided a table that breaks down Canadian and U.S. crude production today and in the future in millions of barrels per day.
…
Due to logistics, the Bakken will remain the cheapest light U.S. light crude for the foreseeable future. The U.S. refining sector is in what could be referred to as a renaissance. There will be many decades of production providing cheap feedstock, and the export ban guarantees lower prices.
…
http://seekingalpha.com/article/1928071-Bakken-Updates-2014-Bakken-Stock-Picks
From the article:
Dirtiest Coal’s Rebirth in Europe Flattens Medieval Towns
Save
Photographer: Bartek Sadowski/Bloomberg
Vladimir Burt, deputy mayor of Horni Jiretin, looks out from Jerezi Chateau over the open pit mining site for lignite… Read More
Photographer: Bartek Sadowski/Bloomberg
Mining machinery on lignite reserves, also known as brown coal, in the open pit mine operated by Czech Coal AS.
Photographer: Bartek Sadowski/Bloomberg
Jezeri Chateau on a hillside beyond lignite excavations.
Photographer: Bartek Sadowski/Bloomberg
Workers conduct maintenance on a giant excavation machine used to collect lignite in the open pit mine operated by Czech Coal AS.
Photographer: Bartek Sadowski/Bloomberg
Mining machinery excavates lignite, also known as brown coal, in the open pit mine operated by Czech Coal AS.
Photographer: Bartek Sadowski/Bloomberg
A playground in a town under threat from the expansion of nearby lignite mine excavations in Horni Jiretin, Czech Republic.
Photographer: Bartek Sadowski/Bloomberg
Conveyors used to transport lignite, also known as brown coal, in the open pit mine.
Slide 1
Slide 2
Slide 3
Slide 4
Slide 5
Slide 6
Slide 7
Europe’s appetite for cheaper electricity is reviving mines that produce the dirtiest type of coal, threatening to boost pollution and raze villages that have survived since medieval times.
Across the continent’s mining belt, from Germany to Poland and the Czech Republic, utilities such as Vattenfall AB, CEZ AS and PGE SA are expanding open-pit mines that produce lignite. The moist, brown form of the fossil fuel packs less energy and more carbon than more frequently burned hard coal.
…
“It’s absurd,” said Petra Roesch, mayor of Proschim, a 700-year-old village southeast of Berlin that would be uprooted by Vattenfall’s mine expansion. “Germany wants to transition toward renewable energy, and we’re being deprived of our land.”
Lignite demand worldwide is forecast to rise as much as 5.4 percent by 2020, according to the International Energy Agency. At the same time, it estimates consumption must fall 10 percent over that period to achieve goals endorsed by EU and world leaders to hold global warming to 2 degrees Celsius by the end of this century.
Mining machines the size of skyscrapers stand just to the north of Proschim ready to swallow up the town of 330 residents near the German border with Poland. Vattenfall, which is owned by the Swedish government, is seeking approval to knock down buildings in the town to expand its Welzow-Sued lignite mine.
…
Geologically younger than hard coal, lignite is mostly found near the surface of the Earth, making open-pit mines the most economical way to extract it. Lignite use fell 40 percent from 1990 to 2010 as governments across the former Soviet bloc nations closed aging industrial plants.
Now, Poland, which gets almost 90 percent of its electricity from coal, is stepping up use of the fuel as a way of ensuring energy security and maintaining employment in some of the nation’s poorest regions.
Lignite power production rose 3.7 percent last year in Poland, while output from hard coal plants fell 7 percent, according to PGE, the state utility. In late 2011, it started a 858-megawatt unit at its Belchatow plant, Europe’s largest thermal power generation facility. The company’s strategy from 2012 assumed long-term reliance on lignite due to its low costs and the prospect of building new mines.
In the Czech Republic, Severni Energeticka AS is seeking to expand its mine past limits imposed in 1991, two years after the collapse of communism.
…
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-01-06/dirtiest-coal-s-rebirth-in-europe-flattens-medieval-towns.html
Chief – thanks. Bart R probably uses another source; the eia numbers don’t match Bart’s.
Curious George | January 5, 2014 at 5:38 pm |
Not all parts of the EIA listen to all other parts, and reading EIA reports itself is more art than science. Plus, the EIA isn’t the only, nor even most reliable, source for projections. While I take into account what the EIA says, I don’t pretend to be an expert, and I don’t pretend going to a single government website makes me a chief expert in a dozen fields.
That would be self-aggrandizing egoism.
What I do is place my faith in the Market, and in the inevitable power of Capitalism to deliver benefits better than any other economic system; with what appears to be a renewed commitment by governments to Capitalism over corporatism or socialism is where I believe these gains for buyers and prosperity for sellers will come.
So if you don’t believe in Capitalism, feel free to have a different expectation.
Curious George | January 5, 2014 at 3:49 pm |
Missing the point. Great that you care to check on the numbers, but do you want to be more specific about your concern beyond ‘link, please’?
http://www.synapse-energy.com/Downloads/SynapsePaper.2008-07.0.Coal-Plant-Construction-Costs.A0021.pdf discussed the huge price difference between expected and experienced coal facility construction costs in the decade leading to 2007. Things for all fossil fuels have only gotten worse than even the dire estimates they made five years ago, and should be expected to get worse still, all the braying about horizontal drilling advances notwithstanding. We know this, because we know tarsand oil is far more expensive to produce than conventional oil, and yet still sought, meaning producers know they can raise their prices without fear of negative market response. Because coal is only getting more expensive relative to oil, and coal is getting no cheaper to dig up or transport, but rather must be dug more and more deeply for and further from market with every ton shipped.
When has anyone ever trusted government estimates of future prices, and made money on that reliance? http://www.a-carbon.com/eia-gas-and-coal-remain-competitive-through-2040 suggests gas will remain competitive for the next quarter century, and it’s difficult to dispute, though historically gas has been the most extremely unstable commodity one could name, and only a fool relies on projections for gas either way; it likewise gives aid and comfort to coal, though it reliably concludes coal must fall to under 25% of the total energy mix of stationary power in that same quarter century. That’s not a projection of growth, by any means, but of a failing commodity in its death throes.
Three years ago, Forbes predicted http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexknapp/2011/04/06/the-cost-of-solar-power-is-expected-to-decline-50-over-the-next-decade/. Last year even the government expected solar to cost 75% less in 2020 than it did in 2012; that’s the official view of the Obama administration, and they’ve already been shown to be too conservative by market events. The price of solar this year is 20% below the price of solar last year, with the introduction of new concentrated solar photovoltaic technology that’s been in the development pipeline for half a decade. If you’re paying attention to the technology development pipeline, not the bitumen pipeline, you’re going to be able to better understand the future shape of stationary energy.
That said, http://thebreakthrough.org/index.php/programs/energy-and-climate/how-fast-are-the-costs-of-solar-really-coming-down/ makes excellent points any skeptic ought follow up on before expressing faith in future predictions of lower solar costs.
And http://www.cogenra.com/ answers them all, and more; and it is just one small piece of the power puzzle. Wind is likely to remain a larger piece; tidal, geothermal, and most especially small scale pumpable hydro will be the real game-changers, and those are provable baseline power options kept out of the market only by systemic coal arbitrage, a gimmicky tactic by the fossil industry to obstruct fair competition by building artificial barriers to entry in concert with misinforming the large customers for power of what options they really have.
Bart – thanks. When you talk about coal plants, please say so, instead of labeling them “fossil” – I find it a little misleading. Your promises for 2020 ring hollow to me; here in California the price of a kilowatt-hour is going through the roof, because of a “renewable energy” mandate. Or ask the good people of Denmark.
Are you a marketing type? Your cogenra link seems to be a pure hype. Not a word about how much I’ll have to pay for a kWh they produce – and the utilities will be forced to buy. Add a cost of energy storage for these intermittent power sources – an unsolved problem – and your picture (still unsupported by solid references) changes dramatically.
I’m certainly missing your point. I don’t even know what point you have.
Curious George | January 6, 2014 at 12:42 pm |
The price of kWh in California is going through the roof because of three decades of mismanagement, and nothing could avert that outcome, considering the truly awful state of California’s infrastructure governance.
Painting renewable energy with the blame is like blaming penicillin for VD.
And what the heck is your second paragraph going on about? If you don’t want cogenra solar, don’t buy. It’s a private company that sells solar at a base 20% less than last year’s price because of a technological improvement that its competitors will be improving on by another 20% in the coming year, and theirs will improve on by the same amount the year after, and so on for at least a decade based on developments in the technology pipeline. If you have a burr under your saddle about the price you pay for energy, then blame your fellow voters and the way they’ve voted for the past quarter century or more.
Your claims about energy storage for intermittent fail to understand the contribution of on-demand baseline and large grid coverage, and vastly overstate the ‘unsolvedness’ of the problem.
Did you include the on-demand baseline costs?
Regarding Cogenra, you did not give me their price per kWh. I don’t have an option not to buy – the law forces me to buy. I don’t know all details of Cogenra’s technology, but they have excellent lobbyists. I believe I mentioned the word “mandate”.
You are confused again, barty. The cost of energy in CA is going up because of silly green energy mandates and cap and trade foolishness. Same folly that is happening in other places where hysterical greenies are in charge:
http://abcnews.go.com/International/electricity-luxury-good/story?id=20158621&singlePage=true
Here is the bottom line, form the above link:
“For society as a whole, the costs have reached levels comparable only to the euro-zone bailouts. This year, German consumers will be forced to pay €20 billion ($26 billion) for electricity from solar, wind and biogas plants — electricity with a market price of just over €3 billion. Even the figure of €20 billion is disputable if you include all the unintended costs and collateral damage associated with the project. Solar panels and wind turbines at times generate huge amounts of electricity, and sometimes none at all. Depending on the weather and the time of day, the country can face absurd states of energy surplus or deficit.”
Isn’t it paradoxical that Germany has the strongest economy in Europe while it has spent most in inefficient investments in renewable energy, but then Germany has spent also very much in giving loans to countries that may be unable to pay back much of those loans. Private consumption has been so low relative to production that Germans have had to find markets abroad financing the purchases and by creating demand by supporting nonproductive investments.
That has worked well for many years, but where does that lead in long term? The worst that can happen with the loans is that they will not be paid back. In case of solar panels the transfer of funds from electricity consumers to the owners of those panels will go on for many years to come, but for the society as whole the costs have sunken at the time of investment.
Presently a German consumer is paying more as renewable energy surcharge than the average market price of energy in the wholesale electricity exchange is. Many businesses have been freed from these payments rising the cost for those who must pay. The surcharge is expected to exceed 6 eurocent/kWh, while the market prices have typically been around 5 cent/kWh or less. The income of the power companies has gone down to the extent that new support schemes are planned to help maintaining the reliability of the power system. One support scheme is used to create more and more need for another.
Don Monfort | January 7, 2014 at 11:53 am |
Right. Because the cost of coal and oil are going down in the world of your argument due to there being more and more of them closer and closer to markets by magic, and the volatility of the price of natural gas isn’t a historic fact in the world your case relies on; because the cost of construction of coal, oil and natural gas facilities in your argument can be assumed to be heading steadily down instead of quadrupling over the past decade; because your worldview doesn’t acknowledge how Moore’s Law applies to electronic components like photovoltaic cells or economies of scale favor renewables with every doubling of units shipped; because your world view doesn’t trust or believe in the merits of competition in a fair market and a level playing field with obstacles to entry removed, but prefers to play some sort of blame the lefties politics while its government backed corporate sellers pickpocket consumers; because what you’re saying is that California’s government has been a model of efficiency and good sense right up to the time it suddenly out of nowhere decided to ‘go green’, and everything in California’s electricity sector was a model of good management?
@Bart R: You don’t provide support for your opinions; you falsely suggest that others said “California’s government has been a model of efficiency”. A communication became impossible.
Curious George | January 7, 2014 at 2:03 pm |
To clarify, I was demonstrating by argumentum ad absurdum that for what others claim to be true, California’s government must have been a model of efficiency that just suddenly went nuts for renewables.
This is a routine and commonplace technique of communicating ideas.
You may wish to familiarize yourself with the elements of communication before you call it impossible.
Moore’s worldview doesn’t acknowledge it either.
Mi Cro | January 7, 2014 at 2:41 pm |
*yawn*
http://cleantechnica.com/2013/03/14/wrights-law-moores-law-best-predict-technology-progress/
The best-known of the formulas is Moore’s Law, originally formulated by Intel co-founder Gordon Moore in 1965 to describe the rate of improvement in the power of computer chips. That law, which predicts that the number of components in integrated circuit chips will double every 18 months, has since been generalized as a principle that can be applied to any technology; in its general form, it simply states that rates of improvement will increase exponentially over time. The actual rate of improvement — the exponent in the equation — varies depending on the technology.
Try to keep up with changes in the world of technology since 1965.
scientific law
Web definitions
A scientific law is a statement based on repeated experimental observations that describes some aspect of the world. A scientific law always applies under the same conditions, and implies that there is a causal relationship involving its elements. …
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_Law
I can’t help it that some people are stupid.
Curious George | January 6, 2014 at 12:42 pm |
If it were only true of coal, I’d only talk about coal. As it is, fossil oil is rapidly disappearing from the stationary energy market as unsupportable folly, and this heralds the direction of all fossil.
Natural gas is enjoying a bit of a bump from the temporary state of new access by changes to rules allowing technology developed over three generations ago to be put into production; that bump cannot long last and natural gas is historically the most price-volatile fossil commodity and practically the most price volatile commodity period. Tulip prices are historically more stable than natural gas.
The argument splits into several parts, all of which do not favor fossil:
1. The price of recovery from the ground will only go up from here; we’re at the nadir of regulation of methods for extraction, there have been no measurable advances in extraction technology in six decades or more that could result in a price drop, and it takes four decades at least for the industry to move a new method from the drawing board to production.
2. The price of shipping to market will only go up from here: we’re coming upon a glut that will bottleneck both rail and pipeline, having built out so much pipeline and putting so much more oil and coal on rails in the past two decades as to leave both bursting at the seams and with limited capacity to expand, and all facing immense hurdles over the social costs they impose, and this is a worldwide phenomenon almost noplace is immune to.
3. The price of the product itself is receiving less and less subsidy and generating less and less leverage from government favors and historical oddities and arrangements that let the suppliers off the hook for the costs they are responsible for, and this is independent of any CO2 climate case but more and more to do with how neighbors in an increasingly crowded world regard particulates and noisome emissions, hazards and spills, and trespass on their own livelihoods.
It’s all eggs in the fossil basket, and these are disadvantages the renewable baskets are much less exposed to, on the whole.
Bart – extremely interesting. Could you please provide a link to estimates of a cost of solar vs fossil installations?
Whatever I do, my reply does not appear as a reply to Bart R @12:11 pm.
Bart R | January 5, 2014 at 12:11 pm | Reply
“The expected lifetime cost of a new solar installation today is lower than the expected lifetime cost of a new fossil installation today, for electricity generation stations with 50 year lifespans, in almost all cases, without counting the cost of diminishing the resource wealth of nations, pollution or AGW. Why pretend it’s otherwise?”
So invest in it. But use your own money. That’s how free markets work.
In the twitter link about climatists getting locked in Antarctic ice, Yves Frenot says, ‘This kind of commemorative expedition has no interest from a scientific point of view.’ That is a bit disingenuous: from the beginning, global warming alarmism has been a house of cards built on arm-waving propaganda, phony symbolism and false analogies.
Chief Hydrologist | January 4, 2014 at 12:24 am |
“Can for instance the Lockheed Martin skunk works or Lawrencevile Plasma Physics succeed in sustained fusion for instance? It would make everything else obsolete.”
I’m getting a little tired of my country carrying the water for the rest of the earth. Get your own Lockheed and Lawrence Livermore. For God’s sake man take control of your own destiny and cease the embarrassing free ride on American coat tails.
Peter,
Just for a moment say that this technology which is producing ethanol and diesel today competitive with fossil fuel @ $100/bbl limited pretty much only by low cost availability of CO2 at high concentration. Eventually I reckon the same synthetic biology technology will produce a prokaryote powered by the sun whose sole purpose in life is to concentrate CO2 in the brakish water used to grow the ethanol and diesel producers. This technology is progressing rapidly with no end in sight and new stuff doesn’t need 10 years of paperwork to get into a production environment. It’s a farm not a controlled nuclear detonation. Big difference. In the twenty years (at least) it would take to prove out portable nuclear power plants as safe synthetic biology will have made them obsolete. Sunlight, non-potable water, and non-arable land are not in short supply. There is so much clean energy freely available in sunlight it’s ridiculous. Cost-effective means of harvesting and storing the energy in sunlight is demonstrated by nature. We can and are tailoring the photosynthetic technology produced by nature or nature’s God that has been around for billions of years in the oceans in microscopic photosynthetic bacteria (cyanobacteria) commonly called blue-green algae. They thrive in saltwater and need just nutrients and sunlight in the water. Joule Unlimited has genetically engineered naturally occurring strains of cyanobacteria which excrete ethanol, diesel, and several other hydrocarbons of interest. The exact molecule they excrete is controlled by artificial insertion of a gene sequence for it.
These organisms aren’t killed to harvest the hydrocarbon fuels. They directly excrete it from pores in the cell wall while living. However, in order to control the process, Joule engineered these to have a three week production life then are replaced. I’d guess it’s because speed of genetic drift in bacteria means you have to keep the genome matched to the original that was designed in the laboratory and/or they want to sell the seeds and do something like franchise the farms which can be conveniently located today near sources of municipal waste water and CO2 emissions. Municipal waste is high in nutrients green plants need and saves money on fertilizer. Concentrating CO2 to bubble through the bioreactor is most easily accomplished near a heavy CO2 emitter. Fossil fuel electrical plants for CO2 source around cities with plenty of wastewater discharge in regions with lots of sunlight are perfect. It instantly makes fossil fuel used to generate electricity carbon-neutral wherever deployed because the carbon is captured and turned into fuels for the proverbial planes, trains, and automobiles using sunlight to replace the chemical bond energy. No muss, no fuss, here now, rapidly improving, and almost zero regulatory burdens or waiting periods – they’re farms not nuclear power plants. I’m pretty convinced it’s no-contest and only a matter of time before fossil fuels are replaced by nearly identical synthetic fuels where sunlight is the energy source used to reassemble the hydrocarbon molecules from water and air.
At least watch the video here:
I am interested. But I’v e seen a very large number of such schemes advocated in the past and when looked into their major physical constraints that seem to preclude their viablity for meeting more than a small component of demand. I’ve asked you questions before and you dodged them and replied abuse and derision instead, so I suspect you haven’t looked critically at it. Simply reading the proponents literature and looking a their videos is not looking critically at it.
On the other hand, nuclear fuel is effectively unlimited nuclear energy is economically competitive with fossil fuels in many of the large CO2 emitting CO2 countries, and it is the safest way to generate electricity. The costs can come down a lot further and with small reactors (now under development and starting to go through the US NRC licencing process) it can be viable for many more countries than the large GW size plants are suited for.
The issue with nuclear power is public perceptions of risks, not physical constraints as it is with renewables and technologies like you are advocating. Therefore, the the issues preventing the world having cost competitive nuclear power can be overcome.
Since the negative perceptions of the safety of nuclear power are demonstrably wrong, these perceptions can be changed.
The best and fastest way forward would be for rational, clear-thinking people who are concerned about GHG emissions, limits to fossil fuel reserves, public health and safety, black carbon and toxic pollution from fossil fuel power stations, and cheaper energy for all peoples of the world to do the research and then strongly advocate for a move to nuclear power and other energy sources that are fit for purpose and have a realistic probability of being economically viable in the near term.
http://www.chemicals-technology.com/projects/joule-sunsprings-biofuel-plant-new-mexico/
Joule’s SunSprings Biofuel Demonstration Plant, New Mexico, United States of America
Joule Unlimited, a company based in Massachusetts, US, commissioned its first SunSprings Demonstration Plant located at Hobbs in Lea County, New Mexico, in September 2012. The company secured the site for the renewable and sustainable fuels production plant in May 2011 and started construction works in early 2012.
The demonstration plant was constructed owing to the growing ethanol market, which was valued at $64bn in 2012. The market value is expected to increase to $120bn by 2020. The use of ethanol is expected to grow to 3.4 million barrels per day in 2020, from the current 1.5 million barrels per day.
The engineering, procurement and construction management (EPCM) contract for the plant was awarded to Fluor in 2011. Pettigrew & Associates acted as the site civil engineer, providing turnkey design and construction engineering services. The project has created 20 jobs to date.
Background to Joule Unlimited’s biofuel plant
“The demonstration plant was constructed owing to the growing ethanol market, which was valued at $64bn in 2012.”
Joule divulged its proprietary Helioculture technology in July 2009. Helioculture involves the catalysis of captured sunlight and carbon dioxide (CO2) using photosynthetic organisms to convert them into its proprietary SolarFuel liquid energy.
The company further announced its capability of converting CO2 into hydrocarbons using microbial organisms, powered by solar energy, later that year.
The company signed a lease of agreement for 1,200 acres of land in Lea County in 2011, with an option to increase it to 5,000 acres to carry out its operations.
SunSprings Demonstration Plant details
The demonstration plant at Hobbs currently covers an area of about 80 acres. The plant will utilise about four acres for active production of Sunflow-E.
The facilities at the demonstration plant include an active production area comprising of rows of circulation units, a central plant to accommodate the fuels for final separation, a tank farm to store the final product, water and CO2, evaporation ponds meant for disposal and site buildings.
The feedstock for the plant includes sunlight, brackish water from aquifers, waste CO2 from industrial flue gas streams and the company’s proprietary microorganisms.
Process technology at the New Mexico facility
The process technology involves the use of the company’s proprietary Helioculture platform. The technology is facilitated by Joule’s patented SolarConverter system, which makes use of interconnected circulation modules in the form of thin and standard capsules filled with its proprietary microorganisms, non-potable water and micronutrients.
“The use of ethanol is expected to grow to 3.4 million barrels per day in 2020, from the current 1.5 million barrels per day.”
Each module is fed with waste CO2 sourced from the local industrial flue gas streams. The microorganisms are kept in motion to enable them receive maximum exposure to sunlight, driving photosynthesis.
The microorganisms charged by sunlight absorb the CO2 and produce fuel molecules which are transferred to the medium on a continuous basis. The medium circulates through a separator extracting the end product, which is finally sent to the central plant for separation.
The process consumes up to eight weeks of time, after which the modules are flushed and cleaned on a rotational basis.
Marketing commentary for Joule
Joule was founded in 2007 by Flagship VentureLabs. It is privately held and headquartered in Cambridge, Massachusetts, with operations at Leander in Texas, Hobbs in New Mexico and The Hague in Netherlands. It plans to begin construction of a number of commercial plants in 2014 at multiple locations worldwide for the production of Sunflow-E.
The company announced its capability of converting waste CO2 into essential components of gasoline (Sunflow-G) and jet fuel (Sunflow-J) in April 2013.
It now plans to commercialise its products Sunflow-E (Ethanol) in 2015, followed by Sunflow-D (Diesel), for the global market. It will initially produce 10,000 gallons of Sunflow-E per acre on an annual basis when it starts commercial production in 2015, and further increase it to 25,000 gallons per acre per annum.
Joule signed a strategic partnership with Audi to further enhance the commercialisation of its sustainable Sunflow-E and Sunflow-D transportation fuels, in September 2012.
“Some of the key points I’ve been attempting to make in comments on previous threads regarding pragmatic approaches, technologies and polices to reduce global GHG emissions over coming decades are summarised below.”
Nuclear power is pragmatic, if people were not idiots.
Reality would force the issue, despite the idiots.
And time will kill the idiots- the hysteria is mostly baby boomer
thing.
But reality will force the issue, anytime soon. Because we simply
have a lot of fossil fuel which available.
The world is going to frack, and so we have lots of natural gas
and oil. And US will exceed it’s 1970ish peak production.
So reality will not force the idiots to change before the idiots die
from old age.
Though medical science extend their lives by a few decades,
if ObamaCare doesn’t grind innovation to stop.
And therefore if given few decades, the nuclear is pragmatic
argue, could lessen by other technologies become more pragmatic.
So solar and wind, are not going to become pragmatic, or improving costs
solar panels and/or wind generator, can not make them pragmatic- the nature of wind and sunlight make them not practical. Energy storage or something else, could have some effect, but it’s very realistic.
But the options are not just these solar and wind scams, there are other ways to get cheap energy.
I’m getting a little tired of my country carrying the water for the rest of the earth. Get your own Lockheed and Lawrence Livermore. For God’s sake man take control of your own destiny and cease the embarrassing free ride on American coat tails.
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/balance-of-trade
Distinctly odd attitude for an America resolutely unable to pay it’s way in the world.
‘The United States has been running consistent trade deficits since 1980 due to high imports of oil and consumer products. In recent years, the biggest trade deficits were recorded with China, Japan, Germany, Mexico and Saudi Arabia. United States records trade surpluses with Hong Kong, Australia, Netherlands and Belgium.’
‘The United States is Australia’s fifth largest merchandise export market and our most important market for services. It is Australia’s largest import source for services and second largest import source for merchandise. The United States is the largest investor in Australia. Australia is the ninth largest provider of foreign direct investment (FDI) in the United States.The United States is one of the top five source countries for visitors to Australia in terms of numbers and expenditure.’
http://www.dfat.gov.au/geo/us/trade_investment.html
It is difficult to underestimate the ability of Jabberwock to be overwhelmingly silly.
@Peter Lang
Critical? I’ve been following advances in nuclear technology and biotechnology both for many decades. One is moribund and the other isn’t. See if you can figure out which is which dummy. I swear to Christ there must be something in the air that makes Australians stupid.
So what? So have all the anti-nuke activists and protesters. It means nothing if you can’t differentiate BS from facts and rational analysis.
That’s just a statement of your beliefs. It’s a stupid statement.
WNA Newsletter, January 3, says:
Moribund is a liquid fluoride (molten salt) thorium reactor that was built and tested and operated for a decade in the US in the 1960’s being touted as a flagship enterprise for the new nuclear power world order cheerleader while being no closer to economic reality now than it was in 1970 when Oak Ridge National Laboratory put the first and only working LFTR reactor in mothballs.
Not moribund is third generation biofuel (produced with non-potable water on non-arable land) reaching the market just a few years beyond first generation corn ethanol.
Moribund is a couple papers talking about the possibility of using a reactor on a nuclear powered warship to produce jet fuel at sea for its aircraft at a price competitive with fuel delivered in and through hostile waters by tanker ship.
You’re a cheerleader for a moribund technology, Lang. Every word you write about it is a tedious waste of time.
Interested readers who can handle the truth look here:
http://vitalsigns.worldwatch.org/vs-trend/global-nuclear-generation-capacity-falls
As one can see in the graph produced by the International Atomic Energy Agency global nuclear generating capacity increased like a rocket between 1970 and 1990. It was initiated mostly by the oil embargo in the early 1970’s and skyrocketing gasoline price. Then a cooling off period set in to see how it held up. It became moribund in 1990 and has not shook off the funk since then. It’s simply too expensive, too dangerous, to fraught with baggage like nuclear weapons proliferation and spent fuel sequestration that no one wants in their back yard, and in general just too economically unworkable except in special circumstances such as powering warships so they can stay at sea without refueling indefinitely. Cheerleaders like Lang just won’t acknowledge the facts on the ground surrounding the nuclear power saga.
Gullible! the fact you keep repeating the proponents spin and avoid answering the relevant questions, shows you can’t think for yourself.
David Springer +1000. Let me add that not moribund (yet) is cellulose ethanol produced from agricultural products which are, at present, truly simply wasted.
us beliefs in climate are politically polarized.
1 Democrats generally believe in climate change;
2 Republicans generally don’t;
3 The undistributed middle are as fickle as the weather
People-who-are-neither-Democrats-nor-Republicans are massively more likely to believe in climate change if today is hotter than yesterday.
http://theweek.com/article/index/254569/belief-in-climate-change-depends-on-the-weather
Obviously a constraint on central limit assumptions.
Will congress balance consumer interests?
Producers Panic as Ethanol Mandate Loses Support
Producers Panic as Ethanol Mandate Loses Support
Judith –
Just another example of the poltical nature of much climate ‘skepticism’.
Really – it’s absurd.
What kind of a proponent of “skepticism” links climate change and multiculturalism? What kind of a proponent of “skepticism” thinks that students are being taught that men and women are “interchangeable,” or that, say, Somalia and Finland are “equally good.”
It’s hilarious that such “skeptics” are so confused about the difference between honest-to-god skepticism and such nonsense. “Mind-boggling” hilarious.
What kind of desperate clown links catastrophic warming “skepticism” to BIG tobacco, BIG oil and Christian beliefs?
The US right in particular seem to have become particularly good at imagining up stories that outrage them as a form of entertainment.
While in reality the idea that students have been “taught since kindergarten that you are not permitted to question the line that men and women are interchangeable” is ludicrous, many will happily believe it as it presents a simple-to-absorb cartoon picture of reality that simultaneously comforts and outrages them.
A recent example of such would be the made up stories that a certain Antarctic expedition had gone there to prove the ice had melted. False, but nice and simple as a tale, comfortably reinforcing their beliefs and not to be ruined by facts.
Joshua, evidently Camille Paglia believes that children are being taught that men and women are interchangeable:
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303997604579240022857012920
Not exactly a right winger is Camille.
Joseph asks, ” Or some skeptic could do a scientific study [on (C)AGW]. Why haven’t they?? ” [sic]. It is not possible to disprove an hypothesis for which no empirical evidence has ever been provided.
Also from Joseph, ” blah, blah, blah………….”. How edifying.
The “skeptics” are wrong to say that the IPCC case is built on just models. They also can look at nearly 60 years of CO2 and global temperatures and see this.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/mean:12/from:1955/plot/hadcrut4gl/mean:12/from:1955/plot/esrl-co2/scale:0.01/mean:1/offset:-3.3
60 years is significant because it cancels out the PDO/stadium wave period, so we only see longer term continuous trends here. Some skeptics say they think the last 17 years disproves the connection to CO2. I kind of see it if I look hard, but then I look at the whole period and the last 17 years fits right in. These lines are scaled to be parallel for 1 C per 100 ppm CO2, which is a transient sensitivity near 2.5 C per doubling. People asserting lower sensitivities would not see their line fitting so well and would have to explain a 60-year discrepancy in the trend. Its just the data in this case that disproves 90% of skepticism.
Funny that you plotted the graphs for temps starting in 1955 while the CO2 data begins in 1958.
And when I eyeball the graph reconfigured with similar starting dates, I see over 10 years at the start with no rise in temps, and no rise in the last 17 years as well. Which, when I do my “non-climate science adjusted” math, comes out to 27 years of no rise in temps out of the 55 years graphed.
Correlation doesn’t prove causation, but that graph doesn’t even show correlation.
Except that data doesn’t actually represent the measurements. The measurements disprove AGW, it’s just no one ever looks at them.
JimD
Or you can look at 450 years of data and see this;
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/08/the-curious-case-of-rising-co2-and-falling-temperatures/
Last year the UK anomaly returned to temperatures seen in the 1730’s
A blip? A long term trend?
tonyb
No lags? I guess the ocean’s do not have much heat capacity then?
The denial is strong in these people who don’t see that a 2.4 C per doubling actually fits quite well over the period when we have good CO2 measurements. You have to at least say 1 C per 100 ppm fits well even if you deny causality.
jimd
this 1degree C per 100ppm shows up where exactly?
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/
The 1990’s were 0.3C above the 1730 decade according to Phil Jones. We have now seen a decline back to those levels when co2 was 280ppm. Why?
tonyb
climatereason, it shows up in the last 60 years when we have 0.8 C for 80 ppm. It is quite clear in the graph I showed.
jimd
but it doesn’t show up in 400 years of data. Natural cycles longer than 60 years?
tonyb
You also have to remember that this period includes 70% of the CO2 increase, so it is where the signal would be expected to stand out most. It is harder to extract the pre-1950 signal when the emission rate was less than a quarter of that in this period. You could look for subtle background trends pre-1950, but I think that is a waste of time when the more recent signal is so obvious.
Jim D, here, fixed it for you.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/mean:12/from:1958/plot/hadcrut4gl/mean:12/from:1958/plot/esrl-co2/scale:0.01/mean:1/offset:-3.1
Guess you started the temps early because that fit your agenda better.
ksd, you don’t change the trends by displacing the curves. It is still 1 C per 100 ppm.
Jimd
We have been warmer tha n today and colder than today at around 280 ppm. Where is the 1 degree C per 100 ppm signal in that?
Tonyb
Tonyb, and the daily variation at my house is 20 C. Doesn’t this just dwarf climate change? You can’t compare point obs with global averages, any more than a daily trend with an annual-averaged one.
Jimd
So the most detailed and long lived records in the world are to be disqualified as they don’t reflect the temperature trends that result from a well mixed gas? Is that a correct summation?
Tonyb
Annual averages from one place do not make a global proxy, any more than a daily temperature makes an annual proxy. You can look at individual US states and their annual temperatures and the range is 3 C throughout the last century and the warmest years are not all at the end, the way they are with global temperature. From those regional temperatures do we conclude that climate change is not happening?
Jim,
For annual data one local temperature has practically no value as indicator of global average, for decadal data it starts to be meaningful (r2=0.75 for the correlation between CET and HadCRUT4). That’s far from perfect, but clearly meaningful as the covariation is three times stronger than the independent variation. For periods of a few decades the correlation is probably even better, but there’s so little data that it’s not really possible to test whether that’s true.
There are certainly regional differences, but over periods long enough one location like CET behaves similarly with global average. In addition to the correlation it must be taken into account that the the regression coefficient tells that CET varies more than HadCRUT4 by a factor of 1.33. Thus the signal from CET should be reduced 25% to get the best proxy for GAST (as given by HadCRUT4).
Pekka, I agree with this and have said in the past you can get value out of a 50 or 60 year running average of a local temperature like CET. In fact, from that you see this last century has unprecedented warming in CET. You have to be a little cautious because global warming isn’t uniform and some locations are warming faster than others, especially as you go north or more inland, so it still can’t be taken as a global proxy for that reason.
Jimd
Unprecedented? The greatest warming according to Phil jones and numerous other commentators is the few decades leading up to 1730
http://judithcurry.com/2013/06/26/noticeable-climate-change/
The anomaly is now0 .3c. Most of the gain has been lost. If co2 is having an effect it’s difficult to see when looking at the long record.
Tonyb
Jim,
The r2 value tells that the correlation fairly good. There may be some positive bias in that from the limited areal coverage of the early part of HadCRUT4. It’s also unknown whether the correlation improves much with longer averages than decadal. It’s fully possible that some longer term variability has local origins, but that’s not very likely over the periods considered.
England may also be better correlated with GAST than many other places being influnced so strongly by Atlantic.
Tonyb, as I mentioned above, 70% of the CO2 effect should be in the last 60 years, so that is the place to look, and sure enough there it is in the global record. Locally CET seems to have had some cooling, but clearly that is not as global as you seem to think because 2013 was the 4th warmest year even according to the UAH skeptics.
The funny thing Jim, it isn’t in the measurements, it’s only in the model of GAT that was developed by various groups using the same methodology.
Tony,
You really must hide all short term variability if you wish to use CET as proxy for global changes. You must also remember all potential systematic errors in CET.
Pekka, the correlation is good for general trends, but Tonyb seems to believe the dip at the end which is not in the global record, but that is why the 10-year average correlation is only 0.75 and every dip should not be believed as global.
I have commented several times to Tony that any difference between CET and HadCRUT4 during the overlapping period tells only on the limitations of CET as proxy. Even mentioning the dip of CET when global temperatures are discussed is a serious error, unless the same dip is in the global data.
Jimd and Pekka
It is you two who keep referring to cet as a proxy for global temperatures. I have not said this. It is a reasonable proxy for northern hemispheres . The temperature now with cet is much the same as it was in the 1990’s. This matches the 15 year or so long pause seen in the hadcrut and giss data sets. As Phil jones remarks, who like the met office hubert lamb and de bilt, see the merit of cet as a proxy as described, it is now at much the same sort of anomaly as in the period leading up to the 1730’s.
As you rightly say a local proxy can depart from the norm, as it did in the early 2000’s, but sooner or later after a long enough period it will match the wider trend.
Tonyb
Tonyb, so you have to be careful about interpreting what happened in 1730 without any other global support. It could have been a local change in the Atlantic circulation for example, and it can just fool people if due caution is not taken about carrying local data too far. Find a similar trend in China, and you might be talking about something.
Huh, CET isn’t a good temperature proxy for the globe but Mauna Lea is a good CO2 proxy for the globe. Go figure.
By the way, I thought the relationship between CO2 and temperature was logarithmic, not linear. So how does one get 1C per 100 ppm?
Of course that relationship is only if all other things are equal, which they obviously are not.
It’s Mauna Loa, not uni-Loa. It’s confirmed by several other sites.
How many? Where are they? How well spread?
JimD
The 1730’s are a well known period of warmth on a hemispheric and global basis, the warmest until the 1990’s which of course never managed to get much warmer. A fractional temperature increase in nearly 300 years despite a dramatic increase in co2. Bear in mind the 1730’s were by no means the warmest period over the past 1000 years, there were others somewhat warmer
.”.. the 1961–1990 reference period. Moberg and Bergstr¨om (1997) were worried by the apparent lack of a very cold 1740 in this record as this might imply some lack of homogeneity in the pre-1741 data. They note that the same pattern of a mild 1730s and cooler 1740s evident in CET and De Bilt is clearly apparent at Uppsala. At all three sites the 1730s is the mildest decade in the record until the 1990s.”
jones and briffa
—– —–
“In their summary in Chapter 33 of their book ‘Climatic variations over the last 500 years’ P D Jones and R S Bradley in talking of regional evidence for Europe note; ‘from the evidence presented –in the book- the climate since 1500 has varied between extremely warm and extremely cool decades.
’…from warm temperatures during some decades of the early 16th century conditions began to gradually cool during the second half of the century. ‘Only a few short cool episodes lasting sometimes up to 30 years appear to have been synchronous on the hemispheric and global scale. These are the decades of the 1590-1610’, the 1690-1710’s, the 1800-1810’s and the 1880’s to 1900. Synchronous warm periods are less evident
although the 1650’s, 1730’s, 1820’s, the 1930’s and 1940’s appear to be the most important.’
tonyb
ksd, linear works pretty well for calculating the sensitivity which is 2.4 C per doubling. You can see how linear it is from the graph. The next 100 ppm would have 20% less temperature effect, but will also be added several times faster, which is why both lines are going to be accelerating.
tonyb, why are they only looking for a cold decade in NW European sites? Perhaps they are not talking about a global cooling. Where else was it cool, and were volcanoes ruled out?
JImd
I am providing the evidence you requested. One account is of the very warm 1730’s evidenced in Northwest Europe records. The other evidences it on a global scale. Its what you asked for.
We are marginally above the temperatures of the 1730’s despite there being 120ppm more co2 which should have put at least 1.2C on the temperatures according to your calculations.
The 1730’s are by no means the warmest period in the record. It has been both warmer and colder than today at 290ppm. It would appear that once above a certain limit, adding co2 has a limited impact.
tonyb
Synchronous cool periods can be understood as volcanoes, but they say synchronous warm periods are less evident but name some anyway. What does “less evident” mean in this context? We see from BEST that the error bars get very large as you go further back because there are less observations. Have they used tree rings? Even at just CET, that warming blip is somewhat dwarfed by what is happening in the last whole century, as would be expected.
Use the GISS global temperature record to get agreement like this between model and data:
http://imageshack.com/a/img30/1539/l9g.gif
tonyb
Ya need to start with an understanding of how C02 forcing differs from solar forcing for example.
First off: with C02 forcing we do not expect to see uniform warming. Its not going to be spatially uniform or seasonally uniform: Spatially we expect more warming at the poles. Consequently looking at CET isnt going to illuminate that. Next, as opposed to increased solar forcing, when we have increased C02 forcing we expect to see stratospheric cooling. That’s the real fingerprint. We see that today.
In short if you want to see the effect of C02 you’d best look at the metrics that matter: a global warming that expresses itself by via polar amplification. You cant see that by looking at one time series. Second, you need to look for stratospheric cooling.
I apply all the skeptic models such as stadium wave and orbital forcings and still the deniers are not happy. They never will be.
Mi Cro, if you want thermometers, we can wait for BEST to weigh in on 2013, or the other land temperature records like CRUTEM4.
That’s a perfectly good way to ruin your measurements, data in, garbage out.
Yeah right.
A new data set of middle- and upper-stratospheric temperatures based on reprocessing of satellite radiances provides a view of stratospheric climate change during the period 1979–2005 that is strikingly different from that provided by earlier data sets. The new data call into question our understanding of observed stratospheric temperature trends and our
ability to test simulations of the stratospheric response to emissions of greenhouse gases and ozone-depleting substances. Here we highlight the important issues raised by the new data and suggest how the climate science community can resolve them.
http://www.arl.noaa.gov/documents/JournalPDFs/ThompsonEtal.Nature2012.pdf
Arctic amplification?
https://www.lanl.gov/source/orgs/ees/ees14/pdfs/09Chlylek.pdf
And there is of course the most significant analysis of the CET record to date.
http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/TungandZhou2013_zps14bf1352.png.html?sort=3&o=10
http://depts.washington.edu/amath/research/articles/Tung/journals/Tung_and_Zhou_2013_PNAS.pdf
It is all such nonsense from team warmer. Do they have a brain cell between them? The evidence is not looking good for them.
The most useful metrics are of course ocean heat and TOA radiant flux – from the most modern and accurate instruments – not nonsense that doesn’t say what they fondly imagine it says.
http://judithcurry.com/2014/01/03/week-in-review-10/#comment-432860
Mosh
Come on, at least be consistent about CET about which you said;
Steven Mosher | August 14, 2013 at 11:41 am |
GaryM
I should have said two GOOD arguments, yours are stupid
“GaryM | August 14, 2013 at 12:02 am |
Steven Mosher,
There are more than two arguments about the “reliability of the record.”
“There is the lack of coverage,
This is false. the spatial coherence of the temperature field is such that one can reliably estimate the entire field from very few stations. At the extreme you can take one reliable station ( CET) and estimate the whole globe. lower spatial coverages dont impact the reliablility, the impact the uncertainty. One simple way to look at this is by sub sampling. We start with 39000 stations to compute the field. randomly select 100 stations from that field and you will get the same answer.
http://judithcurry.com/2013/08/13/impact-of-climate-population-and-co2-on-water-resources/#comment-364794
Steven Mosher | October 4, 2013 at 12:13 am |
“Odd the way your crappy BEST moving average is so far outside the data in 1780. ”
Another idiot comment from greg.
The BEST Data at 1780 is the average of the entire field. the small patch of england tony refers to as well as most of europe and some of north america.
Tony is comparing CET ( a few square miles) to a much larger area.
That location (CET) along with a few others has reasonable correlation with the entire globe, although with CET ( and others) you will find years in which it is at odds with the rest of the world.
In other words, the thing you point out is expected and not anything odd’.
—– ——
tonyb
JImD
Come on, you are now moving the goalposts. I said there was a very warm period very similar to today back in the 1730’s, a fact confirmed by many studies. You seemed to be unaware of it. It dwarfs the rise seen in the 20th century record. Looking back in time, there are many other warm periods some synchronous some not (as indeed there is with todays ‘global’ record.)
From reliable instrumental records we can determine that, despite an increase of 120ppm over the last 300 years, the temperature has barely moved. Looking further back we can see there are periods warmer than today and colder than today, all at 280ppm.
It seems that above a certain point co2 seems to have little impact. I am not dogmatic about it as the my original article questioned this correlation and asked for explanations.
So far the best explanation backed up by the facts as we currently know them, is as stated above. The dramatic correlation you apparently see over the last 60 years disappears if you put it into context with history as you ignore long term natural variability, which Phil Jones himself seems to be saying is greater than was appreciated some years ago.
tonyb
Looking at 10y averages CET is not any better proxy for Northern Hemisphere HadCRUT4 than it’s for global HadCRUT4. r2 values are nearly identical. The only difference is that NH temperatures have varied more than global. Thus CET values should be multiplied by 0.8 to get an estimate for NH while the coefficient is 0.75 for global AST.
For annual data the correlation between CET and NHAST is only marginally better than between CET and GAST (r2=0.29 vs. r2=0.27). Thus CET is not a useful proxy for either one on annual level.
Pekka
you said;
‘Thus CET is not a useful proxy for either one on annual level.’
I never said it was. Having said that the global average is a very poor record of the annual temperature in any one place as well.
Decadal Cet is a useful proxy and perhaps the 5 year running mean is as well.
Cet has been examined in very great depth and the errors in it are well known. Indeed I discussed this very point in person with David Parker (who constructed CET to 1772) at the Met Office just a few weeks ago.
CET does enable us to look further back than the global records but needs to be substantiated with related data, which is why my article ‘the long slow thaw’ had some 200 scientific references. My new article pushing CET further back will have a similar number of references and I hope to meet up with Phil Jones to discuss his understanding. He has written a number of good well referenced papers on historic climate.
tonyb
Tony,
You have mentioned many times the recent drop in CET in connections where that’s misleading.
I don’t understand your statements on the temperatures of 18th century based on CET data. I plotted 10 year averages (ending in year 2 of each decade to get 2012 in the data). The plot is here. The warmest value (1723-32) is not nearly as high as the most recent decades. The rapid temperature rise is so sharp that it may very well be a local phenomenon. CET is not a significant proxy at that level of detail.
I plotted also the comparison between CET and NH HadCRUT4. From that we can see the strong correlation, but we see also that 10 years is too short a time to make comparisons of single points very relevant. The nature of the recent drop in CET is also seen. The next to last decade was very warm in comparison with the previous.
Try to look at the data objectively without a systematic bias towards seeing effects that you would like to see.
Pekka,
Thanks for this chart:
http://pirila.fi/energy/kuvat/CET.png
It certainly does not debunk CO2 as a significant GHG factor — since a clear knee in the curve is seen around 1900. And instrumental records before 1700 must have greater uncertainty as the learning curve was being climbed.
Contrast that work to the detailed modeling one can do with respect to modern-day GLOBAL temperature records.
http://imageshack.com/a/img59/5134/l5y.gif
It must aggregate TonyB to no end to see someone doing actual quantitative analysis. Why doesn’t he want to follow my path? The answer is clear.
The answer is clear, if it agrees with the consensus it’s good, if it doesn’t it’s wrong.
I thought of an analogy , the actual surface measurements compared to published GAT series is like comparing CAFE fuel ratings to the actual measured mileage. One is a fantasy, the other is actual measurements.
As I pointed out the other day, you’re using one bad model to confirm a second bad model, it’s all trash.
Serious question for Pekka. Does Finland have the right kind of snow, like America, or the wrong kind of snow, like Great Britain?
H/t Go Fish.
===============
webby
This would be the knee in the curve around 1890 well before any notable rise in co2? Temperature first co2 after?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/08/the-curious-case-of-rising-co2-and-falling-temperatures/
Its nowhere near as pronounced as the other knee in the curve around 1690 is it?
I have said before without snark that if Csalt is so good you need to get it peer reviewed. How about starting with an article for Climate Etc and we can go from there?
tonyb
tonyb,
Logarithmic sensitivity sets in right away. This is the theory based on the best estimates of CO2, with zero lag:
http://imageshack.com/a/img23/8418/qvv.gif
Clear knee in the curve.
I am just aggregating other peer-reviewed models from people like Scafetta, Carter, Wilson, etc. Let them decide whether it is worthy of publication. So far I am getting mixed signals. If they were real scientists they would be offering some suggestions instead of outrage such as I saw from I.Wilson and P.Vaughan.
Mosher the metrics that matter
Despite the fudge factor, ie Antarctic is freezing sea ice out further and further for 30 years you insist on only looking at the Arctic and claiming polar amplification as a sine qua non of carbon dioxide involved warming.
As you well know, if warming is happening, consequent to CO2 it should happen all over the globe, in the land,sea and air.
Amplification is not a magic only here button, the warming will occur at the. Equator as well as the poles and be measurable and demonstrable.
Idiots, who look at one country or locale at a time to prove or disprove global warming ( thus proving they don’t know the first thing about global) or to prove or disprove the effects of CO2 , are one thing.
I did not expect or believe you would voluntarily join these ranks until your recent spirited defence of the Skeptical Science unbelievable arctic warming paper where all points in their rigged data support each other.
As you point out in your BEST defence as well you can take stations from anywhere in the 39000 was it sites and choose any hundred and they all agree with warming.
The only way that that can happen is if the data is computer generated to agree by the algorithms applied to the raw data.
You are a scientist .you do experiments. The only ones that do not have blips, variances and downright the other way disagreeing data is when someone stacks the results.
You have always had too much integrity for this too happen on your watch but this may not always apply to people you love and trust and work with.
Ps if the Antarctic ice is extending out for thirty years more than a few people have got their thermometers wrong because it must be colder.
Tony,
You do it again. You use CET for something it’s demonstrably not significant. You have complained that I put words in your mouth, but that’s not true, you have clearly said or implied all that. You have tried to give the impression that I tell to lack justification.
You have referred to the knee before 1890, and the recent decline implying clearly significance beyond local temperatures in Central England. HadCRUT tells that your interpretation is wrong. The dips are local phenomena, they tell about the limits of value of CET as proxy for NH or global temperatures. This evidence tells also that you should not draw conclusions from relatively short term (less than 30 years, say) phenomena in CET during the time it’s the only time series.
In addition i repeat: rather large systematic deviations and changes are likely in the older part of CET. Thus many observations may be spurious or at least exaggerated even, when there’s additional qualitative evidence that some of the effect is true.
Pekka
Your 7.50
I am bemused by your comment ;
‘You have complained that I put words in your mouth, but that’s not true, you have clearly said or implied all that. You have tried to give the impression that I tell to lack justification.’
Its a long thread so perhaps you have not had the opportunity of reading every comment?
I was referring directly to Webby’s post who was citing YOUR graph and linking to it when he made his remark.
In it the knee in 1890 comes well before any dramatic increase in C02 as of course does the bigger knee around 1690. He (and therefore !) was not referencing any other graphs of yours in this conversation
My observation is merely that temperatures have been warmer than today and colder than today at 280ppm.
tonyb
Everyone accepts that changes of one or two tenths happen without CO2 and pointing to those doesn’t prove anything in either direction. Even in this century we see PDO, volcanic and solar effects and can quantify and attribute them now with better measurements. What we see on top is a rise growing to 1 C that is exceptional in this century, and so obviously different in duration and magnitude that it becomes impossible to say it is not unusual, and that cannot be attributed to the other known factors. The “skeptics” are “hoping” that there is an unknown factor yet to be discovered by science rather than accepting that the CO2 forcing is already sufficient, and more, to account for this with some canceling from aerosols.
With all the glacier mass loss and ice bergs calving and ice shelves breaking off, I wouldn’t expect any correlation between antarctic sea ice and temperature.
Meh, I shoulda said ‘Go Fish @ the Bish’, and I coulda warned Pekka about the serious warning. He risks becoming as absurd an apologist as Michael Fish, and he risks becoming so just as unconsciously.
============
Bob Droege . nothing unusual about icebergs calving in the Antarctic. And by the way Glaciers melt faster when there is warming, ie less icebergs not more. As for less Ice mass you can either use Grace with its current useless and obviously wrong algorithm or use a proxy like Michael Mann.
Lets say sea ice extent and say the amount of ice mass in Antarctica is vaguely positively related to the sea ice extent, Guess what 30 years of extra ice means there must be more ice mass in Antarctica.
tonyb
You’re still not getting it. you can reflect the global average reliably with a few stations. What you’ll miss is getting the spatial pattern right and getting the trends right over various periods of time. So if you just look at CET you’ll get something that is generally right. Not very informative, but generally right. Reliable but not very telling. But if you want to see the arctic amplification.. well you’ll need arctic stations to do that. by definition.
So, if I take the data from 2 stations how do I turn that data into a reliable average?
When you talk about arctic stations how many are out on the ice? NCDC and CRU’s station list doesn’t include any, Almost all of the high arctic stations are on the continental and Green land’s coast, or inland. I presume there are research stations, do they record full years?
The GISS global temperature series from NASA does a much better job than the HadCrut global temperature series. NCDC from NOAA acts as any tie-breaker as it is much closer to GISS than HadCrut.
Angech,
These kinds of events are hard to ignore when discussing Antarctic sea ice.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100226112732.htm
The iceberg that calved off of the Mertz glacier is probably responsible for trapping those ships.
Yet you continue to dismiss evidence in a cavalier manner.
“Bob Droege . nothing unusual about icebergs calving in the Antarctic.”
And how do you know that?
“And by the way Glaciers melt faster when there is warming, ie less icebergs not more. As for less Ice mass you can either use Grace with its current useless and obviously wrong algorithm or use a proxy like Michael Mann.”
Glaciers also move faster with warming, hence also more icebergs as well as more meltwater.
“Lets say sea ice extent and say the amount of ice mass in Antarctica is vaguely positively related to the sea ice extent, Guess what 30 years of extra ice means there must be more ice mass in Antarctica.”
Guess what, can you compare the amount of ice in the Antarctic ice sheet to the amount of sea ice?
I can, hows 26500000 cubic kilometers vs 32000 at max.
Antarctica lost 140 gigatons of ice in 2009, if that all turned into sea ice, how much would that be?
Bob Droege – that is very interesting. A couple of days ago I found a website that has daily images of the sea ice. A few minutes ago I emailed the professors who host that site and asked them if the change I detected in the shape of the leading edge of the Mertz Glacier was real; as in, could their satellite detect such a small change.
Anyway, you can see it change on the day the ship was trapped. And it slice off is on the ship’s side of the Mertz Glacier.
It’s possible no icebreaker can reach the Russian ship.
Angtech
“Mosher the metrics that matter
Despite the fudge factor, ie Antarctic is freezing sea ice out further and further for 30 years you insist on only looking at the Arctic and claiming polar amplification as a sine qua non of carbon dioxide involved warming.
##################################
JC snip
1. the metrics that matter for WHAT QUESTION. I’m addressing the diagnosing of warming. For that you need spatial coverage. Why?
because the theory says you will see more warming at poles that at the equator. you cannot test this by looking at CET. Period full stop.
2. NOWHERE do I insist on looking only at the arctic. We see reginional amplifcation at both poles. Both poles are warming faster than the equator.
3. The real issue is that the theory ( via models) predicts more warming
at the poles than we are seeing.
To repeat. When a theory states that you will see warming at both poles that is greater than the warming at the equator . YOU DO NOT TEST THIS BY LOOKING AT CET. you do not. JC SNIP
######################################
As you well know, if warming is happening, consequent to CO2 it should happen all over the globe, in the land,sea and air.
#################################
Over very long periods of time yes. However, it is possible for some regions to cool while others warm. For some regions to warm at X, while others warm at 4X.
In the second place you are wrong. extra forcing from C02 will cool the stratosphere. Guess what? Its cooled. If the warming were from solar we would not expect the stratosphere to cool.
################
Amplification is not a magic only here button, the warming will occur at the. Equator as well as the poles and be measurable and demonstrable.
##############
JC SNIP. who said it was a magic button?
The point is simple. The theory predicts warming that is non homogenous. You dont test this by looking at CET. period.
##############################################
JC SNIP
#########################
I defended my friend against insults.
There is nothing rigged about their data or their approach.
This much is clear. CRUTemp underestimate the warming.
We know that because we have more data than CRU and we show
more warming. Cowtan and Way is a good step forward to nailing
down the arctic with
more certainty. Using UAH was probably not the best choice, and
this year a couple of better polar satillite series will be made public.
The will, I suspect, tighten up our view of how much it has warmed.
But this much is clear: CRU underestimates the warming. Always
has, always will. Its a function of their methodology which we proved
was inadequate and biased. The only people defending CRU are stupid skeptics.
###############
As you point out in your BEST defence as well you can take stations from anywhere in the 39000 was it sites and choose any hundred and they all agree with warming.
The only way that that can happen is if the data is computer generated to agree by the algorithms applied to the raw data.
1. Wrong. The claim is that you can randomly sample the 39000.
NOT take them from anywhere.
2. Agree with the warming doesnt mean you will get the exact same answer. What it means is this. Randomly select 100 stations. You will
see that 1850 is cooler than thna today.
3. Moron. you can pick any 100 RAW data series, do a simple average
and see that it has warmed. JC SNIP Next you’ll question that we landed on the moon.
#################################
You are a scientist .you do experiments. The only ones that do not have blips, variances and downright the other way disagreeing data is when someone stacks the results.
1. yes if you do the experiment of selecting 100 stations a hundred times you might happen to find a blip. Go ahead. the data’s there
try it.
####################################
You have always had too much integrity for this too happen on your watch but this may not always apply to people you love and trust and work with.
Ps if the Antarctic ice is extending out for thirty years more than a few people have got their thermometers wrong because it must be colder.
JC SNIP “it” must be colder. What does ‘it” refer to? the globe? or the area where the ice is forming?
And what causes ice to form? If the air warms from -20 to -18 can ice form? well its warming? last I looked it was the water temperature, salinity and winds that were more important that the air temperature. Put another way you wont learn much about the effects of C02 by looking at the ice over the short term. You’ll learn more if you stick to air temps or OHC
JC COMMENT: It is easier for me to delete an entire comment than to snip insults, next time i probably won’t have time to snip
Steven Mosher,
A sincere apology from me for being so rude to you.
I regretted it intensely and would take back that comment in its entirety if I could.
I admire your efforts in communicating here and on other sites and want you to continue your efforts, like Judy, in trying to be honest brokers in a very difficult and emotional scientific subject.
Sorry
Richard Lindzen has always been a hero to me. I am surprised that more of MIT’s illustrious have not joined him, although I understand that politics mean that they are not all the free thinkers they would like to be.
What is more surprising is that so many people who should know better, have been taken in by the shallow treatment of the science by the IPCC. It started when they labeled CO2 a greenhouse gas, but although everyone new that was just an analogy and not literally true, it was enough to set the bandwagon rolling.
But there is no excuse for not recognizing that CO2 was an isotopic gas and therefore its physics had many emission and absorption modes. It followed that the IPCC could not make a case without investigating those modes and identifying the critical ones at tropospheric temperatures. My personal view is that CO2 rises as a hot gas from exhaust pipes and chimneys, as a plume of gas like a hot air balloon, while it is still hot it can absorb and radiate more heat. Once it cools down its density increases so it falls back to the lower troposphere where its specific heat no longer is able to absorb much more heat than nitrogen. In other words it only deserves the misleading title ‘greenhouse’ gas when hot. So the concept of total CO2 is meaningless
Alexander,
“But there is no excuse for not recognizing that CO2 was an isotopic gas and therefore its physics had many emission and absorption modes”. Well done and difficult to refute.
The logarithmic dependence of the radiative forcing on the CO2 concentration is actually possible mainly because there are hundreds of different emission and absorption modes even for the main isotopes alone. The other isotopes add a tiny bit to this.
This picture shows a tiny fraction of all the lines that form the 15µm (or 667 1/cm) absorption peak of CO2. The two curves represent two layers at different altitudes, green in upper troposphere and blue high in the stratosphere. The different shapes of the peaks come from pressure broadening.
GarryD: Thank you for your support.
Pekka: Thank you for the spectra pictures. That is the sort of data we should have had years ago. Where did you get it?. Admittedly difficult to obtain as it requires cryogenic IR measurement. I am surprised that warm CO2 could penetrate so strongly into the stratosphere. Are you sure the green and blue traces are to the same scale?. Perhaps it can happen over a big city like New York.
Alexander – the spectrum of CO2 has been known for many, many decades. This isn’t news at all.
The curves I show are calculated from list of spectral lines from the HITRAN database. All strong lines have been measured empirically in laboratory, but the data base contains also many additional lines, whose properties have been determined by quantum mechanical calculations. The two approaches agree well enough when both methods are used for the same lines.
The curves depend also on theoretical models of lineshape. These models have also been verified by laboratory measurements over the range that’s significant for the curves I show. Under some more extreme conditions the result depend also on details that are not as accurately known. That’s more significant for the understanding of Venus atmosphere, not for CO2 in Earth atmosphere.
This data is used directly in line-by-line radiative transfer models, which are, however, time consuming when used repeatedly. Therefore simpler radiative transfer models are used in climate models, but these simpler models have been verified by comparing them with the line-by-line models, and found accurate enough for that purpose.
Jim2: You say the spectra around the 15 micron line has been known for many years. Then why did the IPCC not use it to strengthen thir ‘Greenhouse’ gas theory, which was, after all. just an analogy, not a scientific explanation. Yes, they had some knowledge of the 15 micron line, see my website theoretical model underlined above, but kept mum on its implications, because, as I pointed out, they showed the line as reaching saturation (100% absorption) and therefore could be used to discredit their ‘greenhouse’ analogy. They had put themselves between a rock and a hard place. Jim2, do you any references to support your allegation, other than my own website?
Alexander Biggs,
The nature of the IR absorption spectrum has been taken into account for a couple of decades. The calculations of the radiative forcing by Myhre and others in the 1990s were based on that knowledge. Much of the required theory had been developed for military application (remote sensing, missile guidance, etc.) and some of the codes are still owned by the air force.
Pekka: Thank you again for tracing the origin of the 15 micron line information For years I have suspected that there was a lot of relevant data hidden away in the extensive HITRAN data.. In the 1950’s I, myself worked on the development of IR homing missiles at the RAE. I knew then that certain IR absorption information was sensitive, but so were lots of things in the cold war, and most have now been declassified. Nowadays climate is important to defence science so there should be no barriers to the exchange of information.
Pekka,
As a physicist maybe you can answer this, or point me in the right direction.
What is the quantitative energy in the DW 15u flux? I know that at the same flux, it would take 30 times as long to transfer the same energy at .5u, so an hour of .5u Solar would take 30 hours to radiate out at 15u. When I’ve measured the clear sky temp with my 8-15u IR thermometer it’s been ~-60F, which works out to 130W/sq M@.98e, and only 101W/sqM@.74e. This is clear sky 20F day, so little water vapor energy, or approximately the GH contribution.
My interpretation is this is a insignificant amount of energy(especially at 15u), and even if an increase in Co2 raises it to -58F, surface temps have to be regulated by clouds, which I have measured to all be close to surface temps. This is seen in deserts, and morning temps.
My review of surface station data, the actual data, not the produced series, agrees with this (follow the url in my name).
Even R. Gates’s sea level as proxy, while it does show a steady rise, it shows a steady rise for more than 120-150 years. And Webby yes I know logarithms from science class in the early 70’s, and they were also part of the 2nd class fcc license test I passed in 1975, I also know that at lower values, the logarithmic contribution of Co2 is minimal.
I don’t believe ARGO is yet the definitive judge of OHC, it’s still under-sampled, and misses the deep cold water flowing out of the arctic, which I believe being open is radiating more energy than normal to space. And the historic measurements are just guess work.
Mi Cro,
What’s really significant and what’s not is exactly what’s calculated by the radiative transfer models. Essentially the whole contribution of CO2 comes from the 15 µm peak (or more precisely from the combination of the hundreds of narrow peaks that combine to form the broad peak).
There’s enough CO2 in the lowest 1 km of the atmosphere to make the whole range from 13.7 µm to 16.5 µm almost fully opaque to the IR. Adding more CO2 moves a little the edges of this range as even weaker absorption peaks start to affect the outcome. About 15% of all LW radiation is in this range and is thus affected by CO2. Over part of the range water vapor absorbs also strongly, thus either one alone would have the same influence at low altitude, except in areas of lowest moisture like the polar regions, where CO2 dominates over the whole range.
CO2 dominates over this range over all latitudes at high altitudes, because the air is there too cold to hold much water vapor. This is the most important factor that makes changes in CO2 concentration affect the energy balance of the Earth significantly, the changes in radiation directly from the surface to the space is a lesser factor.
First, this still leaves open the question of how much energy is really in the 15u bands warming the surface. Remember it’s the surface temps that are in the GAT series. Second, there is the missing troposphere hotspot. Then when I measure a -60F zenith temp, I live at 41N, that’s about 130W/sq M at the surface. That works out to about 500k Joules/sq M/hr radiating from the surface to whatever altitude I’m measuring from the surface with clear skies.
When clouds roll through this will drop to near 0, ie clouds control surface temps.
To be honest I don’t care if the stratosphere is 5F warmer, when it doesn’t impact surface temps. And when you look at day over day max temps averaged out over a year there is almost zero change in this since the 50’s, if I was looking at the response of a thermal regulating system of the scale of the planet, I’d says that was well regulated. There is some swings in day over day Min temp annual averages.
AGW is all much adieu about nothing. As long as we develop better energy generation capability over the next 20-100 years. Nuclear, Uranium water heaters for now, small liquid salt reactors later and then fusion when we figure it out. I also don’t mind solar and wind where it makes sense, but they are not a replacement, at least not yet.
Bart, not sure if you’ll see this, even if solar panels become “dirt” cheap, solar will still be expensive, installation, maintenance and electronics are costly, and it will be space limited and of limited use at higher latitudes. If you live off the grid, sure it’ll be worth it in many locations, but it’s not a replacement for powering modern society.
I’ve long thought that increasing CO2 somehow increases the efficiency of the heat pump from equator poleward.
===============
I wouldn’t use the expression heat pump in this connection. Heat pump is a device that uses work to transfer heat from a colder place to a warmer one. In heat pump energy capable of doing work is used to increase temperature differences.
In the atmosphere we have rather the inverse process of heat engine where temperature differences lead to creation of collective flows that are capable of doing work.
Adding CO2 affects temperature differences in many ways, mainly increasing overall vertical differences and reducing horizontal differences. As the vertical differences are essential for the atmospheric heat engine, added CO2 may indeed improve the efficiency of that, but there may be also some contrary effects.
Thanks for the correction, Pekka; I misuse the term ‘heat pump’ in order to simply convey the notion of heat being pumped poleward, but your knowledge of the theoretical physics is exquisite. Our knowledge of how it all works out on Earth is execrable.
==========
Nice work, Pekka. You are a gentleman and a scholar.
Mi Cro, thank you for half of ‘Much adieu about parting’.
=====================
Mi Cro | January 6, 2014 at 10:08 am |
Nice goalpost moving job there. It’s too expensive because of the panels becomes it’s too expensive because of the land?
If one third the land committed to pipelines in the last 20 years were used for ‘modern’ (what the heck do you mean by ‘modern’ anyway, in a world of smartgrids and nano-electronics?) CSPV, it would generate more stationary energy on the average day than all the pipelines in the world even carry.
Which costs more to maintain, an active solar farm or a pipeline or oil well during and after its active life? Manitoulin Island is still spending a quarter of a million dollars some years cleaning up exploratory wells drilled sixty years ago by long-defunct oil companies. Kalamazoo will need cleaning forever. Solar reflectors littering the landscape is a so-what; pipelines eaten out by bitumen is a nightmare.
There is nothing that makes financial sense about your argument.
My original statement to Max_OK:
You replied:
I followed up with this reply:
This was my comment, which somehow you twisted into this comment:
Let me channel Mosher for a moment, “Moron”.
After my comment to Max, I did feel 50 years was rather pessimistic, In my reply to you while not explicitly stated I clarified some of my issues, that even with low cost panels, there are other fixed costs to solar that do not respond to the economy of scale, and there is a limit on the energy they can produce. You’ll not power an auto factory, steel mill, etc on solar, well an stay in business doing so anytime soon. And there are already environmental groups hating on large scale solar farms in the southwest.
Now, maybe we can turn roads into energy generators (if cars still drive on roads by then), maybe in paint, or shingles, but those are IMO still a long ways out, and then you have the whole it gets dark at night thing. Maybe if we can harvest IR they can work 24×7, maybe we can kill a whole flock of seagulls at once, harvest IR, cool the planet, eliminate the need for fossil fuels, kick off the next ice age and culling most of those pesky humans who are always trashing up the neighborhood.
Did you pull that stuff out of the Solyndra business plan, barty?
Mi Cro | January 6, 2014 at 3:54 pm |
You’re channeling Mosher wrong; though he has used the word “moron” with regard to more than one of my posts, and far more of my posts than the one he’s noticed have had “moron” moments — there was the time Pekka corrected me when I proposed in answer to the zodiacal hypothesis that planets had a third power relationship rather than a fourth power relationship to linear distance (whooo, is my face still red about that), and the time I got the sign wrong about Elasticity of Demand while making a case about the absolute value of elasticity affecting outcomes — and I own to my moron moments. But this wasn’t one of them.
You absolutely can power a steel plant on solar, if your steel plant is one tenth of one percent of a grid’s power demands on a smartgrid and you have ten percent baseline from reliably geothermal, pumped hydro, tidal and the like and you don’t make up the 90% from only solar. A grid that is net 25% fossil is achievable with what so far as I have seen would be the lowest costs of any that include fossil energy at all, and no expensive energy storage. You could have nuclear in the mix, or not, depending if it can be justified on cost. You could even go carbon negative for a substantial portion of your gridded stationary energy, with pyrolysis oils and gasses and char and urea coproduction, to stimulate more biomass from agriculture, and that would be net lower than fossil to satisfy the need for portable high-energy-density fuels, too.
And really, how much is manufacturing growing as a segment of the overall grid-tied demand?
Sure, many industrial actors want not only assured power, but control over it giving them preemptive and price-excepted access. Who wouldn’t? But is that any way to run a free market economy?
Lot’s of if’s there, but yes you can make steel with solar, if you don’t care that your electricity is 2-4 times the cost.
You would need to output of a whole solar farm if you were supplying the power to go from in ground ore to finished product (26GJ/ton)
“David Gelemter has a mind boggling but interesting essay….”
In the quoted segment, he’s describing default progressivism. People believe what they have been taught since preschool, what all their teachers and professors believed and taught them, what their friends almost all believe, what their colleagues almost all believe, and what is the only point of view ever reported or discussed in the media upon which they rely for their news.
My favorite part of the rest is:
“That science should face crises in the early 21st century is inevitable. Power corrupts, and science today is the Catholic Church around the start of the 16th century: used to having its own way and dealing with heretics by excommunication, not argument.”
Consensus climate science is a bought and paid for subsidiary of the governments of the west, and ever increasing centralization of power is corrupting both.
On another point, I think he gets it backwards. The primary problem with the dominant political/cultural elite, is not their rejection of subjectivism, but just the contrary. To the modern progressive there is no objective morality (secular humanism). There is no objective reality (eg. climate models are interchangeable with real world data). There is no objectively better culture (multiculturalism) – although amusingly there is one objectively inferior culture, the Judeo-Christian, free market west (cognitive dissonance at its finest).
His central point, however – I feel, therefore I am…not a computer – is not particularly new. But his rejection of Darwinism as a sufficient explanation for consciousness, without recourse to religion, is interesting.
No interest in adding traffic to a Merchants of Venice link, though I’m kinda curious:
Did Skoll actually find someone in Hollywood willing to touch Oreskes’ anti-Semitic conspiracy yawner? I mean, other than Mel Gibson?
Since my Twitter friends were confused by the “anti-Semitic” remark, and since I’m the only person I’ve ever met gullible enough to have actually suffered through MOD, let me clarify:
The plot of Oreskes’ and Conway’s novel is that world opinion is being manipulated behind the curtains by a cabal of elders called Seitz, Singer, Jastorow and Nierenberg.
Shall I go on?
Please continue. The truth is out there, right here.
Well willard (SPOILER ALERT), the premise is that these 4 time-travelling Jew scientists are waging a rear-guard Tobacco War by using climate as a kind of proxy war. It’s never really clear how this is meant to work—or perhaps I’m just not as tachyon-savvy as the intended readership? Well, hopefully the movie will present a dumbed-down version of Oreskes’ worldview (if that’s physically possible).
Update: My Twitter mate Andy Mac inadvertently called it “anti-semantic”—which might, however, be considered appropriate, in light of Oreskes’ decade-long personal war on meaning.
> My Twitter mate Andy Mac inadvertently called it “anti-semantic”
I suppose Brad refers to Mr. Meanie:
https://twitter.com/AndyMeanie/status/419598840900354048
That tweet was interesting, as the discussion started with two other claims. The first was the however true of false our beloved @aDissentient was financed by @theGWPF, saying so was a smear. The second one was that proof of such connection was to be provided to make the claim.
How Mr. Meanie can establish that such proof was required has not been spelled, which is not surprising since he’d consider it a smear nonetheless.
How Mr. Meanie can judge the financial statements of @theGWPF has also not been observed, as Mr. Meanie decided to retire gracefully from the conversation.
Say hi to him, Brad.
***
Incidentally, instead of confirming that he’s been paid by @theGWFP, @aDissentient did the honorable thing:
https://twitter.com/nevaudit/status/419851651420147712
Yes, but RC moderation.
Interestingly, some hoodwinks were exchanged some six hours ago:
https://twitter.com/BradPKeyes/status/419765437098778624
Please remind Mr. Meanie that there’s a big difference between evidence and proof, and that there may be little point in asking for any of them if both are smears anyway, Brad.
Never mind typos, of course. I leave that to you.
Interesting. So it’s fine to be paid by the GWPF but if someone asks if you have been paid by the GWPF that’s a smear…
Indeed, although one might argue that as smears go it’s pretty small potatoes compared to bogus accusations of anti-Semitism.
Indeed, Andrew, and the beauty of this is that if we accept that to speak of interests is a smear, then our beloved Bishop’s concept of “institutional bias” might very well be too, i.e.:
https://twitter.com/nevaudit/status/419584691579002880
In fairness, I could not care less if @aDissentient gets paid by @theGWPF for his presentations and his reports:
http://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2013/01/GWPF-Accounts-to-31July2012.pdf
***
The network of it all seems to matter more:
https://twitter.com/nevaudit/status/419618461946355713
Interestingly, shale gas is not exactly oil, the only commodity our beloved Bishop mentioned in the tweet that started the audit.
https://twitter.com/aDissentient/status/419533028395085825
Heh, check out the Bish’s for Michael Fish, leading the true believers into undreamt of ridicule.
============
Heh, Bish, it’s projection, no surprise given the huge disparity in funding.
=========
“Interesting. So it’s fine to be paid by the GWPF but if someone asks if you have been paid by the GWPF that’s a smear…”
You all should get honorary doctorates in sophistry. Clearly, to any honest informed observer, the fundamental issue is the risible and pathetic lie that skeptics are motivated by money, in this case some shadowy network of bribes and payoffs at the hands of big oil and right wing billionaires.
Deny that, lolly. Always fun.
> the huge disparity in funding.
It’s not the buck you have that matters, it’s the buck you miss, cf.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Petersburg_paradox
***
> the fundamental issue is the risible and pathetic lie that skeptics are motivated by money […]
That itself is a risible and pathetic untruth.
That @theGWPF funds @aDissentient for reports and presentations shows more about the former’s interests than the latter’s. The same would be true if @aDissentient did it all pro bono, via a tax receipt for virtual appearance and research fees, with the help of our Miracle Worker’s bitcoins, or else, be it purely ideological reward, which may or may not be compatible with the liberatarian conception of freedom.
Also, please note that network is not that shadowy, and should include all fossil commodities.
TL;DR — Please mind your ridicule, Poker.
Willard, “It’s not the buck you have that matters, it’s the buck you miss, cf.”
Then the opposition appears to either extremely cost effective or extremely adept at money laundering. Either case is pretty impressive in this digital age.
> Either case is pretty impressive in this digital age.
I agree, Cap’n, although the digital age renders it less impressive, let’s say compared to what twelve apostles did a few centuries ago.
Also bear in mind greenwashing, a concept which seems to escape both @wuww and @aDissentient, e.g.:
https://twitter.com/nevaudit/status/419573894861701120
It might hard to argue that @theGWPF is the target of #purplewashing, but one never knows.
Willard and Bart’s spin is so obvious after all the posts over the years, I’m surprised they still think no one’s on to them.
Thanks for keeping us posted on all that twitter crap, willie.
Willard, ” let’s say compared to what twelve apostles did a few centuries ago.”
The 12 really where not all that effective. Their cause was adopted by a failing Roman Empire/Emperor Constantine which gave Christianity the big boost. By tweaking Christianity into a more socially acceptable chain of command with a “divine” mission, Constantine was able to reinvent monotheism. Milquetoast Christians weren’t even good sport in the arena prior to that.
> The 12 really where not all that effective. Their cause was adopted by a failing Roman Empire/Emperor Constantine which gave Christianity the big boost.
And yet they were effective enough to be adopted by Constantine, Cap’n.
Unless you wish to insinuate that the GWPF is not that effective because it was adopted by David Rose from the Daily Mail?
Willard, “Unless you wish to insinuate that the GWPF is not that effective because it was adopted by David Rose from the Daily Mail?”
Not at all, unless you consider David Rose as torturing GWPF concepts. The words of the 12 were not even compiled until about 250 ad so it is hard to tell how effective “they” really were since there have been about 41,000 Christian denominations.
Just imagine the number of denominations if the twelve apostles had Internet access, Cap’n.
Seems that Richard Tol also has interest in the shareholding relationship:
https://twitter.com/RichardTol/status/419899712854958080
Let’s hope Mr. Meanie doesn’t mind what he percieves as a smear from Richard.
Andrew:
“it’s pretty small potatoes compared to bogus accusations of anti-Semitism”
Er, I made an ACTUAL accusation of anti-Semitism. I would’ve thought the absence of smiley-faces was enough to convey that. No?
Yes – dear Lady in Red,
It is indeed David Gelernter. Was he the target of the bomb? For challenging political correctness of the deep left?
He lightly touches on a few holy shibboleths of the progressive left – and the progressive denialists predictably whine. Although it is impossible to imagine that such political correctness is not widespread in the post-modernist universe. In Australia they even tried to legislate it – in living memory – 2012. Mine about stretches that far back. Until the populace arose and ridiculed it out of countenance.
The subject of the essay – the subjective nature of existence – is one dear to my heart. (Frankly – the others in the litany of inconsequence are so much pedestrian wallowing in ideas done to death a million times.) I would go much further however – he is too emotionally reserved. Sure he quotes poetry but as Henry Miller said the objective is to make our lives a poem – at which time there would be no need for poetry at all and a new sublime accord between Heaven and Earth be established.
I found yesterday an old message to a friend on Facebook. It says that – I am emotionally extravagant – I put things out there – and hypersensitive. I cry easily and laugh a lot. I cry for the world and people. I laugh because the world is so gorgeous and life such an adventure – and there is such deeply rooted absurdity. The world can only be understood with love and soaring imagination. That’s not poetry but reality. It is a dangerous game however – we need to remain centred and social and loved and at the same travel the far paths with angels and demons. You need to know where to go when the world lacerates your soul. That’s why I understand your need for family and for wildness. It is essentially the same thing – I just put it in extravagant ways.
Perhaps the thing that struck me this week was a list of nine things that men secretly wish they could do. Perhaps not too surprisingly I already do most of them. That’s not being a girl and I will fight anyone who says it is. Springer has a standing invitation. I figured we could swing by Antarctica, follow the whales north to Yeppoon and have it out behind the Great Western in Rocky. I’ll serve beer and penguin kabobs after – while Springer licks his wounds. My manbag is full of many boy things, most of it utter cr@p – and weighs a ton. Substitute girl things for boy things and the parallels are striking.
What struck me most in the Gelernter essay was the profound – and traditional – moral core. First of all in God – the numinous is something I experience moment by moment. If we laugh at the notion that God is ‘hard wired’ into the brain – and proclaim the reality of the living God as vividly experienced – then everything proceeds from that and the iron laws of God are written in the heart. Especially the sacredness of all life – even penguins – and the need therefore to be wise stewards of the natural world. From that should spring devotion to the ideals of the western scientific enlightenment – democracy, the rule of law, individual freedom – things to be perpetually renewed.
So utterly delis to see you back – dear Lady – I hope you wont be a stranger.
Yours always – Skippy
Thank you, Skippy. My favorite Gelernter line, way way back in the 1990’s, was about introducing the internet into the public schools. Gelernter said that kids needed to be taught fundamentals, how to think, not how to access (potentially) weird information, that they “need internet access the way they need subsidized bus access to the nearest mall.”
But, we long ago stopped teaching them the calisthenics of thinking, didn’t we? ….Lady in Red
Julia doesn’t need to know how to think. She just needs to know what government office to go to to get whatever she needs. Obamaphones with GPS are a girl’s best friend.
> My favorite Gelernter line […]
Mine is
http://mises.org/misesreview_detail.aspx?control=315
Small world.
What I find most important in Gelernter’s essay is his criticism of the rabid response to Nagel’s thesis. It is truly remarkable that the rabid response appeared in The Chronicle of Higher Education as a call to war against religion, as follows:
“Whatever the validity of [Nagel’s] stance, its timing was certainly bad. The war between New Atheists and believers has become savage, with Richard Dawkins writing sentences like, “I have described atonement, the central doctrine of Christianity, as vicious, sadomasochistic, and repellent. We should also dismiss it as barking mad….” In that climate, saying anything nice at all about religion is a tactical error.”
That is truly irresponsible.
Perhaps we should read the book – aye wee willie? But it is impossible to forget that America was founded on God and the ideals of the enlightenment. An America with a burning clarity of vision is a bright example to the world. An American who lives only to quibble and equivocate is a sadder spectacle.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Statue_of_Liberty_7.jpg
” But it is impossible to forget that America was founded on God…”
____
Or rather, the memeplex that contains a belief in a Judeo-Christian type deity, and the belief that one should be allowed to practice your belief system in any way you feel appropriate. Of course, in early America, those natives who could not be “converted” to believing and practicing what you believe were exterminated outright, or rounded up and put on reservations. As for the dark skinned African’s that were brought over, that early America “founded on God” saw these people as only property, and of course their native religions had to be beat out of them and outright forbidden. So yes, indeed, the belief in your vision of God can be a strong motivator to subjugate and exterminate when necessary.
The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag: “I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”, should be rendered by standing at attention facing the flag with the right hand over the heart. When not in uniform men should remove any non-religious headdress with their right hand and hold it at the left shoulder, the hand being over the heart. Persons in uniform should remain silent, face the flag, and render the military salute.
Far be it for me to defend an American ‘memeplex’ no different – and usually far worse – than any other ‘memeplex’. America is after all the great Satan.
‘Its primary goals included promoting democracy and ridding Iran of colonial forces. In rhetoric that might now be tainted as neoconservative, the policy clearly aimed to transform Iran into a showcase of democracy and the vanguard of the decolonized Middle East. As Hurley later distilled the new policy, “[Iran] can achieve for herself the fulfillment of the principles of justice, freedom of conscience, freedom of press, freedom of speech, freedom of want, equality and opportunity, and to a degree, freedom from fear.”
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/world/the-great-satan-myth
The obviously evil USA memeplex – justice, freedom of conscience, freedom of press, freedom of speech, freedom of want, equality and opportunity, and to a degree, freedom from fear – obviously has no place in the post modernist universe.
Another interesting quote, Chief, I mean Generalissimo:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/back-school_756489.html
One has to admire how he flips the “reactionary” word in a reactionary op-ed in a reactionary outlet.
Oh, and don’t forget to be tempted by the chartered cruise offered with the splash screen.
R. Gates, ” So yes, indeed, the belief in your vision of God can be a strong motivator to subjugate and exterminate when necessary.”
Welcome to humanity where guilt is confused with compassion, greed with ambition and righteousness with weakness. Most of the slaughter of the new world Indians was accomplished through contact. They gave us syphilis and gonorrhea, we gave them small pox, the common cold and a few viral infections. The strongest immune system wins. Arabs and old world sailors where kind enough to provide the hardier Africans in exchange for rum and tobacco, since new world Indians didn’t function well as slaves.
Treatment of the slaves was based on the works of Plato and Aristotle. Most enlightenments seem to have a retro perspective. Luckily, selective reasoning blocks the less than ideal in the model and highlights the evil of reality. Thank Dog for the guilt ridden over achievers with the vision to save the world every generation or three.
A totally reliable totalitarian writes:
R. Gates, a Skeptical Warmist | January 4, 2014 at 4:19 pm |
” But it is impossible to forget that America was founded on God…”
____
“Or rather, the memeplex that contains a belief in a Judeo-Christian type deity, and the belief that one should be allowed to practice your belief system in any way you feel appropriate. Of course, in early America, those natives who could not be “converted” to believing and practicing what you believe were exterminated outright, or rounded up and put on reservations.”
Gates, read your own writing and learn from it. You always work from totalitarian assumptions. You assume that a “belief system” is something that must be imposed on none believers. Drop that assumption. Demand of yourself that you prove that there was an attempt to impose the belief system on everyone.
As regards Christianity and America’s founding, blaming Christianity or the founders for what happened to Native Americans is tantamount to blaming the deck chairs for what happened to the Titanic. Like all good knee-jerk totalitarians, you see control where none exists. Humanity continues to be a seething mass that is beyond the control of all known government systems. It is surely beyond control by religion. The fears that you state or imply in your post are paranoid. The rage at religion that you state or imply is infantile. Reminds me of the Chronicle of Higher Education.
Generalissimo Skippy | January 4, 2014 at 3:54 pm |
Perhaps we should read the book – aye wee willie?
Nagel’s book? Everyone should read it. Maybe some will learn that there can be legitimate criticism of Darwin’s account of evolution. Darwin’s account is not to be confused with those later accounts based on the works of Mendel, Crick and Watson, or the work of genetic engineers. You can accept all of that later work as first rate science yet understand that Darwin’s claims about human evolution are highly flawed. Unfortunately, those who teach the later claims also teach that they fulfill Darwin’s work. That is a huge error.
‘Consistency is the last refuge of the unimaginative.’
Oscar Wilde
‘Congrats—sorry your degree is such a joke.’ Lantov
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424127887323744604578470900844821388
As if wee willies progressive framing means more than rat sh!t to anyone that matters. But it is actually a snowballing plan to create a new values laden narrative for the world in the 21st century – react as they may.
“Treatment of the slaves was based on the works of Plato and Aristotle. ”
—
Not to mention the whip, and the general belief in the superiority of your own race. And let’s not forget good old fashion capitalism. Owning slaves was enormously profitable.
“The strongest immune system wins.”
—-
Superior technology and overwhelming numbers doesn’t hurt either.
> react as they may.
That reminds me of this other gem by Gelertner:
http://www.cato-unbound.org/2006/01/24/david-gelernter/capitalism-jarons-views-capitalism
Not bad for a conservative Republican, who was in fact a Bush administration appointee, in a small-potatoes way.
“Those who don’t know history are doomed to repeat it.”
― Edmund Burke
The African slave trade was not a matter of intelectual discourse until the 18th century. There were no protests questioning the morality of enslaving Africans. The first questions came from the rationalist thinkers of the Enlightenment. They criticized slavery as a violation of the rights of man. Perhaps this had an impact on public discourse and attiutudes which the abolitionist movement would move, but the grear Enlightenment thinkers did not launch the abolitonist movement and were not among the leaders of the abolitonist movement which develoed. Some figures associated with Enligtenment thinking like Thomas Jefferson were slave owners. Rather the abolitionist movement in both Britain and America would develop wiuthin the Protesant chuches. A similar dynamic occurred in American during the Civil Rights movement. The leaders of the movement came from the churches and not the intellecual, university estsablishment.
Capitalism
The British economy like ecomonies throughout Europe was largely based on agiculture and land. This began to change in the 18th century with the Industrial Revolution Capitalism was essentially invented by the Dutch and adopted on a larger scale by the British. The slave trade played an important role in generating the capital that financed the Industrial Revolution. And inputs from slave based economies (the cotton from southhern plantations) played a role in the Industrial Revolution. From an early point, however, Scottish economist Adam Smith’s demostrated in the The Wealth of Nations slave labour was not cheaper than the work of free men. The central struggle in the abolition of slavery would be the American Civil War and it was the northern economy based on free labor that would defeat the slave-based economy of the Southern Confederacy. http://histclo.com/act/work/slave/abol/cou/ac-brit.html
This is reasonable – although heavily slanted towards Christian involvement. The government impetus in both Britain and the US was lead by ‘Whigs’. A section of which morphed into the US republicans led by Abe Lincoln.
In protest, Chase and a small group of antislavery Democrats and Whigs published the ‘‘Appeal of Independent Democrats,’’ criticizing Douglas’s bill ‘‘as a gross violation of a sacred pledge,’’ designed to make free territory into a ‘‘dreary region of despotism, inhabited by masters and slaves’’ (Potter 1976, 163). However, a majority of Northern Democrats and nearly all Southern members of the party combined to pass the bill in May 1854.
Unsupported by Democrats and dissatisfied with the ineffective Whig Party, frustrated antislavery Northerners gradually began to switch their allegiance to the antislavery Republican Party, formed that same year. The expansion of slavery became the preeminent point of conflict between Republicans and Democrats by 1856. http://www.worldtracker.org/media/library/Reference/Encyclopedia%27s/Encyclopedia%20of%20Antislavery.pdf
Of course slavery is not confined to capitalism – with number of examples found in 20th century totalitarian and communist states. Slavery is fundamentally at odds with the ideals of the scientific enlightenment.
R. Gates, “Superior technology and overwhelming numbers doesn’t hurt either.”
The trail of tears, Andrew Jackson’s relocation of the Cherokee Nation was probably the largest cruelty done to any Indian group. About 4000 of 16,000 Cherokee died on the forced march to Oklahoma. At the time, Technology and numbers were about even. Muskets has a little longer range but took longer to reload than bows and arrows.
There were a lot of Cherokee Treaties, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherokee_treaties because there were a lot of Cherokee Chiefs, some real some not so and a lot of colonial goverments. The forced migration had to violate several of those treaties. The population of the 23 US states was about 9 million excluding Native Americans at the time of the Trail of Tears. The Native population was about 2 to 17 million in North America.
“The population of African and Eurasian peoples in the Americas grew steadily, while the number of the indigenous people plummeted. Eurasian diseases such as smallpox, influenza, bubonic plague and pneumonic plagues devastated the Native Americans who did not have immunity. Conflict and outright warfare with Western European newcomers and other American tribes further reduced populations and disrupted traditional society. The extent and causes of the decline have long been a subject of academic debate, along with its characterization as a genocide.[2]”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_history_of_the_indigenous_peoples_of_the_Americas
Slavery by the 1800s became pretty much African-American specific. Native Americans preferred, “adoption” where captives were adopted into the tribe though there was a Native American slave trade where “adoptees” were traded with settlers, colonists and other tribes. Some Cherokee even owned black slaves. Bond servants, indentured servants, leased convicts and apprentice where favored “civilized” terms in the US.
Not much different than in ancient Greece. The average Greek “citizen” owned about 4 slaves which were traded or captives. The Roman Empire “adopted” quite a few. Moors were big on adoption along with the Persians and Mongols. Disease or drought played a big role in social changes.
Of course, this is all “academically” debatable.
The point was the our belief in a Judeo-Christian concept of a deity did not stop us, as a nation, from the commission or horrible acts against our fellow human beings, and should not be taken as a bright beacon for guiding our present actions. More dangerous is a sanctimonious notion that our belief in this Judeo-Christian deity makes us exceptional.
R. Gates, ” More dangerous is a sanctimonious notion that our belief in this Judeo-Christian deity makes us exceptional.”
Having a Judeo-Christian or any other deity system with laws just makes a group more consistent. The “Protestant” work ethic developed so society could function without as much reliance on slavery. Those protestants though have to have the option to succeed by whatever definition success is or there is a flaw in the system.
Like most guilt ridden over achievers you overly demonize the Judeo-Christian belief where had it not been for Judeo-Christian beliefs you could not exist or at least be allowed to share your displeasure with others. You should really get over it. There is no such thing as perfection, write that down.
No, more complex than that, Gelernter was targeted by the Unabomber because
Sort of reminds Eli of some of the rants he reads here.
In the epilog of your book, “Mirror Worlds,” you tried to justify your research by claiming that the developments you describe are inevitable, and that any college person can learn enough about computers to compete in a computer-dominated world. Apparently, people without a college degree don’t count. In any case, being informed about computers won’t enable anyone to prevent invasion of privacy (through computers), genetic engineering (to which computers make an important contribution), environmental degradation through excessive economic growth (computers make an important contribution to economic growth) and so forth.
Tendentious nonsense rabbit – are you arguing that the unabomber is not green/left loony tunes? Complex? I don’t think so – and obviously the staff of the Supermax prison in Colorado agree.
It is about as complex Christians leading the public face of the anti-slavery struggle. Loony tunes leftists obviously have a problem with reality – the unabomber just took it a little further.
Got move on, dis ain’t 1952.
H/t dat blues Cannon.
======
You say a lot of funny stuff Capt. D., but this was among the best:
“The “Protestant” work ethic developed so society could function without as much reliance on slavery.”
——
This is of course nonsense, but it provided one of the best laughs I’ve had of 2014- so thank you.
The article on Lindzen is mostly good, but descends to some serious misrepresentation and ad hominem to come up with its list of “less reputable” sceptics. Necessary to appease the gatekeepers, I expect.
subscribe
Two sets of monthly data published:
– Sunspot numbers
SIDC sunspot number for December 2013 is 90.3 (non-smoothed), the second highest of the SC24 (96.7 for Nov 2011). It is possible that SC24 hasn’t peaked as yet http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SSN.htm
– CET daily min/max data
While December 2012 was month of two halves, December 2013 was a positively mild affair, with both daily max & min temps above the 20 year average http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET-dMm.htm
vuk’ , how does Svalgaards recent “corrections” to SSN align with your Y2 fn ?
IIRC, he finds a dicontinuity and increases earlier SSN counts by about 20%. Though I’m very retisent about the constant reworking of all these climate datasets, it seemed well argued and worth consideration.
By eye that may fit your Y2 slightly closer.
hi Greg
Strangely, as it appears, yes; but of course he would dismiss any connection as a nonsense.
The sc 24 hasn’t peaked yet IMO. The cycle is weak and that means long. The smoothed ssn will peak around 2014/15. The next minimum not before 2021/22. By then, there will be no warming for 30 years.
Edim
Srecna Nova Godina
By 2021/22 SC25 will be so low, you may not be able tell the max
Gee, what if the fearsome PDO, after a 20-year downward trend, is about to cycle back to trending upward for a decade or three? Lol. Of course, we’re on the precipice of Global Cooling. Agricultural disasters. Famine. Widespread malaise. Be alarmed. Be very alarmed.
England will go first. Without an England, no more Downton Abbey (summertime, 2016 {soon England’s children will never have seen green grass}).
JCH
we’ll be weeping into our webcams for ‘milkshake and bananas’
Srecna Nova Godina Vukcevic! Happy New Year to all!
Vuk – with modern data SORCES – pun intended – you need to stop worrying about SSN.
http://rt.com/news/sun-upside-down-flip-990/
The Sun magnetic pole has flipped – cycle 24 has peaked.
http://rt.com/news/sun-upside-down-flip-990/
Chef, exact timing of the cycle peak is somewhat arbitrary and depends on smoothing of the monthly ssn. Furthermore, magnetic poles flipping happens around solar maximum, not exactly at the maximum. So, I think the smoothed ssn has not peaked yet. This doesn’t mean that the highest monthly ssn from Nov 2011 will be topped.
http://lasp.colorado.edu/data/sorce/total_solar_irradiance_plots/images/tim_level3_tsi_24hour_640x480.png
“The Sun magnetic pole has flipped – cycle 24 has peaked.”
—-
And we are in the descending mode to the solar minimum. Most interesting will be how weak SC25 is or isn’t.
http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/images/bfly.gif
Through Dec 2013:
http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/SolarCycle/sunspot.gif
As I’m sure you know it looks like the first peak peaked to early (early 2011) now the second peak is just topping:
http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/images/ssn_predict_l.gif
correction:
As I’m sure you know it looks like the first peak peaked too early (late 2011) now the second peak is just topping
Merchants of doubt: “I can’t wait to see the casting.”
Starring Peter Gleick playing the role of a director of Heartland Institute.
To me it appears that they plan to make a movie woven from a bunch of base falsehoods and lies about a large number of people who are all very much alive. Yes some of them are retired and don’t have much money to hire lawyers. But others, like the Koch brothers, have deep pockets and very good lawyers indeed. How on earth do they expect to get away with this without having their pants sued off for libel?
If it opens, expect cool reviews.
========
The article on Lindzen was well written. I liked the way it both presented his thinking, and told clearly enough how his views differ from the mainstream.
The comment on Spencer came as a surprise, but its actually quite natural that other skeptical scientists are unhappy about the direct link between climate skepticism and religious views in the declaration signed by Spencer. Similarly it’s not surprising if he sees support by Delingpole as counterproductive. Many mainstream climate scientists are certainly similarly unhappy with the outings of many visible activists.
Science needs skeptics like Lindzen in climate science. It’s essential that a wide spectrum of hypotheses gets studied. It’s also right that the results of these skeptics get scrutinized, and their views criticized when they join policy discussion. It’s right that scientists participate also in policy related discussion. Where we do have problems is in getting the media to present a balanced view, and to indicate where science ends and other personal views enter. The article on Lindzen was a positive example in that respect.
The first time I met James Delingpole, after a debate he did with George Monbiot in London a few days after Climategate broke (arranged well beforehand), I told him that I saw him as HL Mencken. How did Mencken know to reject eugenics when he had no scientific training? Yet he was streets ahead of the ‘scientists’ of his day, it turned out. James didn’t seem too displeased by the analogy.
Kepler once famously exclaimed “I am thinking God’s thoughts after Him!” This strange view of what he was doing did not automatically make him a bad scientist. Likewise, the fact that Mencken was an atheist didn’t make automatically right about eugenics. There were atheists on the other side of that debate. A really weak passage in what was mostly an excellent piece.
Yes, one wonders how Mencken acquired such wisdom and insight.
The Old Confederacy, Mencken felt, was a land “with men of delicate fancy, urbane instinct and aristocratic manner — in brief, superior men. It was there, above all, that some attention was given to the art of living — a certain noble spaciousness was in the ancient southern scheme of things.” …In his words, the Union victory was “a victory of what we now call Babbitts over what used to be called gentlemen.” But Mencken makes this caveat; “I am not arguing here, of course, that the whole Confederate army was composed of gentlemen; on the contrary, it was chiefly made up, like the Federal army, of innocent and unwashed peasants, and not a few of them got into its corps of officers. But the impulse behind it, as everyone knows, was essentially aristocratic, and that aristocratic impulse would have fashioned the Confederacy if the fortunes of war had run the other way.”
Indeed – the “art of living” and “delicate fancy mix so seamlessly with slave-owning, don’t you think?
Joshua, you reject Mencken in one area but on eugenics I take it you agree with him? This is a good lesson. Although you are 100% right about Mencken (say) perhaps you are close to 100% wrong about CAGW? Just because Mackenzie King was reading the book of Revelation and having terrible visions of Hitler as the Antichrist didn’t make his help for Churchill, including interceding with Roosevelt, unimportant or wrong. We are complex packages. Gut feel is part of the package, as is worldview. Quality as a scientist can coexist with stuff you find weird – or you have a very blinkered view of the world indeed.
It’s the Progressive world view from the morally and intellectually superior high ground, Richard. Any expression of nostalgia for the Old South can only be interpreted as endorsing slavery. Don’t let them catch you sipping on a mint julep.
And don’t call yourself a skeptic. Progressive doctrine dictates that by definition and circular reasoning you cannot be skeptical of the given truth. You are a climate denier; one of the 3% lunatic fringe who are living it up uncaring of the deadly consequences for future generations. The sneakier Progressives sometimes use a less obvious epithet: “skeptic”. Isn’t it cute how they do that with the quotation marks.
You say “moral superiority”,
I say “nostalgia”.
Tomato, tomacco.
Don: thanks. Carl Sagan once suggested that they should carve this on the gravestone of Johannes Kepler: “He preferred the truth to his dearest illusions.” In my way of thinking, based on evidence, Kepler had the character to let go of what was wrong but (in St Paul’s terms) he held fast to much that was good. I actually found myself moved by what was quoted from Mencken. But the point is of course totally general. Just because you find something that displeases your modern sensibilities in a human being it’s foolish and above all gives you no nourishment not to admire and learn from what they got right. And even that of course is a matter of judgment. And thus the making of blog posts never ceases, as the ancient said. :)
willard:
Thanks to alerting me to that. Did the ‘real’ Chief Hydrologist get to smoke any?
That’s not something one smokes, Richard:
Richard,
One of the major drawbacks of being a deceased genius is that you can’t squash anonymous underachievers on blogs who cherry-pick quotes from your body of work and make snide moral judgements based on their own dubious modern sensibilities. It would be interesting to see what Mencken would do to our little joshie.
What is the alternative? If you give up the Christian philosophy of ecology (if we might thus characterize it), how else do you approach the non-human world and articulate our (human) relationship to it? What are our rights, and what are our obligations? In recent years, the so-called “deep ecologists” have been at the forefront of non-Christian alternatives. (I know there are others like the ecofeminists and the neo-Pagans, but I think deep ecology provides the best contrast to Christianity and other positions can be fit along the spectrum.) Followers of the Norwegian philosopher Arne Naesse, deep ecologists argue that non-human things (animals, plants, the world itself) have value and rights of their own: “The well-being and flourishing of human and non-human life on Earth have value in themselves (synonyms: intrinsic value, inherent worth). These values are independent of the usefulness of the non-human world, for human purposes.”
The problem is with the fine print. What is the justification for all of this? Deep ecologists tend to be a bit fuzzy, but ultimately (and here they are joined by ecofeminists and neo-Pagans and many others) they think the world itself is an organism, probably conscious, and that God or no God, it has equal standing with human beings. If we have rights, then so does the world and its parts. (There are those who would say that because we are part of the world, we only have rights inasmuch as the world has rights.)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-ruse/global-warming-the-christ_b_690458.html
For example, ‘Creation Care’ advocate Todd Levasseur published a full-length editorial this week in the Charleston Post and Courier arguing that people have a religious obligation to become global warming activists. He wrote, “Maybe it is time for an 11th Commandment: ‘Thou shalt not emit greenhouse gases.’”
Global warming activist and self-professed evangelical Katherine Hayhoe will be delivering a talk next week at the University of Kentucky making the case that Christians have a biblical directive to fight global warming. Making a special effort to appeal to evangelicals, Hayhoe recently wrote, “[D]oesn’t climate change mean that we have to believe in evolution and a four-billion-year-old Earth? Not at all.”
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/03/28/the-meltdown-of-global-warmists-reveals-their-true-priorities/
You might be able to tell – I am quite a bit bored with it all – and I can assure you that no tomacco were harmed in the making of my attitude.
Frankly – the evolution of the universe is a myth born of a limited perspective.
‘Since there exists 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.’ Albert Einstein
The mythological dimensions of relativity seem endless – but they don’t rationally include militant atheism based on ideas of evolution.
‘His disciples said: Teach us about the place where you are, for it is necessary for us to seek it. He said to them: They who have ears, let them hear! There is light within a person of light, and they light the whole world. If they do not shine, there is darkness.’ Gospel of Thomas
Where is the light on global warming? Reconciling the overwhelming need for global economic and social development this century with conservation and restoration of the natural world.
Judging by the historical record, and contemporary studies of the greening of African and Chinese deserts, “conservation and restoration of the natural world” can best be achieved by maximizing our CO2 output and helping Warming along, even by its miniscule influence.
Desert Greening?
http://www.csiro.au/~/media/CSIROau/Portals/Media%20Releases/2013/DesertsGreeningRisingCO2/SatelliteData/High_Resolution.png
http://www.csiro.au/Portals/Media/Deserts-greening-from-rising-CO2.aspx
Ecologies – like climate are complex and dynamic systems – and the operating principle is to minimise the rate of change within the system. Where changes such as this are occurring you would be better to start wondering about hydrological changes, recruitment, competition and the health of plants that are only part of a functioning ecosystem. Outcomes are uncertain and potentially problematic – with information far from sufficient to characterise non-linear responses. CO2 is not necessarily good – a large change in one aspect is usually bad for a functioning and balanced ecosystems. That we are the agent of change – should I think give pause for a broader and more nuanced analysis
e.g. http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/earth-atmospheric-and-planetary-sciences/12-517-dynamics-of-complex-systems-ecological-theory-spring-2001/
There are many other ecological pressures – and far more wide ranging responses than ‘CO2 is good’.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/10176217/The-underground-forests-that-are-bringing-deserts-to-life.html
Many of these add to production and conservation.
http://ericlimacher.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/conservation-farming.png
Chief:
I can get on with the rest of 2014 now that I know. :)
Where does the belief come from that a significant average-temperature increase will be bad?
The Weekly Standard piece about Dr. Lindzen says:
“[The IPCC’s AR5 Summary for Policymakers predicts that] global temperatures could increase as much as 5.5 degrees Celsius from current averages, while sea levels could rise by nearly a meter. If we hit those projections, it’s generally thought that the Earth would be rife with crop failures, drought, extreme weather, and epochal flooding. Adios, Miami.”
“it’s generally thought”? Is that true?
Although I can understand the sea-level rise, I haven’t seen a good explanation of “crop failures, drought, extreme weather.” Sure, any time there’s a change, there are winners and losers. But, water’s equilibrium vapor pressure as a function of temperature being what it is, wouldn’t a significant average-temperature increase generally mean much less-extreme global low temperatures and little if any increase in global highs? To me, that sounds like just the opposite of extreme weather.
But I’ve seen the opposite conclusion taken as axiomatic often enough that there must be some body of persuasive evidence of which most people are aware. Can anyone out there tell me what it is?
Joe Born said: But, water’s equilibrium vapor pressure as a function of temperature being what it is, wouldn’t a significant average-temperature increase generally mean much less-extreme global low temperatures and little if any increase in global highs? ”
______
Is that what’s happened as the average has risen?
Max_OK, Citizen Scientist: “Is that what’s happened as the average has risen?”
Don’t know. I think I’ve seen greater change in lows than highs, but, given that the 20th-Century trend was only 0.8 Celsius degrees/century and urban effects are likely considerable, I’m not sure the data we have are very informative.
So, we’re warming, depending on the measure, at 1.3C to 1.5C per century.
Not nearly so much as the extreme of 5.5C so far.
Taking the disasters one at a time:
crop failures – from what, one may ask. Crop production is at record highs and human consumption continues to grow world wide
drought – the century long US PDSI record actually indicates an (insignificant) weak trend toward LESS drought.
extreme weather – the US count of strong tornadoes since 1950 indicates a DECREASE in strong tornadoes which are largely determined by strong mid-latitude cyclones
epochal flooding – flooding is difficult to assess over generations because human property, impermeable surface, drainage, etc. etc. all change over time. The NCDC wet/dry index does not indicate a trend toward extremes.
The nature of overall weather is determined by pole to equator gradient, the orientation of the land/oceans/mountains, etc. etc. and not so much by average temperature.
The “extreme of 5.5°C is pure video game phantasy. IAC, complete shutdown of industrial economies (good luck persuading the Chinese, etc.) would achieve fractions of a degree difference, per IPCC muddles.
Contra-indicated as a viable option, wuncha say?
“the fossil fuel industry is funding campaigns for disinformation and misinformation”. Despite I got no sponsorship for creating this document against IPCC’s claims:
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B4r_7eooq1u2VHpYemRBV3FQRjA
it has also been criticised in that same way. Thus, I must be some kind of stupid freak: so much funding around and I haven’t seen a single dollar.
Ben Pile has a very interesting addition to the scientist-advocacy debate:
http://www.climate-resistance.org/2014/01/science-advocacy.html
“and the scales fell from his(her) eyes . . .”
This discussion captures many of my concerns very well. My friends in academia can’t “see” them at all: they are oblivious.
The Pile blog is a must-read. I’ve suggested to The Australian that they commission an article from him. Pile is one of the best writers on policy issues arising from the global warming meme, with a far broader and more informed basis than most commentators, and an excellent grasp of policy.
Pile does well to deflate the “non-political” balloon. To see the Tyndall Centre claiming it is outrageous.
Having obtained some degree of political and professional noos or stature, these birds are attempting to saw off the ladder behind them.
He needn’t be so deferential towards “progressivism”, btw. It is the direct descendant and inheritor of the full Eugenics genome. See Fabianism, etc. The “progress” they claim to represent is idealized, so to speak, in Huxley’s Brave New World . All we Deltas need not comment.
Any sight reports of these stealth advocate birds you are talking about?
Sound too much like a conspiracy theory, are the Illuminati out there?
A quote from the above linked Weekly Standard article on Lindzen:
“If Lindzen is right about this and global warming is nothing to worry about, why do so many climate scientists, many with résumés just as impressive as his, preach imminent doom? He says it mostly comes down to the money—to the incentive structure of academic research funded by government grants. Almost all funding for climate research comes from the government, which, he says, makes scientists essentially vassals of the state. And generating fear, Lindzen contends, is now the best way to ensure that policymakers keep the spigot open.”
_______
I get it. Lindzen doubts the integrity of climate scientists who disagree with him. He suspects they make a living lying for the government , a government that needs lies to advance it’s agenda of taking away our freedoms.
I think Lindzen is both sad and funny.
Max_Callow, Cub Reporter says, “I think Lindzen is both sad and funny.”
Your drive by sneer is less than convincing Max. What’s sad and funny is your inability to understand how the world works.
Max, read the Pile article.
Policy makers don’t make the decision about what science is or is not funded,
pokerguy (aka al neipris) said on January 4, 2014 at 11:56 am
“What’s sad and funny is your inability to understand how the world works.”
_____
pokerguy, I’ll bite. Tell me how the world works.
Please don’t pull a phatboy on me, and say you could tell me if you wanted to, but you don’t want to.
Faustino, I don’t know which Pile article you want me to read. Please provide a link.
Max, two sub-threads up, curryja provides http://www.climate-resistance.org/2014/01/science-advocacy.html
Faustino, thanks. I’ll check it out.
French Polar chief slams the antarctic cruise
http://www.skynews.com.au/topstories/article.aspx?id=939155&cid=BP_RSS_TOPSTORIES_3_PolarchiefslamsAntarcticcruise_040114
That’s twice recently I’ve read Polar Chef instead, and eagerly awaited the report from the galley, the most important room in any ship.
==================
Tens of thousands of tourists visit Antarctica each year – mostly January thru March. Almost every one of them arrives by boat. Boats have accidents every month of the year, but Antarctica, with its extreme weather, is a premium spot for boat accidents.
Why was this moron not sending a rescue ship with his resupply vessel? He should be fired immediately. He has placed the penguin counting at tremendous risk, and he’s just trying to pass the blame onto non French speakers. My gawd, they’re out of erasers.
Maybe French bombers can parachute in supplies.
The Australian Chef is spitting tacks. I don’t think that’s his new technique for decorating cakes.
===========
Kim, “The Australian Chef is spitting tacks. I don’t think that’s his new technique for decorating cakes.”
That is what happens when the Polar Bartender over serves. I guess the “Scientists” on the “Expedition” didn’t get the memo that red wine’s health benefits were over rated. Cold weather is Scotch weather.
kim can’t get his mind off food. I too first misread it “French Polar Chef” and pictured him aboard the ship stuck in the ice. I think about food a lot.
Alarmists decimated polar science projects
The primary cause: Delay by climate junket/tourist antics, preventing the ship from leaving escaping the ice when it could have. See WUWT expose:
The cause of the Akademik Shokalskiy getting stuck in Antarctica – delay from sightseeing mishaps and dawdling by the passengers getting back on ship
Inexcusable alarmist antics explicitly caused this major loss of science far greater than any “benefit” that couldn’t have been obtained by satellites or drones!
The chef was Russian. All they got was borscht.
Oh the science, my stricken, bleeding, mourning heart! After the penguin counters starve, who will count the penguins?
JCH, that is more of a vodka course, inappropriate for a spirits of Mawson commemorative “expedition”.
A teachable moment. Poor or delayed decision-making in steadily changing circumstances. Insufficient precautionary measures. What can we learn from this?
JimD, “What can we learn from this?”
Be careful how you spend that end of fiscal year budget surplus.
• •
Joanne Nova
presciently
(like usual)
observes:
• “[…] as a PR stunt, skeptics could not possibly have come up with a better way to highlight the growing sea-ice around Antarctica that the models never predicted; nor to display the lack of pragmatic skill modern climate science has attained.”
–
What can we learn from this?
Adventure tourism is not adventurous enough without some risk. Every now and then the risks come trough.
The balance of risks and set goals was perhaps not right, but to decide that we should know more than just the ultimate outcome.
captd, possibly financial considerations entered into their poor decision-making, so that is another thing to think about. Either way there was a cost, and they went the way that ended up costing more.
Jim D – who knows what they will conclude, but it appears a section of fast ice broke away and was rapidly blown into the open water where the ship was grounded on fast ice. There was nothing steady about it. One moment is was attached to the continent (fast ice = fastened); the next it was silently heading straight at them, with the assistance of very high winds.
This sort of thing could have crippled a resupply ship, a warship, any ship. Even Captain D’s tuna boat.
If somebody wants to argue tourists should not go to Alaska, a kettle of fish the bitxhing French chef is not about to stir, fine. But that is not what is being argued.
Antarctica is an angry beast, and human beings should not be poking it with a stick as it can change abruptly!
Mixing scientists and tourists is a bad idea. Antarctic scientists have to live up to their tradition of dying there.
Pekka, I was trying to draw an analogy to decision-making under changing conditions and uncertainty that has relevance to bigger global questions. But, yes, we see a case of tourism pushing against changing limits made possible by developing technology and a changing environment. Lots of unknowns.
JCH, “Mixing scientists and tourists is a bad idea. Antarctic scientists have to live up to their tradition of dying there.”
Had this been a real science expedition they would have just waited on the winds to shift so you are 100% correct. What I find distasteful is the “Science Expedition” sales pitch and begging for money for a friggin’ vacation cruise. Not that is unexpected, just reprimand or fire the guy but don’t defend the stupidity.
To me this particular case is an overblown story of questionable tourism decorated with a little science, which is hardly of much real value.
Climate change was introduced as additional keywords to raise more interest in the trip and perhaps to secure some funding. The scientific program seems to have very little to do with that.
Pekka, to me it was a case of creative fundraising for a scientific expedition, by adding wealthy tourists to it. We see this in space tourism too, that there is a lot of money to tap among the wealthy, so I don’t blame them for doing that, but it might have compromised their mission.
Jim,
I doubt the scientific value of such a single trip. Present day science is done in more systematic ways, separate data available in this way must be very difficult to use. I have noticed that many Antarctic scientists have made similar comments.
Actually it was a science publicity stunt taking advantage of the 100 year anniversary of the original AAE. An association for advancement of science may consider that a worthwhile goal. For the principal scientists this was an opportunity to advertize their science, even if this expedition added probably very little to that.
Capt D – my hunch is you’re right. This ship was not in imminent danger. And I do not think there is any real possibility it ever will be, though I read it is slightly possible the section of ice in which it is trapped could end up as fast ice, which would mean it’s not getting out of there without the assistance of a big icebreaker.
My bet is the Russians are getting $60,000 a day to sit there, and they will not ask for further assistance. They will count on conditions changing and freeing them.
If true, then the biggest threat to the passengers’ lives, and by a wide margin, was the helicopter ride out. It went smoothly, so kim must have been praying like a demon.
The scientific missions to Antarctica want tourism as it likely will increase awareness of what they are doing and likely increase their funding/funding sources.
And I think blaming the passengers, including all of the scientists, is just plain stupid.
Pekka, the Antarctic population consists of several thousand scientists and support people. Whether they are all doing things more worthwhile than what this expedition was doing, I can’t judge. Similarly there are purely sporting expeditions, like the one Prince Harry took part in. How do we judge some of these as good and some as bad? For sure, some are successful and some fail, and they know the risks.
I know how the passengers on the Spirit of Mawson feel, as I had a similar experience.
You see, I have been on the Disney cruise’s a few times and they did have the Disney Oceaneer Lab. My kids spent a lot of time there. I have a feeling that the science that they were doing there was on a similar level to what was happening on the CliTanic.
It was a harrowing experience, one day we were supposed to stop in Grand Caymen, but the seas were too rough, so we had to stop in the Bahamas instead. No worries, the science continued and my kids were still able to make some cornstarch goo and look at things under a microscope. We eventually made it back to Orlando and we were able to report our findings to all of our friends and relatives.
Pekka seems not to notice that long after everyone understood whose fault this fiasco was, the head of it was still trying to blame ‘global warming’ and everyone else instead of himself.
============
JCH;
As for kim praying like a demon — you do recall who demons pray to, don’t you? Now we just have to wait for “the details” to work themselves out.
https://twitter.com/JonHaidt/status/419480528010485760
Michael Gerson is a charter member of the “me too” caucus of the Republican Party. Of course progressives like what he says. He was
The fact that he can be counted on to misrepresent, or at best badly misunderstand, conservative positions on governance is the reason he landed at the Washington Post..
willard (@nevaudit) | January 4, 2014 at 10:23 am |
Much of the writing sounds very pretty, and very nearly right; there are admirable sentiments expressed that appeal to moderation and seeming rationality, but on the whole I must agree with GaryM that Gerson’s statements do not reflect accurately some conservative positions.
This is just another instance of the lefties asking the conservatives how they would provide service X to the public. That is the wrong question. It is perfectly valid to assert the Federal government has no role in health care … ditto for education and a raft of other functions.
The Federal government isn’t the only level of government in the US. The Constitution left most powers to the States, but the Fed has usurped those. I notice the article emphasizes the role of the Fed, under their interpretation of the Constitution. The article does not mention at all the role of the States.
The Constitution was amended thus:
Article X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
This is the elephant in the room for lefties. They choose to ignore it.
There are plenty of ways to help the poor without the miasma of agencies and hundreds of thousands of government employees. But lefties always write bill such that the implementation requires significant expansion of the Federal payroll.
There is so much more that could be said, but I’m out of time.
A Republic, if you can keep it.
========
If you like your Republic, you can keep it!
Journalistic Alarmism On Parade! Paul Farrell of MarketWatch must be getting bad ratings. This is pure, unadulterated pap. Note how he throws around the word “fact.”
From the article:
Fact 2: Global warming is as deadly as 400,000 A-bombs — every day
Next, imagine alerts rapidly streaming across your monitor. Big headline flashing: “Earth’s rate of global warming is 400,000 Hiroshima bombs a day.” Suddenly, fade to black. An eerie silence. You wonder: Is this our new reality? We’re in the dark.
Facts really are stranger than fiction. No matter what new broadcast technologies deliver our news — TV, LinkedIn, Hulu, Google Glass, “Star Trek” mind melding, Kurzweil’s “Singularity”— the fact is this: Global warming is running at a rate of 400,000 A-bombs hitting Planet Earth daily, dangerously overheating our world, day after day after day.
Big Oil is fighting to keep that info off Big TV News. But the fact remains that the 400,000-daily-A-bombs headline is real. It was first posted on ThinkProgress.com and voiced by one of the world’s leading climate scientists, James Hansen, the head of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies from 1981 to 2013, in a 2012 TED Talk . But since Big Money rules today’s reality, even if the conspiracy loses a round, its perpetrators will invest heavily a comeback. They can’t afford to lose the “War of the Worlds.”
Fact 3: Just 90 companies trigger 63% of all global-warming pollution
This, from the Guardian , is a show stopper: “Just 90 companies caused two-thirds of man-made global warming emissions: Chevron, Exxon and BP among companies most responsible for climate change since dawn of industrial age.” The opener hits harder: “We know who’s profiting from emissions—let’s bill them. Shell, BP, ExxonMobil and Chevron are some of the 90 entities discovered in a recently published research that contribute to most of the world’s emissions.”
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/new-war-of-worlds-capitalism-vs-planet-earth-2014-01-04
MarketWatch needs to retire Paul to a nice green pasture. He’s done.
See: Chart of the greatest and most remarkable achievement in human history, and one you probably never heard about
Morally I strongly uphold the right of the people to use the resources available to use to rise out of poverty and care for their families. There is no moral reason we must keep climate at its current condition.
R. Gates, ” The polar vortex has become extremely elongated and is getting squeezed from a high pressure area moving up from Asia at 10 hPa:”
And CO2 causes that how again? Typically you have this knack of intelligent explanation of complex phenomena followed by party line BS. It is almost effective theatrical production with the same punchline.
Trying saying something like a stable polar vortex reduces hemispheric heat loss while an unstable polar vortex can release on the order of 10^22 Joules of energy in mere months to space. Westward shifting of the Pacific hot tongue increases the amount of energy released due to the Tibetan and Mongolia plateau elevation impact on poleward advection while eastward shifts in the Pacific hot tongue have less impact on vortex stability. This complex multi-decadal to century scale wandering of the Pacific Warm Tongue is not and has never been properly considered in climate models and can cause a much large range of natural variability than even considered possible prior to the satellite age. The impacts of these natural climate regimes can be on the order of +/- 1C “globally” making the current impact of Anthropogenic forcing indeterminate.
Good thing those A-bombs are all going off in the deep ocean, otherwise someone might notice.
I think if I were Japanese, I’d find that extremely offensive
Holy crap, 400,000 A-bombs going off in the deep ocean? you know what that means, Godzilla is coming
As the “coldest air in 20 years” headlines begin to attract the attention of AGW skeptics, best to remind folks of the physical causes of this outbreak of cold air. The polar vortex has become extremely elongated and is getting squeezed from a high pressure area moving up from Asia at 10 hPa:
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_a_f/gif_files/gfs_t10_nh_f00.gif
The vortex is just being squeezed and disrupted, and is not yet split, as would often be the case in a actual SSW event. Should this 10 hPa high pressure wave move further north, and shatter the vortex, an SSW event would obviously result and the vortex will be weak for the remainder of the NH winter.
“R. Gates, ” The polar vortex has become extremely elongated and is getting squeezed from a high pressure area moving up from Asia at 10 hPa:”
Capt. D: And CO2 causes that how again? Typically you have this knack of intelligent explanation of complex phenomena followed by party line BS. It is almost effective theatrical production with the same punchline.”
____
You raise more issues than you’re probably aware of (how, for example, does CO2 cause your heart to beat?)
But I know your are not speaking on the larger complexity of systems, but rather suggesting that I even mentioned CO2 or was trying to make some proximal connection between the highest GH gas levels in millions of years and a polar vortex getting squeezed by a 10 hPa high pressure system.
Sometime Capt, you bore me.
Okay, this part is not boring:
“This complex multi-decadal to century scale wandering of the Pacific Warm Tongue is not and has never been properly considered in climate models and can cause a much large range of natural variability than even considered possible prior to the satellite age. The impacts of these natural climate regimes can be on the order of +/- 1C “globally” making the current impact of Anthropogenic forcing indeterminate.”
_____
Overall my comment about the elongation of the polar vortex was to preempt some of the “coldest temperatures in 20 years so the globe must be cooling” nonsense with the actual physical basis of the cold outbreak we are experiencing at lower latitudes. This elongation of the vortex going on right now, which is the proximal cause of the cold outbreak, occurs frequently in NH winters, and the direction of the elongation determines what region gets the cold air. The potential connection to Anthropogenic warming and that warming potentially increasing or decreasing the frequency of these elongations was not the intent of my post. Nor was the intent to discus the dynamics of the closely associated SSW events which result when the high pressure system advances forcefully enough and with the right preconditioning of the arctic stratosphere to actually shatter or completely displace the vortex.
R. Gates, One of the major problems with Climate Science is the over specialization and jargonism that detracts from the overall complex dynamics. SSW events, AWW, ENSO, PDO, AMO QBO,and BDC are all interrelated and poorly describe what is actually happening on climate time scales but are useful on weather time scales.
https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/cOSQtwA3eioO2lLr8nMZ7gXvd2Gy3wzYX1hCXAfnob4=w740-h343-no
That divergence of GISS is due to NH dominate warming where Arctic winter warming is being improperly interpolated as “global” warming. We don’t have winter data in the higher latitudes to compare with the data we have now. That leads to conclusion jumping. Because of the lack of “global” data and the assumption that whatever baseline is “normal”, most of the discussion is esoteric BS.
The puzzle is much more interesting that tossing out big irrelevant numbers.
I want to thank you Gates for the considered information you have provided about SSW events. You started with some links to interesting papers and had quite a nice article.
R. Gates – the effect of CO2 on humans, at least a couple of doublings, isn’t an issue. In buildings we experience high levels of CO2 with no ill effect – at least it certainly doesn’t rise to the level of catastrophe. 5,000 ppm is considered the indoor limit.
Vortex continues to be squeezed and elongated by the high pressure and temperatures coming up from Asia at 10 hPa:
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_a_f/gif_files/gfs_t10_nh_f00.gif
Beginnings of at least a minor SSW event:
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_ANOM_JFM_NH_2014.gif
Will the vortex simply be disrupted, or will it be split, leading to a major SSW event? Stay tuned…
Coming in just now from the plummeting temps around Chicago, I’m just hoping for a local sudden tropospheric warming event.
I remember temps like this from the 70s on a regular basis. But somehow I’ve lost my ability to ignore them.
Will the vortex simply be disrupted, or will it be split, leading to a major SSW event? Stay tuned …
Inbound around 7th Jan.
http://spaceweather.com/images2014/05jan14/halo_strip2.gif
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/05/050502093904.htm
Is the Global Warming Hoax over yet?
Andrew
Mosher?
All your ice are belong to us.
===========
The climate change experts of government science never really believed they knew more than everyone else. Rather they thought they would get away with pretending they knew more than they actually did. CRUgate punctured the hoax of their supposed expertise. The future these experts predicted was an illusion. Reality is not a possible future: it is a fact. The facts are proving just how wrong the teachers of global warming alarmism can be.
It’s inevitable that movies are going to be made about the climate issue, and someone is sure to get around to dramatizing “Climategate”. I think “The Hockey Stick Illusion” would make a good movie.
I would cast Sean Connery as Steve McIntyre. There could be a scene in a Toronto restaurant with McIntyre showing Ross McKitrick (Matt Damon) on his laptop, how short centering pushes everything to the left of the 20th century in a tree ring series downward. He could also show the Mannomatic spitting out hockey sticks. There could be scene at McIntyre’s doorstep with him expecting a CD of reviewer comments and having a crate of printouts plopped down on his porch. There could be a bar scene with Caspar Amman whining to McIntyre about his papers being roughed up. Connery could deliver some memorable lines: “A miracle has occurred?” “This is the best example of Texas sharpshooting that I’ve ever seen!”
Russel Crowe could portray Steve Mosher sitting at a computer screen typing cryptic, typo laced text when the phone rings. He would ask the caller if he looked at those emails and a desperate voice would respond, “Where did you get these?” The camera could focus in on a smirky grin.
Mann could be played by a hapless John Hodgeman. The climax of the movie could be Mann’s sweaty, squirmy response to John Cristy’s request for his R2 results in front of the NAS Panel.
Such a movie would not be complete without some reference to Tamino’s review at Real Climate. I would have our hostess (Julianne Moore) tell Gavin (Joe Pantoliano), “Just because no single significance test is objectively the best in all circumstances does not mean that you can cherry pick significance tests until you find one you like and ignore R2”.
Dustin Hoffman as Antony Watts, and John Cleese as a buffoonish Lord Monckton.
Julianne Moore – I like it :)
“Dustin Hoffman as Antony Watts, and John Cleese as a buffoonish Lord Monckton.”
___
Cleese as Monckton is perfect, but Hoffman as Watts doesn’t work. Watts is better portrayed by Jon Lovitz:
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001484/
Anthony Watts should be play by Ryan Thomas Gosling.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ryan_Gosling
Gosling is the wrong age and wrong look for Watts. Gosling is too athletic and young (no offense to Watts). You want your characters to be believable and knowing what Watts looks like and Gosling– they just don’t fit. Jon Lovitz is a much better fit.
Anyway, I don’t think they can improve on this classic version.
http://watchingthedeniers.wordpress.com/2012/09/02/downfall-anthony-watts-versus-sea-ice/
That was highly entertaining Jim D. Thanks.
How about Jeff Bridges as George Bush who stood up to the UN and the superstitious crowd and the purveyors of fear from the Left like that lone Chinaman facing the tanks in Tiananmen square with nothing but the courage in his heart to exercise free will, represent the unrepresented, and to oppose the mindless conformity of the Climatists that had been chosen at that point in time in the evolution of society to try to run the board.
Anthony Watts could be played by another AW (Alan Whicker) hobknobbing with his ‘secretive sceptics financing’ multibillionaires
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00p8dbh
“Russel Crowe could portray Steve Mosher sitting at a computer screen ”
I get that all the time. The funniest was once while riding the Muni here in SF.
It was late at night and I was returning from North Beach taking the 9x. A guy gets on, shuffles to the back of the bus. I notice a few twitches. Thorazine perhaps. He looks at me, does a double take, gets up from his seat and moves closer. He’s my kinda people, so I smile and he whispers “Russell, Russell Crowe, man I love your movies. ” I look to my left and right and press my finger to my lips. “shush, I’m trying not to be noticed”. “Which on was your favorite?”
He holds up a notebook and shows me his scribbling, pages of formulas, with grotesque marginalia: angels, demons, needles, crosses, worms crawling out of skulls, and pyraminds. “A beautiful mind,” he says. “I love that one”. “Thank you, pleased don’t tell anyone you saw me. It’s our little secret” “Ok Mr Crowe”. “Call me Russell” .At the next stop two women got on. One nice, the other less so.
He looked at me “Governing dynamics, Russell, Adam Smith was wrong”.
Mr Bean as Monkton.
If anybody’s interested I have a five-page treatment of “Climategate, The Musical”. We steal the tunes from Les Miserables and march our way to glory. Eli Rabett is Master of the House…
Bug-eyed Marty Feldman as Lord Monckton. It doesn’t matter that Feldman is dead, just use a cardboard cutout and we get the intellectual range.
Classy. Did Feldman also have Graves’ disease? That would make your comment just perfect.
@webbie, @brad keyes
According to the wiki entry for Marty Feldman
‘A BBC documentary explained that a botched operation for his Graves’ disease resulted in his eyes being more protruded and misaligned ‘
Nice one Webster!
Well then they can get another dead man to play Lord Monckton, perhaps Graham Chapman, reprising a role as savior to the twit legions.
Richard Alley’s Climate Zombies can be cast by George Romero.
OK, They should get the fine comic actor Gerrit Graham to play Lord Monckton.
It’s class all the way down with you, isn’t it, Webbie? Any other medical conditions—besides Graves’ disease and death—you’d like to mock?
From the article:
2013 was the fourth warmest year in the satellite era, trailing only 1998, 2010 and 2005, according to Dr. John Christy, a professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville. The warmest areas during the year were over the North Pacific and the Antarctic, where temperatures for the year averaged more than 1.4 C (more than 2.5 degrees Fahrenheit) warmer than normal. There were small areas of cooler than normal temperatures scattered about the globe, including one area over central Canada where temperatures were 0.6 C (about 1.1 degrees Fahrenheit) cooler than the 30-year norm.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/03/global-temperature-report-december-2013/
So what? AGW-ists like to use these so-called facts as a blunt instrument to wreck America’s thriving capitalist economy. Bring us down to the level of a turd-world nation. All in the name of fairness of course.
What the hell are you talking about Alex?
No, the bludgeoning of the capitalist economy comes next year, when an ENSO neutral year shatters 2010, the current #-1. Then we bludgeon. Lol. The mother of all bludgeoning. A butt kicking worthy of that beautiful word: bludgeon.
Heh, you go to war with the weather you have, not the weather you want.
============
d(W&H)/dt (J/Δ) = energy in (J/Δ) – energy out (J/Δ)
It seems difficult to evaluate this numerically – but the trend is your friend and we have information for both sides of the equation.
Work and heat (W&H) is mostly in the oceans.
http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/KarinavonSchuckmann-OHC_zps6dd7b674.jpg.html?sort=3&o=0
Energy in is the Sun – with a couple of very minor terms which we will ignore for this purpose. We are currently just past the peak of the cycle – and it is not noticeably ‘cool’ as yet.
http://lasp.colorado.edu/data/sorce/total_solar_irradiance_plots/images/tim_level3_tsi_24hour_640x480.png
Energy out is in reflected SW and emitted IR.
http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/CERESLW_SWanomalies_zps24e46fb6.png.html?sort=3&o=2
Both the RHS terms are heading down this decade, over decades and longer. We don’t really know what the radiant imbalance is from this – but from ARGO it seems that from 2008 it is level pegging – i.e no net radiant imbalance and d(W&H) ≈ 0. So a reduction in input and increased output seems likely to lead to ocean cooling over the current decade at least.
Chief Hydrologist,
You seem to need a little help.
If energy in is greater than energy out, temperature, mutatis mutandis, rises.
If energy out is greater than energy in, then the opposite occurs.
If energy in is equal to energy out, temperature remains the same.
Energy is energy. Your statement that energy out is in reflected SW and emitted IR is just plain nonsense, no matter how plausible it sounds.
A unit of energy does not care what wavelength it is. A joule is a joule is a joule.
Live well and prosper,
Mike Flynn
You’re really a bit of an idiot Flynn.
The only way energy leaves the planet is as reflected SW or emitted IR.
http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/CERESLW_SWanomalies_zps161349e5.png.html
And that includes the infinitesimal proportion that comes from core cooling or radioactive decay which you quite madly insist dominates the global energy dynamic.
I obviously have to take a break – because my tolerance for idiots is all used up.
“So a reduction in input and increased output seems likely to lead to ocean cooling over the current decade at least.”
—-
It would if that were happening, but that is not what is happening. You can’t have sea level rise and ARGO showing increased heat content (the highest being reached by both these independent metrics in 2013) with increased output. The only solution, both logical and scientifically sound is decreased input, but even a bigger decrease in output from mainly a cool phase PDO.
When was the last time sea level were going down, and what were temps doing?
Or did you ignore this question because we have no record when they were dropping? Because if that’s true, you couldn’t use it as a proxy for temps then could we?
The Sun is declining from the peak of cycle 24 – just last month – over the rest of the decade – and indeed over a much longer period. That would seems fairly obvious.
Cloud is of course a complex issue.
Among the cloud types, the most widespread and consistent relationship is found for the extensive marine stratus and stratocumulus clouds (MSC) over the eastern parts of the subtropical oceans. Substantiating and expanding upon previous work, strong negative correlation is found between MSC and sea surface temperature (SST) in the eastern North Pacific, eastern South Pacific, eastern South Atlantic, eastern North Atlantic, and the Indian Ocean west of Australia. By contrast, a positive correlation between cloud cover and SST is seen in the central Pacific. High clouds show a consistent low-magnitude positive correlation with SST over the equatorial ocean.
In regions of persistent MSC, time series show decreasing MSC amount. This decrease could be due to further spurious variation within the data. However, the decrease combined with observed increases in SST and the negative correlation between marine stratus and sea surface temperature suggests a positive cloud feedback to the warming sea surface. The observed decrease of MSC has been partly but not completely offset by increasing cumuliform clouds in these regions; a similar decrease in stratiform and increase in cumuliform clouds had previously been seen over land.
Interannual variations of cloud cover in the tropics show strong correlation with an ENSO index.
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/2011JCLI3972.1
In critical zones of the subtropical Pacific – cloud is negatively correlated with ocean temps in the PDO.
e.g. http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/Clementetal2009.png.html?sort=3&o=114
While PDV has been extensively studied in surface based observations such as SST and SLP, little is known about the role of the atmosphere in such variability. Here we present changes in surface winds, WV, OLR, and clouds occurring on decadal timescales in the central equatorial Pacific and eastern subtropics. The most recent climate
shift, which occurred in the 1990s during a period of continuous satellite coverage, is characterized by a ‘‘La Niña-like’’ SST pattern with significant signals in the central equatorial Pacific and also in the northeastern
subtropics. There is a clear westward shift in convection on the equator, and an apparent strengthening of the Walker circulation. In the north-eastern subtropics, SST cooling coinciding with atmospheric drying appears to be induced by changes in atmospheric circulation. There is no indication in the wind speed that the changes in SST or WV are a
result of changes in the surface heat flux. There is also an increase in OLR which is consistent with the drying. Finally, there is evidence for an increase in cloud fraction in the stratus regions for the 1990s transition as seen in earlier studies. Together, these results suggest that there are
decadal-scale changes in the atmosphere involving circulation, water vapor, clouds and radiation that may play a role in PDV, and are worthy of further study. http://circulaciongeneral.at.fcen.uba.ar/material/seminarios09/Burgman_etal_2008.pdf
Let’s go out on a limb here and suggest that cloud increased in the 1998/2001 climate shift – and that seems likely to intensify with intensification of the PDV over the next decade at least.
Gatesy – do you have 2013 ARGO data? By all means – let me in on the secret.
http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/KarinavonSchuckmann-OHC_zps6dd7b674.jpg.html?sort=3&o=1
Do you mean this one?
http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/
I am a bit perturbed by the discrepancies – of which there are a number. But it still doesn’t show why rather than what. Much as you like to gloss over the why.
RG, Isn’t it funny how he links to a chart by Karina von Schuckmann and does not understand its implications?
What are the implications?
http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/CERESLW_SWanomalies_zps161349e5.png.html?sort=3&o=0
Typically ill-informed nonsense from webby.
RG, Isn’t it telling how these clowns can not do simple math based on information contained in the charts that they link to?
Concepts such as seconds in a year and total area covered by oceans are completely foreign to them.
I’m downloading this – http://www.argo.ucsd.edu/Marine_Atlas.html
I’ll get back to Cheech and Chong no doubt.
” But it still doesn’t show why rather than what. Much as you like to gloss over the why.”
—
Well, at least we come quite a ways from the endless insistence that ocean heat content peaked 10 years ago. We do in fact have very good hints at the “why” of ocean heat content increases over short and longer term time frames. Ocean heat content, like TOA energy, is a function of net in minus net out. Obvious then , for OHC to increase more is coming in then going out. So even if the input has decreased over a period, if the output has also decreased over that period, OHC goes up. Both ARGO and Jason confirm OHC increased over the past 10 years. The ongoing cool phase of the PDO tells us less latent and sensible heat has been flowing from ocean to atmosphere and we have seen the resultant flattening of the rise in tropospheric temperatures as a result. So there was a slowdown in output from the ocean. But we also have had a very sleepy sun with the weakest solar cycle in a century and an modest uptick in stratospheric depth from natural aerosols. These factors led to lower input to the ocean. But the output has obviously slowed even more than the input for OHC to continue to rise over the past 10 years.
“When was the last time sea level were going down, and what were temps doing?
Or did you ignore this question because we have no record when they were dropping? Because if that’s true, you couldn’t use it as a proxy for temps then could we?”
—
Certainly over long time frames sea level is a good proxy for total energy in the Earth climate system. Very high sea level that is also very warm would represent greater energy than lower and colder seas. ENSO represents the greatest short term cause of variability as it represents changes in the rate of sensible and latent heat from ocean to atmosphere. The last period of sea level decline, 2010-2011, was as a direct result of major shifts in the ENSO cycle.
See: http://www.businessinsider.com/nasa-records-the-rising-of-the-oceans-2012-11
So that’s a temporary effect, here back to 1870 (1860?) http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/images/indicators/sea-level-rise.gif
Yes it has increased in recent times, which in IMO could mostly be improvements in measurements.
But the main point is that it shows an increase continously, for periods with no AGW, for periods with no apparent warming at all. It would seem to me to make sea level as a proxy for temp or more specificly AGW suspect.
It is easy to find sea level estimates like this on the Web.
http://www.motherjones.com/files/images/sea-level_estimates_1.preview.jpg
The answer is they were going down until about the 1800’s, and since then have sharply started to rise beginning with a foot in the 20th century.
jimd
You are merely illustrating that during cold climates the ice locks up water and sea level drops and this is reversed in warm times. We have seen this effect throughout history. I wrote about it at some length in my article here two years ago on historic variations in sea ;level. This extract is from it;
—- ——
Figure4a http://www.salt.org.il/sealevel.html
The author asserts “As we are not in a position to estimate the sea level at any time before 1850 exactly, a difference of 30 cm cannot be considered as significant. The more general term “present sea level” will therefore be used here; to this we will relate all indications of “sea level changes” compiled from data relating to historic or pre-historic
times The “present sea level” seems to have been reached in the 16th century; since that date there have been no indications of any permanent change of an order greater than 30 cm.
However, there are definite signs that between 700 A.D. and 1600 A.D. one or more distinct sea level minima occurred (Fig. 4B).”
This ties in with other comments throughout these various studies that there was a high point reached around 500-700AD with a decline thereafter. The author places a low point around 1000AD with a slow rise again to broadly current levels in the 16th century thereby covering
first the MWP and also the most severe of the early LIA episodes.
We don’t want to get ahead of ourselves, but are there any studies with a graph that can confirm the Roman temperatures and act as the launch pad for an examination of the MWP?
I’m glad you asked. Here it is from 2009.
Note the above period ends 1999-add around an inch (2cm) to it to meet official modern levels. This appears to have been compiled by Jeff Masters at Wundeground based on work by Grinsted and others. It is carried in a general article on sea level change referenced here;
http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=1240
—– ——- —-
tonyb
“It would seem to me to make sea level as a proxy for temp or more specificly AGW suspect.”
—-
Sea level over long periods is an excellent proxy for total energy in the Earth climate system, and nudging this energy up or down over long periods requires external forcings to the system– something that either allows more or less energy input to the system or allow the system to retain more or less energy. Increasing GH gases allow the system to retain more energy and thus the sea will both warm and rise as a result.
But it’s been rising far longer than Co2 could be responsible for.
In other words, we can take RGates’ meaning to be that we should rise sea level as high as we can before the end of the Holocene. Are you doing your part?
===========
“Mi Cro | January 5, 2014 at 12:11 pm |
But it’s been rising far longer than Co2 could be responsible for.”
—-
CO2, as the main noncondensing GH gas, is certainly a key to maintaining the sea level at the current rate, and increasing CO2 will raise sea levels. If you removed all CO2 from the atmosphere, sea levels would plummet as large amounts of sensible and latent heat would be released from the ocean. Over a period of time, glaciers would grow, forming into great sheets of ice extending nearly to the equator. We would return to Ice Planet Earth. Sea level would be at a minimum, though much of it would be covered with ice.
Well that’s the theory, problem is we can’t test to see how much temps change as we extract co2. And it’s not clear how much temps changed as we’ve added Co2.
But I think your sea level argument makes a great case for solar being the root cause, what else is there that goes back to the little ice age.
‘I’ve been too long in the wind and too long in the rain – Taking any comfort that I can’
Dixie Chicks
So here’s ARGO to 2012 – latest available it seems.
http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/d44a01fb-b994-47bf-879f-8992cf9a3b54_zps4dc095e3.jpg.html?sort=3&o=0
Of course with new software – the first question to ask is do you know what you are really doing or are you just pushing buttons? I am trying to calculate anomalies – taking so long.
It is still the case that energy inputs – according to available data – peaked around the turn of the century. Lyman and Johnson 2013 – show a decline in OHC between 2003 and 2005.
http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/ProjectEarthshine-albedo_zps87fc3b7f.png.html?sort=3&o=48
‘Earthshine changes in albedo shown in blue, ISCCP-FD shown in black and CERES in red. A climatologically significant change before CERES followed by a long period of insignificant change.’
This can be seen in IR – a cooling of 0.7W/m2 between the 80’s and 90’s (AR4).
s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/Loeb2011-Fig1.png.html?sort=3&o=109
And in cloud. A substantial increase in cloud radiative forcing to the late 90’s, the shift captured by Project Earthshine and many others in diverse ways and not much much change since.
http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/cloud_palleandlaken2013_zps3c92a9fc.png.html?sort=3&o=71
The future involves a decrease in solar intensity in the 11 yer cycle – and longer it seems. It involves as well the intensification of the current cool mode of the Pacific Decadal Variation – cooler SST and increased cloud cover seems a reasonable expectation for a decade at least.
Is there really any conceptual difficulty in the idea that solar tsi is peaking – and that reflected SW and emitted IR hasn’t changed all that much in CERES?
Or indeed that the PDV persits for 20 to 40 years?
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. #8220;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.”
Natural, large-scale climate patterns like the PDO and El Niño-La Niña are superimposed on global warming caused by increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases and landscape changes like deforestation. According to Josh Willis, JPL oceanographer and climate scientist, “These natural climate phenomena can sometimes hide global warming caused by human activities. Or they can have the opposite effect of accentuating it.” http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=8703
Cooling – or at least non-warming over the next decade at least seems quite likely.
That Cheech and Chong don’t understand – or don’t want to understand – and merely indulge in almost data and theory free narrative – seems par for the warminista course.
“Cooling – or at least non-warming over the next decade at least seems quite likely.”
——-
You seem to be referring here once more (and seemingly endlessly) to tropospheric sensible heat. As also discussed endlessly, sensible heat in the troposphere is a poor proxy for energy being stored in the climate system over the short-term, and is influenced over periods as short as decades by the variability of ENSO and other ocean cycles. Given that global sensible heat was the 4th highest on record in 2013, making the period of 2003-2013 the warmest decade on instrument record, in spite of a cool PDO during this period, it is clear that the forcing from increased GH gases continue with their positive forcing. Ocean heat content, sea level rise, and glacial ice mass loss all also were at instrument record highs in 2013, confirming the climate system continues to accumulate energy.
So I read the first line Gatesy – and decided it wasn’t worth reading the rest.
d(W&H)/dt (J/Δt) = energy in (J/Δt) – energy out (J/Δt)
I am obviously talking about the energy content of the entire planet.
Within error it is on target with that predicted from CO2.increase. You seem not to understand how log(CO2) sensitivity works.
“I am obviously talking about the energy content of the entire planet.”
—
Wow, then Chief is expecting a sudden and rapid decline in ocean heat content to last a decade. Remarkable prediction.
Let’s add it up shall we?
Cooling Sun in the 11 year cycle – check.
Continuation of the cool PDV – check.
‘Thus these results point towards the possibility of routine decadal climate predictions. Using this method, and by considering both internal natural climate variations and projected future anthropogenic forcing, we make the following forecast: over the next decade, the current Atlantic meridional overturning circulation will weaken to its long-term mean; moreover, North Atlantic SST and European and North American surface temperatures will cool slightly, whereas tropical Pacific SST will remain almost unchanged. Our results suggest that global surface temperature may not increase over the next decade, as natural climate variations in the North Atlantic and tropical Pacific temporarily offset the projected anthropogenic warming.’ http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7191/abs/nature06921.html
Frankly – more frequent and intense La Nina – cooler Pacific SST – seem more likely and the ‘temporary offset’ more dubious as time goes by.
It seems not so remarkable – and beats hell out of being a science and data free zone.
I guess you can always hope for a volcano to make your prediction come true Chief. A big might reduce OHC enough.
You don’t really seem able to understand.
Sun cycle?
Cool PDV?
Did I say anything about volcanoes – but I really hope it doesn’t happen – for obvious reasons amongst others. Obviously the post (pre?) rationalisations are starting already. You don’t have a shred of credibility.
A large volcano is about the only way that the oceans will see the kind of large decrease in ocean heat content that Chief is expecting to happen over the next decade. A continued weak solar cycle and cool PDO isn’t going to do it, as the cool PDO actually helps to keep more energy in the ocean, and even if the AMO turns cool, that also would not serve to reduce OHC, but only latent and sensible heat flux out of the ocean. Increasing GH gases to their highest levels in several millions years is the dominant forcing now on the climate system, and will continue to mean more net energy stored in the ocean. A big volcano, or series of them, is what it would take to make a serious dent in this trend on a decadal time frame, as a whimpy sun alone just won’t do it.
The odds are excellent that sea levels and ocean heat content will be higher a decade from now, unless we get a very big increase in stratospheric aerosols– natural or manmade.
Yes – we have heard it all before – light on science and data and heavy on narrative.
I am generating some .txt for ARGO – and will overlay it on the MEI. For a start – but you do seem immune to data that fails to confirm your narrative.
After years of copy&paste science, perhaps we will see some real analysis based on this threat. And maybe not.
A University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee professor is making headlines for his work suggesting the world is entering a period of global cooling.
“Now we’re getting a break,” Anastasios Tsonis, Distinguished Professor of Mathematics at UWM, said in an interview with the MacIver Institute.
Tsonis published a paper last March that found the world goes through periods of warming and cooling that tend to last thirty years. He says we are now in a period of cooling that could last up to fifty years.
With record breaking cold temperatures around the world this winter, his research is starting to get a lot of attention. Over the past couple of weeks, Tsonis has been featured in the British newspapers The Guardian and the Daily Mail.
Current figures from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration confirm that temperatures have trended downward over the last ten years. In Wisconsin, temperatures dropped 1.68 degrees Fahrenheit from 2000 to 2009, according to NOAA.
“Around 2001 the climate began shifting. It’s cooling now. That doesn’t mean that the warming was a fluke,” said Tsonis.
He believes man could have played a role in the warming the world recently experienced. However, Tsonis says natural forces, particularly ocean currents, are playing a greater role in the world’s climate than man. Tsonis says it’s dangerous to place all the blame for climate change on one or the other.
“I think both views are extreme, and the truth lies somewhere in between,” Tsonis said.
Regardless, Tsonis believes mankind should take steps to minimize its impact on climate further. Now that we’re in a period of cooling, we have time to do it right.
“This could be a blessing,” Tsonis told the MacIver Institute. “I think we need to understand this shift better, instead of taking it out of proportion.”
Yeah graphing some monthly data is real difficult. The same level of difficulty as webby’s nonsense. You need to understand the understand Earth sciences before you can make any sense of anything. This requires at least many years of broad scale reading – something that webby is utterly deficient in. Superficial amateurism about covers it.
Some people are mystified by the fact that when you push in on one side of a water balloon it bulges out on another side.
Those of us that understand physics are not so mystified.
Sure – the world is balloon bomb.
Not here in Finland. We have had temperatures well above average except for a very short period in the Northern part of the country.
It seems to be clear that the regional differences vary more than the NH average.
Markets are driving increased access to “Oil Sands”.
Albertan Bitumen Heading for the Great Lakes
2014 is starting on an optimistic note. Many thanks to all professors of climate change. A good luck to Antarctic scientists and ship crews.
An idea for the University of New South Wales: Establish four professorships of season’s change.
Pingback: I’m Retiring from Full-Time Climate Change Blogging | Bob Tisdale – Climate Observations
Federal government funding available for low energy nuclear reactions (aka cold fusion.)
From the document, page 11:
3.6
chemonuclear
reactors, low-energy
nuclear reactions,
nuclear fuel
chemistry
https://arpa-e-foa.energy.gov/FileContent.aspx?FileID=1c56ac4a-0acd-43ee-a2ec-ab80b33f4146
TonyB – looks like you Brits have your very own Tea Party! Welcome aboard!!
The often stale British political system is being rocked by its very own Tea Party.
The UK Independence Party (UKIP), formed in 1993 opposing Britain’s entry into the European Union, failed to make an electoral dent for a long time. However UKIP has built up steam in recent years and is spearheading a seismic shift in the British political spectrum.
In this year’s local elections – the British version of midterms — UKIP took a stunning 23 percent of the vote, up from the 3.1 percent they won in the 2010 national election. Their leader, Nigel Farage, is buoyed by their recent success.
“We want to take back our country, we want to take back our government, and we want to take back our birthright,” Farage told FoxNews.com in forthright language rarely seen in British politics.
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2014/01/04/britain-version-tea-party-rocks-political-system-across-pond/
Why haven’t the Tea Party split from the centrist Republicans, now that Boehner isn’t listening to them any more after the government shutdown debacle?
Jim D,
Conservative conservatives have still not given up on winning control of the Republican Party. But progressive Republicans control the party now, and are putting up a hell of a well funded fight.
But I suspect a third party may become inevitable before too long.
Libertarian would be a great 3rd party. Big on allowing people to live life as they choose and big on small government. It doesn’t get much better than that!
A truer name would be The Aristocrats.
jim2
UKIP has a number of appealing features, not the least of which is regaining our sovereignity . However it is still too much of a one man band at present albeit the band leader seems more in touch than the woefully inadequate leaders of the three main parties.
TonyB President ‘A plague on all your parties, party’
All tomorrow’s parties perhaps ?, Still, UKIP could be a signicant player after the next election, especially if the majority is small. We live in interesting times…
Chris
jim2 said on January 4, 2014 at 10:20 pm
“Libertarian would be a great 3rd party.”
______
I don’t care for Libertarians. They are too full of themselves.
But fragmenting the GOP is a good idea. It could be split into the Country Club Republicans, the Tea Party, and the Libertarian Party. If that didn’t cover everyone, a fourth party, the Cranky Old Crackpots, would.
If I had to be a Republican, I would be a Country Club Republican.
“A truer name would be The Aristocrats.”
We already have an aristocrat party. It’s the one with all the Kennedys, and Kerrys, and Rockefellers, and Kohls, and ….
It’s the party that regularly compares its grandees to Camelot, and calls them the messiah….
“If I had to be a Republican, I would be a Country Club Republican.”
Inside very default progressive is a crony capitalist crying to be set free.
The Tea Party are the pet voters of the rich (aristocracy). Money is making them what they are, and it is the money of the 1%. It is centered around election cycles and negativism rather than any workable policy, and has finally been found out for what it is by Boehner (hopefully), with his “Are you kidding me?” remark. This is why Aristocratic (ruled by the rich) Party is a suitable name for them.
Jim D,
You gotta stop drinking that Kool Aid. Even the NY Times recognizes that the crony capitalist funders of the establishment GOP are doing everything they can to finish the job the IRS started in trying to strangle the tea parties in the cradle.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/03/us/politics/top-gop-donors-seek-greater-say-in-senate-races.html?_r=0
Karl Rove, American Chamber of Commerce, American Crossroads, all are desperate to keep genuine conservatives out of the GOP primaries.. Most of the big money interests don’t want a real free market any more than the Dems do.
GaryM, what country would be a model for your small government, unregulated corporatism? Or is this just a hope and a dream based on nothing that exists. I think the country is a little to the right of my ideal, but moving in the right direction, and already not far off, which is why it remains the world’s most stable and wealthy economy, but some just want to tear that down and start again from the 1770’s.
Jim D,
I assume by your complete change of subject you recognize your nonsense about tea partiers and big money interests is, well, fact free.
As to your question, Hong Kong under the British was probably the closest to the free market conservatives support. But the island colony was somewhat lacking in the social conservatism department. And foreign policy, the third leg of conservatism, was the province of the British.
Other than that, the United States, Britain, Australia and Canada all came reasonably close before the radicals began taking over all the liberal parties in the west in the 60s. None were perfect, but they were improving.
On the other hand, there have been tons of full bore socialist countries: the Soviet Union, Communist China, North Korea, Cuba, East Germany – all miserable failures.
There have also been many “third way” countries that combined the crony capitalism and government central control of the economy: Germany, Italy and Japan in the 1930s and 40s come to mind, although Argentina and Chile both dabbled in the experiment.
While “third way” countries tend to do moderately better than pure socialist economies, the centralization of so much power in the government somehow always seems to lead to despotism.
Jim D,
I you want to actually begin to understand what conservatives (of the type I refer to as such) think in general, this brief review by Jonah Goldberg, of a new book by Yuval Levin, The Great Debate: Edmund Burke, Thomas Paine, and the Birth of Right and Left, includes a sort of Cliff’s Notes version of how conservatives see the debate. (By way of NRO).
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/article/paine-in-the-burke/
It’s not about particular policies, but first principles.
Jim D,
Next time you hear GaryM pontificate about Conservatives, think whiggism and you’ll be fine. You can exclude almost everything from toryism, except perhaps counter-revolution and a pinch of Country Party sentiments:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Country_Party_(Britain)
Almost pre-Republican, which makes sense considering this solves the dilemma between Virtue and Commerce.
GaryM said on January 5, 2014 at 2:54 pm
Inside very default progressive is a crony capitalist crying to be set free.
________
Crony capitalism is the way to go if you want to maximize profits. And what capitalist doesn’t?
Those who get their history from wikipedia are doomed to be historically illiterate.
“Next time you hear GaryM pontificate about Conservatives, think whiggism and you’ll be fine.”
Or next time actually read what I write. I don’t hesitate to describe and explain my beliefs. I know that for you who have no critical thinking skills, you desperately need to fit everyone you disagree with in some predetermined, Huffington Post/Think Progress approved box.
But you really should, at least once in your life, try to think for yourself.
Of course, then you might have to actually engage on substance. And then everybody might see that there is no there there. So I can see why you don’t.
Those who pretend understanding conservatism requires reading Edmund Burke might have their intellectual despondency shown through Wiki entries alone:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism
> I know that for you who have no critical thinking skills […]
Op. cit.
Max_OK,
“Crony capitalism is the way to go if you want to maximize profits. And what capitalist doesn’t?”
The kind of capitalist that I call a genuine conservative. One who combines support of the free market, and the Judeo-Christian ethic, and a strong foreign policy. A free market, untethered to the Judeo-Christian ethic, generally leads to despotism. The crony capitalism that is becoming dominant in the west is no different from the close partnership between power hungry governments and greedy “capitalists” in Germany, Italy and Japan last century.
The combination of the three legs of genuine conservatism, and how they complement one another, is something progressives and libertarians will never get. They have no frame of reference. So it’s probably best that most don’t strain themselves trying.
GaryM, I did not change the subject. It was an effort to find out what dream motivates the Tea Party because from their congress members it is currently the party of ‘no’, including no ideas to improve the situation of the average American. They seem to be a throw-back to trickle-down Reaganomics that didn’t work and just increased the deficit under Bush II. His brightest idea was less tax during a time of war and more government hand-outs to favored corporations via an unpaid for Medicare add-on scheme, and he ended up blowing up a previously healthy economy that he inherited. It is not a good track record, but luckily for them the voters have almost forgotten the Bush low-tax experiment, so they may want to try it again the Tea Party hopes, but this time cutting social programs which don’t help the rich anyway, so what do they care? Bush, also, was not a ‘compassionate conservative’ and only left social programs alone due to the failure of his privatization effort. The Tea Party follows that blueprint. What should an act like that call themselves. The Aristocrats.
Jim D,
Speaking of the Tea party:
You’ll never guess where that’s written.
But if you do, you might also be reminded of the old saw that Hayek preferred calling himself an old Whig.
We should remember, however, that when the ideals which I have been trying to restate first began to spread through the Western world, the party
which represented them had a generally recognized name. It was the ideals of the English Whigs that inspired what later came to be known as the liberal movement in the whole of Europe[15] and that provided the conceptions that the American colonists carried with them and which guided
them in their struggle for independence and in the establishment of their constitution.[16] Indeed, until the character of this tradition was altered by the accretions due to the French Revolution, with its totalitarian democracy and socialist leanings, “Whig” was the name by which the party of liberty was generally known.’ F.A. Hayek – Why I am not a Conservative.
http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/articles/hayek-why-i-am-not-conservative.pdf
willard,
Someone who is as impressed with himself as you are, should display better reading comprehension skills. My reference above was not to Burke as the definition of modern conservatism. It was to Goldberg’s review of Levin’s book on Burke on the debate between Burke and Paine over the French Revolution. See, if I wanted to cite to Burke, I would have done so.
I don’t think anyone has to read Burke (or anyone else in particular for that matter) to be a conservative. I became a conservative all on my own when my political science major at a putatively Catholic University was all Marx and Hobbes and Rousseau, with nary a Hayek or Burke to be found. (My theology credits all consisted of studying atheism, Bhuddism, Hinduis, and any other -ism, other than Catholicism.)
I didn’t read Burke’s Reflections on the Revolution in France until long after. And frankly, I look forward to reading the Levin book.
But see, unlike you, I did not absorb revealed truth from my progressive professors, assistant professors and grad student teaching assistants. Nor did I make a career for myself regurgitation what they had all said before me.
(The Whiggish interpretation of history) “held its own for nearly a century, and it is only comparatively recently that it has become fashionable to regard it with suspicion and disdain. It was an interpretation of such strength and simplicity, it enjoyed such great moral authority, it was embedded in the teaching of the schools and universities for so long, that it still silently permeates the thinking of many who would resent being called ‘Whigs’….”
H/t J. P. Kenyon p. 12 of ‘Stuart England’, Penguin Books, London, 1990.
================
And Hayek – as something of an irony – called himself a whig because of the corruption of the term liberal in American culture. The rest of the world retains the original meaning of the term.
http://www.ncpa.org/pub/what-is-classical-liberalism
GaryM,
Reading “Cliff Notes” of Burke is still reading Burke when a reviewer say of these notes “simply lets the men speak for themselves and trusts the reader to provide the context as needed”.
In those Cliff notes, only for Paine “all that matters are first principles”. Conservatism ain’t about first principles in the first place. Those Cliff notes portray, at least according to the review, the clash between Burke and Payne as the old dichotomy between rationality and custom. Have you ever wondered why the famous libertarian magazine was called Reason?
Had you read the Wiki entries related to that question, you’d see the name of Hume on your side. If you’re on the side of Hume, then that makes us brothers. Using the word “progressive” as a slur means little if we don’t put a timeframe on the progress to which this is supposed to refer. As a previous quote made clear, Conservatives are not against progress per se, but only progress that disregards the actual customs, is only based on rationalizations, and goes too fast.
Please consider the possibility that if I can read the Wiki entries the way I do, it may be because I know what to search for, which means I use Wiki entries as a simple rhetorical device.
The use of “whig” was affectionate, by the way. I still maintain it is correct.
The paths of Conservatives all seek an honorable life. If I had one word to describe conservatism, it would be “honor”, like in “honor your father and mother”.
I implore you to bear that in mind when you comment.
My word is my honor,
w
willard,
I’ve never wondered why the libertarians editors of Reason called their magazine that. I thought it was self evident. Watch any speech by Nick Gillespie and you get the same snide condescension toward those with whom he disagrees that you get from your typical progressive.
An elitist thinks his own opinions are rational, the product of reason, while those with whom he disagrees are irrational. They are incapable of coming to terms with the concept of actual, rational, principled disagreement.
At the risk of having another comment deleted (I think this was the first time?), I find your comments repetitive and generally content free when you respond. For quite some time you responded to any number of comments I made with completely irrelevant comments on some unrelated thing or other Rand Paul had said. That’s your prerogative certainly. And if you want to discuss Paul, or Burke, or Hume, fine, have at it. But forgive me if I find it tiresome, and say so.
Much of what you write consists of “rhetorical devices”. That’s also your prerogative. But I don’t see why that would insulate you from a response in kind, just because the response is not written in the same oblique fashion.
As to the substance of your comment, I never actually read a Cliff’s Notes, but if that’s what was written about Paine, you should probably ask for your money back.
“Conservatism ain’t about first principles in the first place.”
I think I said this to you once before. Maybe you should stick to being cryptic. When you come right out and say what you think…it does not help your cause.
A call to honor? I am fine with that. Try less condescension. It will engender a lot more respect in return, and not just from me I suspect.
|
Max_OK saidon January 5 at 9:55 pm
“Crony capitalism is the way to go if you want to maximize profits. And what capitalist doesn’t?”
GaryM replied on January 5 at 10:28 pm giving his vision of what capitalism should be.
“The kind of capitalist that I call a genuine conservative. One who combines support of the free market, and the Judeo-Christian ethic, and a strong foreign policy. A free market, untethered to the Judeo-Christian ethic, generally leads to despotism.The crony capitalism that is becoming dominant in the west is no different from the close partnership between power hungry governments and greedy “capitalists” in Germany, Italy and Japan last century.
The combination of the three legs of genuine conservatism, and how they complement one another, is something progressives and libertarians will never get. They have no frame of reference. So it’s probably best that most don’t strain themselves trying.”
________
Thank you, GaryM. I’m inclined to agree with you about libertarians, who probably are too wrapped up in themselves to think beyond themselves, but I’m afraid your notion of capitalism is based on how you think people should be rather than how people actually are. But it is an interesting fantasy.
Regarding the Judeo-Christian ethic serving capitalism, it would be nice if people in conducting business always told the truth and did what they promised, thus reducing the need for litigation. Other than that, I’m not sure of what use this ethic would be. If the ethic includes “not coveting what others have” it would fly in the face of capitalism. Are there other things in the ethic that relate to your ideal capitalism?
You don’t explain what you mean by “free market.” I imagine you don’t mean an entirely free market (allows monopolies), but recognize some regulations are necessary if the market is to serve the public. Can you describe what regulations you believe are necessary for your ideal capitalism?
You stress a strong foreign policy, but I don’t understand what it has to do with your idea of the way capitalism should be. Can you explain?
Jim D,
I have not tried to define the free market. My comments have tried to define what I mean by the term conservative, in the modern context. The relation between support for the free market and Judeo-Christian ethic is easier to explain, as I think the free market as it arose in the west only did so because of the culture of ethics that surrounded it.
These are real “first principles”, as opposed to the way that term is used by libertarians, and the enlightenment philosopher proponents of “natural law” that gave birth to them. The whole point of natural law is the sh*t can the first principles of western culture in favor of the principles du jour of the philosopher/speaker of the moment.
As to the relation between the first two, free market and Judeo-Christian ethics, and strong foreign policy, the relationship is more one of being willing to protect the first two in a global environment that is hostile to both.
Both the free market, and democratic government are exceptions to the rule of human history. Many think they developed despite, rather than because of, the underlying moral culture of the west. But conservatives (as I define them) disagree. We believe it is no coincidence that the free market, the modern scientific method, the modern university, and democratic republican government all grew to their fullest potential in an environment structured by first principles developed over literally thousands of years by trial and error, under the rubric of the Judeo-Christian ethic.
The free market is favored because it is the best means of benefiting the population as a whole while respecting the freedom of the individual. A strong foreign policy is preferred because the people and system that have so developed are worth protecting.
GaryM, how does the free market work in a global economy? Surely it favors the use of cheap less regulated labor to provide goods and food to wealthy countries, outsourcing whole industries to less regulated countries, and leading to less unskilled jobs in the wealthier countries. I don’t think the free market idea was designed to work fairly in anything but an isolated economy, like they used to be a century ago, or one with high import tariffs. It doesn’t protect the local unskilled or farm workers, unless it cuts their wages to be competitive. It is a conundrum how this system can work with some moral standards for the actual laborers home and abroad. Free marketeers tend to forget where the goods are actually produced, and the system favors large income gaps between those workers and the buyers of the goods, and the profiteers who sell them. It feeds off a globally disparate range of living standards, and doesn’t reward all those who also work hard.
Labor is compensated based on the value provided times the number of customers, divided by how many can provide that service times how long it takes to train a replacement.
If you provide a lot of value or are hard to replace, you get paid better than someone who is easy to replace. Free markets have raised more people out of poverty than any other invention in human history, and just because your cost of living is high, would you begrudge a worker who might live on 25 cents a day without a job, a job that pays them 5 or 10 times as much? While that 2.50 / day might not be much to you it could feed a family, also as they get the chance to work, they get a chance to become consumers who sample the products they make (in many cases) and they too become more valuable and then make more money. This is what’s happened in Japan, Korea, and it’s happening now in China, Mexico, Taiwan, and Vietnam.
Jim D,
“I don’t think the free market idea was designed to work fairly in anything but an isolated economy….”
The free market wasn’t designed. It grew by a system of trial and error over many centuries. That is what makes it fundamentally different from progressive forms of economics and government, which are expressly designed by particular self appointed elites.
The reason the Judeo-Christian ethic is so essential to its success is exactly what you highlight with your question. Without an over riding ethos, the self interest that makes the market work will turn destructive, and not only on the global scale.
The Communist Chinese have essentially doubled their per capita GDP, not with ever better five year plans, but by implementing, grudgingly, ,certain aspect of the free market economy. Imagine what they could achieve if they implemented a system of ethics modeled on the Judeo-Christian ethic of the west. Their refusal to do so, because it would end their personal power and wealth, dooms their experiment to failure, eventually.
But the lives of the still extremely poor majority of the Chinese people is better than ever before because of the limited extent to which they have been exposed to the global market.
GaryM,
Thank you for your comment.
I don’t think one can claim that conservatism is based on well-defined, coherent principles. This is supported by thy Wiki page, which has many sources for that idea, including Burke. This was written in the review you cited for Jim D’s attention, including about the same references to Burke.
Liberalism is based on principles. It is powered by the audacity of seeking well-defined and coherent basic propositions. Let’s just consider it as a by-product of the Enlightenment, sapere aude and all that jazz. It might be the case that this project has yet to see the light. It may not appeal to some like you and me. But it is worthy of respect as one of the two main archetypes of our political landscape.
I don’t know how else to say what follows. To argue as you do that we can get Conservativism from “first principles” is unwinnable. Not only it does not bode well on your reading skills, it makes you some kind of liberal.
Sure, we could get a list of aspects, traits or characteristics. But how can it be possible to reason out customs? Things are like they are, they take time to change, sometimes change can hurt, and that’s about it.
This is really basic. There is no need for me to fight tooth and nails over this. In fact, I usually expect you to dig all this without having me telling you. I might never tell you like this ever again.
***
Whatever you might think or say about me or my comments does not concern what I’m telling you right now. I reached peace with who I am and what I do. here Rest assured that I am not here to bring peace.
Nevertheless, here’s a gift to you, which your should be able to access by logging into Jstor:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/4049014
If you can’t, I can make arrangements. I hope you’ll appreciate it as much as I did. Honor is an important concept to Burke, as it is related to the elusive one of liberty, and of course property.
Meditating on honor may have the power to bring joy.
Ain’t this why we’re here, after all?
Good night,
w
GaryM, it doesn’t seem to worry you that countries that can suppress their workers have the best chance of making the biggest profits in a global free market, and those which demand some minimum standards of living are less competitive by that measure. It is priorities, I guess, profit or people.
“To argue as you do that we can get Conservativism from “first principles” is unwinnable.”
I didn’t write, nor do I believe, anything of the kind. Conservatism as I define it is not a set of principles that were discovered by analysis of man’s nature. It is nothing of the kind. It is, again, not something that we “get”. It is a system of beliefs, economic, social and foreign policy, that have been arrived at by trial and error over centuries. Smith, Burke, de Tocqueville did not design conservatism, they described it. unlike progresivism in all its variations, which are the products of the progressives themselves.
Think of it as the flip side of intelligent design argument, with the sides reversed.
I am not a Burkean. Nor do I identify with Rand Paul, which you seemed to be convinced of for some time. I do not, nor do most conservatives of the type I refer to, derive my beliefs from particular writers. I find much of value in Burke, Hayek, Friedman, Buckley and many others. I admire politicians who have supported conservatism in all its aspects, like Reagan, Thatcher, Palin and Ted Cruz. But none of them define me or my beliefs.
That is a fundamental difference between conservatives and progressives. We do not adhere to the system designed by any one person. We subscribe to a system of beliefs that have many sources, and are not the product of elitist design, but of the collective wisdom of millions over centuries.
Deny it all you want, but conservatism of my definition is defined by its principles, not its adherents or defenders. That is why conservatives so readily abandon politicians who conduct runs contrary to their conservative values, while progressives defend heir standard bearers to the death, regardless of their conduct.
I appreciate the link. The JSTOR link did not work beyond the preview page, but I am not terribly interested in spending a lot of time trying to find a way to read what another writer thinks of what Burke thought about honor. I am always happy to read such for potential enlightenment, though I believe I already have a sufficient source for my ethics, including honor. So if you can link to a copy of the article I would be happy to read it, but otherwise…
Mi Cro, yes, but people should be paid a living wage, where a reasonable day’s hours work allows you to support yourself or maybe a family. This is the way a civilization works. Regulations for minimum wages just attempt to maintain a standard. Other regulations pertain to not cutting corners with worker safety, pollution, product safety, etc., yet we see people resist this because they don’t care who gets hurt and just want the profit. There is a constant pressure between profit and common-sense controls.
You want a livable wage, provide more value or get a new job where you can. Just watch the entry level jobs evaporate with that $15/min wage, and it will increase inflation making everything more expensive for everyone. You’re not supposed to raise a family on an entry level job, it’s a training ground to get job skills and a better job.
Here’s a thought experiment, let’s raise everyone’s salary to $1 million/year, what happens the the cost of goods and services?
You see that sometimes, other times you see it because the people want the work(including the employees).
But again, entry level jobs aren’t meant to raise a family on, they’re meant for teenagers to get job experience. The problem is that large numbers of students don’t bother to learn anything in school, and then feel oppressed when they’re told to grow up and act like an adult, and get stuck at entry level jobs. It’s not the jobs or the employers fault, but the employee.
The proof is that there are people who come out of the worst environments, get their act together and makes something of themselves. I also think we’ve done a disservice handing out money for degrees to everyone, it devalues the degree in many instances, saddles the student with 10’s to 100’s of thousands in debt, and in many instances they end up with jobs that are unrelated. You don’t have to have a degree to be successful, it is harder, but it can be done.
But the key is, if a business needs janitors and can’t find one for the salary they offer, they will keep upping the salary and benefits until they find a janitor. If you don’t like your job, go find another one, can’t find one locally, move, or start your own.
Pretty much everything our current administration has done has negatively impacted job creation, and we have had one of the worst recoveries because of it. Like I said, watch what happens in Tacoma, you see the same sort of thing because of the ACA, it freezes out low end jobs, increases the number of part time jobs as the cost of full time jobs.
> It is priorities, I guess, profit or people.
Resolving the tension between liberty and property is an open problem, Jim D.
> I didn’t write, nor do I believe, anything of the kind.
Try searching for “principles” on this page, GaryM. You’ll notice a sentence just above my first comment in this sub-thread.
willard,
As your camp follower Mosher might say – read harder,
Me: “It’s not about particular policies, but first principles.”
You: “To argue as you do that we can get Conservativism from ‘first principles’ is unwinnable.”
Me: “I didn’t write, nor do I believe, anything of the kind.”
You: “Try searching for ‘principles’ on this page, GaryM. You’ll notice a sentence just above my first comment in this sub-thread.”
The operative word as to what I did not write, and do not believe, is “get”.
Conservatism is not the product of logic, or intuition, or wild a$$ guesses. But it does, more so than progressivism, consist of certain first principles, in the real meaning of that term.
What Paine called first principles were Paine’s principles, that he deemed to be “first”. Just as Hobbes would call Hobbes’ choice of principles “first”. But they are no more genuine first principles than, say, decarbonization is a principle of science.
In fact, that is exactly what it is. The “natural law” philosophers wanted to get rid of most of western first principles (primarily those derived from the Church), so they simply formulated their own and called them “first principles”. They dressed their own policy preferences up as a scientific view of history, theology and ethics.
And their personal preferences for political/economic practice were no more products of science than decarbonization is of radiative physics.
But conservatism does not even pretend to be the result of an intellectual process. It is not something that you “get” from anything else. It is essentially the defense of first principles, which principles are the product of the joint wisdom, and trial and error, of hundreds of generations.
Progressives “get” their first principles, and thus their systems of government and economics, from their own imaginations. Conservatives inherit theirs from posterity.
As to what the first principles of conservatism are, you could look to the Declaration of Independence, U.S. Constitution, and Ten Commandments for a start.
A work of art and a thing of beauty.
Since I’m here:
So conservatism consists of principles, yet we can’t get conservatism by its principles.
Sigh.
Seems this was inevitable… Now US taxpayer dollars thrown down the drain because of the Turney-led debacle.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/04/usa-to-the-rescue-us-coast-guard-ice-breaker-asked-to-assist-antarctic-rescue-vessels-trapped-in-ice-due-to-spiritofmawson-fiasco/
Let me guess, lowlot or Max_Not so OK? Keep talkin’, it’ll become obvious.
===============
kim, it’s someone who can’t distinguish between soccer and cricket, a think that pity for their obviously imperfect faculties is in order.
Faustino
Great news. The cricket results have been processed using my ‘turney’ optimism app. I am pleased to confirm that England actually won by an innings and 617 runs. The results are highly robust.
tonyb
Hey, don’t blame us Aussies for Turney. We didn’t invent cornflake packet professorships and climate bedwetting. (We didn’t even invent cricket. We’re just a lot better at it than the cucumber sandwich brigade.)
This happened because there are a large number of scientific and tourist excursions to Antarctica, which has relatively hostile waters for sailors no matter how proficient. An incident is what was inevitable. Fortunately sailors do everything they can to help one another when something goes wrong.
The simple system is Captains are responsible.
If somebody wants to argue tourists should not go to Antarctica, or that only icebreakers should sail to Antarctica’s shores, or that there needs to be better regulation of the traffic, fine. BIg government. There’s always room for more.
“We’re just a lot better at it than the cucumber sandwich brigade.”
LOL +1
JCH you write “The simple system is Captains are responsible.”
You are, of course, correct. And the captain of the Russian ship was forced to make a bad decision by the incompetence of the scientists who were his passengers. From what I can gather, the captain knew that the ice was going to be closing in, and urged the scientists to get back to the ship as fast as possible. These instructions were ignored, and the captain was forced to choose between leaving the scientists behind, to certain death, or risking having the ship encased in ice. He was forced into the lesser of the evils; to make the latter decision.
But this does no establish who was ultimately to blame for the ship getting stuck in the ice.
The Captain was not forced to do anything. That is silly. He was in command of every single thing that happened. It’s a hard system. There is still a contingent of navy historians who want to court martial JFK for losing the PT 109. My father, who flew missions in support of the PT boats out of Tulagi, was outraged when he read about it.
You guys have lynched Turney without a trial, and I suspect the Russian Captain, and his crew, would like to bust your heads wide open.
The Captain allowed them to go. Define rushing across Antarctica. Prove that had they been able to make extreme haste, it would have changed a thing. Prove that in extreme haste, they would not have dropped through a hole into the water, which is essentially 100% death.
JCH you write “You guys have lynched Turney without a trial,”
I agree. And I suspect from a PR point of view, he deserves it. I pointed out that we do not know who was, ultimately, to blame for the ship getting stuck. Hopefully some sort of enquiry, with subpoena powers, will establish this.
But it is, nevertheless, a fact that the Russian captain, for whatever reason, was forced to make a decision between leaving the scientists behind on the ice, or saving his ship from getting stuck
captdallas 0.8 or less | January 5, 2014 at 9:19 am |
“We’re just a lot better at it than the cucumber sandwich brigade.”
That SO 1990’s. I makee you cucumba hand woll. Sandwich haha me laugh.
k scott denison said on January 4, 2014 at 7:48 pm
“Seems this was inevitable… Now US taxpayer dollars thrown down the drain because of the Turney-led debacle.”
_____
It burns me up to think a penny of my tax is being spent to get a Russian ship out of the ice. Don’t the Russians have their own ice-breakers?
OK , maybe it’s not an entire penny of my tax. But even if it’s only one-millionth of a penny, I’m still livid.
Wait, I just found two pennies in the crack of the couch. Now I feel better.
Russian ice breaker on the way. The US icebreaking ship, Polar Star was already in the Southern Hemisphere, to be engaged in resupply to American researchers. They have left Sydney in relief of the Ship of Fools, and the Chinese ‘Ship of Cools’ in response to the Australian relief agency’s call, the authority in this case on the high and icy seas. I would like to think the Chief Executive of American policy could have thought of the gesture on his own. Some of his predecessors would have.
================
Addendum, keep praying.
========
From the article:
Yesterday, in what we characterized as an episode of a “real life magic-mushroom, banana dictatorship envisioned by George Orwell” gone full retard, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders asked the NSA point blank whether it has “spied, or is the NSA currently spying, on members of Congress or other American elected officials?” Today, via the Bezos Post, we got the answer: “Members of Congress have the same privacy protections as all U.S. persons,” the spokesman said, which thanks to Edward Snowden, we now know for a factor are precisely none (for those still unconvinced, please see: “The Complete Guide To How The NSA Hacked Everything”). “We are reviewing Sen. Sanders’s letter now, and we will continue to work to ensure that all members of Congress, including Sen. Sanders, have information about NSA’s mission, authorities, and programs to fully inform the discharge of their duties.”
…
But the bigger question is if the NSA is itself, by implication, above the checks and balances of the US legislative apparatus, just who is in charge of determining the targets of the most powerful spying agency in the history of the world? In other words, who watches the watchmen? And just how is any of this even remotely legal?
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-01-04/nsa-responds-bernie-sanders-whether-it-spies-congress
Oh, well. The summer is now over. Aussies beat the poms five nil in the Ashes series. What a thrashing. A great boost for Australia’s confidence and that will flow through and have an effect on our economy.
All that remains to be done now is to repeal the carbon and mining taxes and unwind the socialist policies and massive debt loaded on us by 6 years of the most incompetent and irresponsible government (socialist of course) we’ve ever had.
We’ll need a bigger Ashes urn after cremating this English team.
Faustino, it’s been so entertaining to observe those extended English pitch conferences, though I think you should let the captain in on them occasionally. And sneak in a bit of cricket from time to time.
Re your cremation suggestion: Why not get Professor Turney to arrange a biochar ceremony by the company he helped to establish and in which his family and Tim Flannery are shareholders?
Thanks to Carbonscape’s patented microwave system, you won’t have to waste a single English cricketer. (Hold back Stokes. You may want to breed off him.)
Chief Hydrologist | January 4, 2014 at 5:48 pm |
“You might be able to tell – I am quite a bit bored with it all”
+1
Found via Drudge Report. I have dogs. I didn’t notice. But I thought about my favorite spot to drain the lizard and sure enough – north-south. But the patio edge I’m standing on there is oriented east-west and seems like the logical best spot all things considered.
http://washington.cbslocal.com/2014/01/04/study-dogs-relieve-themselves-in-line-with-earths-magnetic-field/
Study: Dogs Relieve Themselves In-Line With Earth’s Magnetic Field
January 4, 2014 5:46 PM
Dogs are quite particular about where they choose to relieve themselves — not only do they defecate in direction with the north-south axis, but they also are sensitive to the Earth’s magnetic field. (Photo by John Moore/Getty Images)
WASHINGTON (CBS DC) – Dogs are quite particular about where they choose to relieve themselves — not only do they defecate in direction with the north-south axis, but they also are sensitive to slight changes in the Earth’s magnetic field.
A new study published in the journal Frontiers in Zoology finds that a wide range of canines preferred to “excrete with the body being aligned along the north-south axis” under “calm magnetic field conditions.” The nearly 37 breeds of dogs studied were found to completely avoid urination or defecation along an east-west direction.
The study is the first time that magnetic sensitivity was proven in dogs, although previous research has shown that many mammals “spontaneously align their body axis” with Earth’s magnetic field in a diverse range of behavioral contexts.
Examination of 70 dogs over two years – including 1,893 defecations and 5,582 urinations – revealed that dogs who were not leashed or influenced in movement were naturally inclined to relieve themselves in “axial orientation” with the earth’s magnetic field.
The study did not detail exactly why this phenomenon occurs: “It is still enigmatic why the dogs do align at all, whether they do it “consciously” (i.e., whether the magnetic field is sensorial perceived (the dogs “see”, “hear” or “smell” the compass direction or perceive it as a haptic stimulus) or whether its reception is controlled on the vegetative level (they “feel better/more comfortable or worse/less comfortable” in a certain direction).”
Although dogs are often influenced by their owner’s behavior to choose a spot of relief, the researchers note that the study was “truly blind,” and that observers were not biased in their choice of geomagnetic field variations.
The dogs were found to align themselves with the Earth’s magnetic field regardless of the time of day and other variations in weather.
The researchers note that the study may “open new horizons for biomagnetic research,” specifically, that the Earth’s magnetic field may have greater impact in behavioral response from organisms than considered before.
Is that the science of feng sheet…?
Finally, research funding spent on something worthwhile, rather than CAGW.
More research dollars will be required before we know dogs’ mug versus wump preference when ‘facing’ north.
Curry opines in OP: “I wish there was some way to make blogging pay.”
Don’t we all?
Chief Economist
You ,mean she’s NOT paying us $1 for each comment?
tonyb
If I wasn’t blogging for free I’d be spending money. Probably on booze and women and similar toys for boys that go fast and/or make loud noises.
Anyone who says blogging doesn’t pay should get an expensive hobby then compare the two.
Huh.
http://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/argentina-heat-wave-continues/21436557
Record heat waves in the same hemisphere as freak record summer ice from floes shed by the Antarctic shelf as the continent warms from near -40 toward -30. A coincidence of extreme weather events predicted and explained by AGW. And in the north, new AGW-induced Jetstream patterns explain a cluster of seasonal extreme lows.
Sure, natural variability has in the past been able to explain each of these on their own, but if a coin flips heads 97 times in a row, you may be excused for starting to suspect something other than natural odds at work, and if you find the coin to be two-headed when you check it, you can’t really call that natural variability.
Smart gamblers don’t wager with known cheaters who substitute two-headed coins for bets. Cheaters get a bad reputation, and become shunned by smart betters, and don’t get to participate in lucrative wagering for very long. Perhaps the same principle applies online, where many, many people do make a legitimate honest living providing value for money.
Maybe some blogging would pay better if it were more truthful?
This is just a test comment.
You mean your others have been for real? :)
Tonyb
Good one, Tony. My comments are raw, like unpasteurized milk. Tasty, but potentially lethal.
For reasons unknown to me, my reply to Wagathon’s January 4, 11:53 am post was blocked. I’m afraid Wagathon
in quoting Daniel Kahneman may have left the impression Kahneman is a global warming skeptic or denier, which I believe would be a misrepresentation of the man because he also said the following:
“Mostly we have political beliefs because we belong to a certain circle, people we like hold those beliefs, those beliefs are part of who we are. In the United States for example, there is a high correlation between beliefs about gay marriage and beliefs about climate change. Now it’s very unlikely that this would arise from a rational process of producing reasons: it arises from the nature of beliefs as something that is really part of us.”
http://www.socialsciencespace.com/2013/01/daniel-kahneman-on-bias/
GOODY ! It got unblocked. Thanks.
It would be a misrepresentation if you are inferring that Daniel Kahneman believes the supposed experts of global warming can actually predict the future.
Waggy, you are misrepresenting me by inferring I am inferring. Shame on you.
Does anyone know why quoting Daniel Kahneman and giving the following would get my post blocked?
http://www.socialsciencespace.com/2013/01/daniel-kahneman-on-bias/
Antarctic Expedition Was Worth It
http://www.theguardian.com/science/antarctica-live/2014/jan/04/antarctic-expedition-was-worth-it-chris-turney
most interesting are the comments
Wow, they were “beaming images” and “using the latest radio technology” and they deployed “Argo floats and drifter buoys in the sea – another first for the region – beaming their location at regular intervals to help complete the view of our planet’s ocean circulation.” (Gee, who knew we were only a few floats short of completing global coverage?)(But I am impressed that they were beaming both images and their location. There was apparently lots of beaming goin’ on.)
And of course “his tales of adventures and discoveries electrified the public”.
Quick show of hands. Who even heard of this quixotic “scientific expedition” before the geniuses got locked in the ice where they were hoping to show there wasn’t any? Who among us was electrified, and who do we see about that?
It’s the 100th anniversary of the McMawson expedition, a famous trek into the Rockies by a famous explorer. A local school decides to mark the occasion by sending out a school science geology field trip up into the mountains, following the trail taken 100 years earlier. Along the way they’ll do some science and put it up on their website, the whole town will be involved, a journalist is going to cover it for the local paper.
Unfortunately the bus breaks down up the mountain.
A bunch of old grumpy people in the town dislike modern science. When they hear the bus has broken down they become most excited.
“What a bunch of fools, those kids should be ashamed of themselves!”
“That teacher should be fired! How irresponsible to drive kids up a mountain!”
“Think of all the lives they’ve put at risk!”
“Sounds like it was just a free holiday for the teacher!”
“How arrogant of them to think they can drive up a mountain!”
“Yes I hope they have learned some humility”
“Look on the blog they say they played cards one evening! that proves it was just a holiday!”
“If they were having fun they couldn’t have been doing science! science isn’t supposed to be fun!”
“What about the cost! I am outraged at the cost Look how much the recovery of the bus will cost!”
“It wasn’t even cutting edge science they were doing!”
“Incompetent! McMawson managed to go up that mountain 100 years ago without a bus!”
“Shows how weak and pathetic they all are, that they couldn’t walk up the mountain like McMawson”
“Activists! They were all activists trying to prove the theory of plate tectonics!”
“How ironic then that the bus hit a rock!”
“Lets scour their blogs looking for other things they’ve done wrong”
“OMG look one of the teachers took their 6 year old daughter! how irresponsible! that PROVES it isn’t science!”
“Lets all put our deepest concerned faces on and go visit the mayor. Maybe we can get some science teachers fired!”
“yessssssss!” (*evil hand rub*)
The most upvoted denier comment on the guardian story is:
“Turney is Professor of Climate Change. He went to try and show the world how little ice there was 100 years after Manson. What a fool.”
So the most upvoted denier comment is a lie.
Deniers upvoting lies?
Which leads to the next denier comment:
“The main issue is that the propaganda element of the expedition overshadowed the scientific side.”
So it works like this. Deniers make up lies about what the expedition was doing, example lie: “Turney is Professor of Climate Change. He went to try and show the world how little ice there was 100 years after Manson”
And then use such lies to proclaim “the propaganda element of the expedition overshadowed the scientific side”
And so they justify their lying with lies.
lolwot says: “I see a hell of a lot of activities on the expedition blog that fall under science not activism.” Examples, please? I’ll go to a zoo tomorrow, to see elephants and monkeys. That’t a hell of a pachyderm science and a simian science.
‘Anchorman on Ice’.
Yes, yes.
Yesterday, all the icebergs seemed so far away.
======
lolwot, you write “And so they justify their lying with lies.”
I call it poetic justice. The IPCC has been lying for decades, and they have been given the thumbs up by just about the whole of academia, the learned scientific societies, led by the RS and the APS, the MSM, and the most important politicians in the world. Now we have a minor incident where some deniers slightly exaggerate a story, so technically it is a lie, and all of a sudden we need to be concerned.
So far as I am concerned, tough. The warmists made the bed. Now, maybe, they have to lie in it (pun intended).
Let us pray for those still lying in a bed of sea ice, not of their own making.
==========
Yesterday,
All the icebergs seemed so far away,
Now it looks as though they’re here to stay,
Oh, I remember yesterday.
Suddenly,
I’m not half the man I used to be,
There’s a shadow hanging over me,
Oh I remember yesterday.
Yesterday,
Bluff was such an easy game to play,
Now need a place to hide away,
Oh, I remember yesterday.
H/t Paul McCartney and kim.
Why we didn’t go, I don’t know, we couldn’t stay.
Now there’s something wrong, oh, how I long for yesterday.
(just had to complete it)
Arctic birds spotted in Florida.
http://www.miamiherald.com/2014/01/03/3850232/snowy-owl-invasion-of-us-extends.html
Global warming has made the Arctic so warm that these birds have adapted and now range into tropical climates.
Ooh! Ooh! Jim D, Pekka Pirilä, and Climatereason (aka tonyb) are duking it out over the value of the Central England Temperature (CET) record in understanding past trends in Global Mean Temperature (GMT)! What an opportune time to repeat something I posted on WUWT in October 2013!
==========================================
Climate science skeptics:
– Are you reading skeptical blogs more and more but enjoying them less and less?
– Are you tired of endless arguments over solar variability versus oscillations versus random walk?
– Are you critical of IPCC science but are being challenged to do your own peer-reviewed climate science paper?
– Are you wanting to make your own prediction for Global Mean Temperature in the year 2100?
What you need is ….. Beta Blocker’s CET Pattern Picker
http://i1301.photobucket.com/albums/ag108/Beta-Blocker/CET/Beta-Blockers-CET-Pattern-Picker_zps1cfe566d.png
Here’s how it works:
1: – Using the top half of the Beta Blocker form, study the pattern of trends in Central England Temperature (CET) between 1659 and 2007.
2: – Using CET trends as proxies for GMT trends, make your best guess as to where you think GMT will go between 2007 and 2100.
3: – Linearize your predicted series of rising/falling trend patterns into a single 2007-2100 trend line.
4: – Using the bottom half of the Beta Blocker form, summarize the reasoning behind your guess.
5: – Add additional pages containing more detailed reasoning and analysis, as little or as much as you see necessary.
6: – Give your completed form and your supplementary documentation to your friends for peer review.
7: – If your friends like your prediction, submit your analysis to your favorite climate science journal.
8: – If your friends don’t like your prediction:
—— Challenge them to write their own peer-reviewed climate science paper.
—— Hand them a blank copy of the Beta Blocker CET Pattern Picker form.
Just follow these eight easy steps and you too can become a peer reviewed climate scientist! You owe it to yourself! Get started today!
@ willard (@nevaudit) | January 5, 2014 at 1:31 am | said:
***That reminds me of this other gem by Gelertner:
And why do we want to be a nation that worships rich people anyway? Conspicuous consumption used to be bad taste. Unfortunately taste has been abolished. And students have never been so obsessed with money, and so indifferent to spiritual things. It’s not the tech industry’s fault. But the next time a multi-billionaire tech bigshot tells me how wonderful capitalism is, I’m going to throw up. Obviously they think it’s wonderful. But there’s more to life. Jaron is one of the few top technologists I know who makes an attempt to speak about the “more.”***
After reading that “gem,” I’m not seeing it. More of a turd if you ask me. What does university funding in the US have to do with capitalism? Universities are funded mainly by governments, making it not capitalism. If universities ran on capitalism, humanities professors probably wouldn’t even exist, other than a few really good ones.
So, again, this looks like more spin from Willard. (And no, it doesn’t matter one whit that this guy has some minor association with George Bush, who sported a goodly dollop of RINO anyway.)
Not saying he might not be right in other things, but blaming the treatment of humanities profs on capitalism is idiotic.
jim2 is “not seeing it”, therfore it “this looks like more spin”.
Let’s help him with this other gem:
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/09/david-gelernter-dont-say-we-didnt-warn-you-or-dammit-wake-up.php
We can’t say David did not warn us.
‘When Sideshow Bob was released from prison, Cecil hired him to work for his company building a new hydroelectric dam along the river, proudly telling him that he was Springfield’s “Chief Hydrological and Hydrodynamical Engineer”. Cecil’s true intentions, however, were to skim money from the dam project’s contract, build a poor quality dam, and frame his brother for the resulting destruction (mainly due to his still being sore about Sideshow Bob getting the part of sideshow on Krusty’s show).’ Simpson Wiki.
Cecil spent four years in clown school (“I’d thank you not to refer to Princeton that way”).
There seems to be a problem with some unqualified and incompetent pretenders. Is there no quality assurance on this site?
http://simpsons.wikia.com/wiki/Cecil_Terwilliger?file=Cecil.png
@Jim D | January 4, 2014 at 2:28 pm | said:
***You also have to remember that this period includes 70% of the CO2 increase, so it is where the signal would be expected to stand out most. It is harder to extract the pre-1950 signal when the emission rate was less than a quarter of that in this period. You could look for subtle background trends pre-1950, but I think that is a waste of time when the more recent signal is so obvious.***
If CO2 is the only reason (some) climate scientists can think of for global warming, what about this?
From the article:
“Sunspots have been tracked systematically since 1700. Temperature has been recorded in Central England since 1659. We can compare these two records and measure the relationship. Both are plotted below.”
http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/0010.jpg
I think sunspots showed the solar intensity rise from 1910-1940 and affected that part of the warming, but the sun hasn’t done much since. Blue here is smoothed sunspot number against equally smoothed temperature records.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/mean:360/mean:120/plot/hadcrut4gl/mean:360/mean:120/plot/sidc-ssn/scale:0.01/mean:360/mean:120/from:1850/offset:-0.7
Dr. Curry – does your et al stadium wave hypothesis explain the polar vortex elongation? Is this predicted by it? Any other insight into this?
Here is a model that will be fun to watch,
http://www.stormsurfing.com/cgi/display_alt.cgi?a=glob_250
That is cool.
@ willard (@nevaudit) | January 5, 2014 at 1:31 am | said:
***That reminds me of this other gem by Gelertner:***
On further consideration, it is apparent the good professor Gelertner has come down with the professorial analogue of white guilt. He feels guilty for making more money because he is in a field that is in demand in the economy (that supports us all.) If he can think beyond his honorable emotion on this topic, he will probably realize that there is an oversupply of humanities professors and that oversupply has driven down wages. The humanity professors could address this in a couple of ways. Some of them, the lesser talents in the humanities, could simply find work elsewhere. Or, all the humanities professors could band together and found a charitable organization to help humanities professors in need. A couple of them could quit the university to run it.
See, there are means other than the Federal government to achieve a given goal.
It’s warm in China. Maybe the US could ramp up CO2 production to warm things up here?
Dr. Spencer’s model is simpler than WHTs CSALT.
From the article:
What is rather amazing is that the rate of observed warming of the Northern Hemisphere since the 1970′s matches that which the PDO, AMO, and SOI together predict, based upon those natural cycles’ PREVIOUS relationships to the temperature change rate (prior to 1960).
Again I want to emphasize that my use of the temperature change rate, rather than temperature, as the predicted variable is based upon the expectation that these natural modes of climate variability represent forcing mechanisms — I believe through changes in cloud cover — which then cause a lagged temperature response.
This is powerful evidence that most of the warming that the IPCC has attributed to human activities over the last 50 years could simply be due to natural, internal variability in the climate system. If true, this would also mean that (1) the climate system is much less sensitive to the CO2 content of the atmosphere than the IPCC claims, and (2) future warming from greenhouse gas emissions will be small.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/06/warming-in-last-50-years-predicted-by-natural-climate-cycles/
@ Alexander Biggs | January 5, 2014 at 5:14 pm | said
***Jim2: You say the spectra around the 15 micron line has been known for many years. ***
From the article:
…The picture that Callendar presented (Callendar, 1958) was much more orderly than the full record:
…
Callendar did not make a rigorous case for the role of carbon dioxide in increasing global temperature. His results for the British Isles seem to have come from the careful selection of the data interval. He used data of dubious accuracy from such places as Turkestan. However about the same time that he was writing physicists were getting more accurate measurements of the absorption spectrum of carbon dioxide. They found that carbon dioxide absorbed infrared radiation in a band of wavelengths around 15 microns (micrometers) which is not absorbed by water vapor.
…
http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/CO2history.htm
How much energy is in the 15u downward ir flux from the atm?
When it comes to the humanities professor problem, I’m surprised that academia, that listing to port clan that is it, hasn’t recommended for their goose what they seem to love for other people’s gander, i.e. a tax on STEM professors. The money already paid in by taxpayers and students no doubt goes in part towards the humanities. Therefore, tax the STEM professors and subsidize the humanities ones. We could call it a “volume tax” or something to that effect. What with the extra capital, perhaps the humanities professors can up their game and attract more students? After all, the STEM professors are successful, we can’t let that go unpunished, can we?
Say jim2 …’academia, that listing to port clan?’
A taxing situation, assisting ’em ter rise ter life’s taxing
challenges.
Thought fer Today’
‘The excess energy released from over reaction to setbacks
is what innovates.’
Nassim Taleb Antifragile.’ CH 2.
@ willard (@nevaudit) | January 5, 2014 at 7:55 pm | said:
“jim2 is “not seeing it”, therfore it “this looks like more spin”.
Let’s help him with this other gem:”
Like I said before, I think the good professor was feeling a little guilty about his success. But I do appreciate the article – it was great!!
On this cold snowy day, these conclusions were added to p. 36 of my autobiography:
1. WE WILL HANG TOGETHER or WE WILL DIE SEPARATELY. The historical events of 1945-1968 suggest that humans had not yet evolved to a stage to benefit from “powers beyond the dreams of scientific fiction” in 1922.
http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/chemistry/laureates/1922/aston-lecture.pdf
2. THE REALITY REVEALED BY SCIENTIFIC OBSERVATIONS IS THE SAME REALITY REVEALED BY SPIRITUAL MEDITATIONS.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/10640850/Chapter_2.pdf
Dr. Curry ==> The David Gelernter piece is precious, priceless, nearly perfect, particularly starting at the sub-heading The Closing of the Scientific Mind — I agree almost entirely with him.
The huge failure in modern society and science is the abandonment by most of the viewpoint and values taught by their religions, leaving us with many leaders and scientists lacking valid universal contexts for their studies.
To quote David Gelernter “We need science and scholarship and art and spiritual life to be fully human.” I second that!
Yet another example of the wonders of state run capitalism.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/01/05/us-china-property-basement-idUSBREA040GD20140105
I wonder how we will get the solar panels to work in the Chinese sewers?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1326187/Las-Vegas-tunnel-people-How-1-000-people-live-shimmering-strip.html
Chief,
It’s sad to see drug addicts and the mentally ill on the street (or in the tunnels) in any city. In particular, it is tragedy that progressives forced millions of people who could not care for themselves out on the streets, in the name of “civil rights”.
But perhaps you can show me where in Las Vegas it is a product of government housing and economic policy? And does Nevada have massive ghost cities while its non-drug addicted, mentally healthy people live in tunnels and sewers?
Chief Hydrologist,
Please let me know how you define “neutral”, in terms of whether the Earth has warmed, cooled, or remained unchanged since its creation.
Your irrelevant link, as per the usual Warmist attempt to avoid answering what surely is a simple question, is duly noted as being of no use whatsoever.
I am surprised that someone who lays claim to 52,000 hours of study seems to be unable to draw a logical conclusion from observations. Maybe “neutral” is defined in the Book of Warm as being a weasel word to be offered when unable to provide a cogent response.
I will of course apologise if you define “neutral” to have the same meaning as “unchanged” in this context. I would ask why replace a perfectly clear word with one less clear, if this is the case.
I await your response.
Live well and prosper,
Mike Flynn.
I didn’t actually say exclusively studying – what a luxury – did you not understand the ‘hard way’. It would be par for the course – you seem to understand very little. Nuetral is that it isn’t warming – like now. And then you go off on your silly rant about warmists. That is so far from the mark that it is totally hilarious.
You should learn the basics.
http://sci.odu.edu/oceanography/directory/faculty/mulholland/OEAS_310/03_Energy_balance.ppt
Chief Hydrologist,
I am sure you are only pretending not to understand, for reasons that are unclear to me.
Are you saying that since the Earth’s creation, the temperature has remained unchanged, or “neutral”, as you put it?
You are joking, I presume.
The reason I ask is that you have lambasted me for claiming that the long term average of the Earth’s surface temperature has dropped – ie cooled.
You appear to be reluctant to accept the obvious, instead thrashing about in all directions, in order to avoid agreeing with me. If you refuse to acknowledge that the Earth’s surface temperature has dropped since its creation, you might care to state so, for the edification of the other commenters. Or not, as you wish.
Live well and prosper,
Mike Flynn.
Bizarrely tendentious argumentation. Read the powerpoint and learn the basics. The Earth warms or cools at different times. This would seem to be fairly obvious. Going beyond the basics – climate is wild.
‘The climate system has jumped from one mode of operation to another in the past. We are trying to understand how the earth’s climate system is engineered, so we can understand what it takes to trigger mode switches. Until we do, we cannot make good predictions about future climate change… Over the last several hundred thousand years, climate change has come mainly in discrete jumps that appear to be related to changes in the mode of thermohaline circulation. Wally Broecker
But that’s so far beyond your pay scale – that we may as well expect monkeys to do calculus.
A change in rate of a change in hate
Will abate, berate, berate.
============
Chief Hydrologist,
I have restated my query above. Threading is broken, I assume.
Not even a good try on your behalf.
Maybe your 52,000 hours of study was wasted.
Live well and prosper,
Mike Flynn.
Yeah I could probably have spent more time at the bar if not working for a living – while doing an engineering degree and a Masters in Environmental Science.
It seems very much like Flynn didn’t waste any time on book learnin’. Unless I – and the whole world – is very much mistaken Quaternary glaciation is a pretty robust idea.
Study the basics Flynn – http://sci.odu.edu/oceanography/directory/faculty/mulholland/OEAS_310/03_Energy_balance.ppt
And you might learn something – although I very much doubt it. As it is you are simply making a fool of yourself yet again.
Regarding “The Closing of the Scientific Mind,” Gelertner tries to take up the difficult topic of “consciousness.” It’s one of those great mysteries to me, and has parallels to the universe.
One view, it suddenly comes into existence, a kind of “Big Bang” view.
Another is that it’s in everything, and is always around. You get enough of it connected to tap into it. Kind of like the Universe has always been around.
And then there is a kind of stranger thought. Which is that when you dissect it enough, you find out it really doesn’t exist, at least not in the way one might think it exists.
I do think, though, there are limits to what people are able to do. I wish I could do mathematical operations as quickly as a computer. Even a telephone can do more mathematical operations in a second than I could do in a lifetime. So, eventually people will morph into something else, perhaps quite different from what humans are today. If people survive long enough, it seems that’s an inevitability.
In one way of thinking, we are perhaps at the last few generations (or thousand generations, depending on how hard the problems are). The feeling that these kinds of progresses in humans is somehow anti-human is wrong. It’s pro-evolution, pro life.
‘… So eventually people will morph into somethingelse, quite
different from what humans are today …’
I know i shouldn’t but I like us with our flaws, tragedy ‘n comedy,
the subject of art.’2001 a Space Odyssey,’ the ending,
yer can’t laugh at perfection.
Herewith:
The EIA page compares current levelised costs of differing generation techniques. Gas is so much cheaper in the USA than any other option it is just a no-brainer for the foreseeable future.
Of course you could always tax it out of existence – and start a trade war – for not following suite – with one of the only countries in the world with which you have a trade surplus.
All of this sounds hugely likely and we should expect Obama to move on this in his ‘next’ term.
The global ocean is slow to change. I predict it will remain wet for at least a decade or three.
Professor Pierre Darriulat on the latest conclusions of the IPCC:
http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/WrittenEvidence.svc/EvidenceHtml/4360
Thanks for the link, Edim. I particularly like Darrilaut’s phrase ‘depressingly aggressive and irrational level’ referring to the state of the unfortunate collision of science and policy we see in the IPCC’s version of climate science.
==============
Chief Hydrologist,
I am pleased to see you agree the world is not presently heating. I presume whatever theory you have for this also applied in the past.
However, you appear to believe the globe has alternately warmed and cooled in the past. You do not appear to have any explanation for this that would not also apply to the present, which you admit is not warming.
I believe that any assertion you make in this regard, will be as believable as your 100 hours per week of study for 10 years. It transpires that you were a little flexible with the truth in this instance.
So, it is agreed that there is presently no global warming – from the wondrous Greenhouse Effect, or for any other reason. The presence of any magical heat transfer mechanism storing heat in the ocean by simply bypassing the upper few hundred meters of water has not been demonstrated.
Other than the hand of God, you have no cogent argument to explain the Earth, as a whole, miraculously warming – now, or 100 years ago, or 10,000 years ago. Proxies from isolated regions of the globe are useless – both as to quality and quantity – to anyone except a dedicated Warmist.
I point out that, as a simple physical fact, a body losing energy cools. It cannot be otherwise, and as you have stated repeatedly, the Earth loses energy – at a rate of around 44TW – continuously, relentlessly and remorselessly.
Any theory explaining warming in the past should also apply today – but of course it won’t. I leave it to others to judge both your demonstrated veracity and your grasp of physics. Hand waving and unsupported assertion just don’t suffice any more.
I find it odd that you claim the Earth to be subject to some mysterious warming mechanism in the past, that seems to have passed beyond the ken of mortals recently.
Live well and prosper,
Mike Flynn.
Mike Flynn: I point out that, as a simple physical fact, a body losing energy cools. It cannot be otherwise, and as you have stated repeatedly, the Earth loses energy – at a rate of around 44TW – continuously, relentlessly and remorselessly.
You puzzle me. Are you claiming that the Sun does not shine on the Earth? That the insolation is energy-free? That you know that the balance of incoming and outgoing energy is and always has been negative?
The Earth gains 179 PW of energy constantly. Some of it is reflected – some of it is absorbed and re-emitted creating tropics and temperate zones. The poetry of climate – warm seas and warm skies – or shivering under lowering skies.
Weather
Horrible Weather
Staying in bed weather
Cuddling up close weather
Ignoring the world weather
Warm Weather
Go for swim weather
Take a walk weather
Picnic weather
– Alison Smith
The wet season just hit in my neck of the woods – not ten minutes ago. God knows we can use the rain.
.
Few agree with me and I know I’m right.
Few shrink from my anger and I know I’m powerful.
Few are hurt by my snark and I know I’m cutting.
Few are entertained by daily trivia from my life and I know I’m the most interesting man on the planet.
What’s up with that?
Commenter ‘hit and run’ @ another blog, while criticizing Anthony Watts’ call for civility in blogdom remarked that successful blogging consists of:
1. Flame wars.
2. Recipe exchanges.
3. Speculation about the motives of opponents.
Well, the chefs are into the flaming part, and finding prospects, er, uh, suspects for their recipe exchanges.
==========
“Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference.”
― Mark Twain
There are important voices in climate science – none of them are to be found here. No wide ranging discourse – no cleverness – no wit – no erudition – no poetry – no realisation of an eSalon for the times – no ‘gathering of people under the roof of an inspiring host, held partly to amuse one another and partly to refine the taste and increase the knowledge of the participants through conversation.’ ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salon_%28gathering%29 )
Merely a descent into peurile squabbling. You have lost the plot Judy. You need to be more selective about who you allow under your roof.
Supervolcanoes & global cooling – The real climate change threat
Risk of supervolcano eruption big enough to ‘affect the world’ far greater than thought, say scientists
<
David
I have had this discussion about the effects of Volcanoes with R gates many times. Observational records show that volcanoes have a limited effect that might last a season. It is models that show the sort of effects you quote. I will take observations over models.
tonyb
I hope supervolcano sensitivity to human activity is around zero.
I think Tony has blinders on when it comes to volcanoes. Two of the largest volcanoes of the past few thousand years occurred in 1257 and 1452. During the period around 1250-1300 there was 50 years of the highest volcanic activity in a thousand years involving multiple moderate volcanoes. See:
http://nldr.library.ucar.edu/repository/assets/osgc/OSGC-000-000-010-465.pdf
This is not to say the Maunder and Dalton minimum had no effect, but it was secondary to the general increase in aerosols from about 1250-1900.
V, massive use of a caldera as a source of geothermal energy could conceivably diminish the chance of catastrophe. I’m not sure it is feasible, let alone cost effective.
==============
When It Comes to Giant Eruptions, Buoyancy is the Key
PS Climatereason
The 0.4 C drop was observation. What happens when you launch 20x more dust?
Rgates.
No. I just look at the observed records from multiple sources which show the effects appear to be limited.
As a matter of interest if we had not had these multiple volcanoes causing cooling how much higher would the temperatures have been between 1250 and 1450?
I am interested to read that you think the sunspots were secondary to volcanic aerosols. I am a bit agnostic on the questions of sunspots although for sure they fit patterns of warming and cooling much better than co2.
tonyb
David Hagen
‘The 0.4 C drop was observation. What happens when you launch 20x more dust?’
It lasted a few months. It depends where the volcano was and the circulation pattern at the time but aerosols quickly drop out of the system and would need consequent topping up every few months on a massive scale to cause the effects claimed.
To say it affects the climate for tens of years is not observed UNLESS perhaps you substitute the sunspot effect for the aerosol effect. That is a big ‘perhaps’ however.
tonyb
“I am interested to read that you think the sunspots were secondary to volcanic aerosols.”
____
Volcanic aerosols and solar output affect the climate differently, and different volcanoes affect the climate differently– depending on location, preconditioning of the atmosphere, time of year, etc. Especially in the case of solar output, this can have a larger impact on regions of the NH, whereas a large mega-volcano can have more global impact.
“It lasted a few months. It depends where the volcano was and the circulation pattern at the time but aerosols quickly drop out of the system and would need consequent topping up every few months on a massive scale to cause the effects claimed.”
_____
This notion does not take into account the related effects on ocean/sea ice feedbacks as related in the research I’ve linked to above. A big hit from a megavolcano to ocean heat content (which also affects sea ice), can take many years to cycle through the system. The immediate cooling of the tropsophere is not the biggest effect at all, and considering the higher thermal inertia of the ocean and cryosphere, just from a physics standpoint you can see how the cooling could linger for quite a while– far longer than one year.
Rgates
You didn’t reply to my question;
‘As a matter of interest if we had not had these multiple volcanoes causing cooling how much higher would the temperatures have been between 1250 and 1450?’
tonyb
Tony said:
“‘As a matter of interest if we had not had these multiple volcanoes causing cooling how much higher would the temperatures have been between 1250 and 1450?’
______
That period is a bit to short as you are leaving out the big volcano of Kuwae (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuwae) in 1452-53. (probably multiple large eruptions). But looking at the LIA in general, and looking at the last 2000 years of global temperatures leads us to a graph that looks very much like this:
http://www.brighton73.freeserve.co.uk/gw/paleo/2000yearsCO2large.png
This excludes the bands of uncertainty from the various proxy reconstructions, but gives us a good idea of the general shape of the global temperature trend. As to how much warmer the active volcanic period that began around 1250 AD and lasted until around 1900 AD would have been this chart gives us a good idea that were it not for increased volcanic activity it would have been between .3C and .6 warmer, taking us back to the Holocene average and accounting for the general decline of that average since the Holocene Optimum. The Dalton and Maunder minimums during this time frame had more regional than global impacts, though still some global, probably shaving .3C at most off of NH temperatures, and maybe .1C off global temperatures during this period at most. The bigger effect on global temperatures was from volcanic aerosols and related ocean/sea ice feedbacks.
The seven lean years should begin now. When they are over AGW will have shrunken to a such a size in Winter that we will hardly even hear it.
Roll on 2014 with Northern Hemisphere coldness so extreme that my BHP shares will go through the roof.
I may have to start up a carbon release company in my wife’s name to own them though, wouldn’t want to be seen to be in the pay of big Carbon.
A dozen years ago I joked with a friend about the Brave Soccer Moms of the Carbon Wars, fiercely fighting at the frosty front with their 4X4 Suburban Assault Vehicles.
===============
Well, you can kiss that thought goodbye, and just for good riddance.
Let me fix that for you: http://woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:2002/trend/plot/gistemp/from:2002/plot/hadsst3gl/from:2002/trend/plot/hadsst3gl/from:2002
There was a “regime shift!!!!!” in late 2011 to early 2012, so you just broke it.
Earth surface, including SST’s, now warming at ~.7C per decade, and no end in sight in 2014. This is more than three times the fraudulent IPCC prediction!
You mean like the “regime shift” between 2007 and 2008? http://woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:2007/to:2008/trend/plot/gistemp/from:2007/to:2008/plot/hadsst3gl/from:2007/to:2008/trend/plot/hadsst3gl/from:2007/to:2008
We can carry this game on all night – but that’s all it is, just a game.
Chris Turney in Nature defending the Antarctic Expedition
http://www.nature.com/news/this-was-no-antarctic-pleasure-cruise-1.14466
Heh, this was no Antarctic scientific cruise.
================
Turney said: “Contrary to some reports, the ship was not frozen in but was pinned by remobilized sea ice that had been blown by fierce winds.”
______
I’m amazed anyone thought the ship was frozen. Who reported it was frozen?
Turney discovers that winds blow and water freezes. Who’d a thunk it?
===========
Well, I Googled “MV Akademik Shokalskiy frozen” and found much of mainstream media did report the ship frozen. I hope the journalist just meant the ship couldn’t move because it was surrounded by sea ice, not that it was actually frozen in a sheet of surface ice.
kim has appointed himself arbitrator of Antarctic scientific cruises. Congratulations, kim !
Heh, this was no Antarctic scientific cruise.
================
I don’t think you know your circular continent from the effluent glacier that spews out of it.
With one excellent comment by Richard Tol
Well, here’s Turney’s problem:
“For the past six weeks on board the Russian icebreaker MV Akademik Shokalskiy, my colleague Chris Fogwill and I have led a team of scientists, science communicators and volunteers on a voyage from the New Zealand subantarctic islands to the East Antarctic Ice Sheet.”
He thought he had chartered an icebreaker.
As far as I can judge the main motivation of the expedition was to use the anniversary of the original AAE to make Antarctic research, and perhaps the main organizers personally, better known. The actual scientific value doesn’t appear sufficient to justify the trip, but it might be argued that the expected positive publicity would be worth the cost. Turney writes also (emphasis mine) The aim was to study various aspects of this vast, remote region to better understand its role in the Earth system, and communicate these results directly to the public.
The ship is suited for summer ice conditions of much of Antarctica. It’s not an ice breaker but it’s reinforced well enough to survive even under difficult ice conditions. According to a Finnish newspaper interview of a Finnish engineer knowledgeable of the construction of ships of this class, Akademik Shokalskiy is reinforced to polar conditions. It’s classification does not reflect that because it’s machine power and ice breaking properties are not at the same level. Thus it may get stuck as it did but should survive.
From the blogs from the expedition we can read that it took some time to find a route in, thus the ice conditions were obviously not as easy as Turner writes in Nature. When the decision was made to enter the Commonwealth Bay it must have been known that the way out may get blocked, the likelihood may have been estimated low, but not zero.
As commented by many already, getting stuck is not that unusual anywhere where pack ice may accumulate. That happens quite often for commercial ships of high ice class in the Northern Baltic sea (Golf of Bothnia). It’s not uncommon that they must wait for help for a few days. In polar regions the waits are understandably longer.
I have understood that the cost of the operations must be paid by the owners of the ship being helped, when they are not covered by a payment charged from all ships that enter the area where they may need help from icebreakers. Such a charge is collected from all ships that come to Finnish harbors when ice conditions may lead to the need of such help. The complaints from other scientists that servicing their needs has suffered seems to be out of place. On some other occasion they may be ones that need help. Adventure tourism and expeditions of this nature are a major part of the activities in Antarctic region. They contribute to services that are valuable also to the scientists.
I was being sarcastic, Pekka. Turney knows the ship is not an icebreaker. He is attempting to create the impression that the expedition had the right ship and the right plan, but they just had unforeseeable bad luck. Hey, even the Chinese icebreaker ( a real one) got stuck.
“Could this have been avoided? The satellite data leading up to our arrival in Antarctica’s Commonwealth Bay indicated open clear water, and the area seemed to have been that way for some time.”
Clear sailing! Oh, wait a minute:
“Major scientific questions remain about the region we sailed into. A southward shift of westerly winds is influencing the Antarctic Circumpolar Current, increasing transitory upwelling of Circumpolar Deep Water onto the Antarctic continental shelf. At the same time, extensive sea ice has formed in Commonwealth Bay after a huge iceberg called B09B collided with and destroyed the tongue of the Mertz Glacier in 2010.”
The satellites must have missed the extensive sea ice that has formed in Commonwealth Bay. The 65 km of ice Turney’s merry band had to travel over to get to Mawson’s shacks.
“This encouraged people to follow our work, as seen by the number of hits received on the expedition website. In the past six weeks, http://www.spiritofmawson.com received 60,000 visits, driving traffic to our social media sites”
We can wonder how many visits they attracted, before they gained fame for getting stuck in the ice. We do know their attempt to use social media to raise funding from the general public was a big failure.
What we have here is another climate alarmist PR stunt that backfired, period.
Pekka
To be fair, the original was a very iconic expedition and to want to repeat it a century later was probably understandable. If you combine the relatively limited but valid scientific expectations with the commemoration of the original event it was pretty justifiable. Whether it was properly equipped and organised seems to be another question.
Tonyb
Don Monfort,
The only significant connection between this expedition and climate alarmism that I can see is an attempt to take advantage of such sentiments of the public in raising interest and funding for this trip. Research related to climate forms a very small part of the activities, and it’s emphasized only occasionally.
Pekka, you write “Research related to climate forms a very small part of the activities, and it’s emphasized only occasionally.”
The reason for this is that there were no signs of CAGW in the scientific results. You can bet your bottom dollar that if they had found signs of CAGW, it would have been shouted from the rooftops, and plastered all over the Australian MSM.
Tony,
Basically I agree. On this site and elsewhere the discussion has largely gone to totally wrong track when arguments related to climate science have got a highly exaggerated status.
Those who funded the trip should reconsider whether they did their decisions on right basis. Whether excessive risks were taken at some points should also be reconsidered. More generally some discussion of the practices of adventure tourism is perhaps also in place. None of these issues can be discussed properly, if views on the AGW are mixed in.
JIm,
I don’t believe that any results have been obtained so far from any of the research done. That takes always much longer.
Nobody should have thought at any point that this trip could result in any significant results related to climate change. Small contribution to some more extensive work are possible, but nothing from this trip alone. At the minimum the floats released and the other measurements done at sea and through the ice add a few datapoints to the databases.
Pekka – pack ice is generally thought of as frozen seawater. F
So when one of the exhibition members blogged she was seeing ice that looked like broken glass, that is not likely the ice that has trapped them. The Finnish-built ship can sail right through that sort of pack ice all day long.
The ice that enveloped this ship is old and often very thick. It is probably debris from recent iceberg calving events on the Mertz Glacier, possibly even on the 12-24-2013, and some possibly from the iceberg collision with the Mertz Glacier in 2010. The ship is stuck fairly close to the Mertz Glacier – any scientists would be working there as the collision removed a huge section of the tongue, and scientists need to know what the impacts of that enormous change to are. That glacier tongue extended far out into the ocean when Mawson was there. It has been a permanent feature. It’s akin to having a huge rock outcropping suddenly drop below sea level, leaving the ocean free to do all sorts of new things.
To bolster my point, two icebreakers were unable to reach the finnish-built ship because this ice is beyond their ice breaking capability. Even with prayers. It’s very thick.
This means it’s entirely possible that even if the expedition had employed an icebreaker of a larger size than the Chinese and the Australian icebreakers involved in the rescue, they would still be right where they are.
Get real, Pekka. Climate science, as practiced by the climate consensus establishment, is about finding confirmation for CAGW and genning up fear. And don’t forget to bring along some green toadies from the BBC and Guardian.
http://www.spiritofmawson.com/the-science-case/
“The scale of Antarctica and the Southern Ocean is staggering. Over 98% of the continent is submerged by three large ice sheets that drown the underlying topography. The Australasian sector is dominated by the East Antarctic Ice Sheet, the largest of three ice sheets that contains enough freshwater to raise the world’s sea level by some 52 metres. Until recently it was thought this ice sheet was stable, sitting on the continental crust above today’s sea level. However there is an increasing body of evidence, including by the AAE members, that have identified parts of the East Antarctic which are highly susceptible to melting and collapse from ocean warming.”
The ice sheet gonna slide off and it gonna melt and drown us all. If we hadn’t got stuck and needed rescue by responsible professionals, we woulda proved it.
http://notrickszone.com/2014/01/03/expedition-communication-director-alvin-stone-climate-warming-led-to-the-vessels-awkward-predicament/
Our boat got stuck because of global warming. We didn’t see it coming. It’s worse than we thought.
JHC,
It’s likely that there were both larger ice sheets and pack ice between those sheets. If the sheets are too thick to break through an attempt is made to sail in open sea between them, but those areas are not fully open but contain smaller pieces of ice. When the large sheets get closer to each other the smaller pieces start to form pack ice which may pile up to well more than 10 meters of ice. Getting through that requires much more power than those ships have.
Most of the Finnish icebreakers built for the Baltic have propellers also at front to help in breaking the pack ice formations even in shallower places where the ice may extend all the way to bottom, but that’s not necessary or optimal for polar icebreakers which operate almost always in deep sea. They need a lot of power and adjustable propellers to produce a great trust both forwards and backwards to avoid getting stuck.
Don,
The whole world is not as obsessed with AGW (for or against) as one might think following climate blogs.
Everything that I have read on this expedition outside climate blogs tells that climate science was a minor issue in the rationale.
On the meaning of pack ice Wikipedia notes:
What I had in mind is the second meaning. That’s common both in northernmost Baltic Sea and in polar regions.
Turney said: “Contrary to some reports, the ship was not frozen in but was pinned by remobilized sea ice that had been blown by fierce winds.”
______
I’m amazed anyone thought the ship was frozen. Who reported it was frozen?
I saw some pictures of people who had walked from the ship to clear snow for the helicopter. I guess they must have walked on water to get over there.
Don Monford
Doubtless the guardian and the bbc had a number of reasons for supporting this project. This would include the agw aspect no doubt but , certainly as far as the bbc goes, they would have been interested in the centenary aspect as well, as Mawson was actually British born.
I heard a programme on the Mawson project several months ago on the BBC world service and there was nothing much about the agw aspect.
Tonyb
I am not claiming that the whole world is obsessed with AGW, Pekka. But I am pretty sure that the Turney crew, the Green BBC and the Green Guardian are smitten. However, on this particular expedition AGW was nowhere in their minds and we would not have heard a word about AGW, if their boat had not got stuck in the thick AGW ice. Ain’t it something that you take the wife and kids on a free Antarctic cruise to get away from AGW for a while, only to be ingloriously trapped in thick AGW ice.
If they don’t find some convincing justification for their CAGW alarmism soon, there will be a lot of climate scientists/hacks and environmental reporters/hacks driving cabs and waiting tables.
On the record, two ABC programs in November 2013 about the forthcoming expedition to the Antarctic to study Climate Change.
Fer Turney that meant AGW warming. He’s a believer, tra la …
but now post ship_meets -ice, a discrete one.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/abc_whitewash_dont_mention_warmists_are_on_board_the_ice_bound_ship/
There have been luxury cruises that include field trips to points on East Antarctica. Some include helicopters that avoid driving across miles of dangerous ice.
You do not have to take a Russian rust bucket.
That definitive, Beth. It was about activist AGW alarmism, period. The charitable/naive interpretation that they were doing it for love of Mawson is no longer even faintly plausible.
Pekka is stuck in clown ice. All the world that knows this ship was a pack of alarmists is laughing, and the rest of the world is beginning to wonder what’s so funny.
==================
Sounds like Climate Science to me:
“Our findings include many firsts for the region: detailed marine and terrestrial ecological studies, glaciological reconstructions and high-resolution palaeoclimate analysis of tree rings, peats and ocean cores from the subantarctic islands. Guided by real-time satellite information, the team undertook an experiment across the Antarctic Convergence — a natural boundary between cold Antarctic and warmer subantarctic waters. By combining surface drifters with Argo floats (for measuring salinity and temperature), we have gained a unique snapshot of this important frontier.”
Waggy, Webster’s defines ad homien as
“of an argument or reaction) arising from or appealing to the emotions and not reason or logic.”
It was not an appeal to emotions nor was it illogical to point out you conflated your two paragraphs with the Rothman quotation. I suspect you conflated to leave the impression Rothman agrees with what you said in those paragraphs. Alert readers recognize conflation and associate it with misrepresentation. That’s why I asked why you want readers to distrust you.
BTW, learning what a word means before using it is always a good idea.
Gosh, I replied to a post that disappeared while I was preparing my reply. A ghost post! That’s pretty funny.
Generalissimo Skippy: http://www.pnas.org/content/106/38/16120.full
What do you think are the implications of the “stadium wave” and the other regressors used by WebHubTelescope for that model of Tsonis and colleagues?
http://www.atmos.ucla.edu/tcd/PREPRINTS/Math_clim-Taipei-M_Ghil_vf.pdf
Same question for that model by Ghil.
WebHubTelescope has not yet published his model, but we here know that it has a good fit, and if it continues to fit well in the upcoming decades it has serious implications for all other modeling attempts. The regressors that he used in place of abstract “background variation” should not be ignored by others in their modeling. What do you think?
Here comes the prickly putdowns.
I am a big fan of Tsonis et al, but in my opinion there is a huge hole in their predictions.
Matthew,
Multiple linear regression is far from a new idea.
e.g. http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/chylek-et-all-climdyn_us_sw.pdf
Chylek et al 2013 use the AMO and PDO in the fit.
Lean and Rind used it is 2008 – http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2008/2008_Lean_Rind_1.pdf – to produce a fit to the temperature.
http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/LeanandRind20102_zpsa090fb72.png.html?sort=3&o=40
You can see that L&R project rising temps that simply didn’t happen. Clearly no idea of the nature of ‘vigorous decadal variability’. Add serial incompetence to the lack of a broader understanding and you have webby.
S&T’s result is clearly in accord with other analysis – less than 0.08 degrees C/decade – but by another method entirely. Even webby gets this number. webby apparently uses LOD – I haven’t wasted any of my time on this – and the only relevance to the idea of the ‘stadium wave’ is that Wyatt and Curry used it as a proxy for large scale changes in atmospheric circulation. The stadium wave is big picture propagation of a signal across the planet – the delineation of a system in which the whole is greater than the parts. The LOD as used by webby is a reductio ad adsurdum misunderstanding of the entire idea.
Tsonis was on Marcia Wyatt’s thesis committee. He co-authored the follow up paper. The idea is implied in the 2007 paper – https://pantherfile.uwm.edu/kravtsov/www/downloads/GRL-Tsonis.pdf – A new dynamical mechanism for major climate shifts. The most important paper in climate science.
Ghil’s sensitivity is related. If there are dynamical shifts – then the ruling mechanism is bifurcation. Small changes at tipping points initiate non-linear responses. In the Pacific especially – shifts in ENSO behaviour. So this goes to the future – what is the current state of the oceans and how long is this likely to persist?
There is a very simple answer – the oceans shifted to a cool mode in 1998/2001 – and these modes last 20 to 40 years in the long proxy records.
That is why S&T above suggest the ‘possibility’ (probability in fact) of no warming or even cooling over decades.
Your opinion and 5 bucks will get you a cup of coffee.
Generalissimo Skippy: Multiple linear regression is far from a new idea.
That skips the question that I asked. WebHubTelescope with his model shows that much of what has up til now sometimes been called “natural variability” can be related to measurable climate processes. Even if he be not the first (and I think he is the first to use all in that particular set of regressors), what is the implication of the result for models like Tsonis’ and Ghil’s?
The implication is webby, working in his mother’s basement, might expose the gaping hole in Tsonis et al’s work.
I answered your question urbanely Matthew and with a great deal of added information.
The method involves linear scaling of paramenters to the temperature curve.
e.g. http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/MLR1_zps4a53618c.png.html?sort=3&o=10
The essential problem is collinearity. Parameters that change in phase over the same period. There are obviously P unknowns in a single equation. The more unknowns there are the more scope there is for fudging. That is why it makes little sense to include more and more parameters with no known relationship to global temperature.
Lean and Rind include volcanoes, ENSO, solar and greenhouse gases – this is enough to start with. Although we might add decadal indices like the PDO and AMO – like Chylek et al. Success for the future projection relies on understanding the nature of the parameters – and even then these things are unpredictable. Just because you can fit a curve means diddly squat.
‘With four parameters I can fit an elephant, and with five I can make him wiggle his trunk.’ John von Neumann
You would do well to actually read the science I link to – which you obviously didn’t do – and ask informed questions.
Incompetent blog science and blogospheric handwaving notwithstanding – near term numerical model prediction of climate is predictably no more accurate than tossing a coin.
Luckily there are more old fashioned methods.
‘More than half (52%) of the space and time variance in multidecadal drought frequency over the conterminous United States is attributable to the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) and the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO). An additional 22% of the variance in drought frequency is related to a complex spatial pattern of positive and negative trends in drought occurrence possibly related to increasing Northern Hemisphere temperatures or some other unidirectional climate trend. Recent droughts with broad impacts over the conterminous U.S. (1996, 1999-2002) were associated with North Atlantic warming (positive AMO) and northeastern and tropical Pacific cooling (negative PDO). Much of the long-term predictability of drought frequency may reside in the multidecadal behavior of the North Atlantic Ocean. Should the current positive AMO (warm North Atlantic) conditions persist into the upcoming decade, we suggest two possible drought scenarios that resemble the continental-scale patterns of the 1930s (positive PDO) and 1950s (negative PDO) drought.’
—McCabe (2004)
http://oceanworld.tamu.edu/resources/oceanography-book/oceananddrought.html
These also influence US and global temperatures.
e.g. http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/chylek-et-all-climdyn_us_sw.pdf
So where is it all going? webby is overturning published science in the bolgosphere? Really?
Generalissimo Skippy: I answered your question urbanely Matthew and with a great deal of added information.
I disagree: you wrote on the topic of linear regression and climate modeling without answering the question.
Just because you can fit a curve means diddly squat.
So you accept some regression modeling, but not others. You regard the inclusion of the stadium wave as a regressor as diddly squat? But the regression on abstract sines and cosines with estimated periods and phases you think is good?
You would do well to actually read the science I link to – which you obviously didn’t do – and ask informed questions.
Actually, I had downloaded those papers and read them before, as when “Chief Hydrologist” posted the links to the Ghil paper. It is your right, naturally, not to answer the question that I posed. Just as it is my right to pose the questions that I pose. “Chief Hydrologist” also linked to a book by Henk Dykstra, and I have read (most of) two books by him.
Your nonresponse, so to speak, is being added to my reading.
Gimo Skippy: webby is overturning published science in the bolgosphere?
No one has written that “webby” is “overturning” published science.
Apparently the LOD was used – not the stadium wave – which is another idea entirely.
Webby uses the same method as Lean and Rind and Chylek et al – so putting words in my mouth does nothing but reveal your ignorance.
It is a method with limited relevance and no predictive capability.
New papers and old papers – forming a coherent picture. There is one paper I only read this morning.
Come back when have some coherent understanding. I’d suggest not basing it on webby.
… come back when you have…
And don’t insist that I haven’t answered your question. I made every effort to fully respond – in a wider context that you seem not to understand. The latter is hardly my problem – I am not here to answer questions in the way people imagine they should be answered.
‘The implication is webby, working in his mother’s basement, might expose the gaping hole in Tsonis et al’s work.’ JCH
Wilma will be surprised and proud – until it all turns south.
Matthew, personally I think Webster’s regression coefficients are quite easily shown to be fragile. See here…
http://judithcurry.com/2013/12/24/open-thread-3/#comment-428698
…and my later replies to the Webfoot.
Gimo Skippy: I am not here to answer questions in the way people imagine they should be answered.
That is true.
A renaissance man – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Gelernter – more admirable the more I learn.
And a martyr to the extremes of progressive violence.
I too found the essay to be remarkably perspicacious.
We must make the building of a free society once more an intellectual adventure, a deed of courage. What we lack is a liberal Utopia, a programme which seems neither a mere defence of things as they are nor a diluted kind of socialism, but a truly liberal radicalism which does not spare the susceptibilities of the mighty (including the trade unions), which is not too severely practical and which does not confine itself to what appears today as politically possible…Those who have concerned themselves exclusively with what seemed practicable in the existing state of opinion have constantly found that even this has rapidly become politically impossible as the result of changes in a public opinion which they have done nothing to guide. Unless we can make the philosophic foundations of a free society once more a living intellectual issue, and its implementation a task which challenges the ingenuity and imagination of our liveliest minds, the prospects of freedom are indeed dark. But if we can regain that belief in power of ideas which was the mark of liberalism at its best, the battle is not lost.
F.A. Hayek – Studies in Philosophy, Politics and Economics (1967)
@ willard (@nevaudit) | January 6, 2014 at 10:21 pm | said:
…
Due diligence we gather evidence instead, e.g.:
WE SHOULD LIKE TO RENEW THE LETTER AGREEMENT DATED JULY 12, 1978 (780712) BETWEEN YOU AND RJR NABISCO, INC. (FORMALLY R.J. REYNOLDS INDUSTRIES, INC.) FOR SIX MONTHS COMMENCING JULY 1, 1986 (860701) AT AN ANNUAL FEE OF $65, 000 WHICH SHALL BE PAID IN EQUAL MONTHLY INSTALLMENTS ON THE LAST DAY OF EACH MONTH.
…
____________________________
Williard, do you believe this paper about pot smoke not being carcinogenic? I don’t. Maybe you should look into this since you are hell bent to make sure no one hurts themselves doing what they like to do.
From the article:
While cannabis smoke has been implicated in respiratory dysfunction, including the conversion of respiratory cells to what appears to be a pre-cancerous state [5], it has not been causally linked with tobacco related cancers [6] such as lung, colon or rectal cancers. Recently, Hashibe et al [7] carried out an epidemiological analysis of marijuana smoking and cancer. A connection between marijuana smoking and lung or colorectal cancer was not observed. These conclusions are reinforced by the recent work of Tashkin and coworkers [8] who were unable to demonstrate a cannabis smoke and lung cancer link, despite clearly demonstrating cannabis smoke-induced cellular damage.
Furthermore, compounds found in cannabis have been shown to kill numerous cancer types including: lung cancer [9], breast and prostate [10], leukemia and lymphoma [11], glioma [12], skin cancer [13], and pheochromocytoma [14]. The effects of cannabinoids are complex and sometimes contradicting, often exhibiting biphasic responses. For example, in contrast to the tumor killing properties mentioned above, low doses of THC may stimulate the growth of lung cancer cells in vitro [15].
The genotoxic effects of partially oxidized hydrocarbons created by burning either cannabis or tobacco have been widely examined as the likely source of genetic changes that lead to the carcinogenic state [16]. As a result, the medical potential of cannabis has been obscured by the potential negative impact of using a smoked medicine [17]. Those who deny the validity of “medical marijuana,” cite that marijuana smoke contains four fold more tars than does tobacco smoke [18]. Nevertheless, smoking is often the preferred route of intake by medical cannabis users because rapid action allows self-titration [19]. Are the biological consequences of smoking cannabis and tobacco similar?
Smoke from tobacco and cannabis contains many of the same carcinogens and tumor promoters [20,21]. However, cannabis and tobacco have additional pharmacological activities, both receptor-dependent and independent, that result in different biological endpoints.
…
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1277837/
From the article, Williard . Get in touch with Obama today to condemn marijuana smoking!!! It’s up to YOU Williard!!
What is cancer
Tests
Treatment
Cancer questions and answers
Causes and symptoms
Does smoking cannabis cause cancer?
This page gives information about cannabis and cancer. There is information about
The link between cannabis and cancer
Evidence on cannabis and cancer
Why researching cannabis is difficult
More information about cancer causes
The link between cannabis and cancer
Whether cannabis can cause cancer is not a simple question to answer. We know from very clear evidence that tobacco causes cancer. But we are still learning about the effects of cannabis and whether it has the same effects as tobacco. There are a number of factors that suggest that cannabis could cause cancer
The substances in cannabis smoke
The way people smoke cannabis
Smokers’ lifestyles
The substances in cannabis smoke
Cannabis smoke contains many of the same cancer causing substances (carcinogens) as tobacco – at least 50 of them. In addition, cannabis is often mixed with tobacco when smoked.
One of these carcinogens is benzyprene. Benzyprene is in the tar of both tobacco and cannabis cigarettes. We know that benzyprene causes cancer. It alters a gene called p53, which is a tumour suppressor gene. We know that 3 out of 4 lung cancers (75%) occur in people who have faulty p53 genes. The p53 gene is also linked to many other cancers.
Cannabis also contains a substance called THC (tetrahydrocannabinol). It is the THC in the cannabis that changes your mood and behaviour. The amount of THC in a cannabis cigarette varies considerably. Researchers have shown that THC causes benzpyrene to promote the p53 gene to change. But other researchers have looked at the effects of pure THC on brain tumour cells and found that it killed them in laboratory tests. This is a long way from using it as a treatment. But you can see from this that the evidence on cannabis causing cancer is confusing.
http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/cancer-help/about-cancer/cancer-questions/does-smoking-cannabis-cause-cancer
jim2,
Thank you for probing my mind (i.e. “hell bent”) and for introducing a new squirrel:
Look, a dude squirrel!
I’m just sayin’, Williard – this could be your next BIG THING!
You ought to suggest your new big thing to Frank Lunz, who seems to be a bit depressed these days:
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/01/the-agony-of-frank-luntz/282766/
You might appreciate the paragraph that follows, just as Bart R might appreciate the whole article.
U.S. braces for record cold, disproving global warming.
Heatwave smashes Australian record, proving global warming.
http://www.illawarramercury.com.au/story/2008882/heatwave-smashes-australian-record/?cs=12
Is Australia really a part of the world?
Crude Oil (WTI) USD/bbl. 93.66 +0.23 +0.25% Feb 14 22:30:06
And ?
Dr. Curry, how do you feel about the great Polar Vortex, spawned by CO2, ravaging North America in an unprecedented fashion, as predicted by that great science movie, “The Day After Tomorrow”, and seriously reported nationwide?
Here is the bottom line, form the above link:
“For society as a whole, the costs have reached levels comparable only to the euro-zone bailouts. This year, German consumers will be forced to pay €20 billion ($26 billion) for electricity from solar, wind and biogas plants — electricity with a market price of just over €3 billion. Even the figure of €20 billion is disputable if you include all the unintended costs and collateral damage associated with the project. Solar panels and wind turbines at times generate huge amounts of electricity, and sometimes none at all. Depending on the weather and the time of day, the country can face absurd states of energy surplus or deficit.”
You are a clueless joker, barty. What obstacles to market entry have solar and wind power faced? I will help you. There is only one: they are uneconomical. But in those political jurisdictions ruled by goofy greenies the playing field has been tilted with senseless mandates and silly subsidies.
Instead of being blind prisoners of dogma, why can’t more of you people be rational, like Pekka:
“Presently a German consumer is paying more as renewable energy surcharge than the average market price of energy in the wholesale electricity exchange is.
…
One support scheme is used to create more and more need for another.”
Don Monfort | January 7, 2014 at 2:47 pm |
Explain how coal power arbitrage works.
Hrm. There’s another article on Lindzen, spawned by the one our host cites.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/jan/06/climate-change-climate-change-scepticism?commentpage=1
It appears to be a better explanation: simpler, more parsimonious, more universal.
Co2 follows warming in the atmosphere is an oft quoted message
This led me to thinking about the known causes of heating for the land sea and atmosphere . The atmosphere at both sea level and higher.
Some atmosphere of course as in mine shafts and deep earth valleys is actually below sea level and help add some insight into heat movement in air.
Starting from the center of the earth there are the more obvious nuclear reactions in the core and mantle. There are less obvious atomic reactions due to the vibration of atomic particles causing friction. Then there is heat generated by the increasing pressure of gravity as one moves towards the core. These are possibly exacerbated by the gravity changes of a rotating moon in competition with the sun and to a minute extent by the other planets and space matter including any from the sun.
An obvious cause of heating is the wave motion in the oceans especially when hitting the land and along the sea bottom. The friction here generates a significant amount of heat every day [24 hours]. In fact one could say that if the temperature is hot enough to sustain liquid water there will always be heat generated in excess of that needed to heat the water in the first place.
Gravity waves in land cause the same friction and may also cause the land to heat up at all levels all the way down to the core.
All this without needing any heat input from the Sun at all. When we talk about the earth being _ 30 degrees centigrade without green house gases are we taking all these other effects into play or are they so minuscule that they do not count at all.
with respect to the CO2 question is a warming world releasing more CO2 into the air because of the warming or taking more out because there is more biomass created to use it up.
This week review probably ending but if anyone has any references on this to help me appreciated
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/10555392/Australia-sends-in-its-navy-to-push-asylum-seeker-boats-back-to-Indonesia.html
Must see. The picture at the top is of a sinking shanty boat full of Indonesians seeking refuge in Australia being pushed back out into international waters by the Australian navy.
I’m going to assume the Indonesians are climate change refugees for the purpose of being topical on climate etc. lest I find my comment clipped for cause.
The mystery of the melting Antarctic
Actually 3 mysteries in one.
The measurement of the actual amount of ice on land or at sea is extremely difficult. While we can measure the extent of the land cover very accurately the depth of the ice is very difficult to estimate. Complicating this is the possibility of snow cover which is not as dense as ice but adds to the difficulty in measuring the actual ice thickness and the amount of unfrozen water under the ice in rivers and lakes which does the same.
More complicated is the measurement at sea due to the difficulty in assessing ice edge boundaries and even more so when there are ice floes and packs with clear water in between. In the Arctic it is possible to get measurements by submarine and icebreakers to give some idea of depth
Conventional measurement depends on using multiple yearly measurements of extent and depth from multiple sources and combining the best estimates into a volume if ice with quite significant margins for error. The most inputs come from arctic ice measurement, and are represented by PIOMAS. A second measurement is done by Cryosat 2. The estimated volumes differ quite markedly at times.
In the Antarctic it is impossible to actually measure the depth accurately, hence a different method GRACE has been developed which works on estimating the gravitational differences detected by 2 satellites to determine the mass of ice above the land contributing to the gravitational fields. The volume of ice estimated in this way is potentially extremely inaccurate though not inexact as it is very dependent on the coefficient in the formula to give the volume of ice. A smidge up and there is more ice in Antarctica, a smidge down and there is less ice in Antarctica.
At different times using the gravitational measurement there have been suggestions of increasing ice volume in Antarctica but with further interpretation the GRACE measurements state that Antarctica is losing ice volume.
Hence the mystery. Antarctic sea ice has been increasing in the main for 30 years and is well above the average for the last 30 years. Ipso facto the Antarctic itself should have been definitely colder than normal in recent times. Hence there must be more not less ice in Antarctica.
Sea ice extent is dependent more on the coldness of the water rather than the air temperature itself, hence the second mystery. Measurements of the Antarctic water temperature claim that it has been warming over recent years. This should have resulted in less sea ice extent as predicted by IPCC models.
The third mystery is how has the Antarctic been losing ice volume. This is unexplainable by theory and fact. The Antarctic is too cold for the ice to melt and evaporate from the surface. The glaciers are not getting smaller and shrinking back in from the coast. This would involve less calving from the glaciers which would in turn be smaller. As demonstrated by the recent Spirit of Mawson expedition there is more not less ice along most of the coast of Antarctica.
If an adequate explanation cannot be given for how the ice is mysteriously disappearing from Antarctica then attention should be turned to the degree of accuracy of the GRACE measurements and a readjustment of the coefficient done to correct it to the reality of more ice volume in Antarctica.
Is this worth a post? Put it in here as this topic is fairly full and unlikely to be a nuisance to anyone