The Day The Earth Cooled

This is a familar set of issues in one article. – Anthony


By INVESTOR’S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Thursday, September 25, 2008 4:20 PM PT

Environment: The solar wind is slowing, but Al Gore is still spewing hot air. The Oscar winner is promoting civil disobedience to stop energy and economic growth as the first U.S. emissions cap-and-trade program begins.

Speaking before Bill Clinton’s Global Initiative, junk science advocate Gore called on young people to take the law into their own hands because the climate, he claims, is a-changin’. He told the gathering in New York City that “the world has lost ground to the climate crisis” and the time for action is now.

“If you’re a young person looking at the future of this planet and looking at what is being done right now, and not done, I believe we have reached the stage where it is time for civil disobedience to prevent the construction of new coal plants that do not have carbon capture and sequestration,” Gore said to loud applause.

His comments come two weeks after a British jury acquitted six Greenpeace activists accused of causing property damage at a power plant. The jury felt the “protest” was acceptable because the “protesters” feared the plant would contribute to global warming.

Luddites of the world, unite!

On the same day Gore spoke, scientists involved in NASA’s Ulysses project reported that the intensity of the sun’s solar wind was at its lowest point since the beginning of the space age – one more indication that the sun, the biggest source of energy affecting the Earth, is getting quiet.

The weaker solar wind appears to be due to changes in the sun’s magnetic field, but the cause is unknown. Sunspots, which normally fluctuate in 11-year cycles, are at a virtual standstill. In August, the sun created no visible spots. The last time that happened: June 1913.

The results of the Ulysses spacecraft’s mission, according to Jet Propulsion Laboratory project scientist Ed Smith, show that “we are in a period of minimal activity that has stretched on longer than anyone anticipated.”

The consequences for Earth are enormous. The lack of increased activity could signal the start of what is known as a Maunder Minimum, an event that occurs every couple of centuries and can last as long as a century. It leads to extended periods of severe cooling such as what happened during the Little Ice Age.

It may already be happening. The four major agencies tracking Earth’s temperature, including NASA’s Goddard Institute, report that the Earth cooled 0.7 degree Celsius in 2007, the fastest decline in the age of instrumentation, putting us back to where the Earth was in 1930.

The climate is changing, but not in the direction Al Gore thinks. As the Earth demonstrably cools under a weakening sun, a 10-state coalition on Thursday held the nation’s first carbon allowance auction to deal with a warming trend that may have ended a decade ago.

They will impose a minor league version of the Lieberman-Warner economy-killing cap-and-trade rationing system in which emissions are limited by a progressively lowered cap. Emission permits are auctioned off by government, making it a cap-and-tax system. Permits can be traded or sold between companies like baseball cards.

The Lieberman-Warner bill would mandate emission cuts of 44% below 2007 levels. The Environmental Protection Agency estimates that it would cost as much as $3 trillion a year in lost GDP in an economy of roughly $14 trillion. It dwarfs the current financial crisis. But then, it’s for a good cause – right, Al?

The New York-based Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, launched Thursday, strives to freeze CO2 emissions through 2014 and then gradually reduce them to 10% below current levels by 2018. The states participating are Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island and Vermont.

Like its bigger cousin, it’s a job- and growth-killing plan in a time of economic crisis. As the sun slows and the Earth cools, it’ll mean higher energy prices during colder and snowier winters.

Al Gore’s hippie legions may have to wear their winter coats.

116 thoughts on “The Day The Earth Cooled

  1. Once again, come on down to sunny Florida. Housing prices are low, the weather is warm and we play golf year round. If the Earth continues to cool, we don’t need no stinkin’ furnaces! Better hurry, the rush will soon be on.

  2. Cross your feet before shooting. That way, you only need one bullet.
    I guess there isn’t an upper limit to stupidity.

  3. It’s a pity we can’t see stories with this orientation on the nightly noise.

    Permits can be traded or sold between companies like baseball cards. Sounds like a plan that Al can still get his hands on and make some bucks for himself. Of course when folks are dying from the cold, no one will point any fingers at Lord Gore.

  4. To me, an example of why we should not rush in to change the world without first knowing how the world works first.

    Good spot Anthony.

  5. If the warmers are prepared to even break the law now for the “cause” (and there is no resulting punishment for it), …

    … what prevents them from distorting the science (which used to result in punishment for the scientist involved but now garners accolades from the other warmers which dominate the field)?

  6. Ignorance is not a disease; we are all born with it; but stupidity has to be taught; and there are plenty of people willing and able to teach it.

  7. Well it looks like a “Perfect Storm” is brewing on the east coast. The financial markets are asking for a nearly three-quarters of a TRILLION dollar taxpayer bail out. Hoodlums are being released after splashing paint on a coal-fired generating plant in Great Britain, thanks in part to the intervention of a “scientist” in US taxpayer employ. Al Gore, getting a taxpayer supported pension is blathering about civil disobedience to stop coal fired generation plant construction here. Cap and trade, and carbon sequestration are still being pushed in our taxpayer paid congress and state legislatures. Several “experiments” to cool the planet are in the planning stages, most supported by taxpayer funded federal grants. The sun is quiet (it’s not on our payroll so it can do what it wants). Oh, yeah, our addition to foreign oil will cause painful withdrawals at the bank, because our taxpayer paid congress has blocked reasonable expansion of domestic energy production.

    And no one’s sure what the reality is. This is like driving down the freeway at 65mph with a paper map folded over the steering wheel, trying to find the right exit while talking on the cell phone and writing down directions. Sooner or later the sound of crunching metal and breaking glass will bring the driver back to reality.

    It is time to find a safe place to pull off, stop the car and get our bearings, then proceed with some sense of where our destination is.

    Many of the comments on this blog are from folks who admit they don’t know, even though they have a pet theory. There is nothing wrong with that. “I don’t know but let’s find out.” is an excellent place to start. It’s the people who are so cock sure they have the truth who scare me.

    “I feel much better now, Dave.” (HAL9000 computer in “2001”)

    Mike

  8. Encouraging law-breaking used to be a crime itself. I hope, like Thoreau, these civil disobeyers are willing to do the time for their beliefs. And their pied pipers, too.

  9. Perhaps the silver, or is it now tin, lining to the cloud of economic crisis will limit the fiscal waste on Gorisms.

  10. “the world has lost ground to the climate crisis”

    That pesky sun, always throwing a monkey wrench into our crisises (crisi?)! Gore is trying to make up for it in hot air, apparently. I just wish he’d start resorting to vandalism himself so they can put him where he belongs….

    I’ll be throwing extra carbon filled logs onto the fire this week end to do my part.

  11. To avoid anyone approaching their upper limit on stupidity, I’ll be glad to sell them stupidity credits so they can increase their upper limit of stupidity.

  12. Al Gore still has a carbon footprint that is many, many, many times that of the average American. Is it okay to promote civil disobedience against Al?

    I’ll start worrying about AGW when Al reduces his carbon footprint to less than that of the average American.

  13. Well it looks like the Flower Power generation is rearing its head again. Protest is fine, but violence is not. Did Dr King or Gandhi ever destroy property to make a point? I think not and look what they accomplished. This sounds like a last resort of a dieing idea or religion. Throw as much as you can against the wall in the hopes some will stick type of philosophy. Didn’t Gore’s carbon trading company get backed by Lehman? Goes with the country.

  14. Nothing like a looming recession to put the “climate crisis” on the back page. Civil disobedience is the only way they can stay in the news and on people’s minds.

    The Goreacle and his mindless lemmings are in for a rude awakening. Their agenda will be non-existent during an economic downturn coupled with higher energy prices, unless they start manipulating numbers and trying to convince people they can save money by enacting his “10 years or we’re all dead” agenda — which is utter nonsense.

    No one is going to pay more or lower their standard of living when the chips are already down. Which means the Eco Geeks are only going to get more and more desperate and outrageous.

  15. “Only two things are infinite – the universe and human stupidity, and I’m not sure about the former.”

    Albert Einstein

  16. It may already be happening. The four major agencies tracking Earth’s temperature, including NASA’s Goddard Institute, report that the Earth cooled 0.7 degree Celsius in 2007, the fastest decline in the age of instrumentation, putting us back to where the Earth was in 1930.

    So the weather channel is talking about the record number of highs compared to lows this year in the US instead.

  17. I think O’l Al really stuck his foot in it this time.

    Someone please correct me if I’m wrong….

    Incitment to a crime is a crime in itself. Even if an activist judge / jury let someone off for the crime as in England, civil lawsuits are much easier to prosecute.

    Let’s say someone is injured or God forbid killed even by accident in one of these civil disobediences. Al Gore will be liable for the part he played.

    I don’t care how good Al’s lawyers are, when you are getting hit from all directions, something will eventually stick.

    If it only amounts to a few instances, he is probably safe but if it starts some type of Green Gurilla movement, He might be the one needing a financial bailout.

  18. I sat across from the husband of a friend at a wedding reception, recently. He is the head of the physics department at a local public college.

    He’s about to head up a start-up solar panel company with federal and state subsidies. Millions of tax dollars at their disposal. He grudgingly smiled and admitted that they only have a 10% chance of success.

    This wouldn’t be so completely unpalatable if I didn’t know something of his history.

    !.) He’s completely on-board with the AGW wackos. Absolutely 100% certain that the climate is being destroyed by us carbon-spewing viruses. Oh! And he knew NOTHING about NASA’s then up-coming conference about the sun’s quiet face and unaware that the sun was in a prolonged minimum.

    2.) A few days after 9/11 he left a message on my answering machine with this query:

    “Was Samson a terrorist?”

    This is the mentality of many of the people sucking at the tit of the global warming hysteria windfall.

    Wish I’d kept that sound bite. I swear. I wish I’d have given it to the FBI to prevent his receiving any of my tax dollars.

  19. Ignorance is the most expensive reality in contemporary society. Algore recognizes ignorance as a marketable commodity.

    As evidence of this reality, I offer the genesis of today’s economic debacle.

  20. I am not sufficiently religious to see God’s hand in natural events, but I can’t help thinking of the recent reduction in solar activity and the cooling of the climate as God’s way of telling Al Gore that he is full of … shall we say, “carbon credit”.

  21. “Al Gore’s hippie legions may have to wear their winter coats.” I don’t think the word “hippie” applies; in fact I look at the Gore legions as antithetical to hippiedom. The phrase “brown shirts” comes to mind, though.

  22. Once again I have to say that I am a skeptic of AGW and sunspot theory. The article notes that there were no sunspots in August and that the last time that happened was in June of 1913. Well we didn’t get a little ice age following 1913. What makes us think we will get one now?

    As to Al Gore, it sounds like he must be getting desperate. Further if the civil disobedience results in violence or destruction of property then the perpetrators should go to jail and if Al Gore incited them to do it then he should go to jail too.

  23. Can’t see any problems for the AGW crowd here.

    All they have to do is push through some kind of CO2 saving proposal in the next year of so. Anything will do – it doesn’t have to work.

    Then, when the temperatures start to fall, they can claim that they are saving the world, and negotiate a fat sum of money to ‘keep the globe at an even temperature…”.

  24. Hi Andrew,

    I thought you might be interested in the Irish weather this year.

    Ireland has been having it particularly cold (and wet) this year. The met office in Ireland keeps a track of historical data on their web site http://www.met.ie/climate/monthly-data.asp

    Most of the monthly temperatures are at or below the mean, but the temperature difference between August and September show much greater drops than normal, e.g. Casement (station 3) has a 3 degree drop in temperature where the mean from 1961 to 1990 is 1.9 degrees.

    Some of the stations have Global Solar Radiation in Joules/cm2 values. Several of these show below normal values.

  25. Mike B. above is absolutely on target. A profound moral cancer has spread through our political establishment. Albert Gore was VP for 8 years and nearly POTUS. Yet his disrespect for the law, democracy, and the social fabric is sadly evident. Crooks and grafters propose to loot the taxpayers and equity of this country based on Ponzi schemes and groundless Chicken Little dire reports.

    The problems we face as a society today will not be solved with “science.” They require moral fortitude and the courage to cast aside corrupt leadership through peaceful democratic action. It does not matter whether the globe is warming or not; freedom from authoritarianism and amoral government controls is too precious to discard, too vital to let whither.

  26. Gore and his fellow traveling knuckleheads will wish we had more CO2 in the atmosphere when the Maunder Minimum hits us.

  27. I know it’s easy to mock these folks, and certainly they do deserve a great deal of what they get, but do remember this is a serious movement. They are fully prepared for the downturn in global temperatures. Remember, they switched from ‘global warming’ to ‘climate change’ just so they could corner the market on any change whatsoever. This will just be explained away as upheavels in Earth’s climate due to man’s activity.

    This is a religious cult. You should treat it as such. Don’t expect logic, except that based on AGW being true. Don’t expect them to be swayed by evidence to the contrary. Absolutely nothing will disprove the AGW hypothesis for them, even while a great many of them will live in the lap of luxury, albeit as ‘green’ as current technologies permit.

    And here, read the first three articles on Joe D’Aleo’s blog. The third one itself is rather eye-opening.

    http://www.icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog

  28. Since the blog will no doubt be updated, I should add that the articles are entitled:

    1. Study: Solar Wind Influenced Cosmic Rays Not CFCs Produce Ozone Hole

    2. Solar Winds Cooling Warmist Doomsaying

    3. Sun Warms and Cools the Earth

  29. Not completely off this topic, but the Department of Climate Change in Australia is using Mann’s reworked Hockey Stick as justification for the claim that current temperatures are higher than ever in the last 1700 years. They then use that to justify our own version of a cap and trade system. Who knows; the government here may even soon encourage civil disobedience too!

    Has anyone critically reviewed this latest analysis by Mann? Where can I find it?

  30. “It may already be happening. The four major agencies tracking Earth’s temperature, including NASA’s Goddard Institute, report that the Earth cooled 0.7 degree Celsius in 2007, the fastest decline in the age of instrumentation, putting us back to where the Earth was in 1930.”

    That simply isn’t true.

    Fred

  31. Is it my imagination or have these people confused the precautionary principle with the idiot principle?

    precautionary principle = don’t act without thinking.
    idiot principle = act without thinking.

  32. H

    http://www.climateaudit.org/

    The latest version is in more trouble than the first version. There is a series of posts covering not only the statistical methods and their misuse as well as examinations of the data sets. It is amazing that this latest treatment is even mentioned by anyone without first checking its basics. This version is as incorrect as was the first version.

  33. This is an old adage of unknown origin:

    Men are four:

    He who knows and knows he knows,
    is wise; follow him;

    He who knows and knows not that he knows,
    is asleep, wake him;

    He who knows not and knows not that he knows not,
    is a child, teach him;

    He who knows not and knows that he knows not,
    is a fool, shun him.

    He = Gore, Pelosi, Reid, and the rest of the know-nothings in Congress.

  34. Wow, Al Gore incites criminal behavior. Has he not done enough? This country’s insane energy , make that “non-energy” policy is costing the US about two dollars for every gallon of fuel we consume.

    If we had a reasonable energy policy we would have very low inflation, high employment, the ability to survive this financial disaster, and be able to afford (at a reasonable pace) the development of clean energy and fossil fuel alternatives.

    I just goggled US gasoline use. 1.5 trillion gallons a year. That factor alone at $2.00 less per gallon would be 3 trillion dollars available to help face this crisis.

    Al Gore and Jamie Gorelick should marry. They could be the Mister and Mistress of disaster.

  35. Pingback: Rightjab » Blog Archive » He used to be the next president of the United States.

  36. Well if he was here comments like that could be taken up as inciting terrorism and charges laid. If he hasnt been irresponsible enough already this tops the cake. And to think when idealistic young youth are caught and charged he wouldnt bail them out.

  37. The consequences for Earth are enormous. The lack of increased activity could signal the start of what is known as a Maunder Minimum, an event that occurs every couple of centuries and can last as long as a century. It leads to extended periods of severe cooling such as what happened during the Little Ice Age

    Ah, but now we have the offsetting effect of our lovely warm and growing CO2 blanket. The solar minimum forcing is about 0.15 W/m2 relative to the mean, but the manmade GHG climate forcing is now increasing at a rate of about 0.3 W/m2 per decade. So even in the unlikely event that the sun gets ‘stuck’ at its minimum, the effect would be overtaken by a mere 5 years of our emissions. http://tinyurl.com/4ll4nw

    It may already be happening. The four major agencies tracking Earth’s temperature, including NASA’s Goddard Institute, report that the Earth cooled 0.7 degree Celsius in 2007, the fastest decline in the age of instrumentation, putting us back to where the Earth was in 1930.

    Oh really? Here are the NASA numbers

    2000 .33
    2002 .56 .
    2003 .55
    2004 .49
    2005 .62
    2006 .54
    2007 .57

    Source: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.txt

    The Environmental Protection Agency estimates that it would cost as much as $3 trillion a year

    Oh pleease!

    Consumption is modeled to be between 0.9% ($180 billion) and 1.4% ($233 billion) lower in 2030 and between
    2.1% ($670 billion) and 3.3% ($843 billion) lower in 2050 than in the Reference Scenario.

    Source: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/downloads/s2191_EPA_Analysis.pdf

    But we have an alternative view from the Congressional Budget Office:

    CBO estimates that enacting the legislation would increase revenues by about $902 billion over the 2009-2018 period, net of income and payroll tax offsets. Over the next 10 years, we estimate that direct spending would total about $836 billion. The additional revenues from enacting this legislation would exceed the new direct spending by an estimated $66 billion, thus decreasing future deficits (or increasing surpluses) by that amount over the next 10 years. Other spending could result from enactment of the bill, but it would be subject to future appropriation action. This estimate does not address such spending. In years after 2018, net revenues attributable to the legislation would exceed annual direct spending through 2050.

    Source: http://cboblog.cbo.gov/?p=113

    We can save some dollars here, guys.

    Really, Anthony, you do yourself no favours in the credibility stakes by posting up an IBD Editorial. This is the outlet that asked “Did NASA scientist James Hansen, the global warming alarmist in chief, once believe we were headed for an ice age?” http://www.investors.com/editorial/editorialcontent.asp?secid=1501&status=article&id=275267681833290

    Answer where I come from: Don’t be so bloody daft.

    REPLY: NASA GISS is no longer considered an acceptable unbiased source of data, and thus is not accepted here, please choose another reference. May I suggest RSS or UAH, or even your own Hadley Centre? – Anthony

  38. David-

    just goggled US gasoline use. 1.5 trillion gallons a year. That factor alone at $2.00 less per gallon would be 3 trillion dollars available to help face this crisis.

    No it isn’t. It’s 390 million gallons a day=142 billion per year.

  39. NASA GISS is no longer considered an acceptable unbiased source of data, and thus is not accepted here, please choose another reference. May I suggest RSS or UAH, or even your own Hadley Centre?

    Excuse me? The IBD Editorial you posted said …

    The four major agencies tracking Earth’s temperature, including NASA’s Goddard Institute, report that the Earth cooled 0.7 degree Celsius in 2007,

    But OK- it’s your house, your rules. The IBD Editorial continues

    the fastest decline in the age of instrumentation, putting us back to where the Earth was in 1930.

    So what does the Hadley Centre say about the relative temperatures of 1930 and 2007?

    1930 -0.373
    2007 0.632

    A rise of 1C

    Source : http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadcrut3gl.txt

    The IBD stuff really is weapons grade Balonium, whichever data source you choose. I am genuinely surprised you give it bandwidth.

  40. John Philips:
    Ah, but now we have the offsetting effect of our lovely warm and growing CO2 blanket.
    Only in the fantasy world of AGW. The one thing the extra C02 WILL be good for is the extra plant food. We’ll sure need it.

  41. David:

    “Once again I have to say that I am a skeptic of AGW and sunspot theory. The article notes that there were no sunspots in August and that the last time that happened was in June of 1913. Well we didn’t get a little ice age following 1913. What makes us think we will get one now?”

    1930 was only a small slow down compared with 1813 which was much more severe. The Cycle is right on track for a “1830” type cooling this time.

    http://users.beagle.com.au/geoffsharp/gasgiants.pdf

  42. Mike Dubrasich (13:06:42) : “The problems we face as a society today will not be solved with “science.” They require moral fortitude and the courage to cast aside corrupt leadership through peaceful democratic action. It does not matter whether the globe is warming or not; freedom from authoritarianism and amoral government controls is too precious to discard, too vital to let whither.”

    If what you mean by “science” are ‘acedemic’ endeavors and pipe dreams, I whole heartily agree.

    I contend that the engineering community needs to finally speak up loudly about energy. There needs to be candid, basic and facutal recommendations. We only have so much buildable technology we can currently (next decade) harness for our energy needs.

    The only way we can legislate a reduction in CO2 is by rationing our power, fuel, windows and doors, lighting, clothes, meat consumption and/or . We can’t snap our fingers and have clean energy. We are decades out of any true, scalable renewable energy supply.

  43. meant to say:
    1913 was only a small slow down compared with 1813 which was much more severe. The Cycle is right on track for a “1813” type cooling this time.

  44. So if somebody throws something into the intake of Al’s personal jet, grounding him for awhile, thats ok, ’cause they’re saving the climate.

    Huh???

  45. Enough of this tedious sniping.

    If anyone has an example from the academic literature that demonstrates that the Nobel and Oscar winning senator Gore is mistaken, please cite it.

  46. i’ll give u one john….

    what about the whole of science recognize that CO2 didnt not rise before Temp anytime in history….the opposite to what he says in his religious movie.

  47. Hockey stick 1 was shown to 0 statistical significance by the Wegman commission. The following link is provided http://www.climateaudit.org/. The hockey stick has been the example that computer models have created and the temperatures predicted to match the model. There predicted warming as shown by the models has not happened even when CO2 has increased above the lower bounds of the model inputs, in the real world. The Arctic ice cap didn’t become open water as predicted with more than a 50% certainty. Currently the sun has been in a deep minimum, coupled with the solar winds being at a 50 year low as reported by NASA might have something to do with the declining global temperatures. I am not sure if the Wegman commission will satisfy your request for a citation but it is a fact. Further a link to courts in the U.K.
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/7037671.stm, rather old news.

  48. John Philips:

    Enough of this tedious sniping.

    If anyone has an example from the academic literature that demonstrates that the Nobel and Oscar winning senator Gore is mistaken, please cite it.

    Fine. Here: click

    I’ve got lots more. Go ahead. Call me on it.

  49. John P. — I don’t get your point. Are you saying that IBD misreported Gore’s statements inciting civil disobedience? I don’t think they did, since his statements were widely reported by other news outlets.

    Are you saying that you will believe Gore said what he said only if reported in academic (peer-reviewed) literature?

    Are you saying that civil disobedience is justified based on some findings of NASA’s Goddard Institute? Is that your personal view or the official position of NASA?

    What types of civil disobedience do you advocate? Vandalism? Arson? Some other form of property destruction? Rioting? Letter bombs? Please be specific. Again, are those your personal recommendations or those of your employer?

    I am a taxpayer and thus pay your salary as well as fund NASA. How do you think I should react to NASA and your endorsement of (Gore’s call for) civil disobedience? You accuse people of “tedious sniping.” What do you mean by that?

    When Nobel Peace Laureate Gore’s desired civil disobedience happens, do you wish to take the credit or blame?

  50. Enough of this tedious sniping.

    If anyone has an example from the academic literature that demonstrates that the Nobel and Oscar winning senator Gore is mistaken, please cite it.

    Sorry, doesn’t work that way. Gore is making the outrageous claims, he needs to prove he’s right. His hockey schtick has been discredited over and over again, he misrepresents ice core data (lies), misrepresents the state of polar bears (lies again), misrepresents the reasons for the shrinking snows of Kilimanjaro (more lies)… You need to show where he’s right if you expect us to take him seriously.

  51. I am thinking this John Philips is probably a gore hater like most of us…..getting his rocks off watching others hate him.

    Who in their right mind would come into this blog and ask such a blatantly stupid question?

  52. Mike B. above is absolutely on target. A profound moral cancer has spread through our political establishment.

    Ah, the 19th century was no better. Much worse, actually. For example, the Tilden-Hayes election was stolen outright. The most corrupt senator today is a boy scout compared with the 19th century average.

    We have folks defending pc and AGW, etc., sure. But we used to have folks defending slavery and the worst excesses of the robber barons (who, I admit, did create a lot of national wealth).

    Even the questionable loyalty of today’s press during war doen’t hold a candle to the outrages of the norther press during the Civil War.

    Life is not only better today on every level conceivable, but even more sensible and level headed (Lord help us). Even stipulating all the modern idiocy.

  53. John Philips (17:32:46) :

    Enough of this tedious sniping.

    If anyone has an example from the academic literature that demonstrates that the central value of 3 °C is an amplification by a factor of 2.5 over the direct effect of 1.2 °C (2.2 °F) please prove it.

  54. Hmmm. I wonder if John Philips is the same person signed on as “John Philip” [sic] on The Register. (It sure sounds like him.)

    Yes. Curious, a reference he gave,

    http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Increase_In_Atmospheric_Moisture_Tied_To_Human_Activities_999.html

    “Basically, “fingerprinting” involves searching for a computer model-predicted pattern of climate change (the “fingerprint”) in observed climate records.”

    claimed a couple contributing authors, who I found had just published this about the same time:

    A recent analysis of satellite observations does not support this prediction of a muted response of precipitation to global warming.

    http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/317/5835/233

    So the models are dependable yet not dependable.

  55. The phrase “brown shirts” comes to mind, though.

    Brownshirts is such a nasty word. We prefer “earth tones”.

    Has anyone critically reviewed this latest analysis by Mann? Where can I find it?

    Mac is giving it the works over on Climate Audit.

    weapons grade Balonium

    Busted.

    It IS the same John Philip(s) I mentioned earlier.

    He used the exact same phrase (against me) over on the Register.

    You accuse people of “tedious sniping.” What do you mean by that?

    cf his commentary on my article? #B^1

    I encourage you-all to go over there and comment, too (pro or con, I’m easy). So far he’s the only WUWT person who has commented on it . . .

    Here’s the link again.

    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/09/22/global_warming_mitigation_vs_adaptation/

  56. Nobel and Oscar winning senator Gore

    Gore may have the Nobel, but he did not win an Oscar. His film, or more correctly, the producers of his celludoid slide show won the Oscar. Actors in Oscar winning films do not get to claim the title unless they too are individual winners in the Best Actor class.

  57. Smokey

    A five year cooling trend is entirely consistent with the science, here is Josh Willis of JPL..

    “Indeed, Argo data show no warming in the upper ocean over the past four years, but this does not contradict the climate models. In fact, many climate models simulate four to five year periods with no warming in the upper ocean from time to time. The same is true for the warming trend observed by NASA satellites; it too is in good agreement with climate model simulations. But more important than agreement with computer models is the fact that four years with no warming in the upper ocean does not erase the 50 years of warming we’ve seen since ocean temperature measurements became widespread. Nor does it erase the eight inches of sea level rise we’ve experienced in the past 100 years. Both of these are important indicators of human-kind’s effect on the climate.”

    http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2008/03/31/josh-willis-on-climate-change-global-warming-is-real.aspx

    Fortunately we can sidestep a discussion of the statistical merits of PCA and so forth on the Hockey Stick itself, as none of the published reconstructions since shows a MWP warmer than today see here http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11646

    On sea level Gore discussed what would happen if half the West Antarctic and Greenland were to melt, without giving a timescale. His analysis is spot on, I would agree that he should have said that this will likely take centuries, however we are likely in for a rise of 0.5-1.4m this century. http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/315/5810/368

    So, still waiting for a reference that shows Gore and the peer-reviewed science to be at odds.

    Evan – will you be correcting the factual errors I pointed out in the Register piece? To remind you of a few…

    – You confused CO2 with CO2e

    – You confused consumption with production

    – You stated Stern used the worse case IPCC scenario – he did not.

    and in your latest comment you seem to be implying you haven’t actually READ the review that you are critiquing. Can this be true ;-)

    JP.

    PS You’ll be telling me next that Steve Goddard is his real name.

  58. Most scientists say Gore is reliable.

    Between March 19 through May 28, 2007 Harris Interactive conducted a mail survey of a random sample of 489 self-identified members of either the American Meteorological Society or the American Geophysical Union who are listed in the current edition of American Men and Women of Science. A random sample of this size carries a theoretical sampling error of +/- four percentage points

    Major Findings

    Ninety-seven percent of the climate scientists surveyed believe ‘global average temperatures have increased’ during the past century.

    Eighty-four percent say they personally believe human-induced warming is occurring, and 74% agree that ‘currently available scientific evidence’ substantiates its occurrence. Only 5% believe that that human activity does not contribute to greenhouse warming; the rest are unsure.

    Former Vice President Al Gore’s documentary film ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ rates better than any traditional news source, with 26% finding it ‘very reliable’ and 38% as ‘somewhat reliable’. Other non-traditional information sources fare poorly: No more than 1% of climate experts rate the doomsday movie ‘The Day After Tomorrow’ or Michael Crichton’s novel ‘State of Fear’ as very reliable.

    http://stats.org/stories/2008/global_warming_survey_apr23_08.html

  59. The problem with most surveys is how the study population was selected, the qualifications of the studied population to opine on the questions asked and the questions themselves.

    Before I can comment on this survey, please provide the above information.

    Thank you.

  60. There is a, possibly discredited, theory called the Gaia Principle. It asserted that the Earth was a single living organism and looked after itself.

    Is it possible that the increases in CO2 were Gaia putting on an extra jumper to keep life alive?

    Yes I know it’s a very “Hippy” thought and not really fit for a serious site but it might be a way of stopping the hippy army of Al Gore from killing millions of people with the coming cold.

  61. “John Philip” said in the Register comments:

    The 550ppm figure quoted by Stern is CO2 equivalent (CO2e). This is a measure of the effect of all GHGs, with the effects of the non-CO2 gases converted to the equivalent conentration of CO2. Your 385ppm figure is for CO2 only. The current CO2e figure is actually about 430ppm.

    So, where is water vapor? Or is that inconvenient?

    JP goes on:

    LOL! I am sorry but you simply cannot, in a piece purporting to be a serious economic analysis, say that the difference between consumption and production is negligible and expect to be taken seriously. That, and the many other factual errors render the analysis incredible.

    In fact, where economic supply/demand curves intersect, there is no difference between supply and demand. They are in balance. The same thing occurs with consumption and production; how can more production be consumed than is produced? And overproduction is quickly rectified, because warehousing overproduction is costly.

    The real problem here is the endless, nitpicking arguments by trolls who constantly move the goal posts. They always morph their arguments, in order to avoid the fact that the climate is cooling, not warming, and that CO2 has such a miniscule effect on temperature that its very tiny effect is swamped by just about every other forcing.

    Yet grown men, including Nobel Prize recipients and nameless, unaccountable UN “scientists” actually propose sequestering CO2 at a cost of $trillions. The net result would have the same effect as having the government pay millions of otherwise productive workers to dig 10X10X10 foot holes in their back yards — and then paying them to move those holes to different locations. That would accomplish just as much as sequestering carbon dioxide, which is vital to all life on earth.

    The AGW/CO2/climate catastrophe hypothesis has been repeatedly falsified, therefore taking beneficial CO2 out of circulation is a profoundly stupid idea. Deal with it.

  62. Dee Norris (03:55:53) :

    The problem with most surveys is how the study population was selected, the qualifications of the studied population to opine on the questions asked and the questions themselves.

    Before I can comment on this survey, please provide the above information.

    Thank you.

    From a book on political polling (the science, not the art), George Gallup had chapters on selecting the population and verifying that it’s random.

    One key point is that to interpret poll results, you need to know the exact questions asked, so please include that too.

    If the poll was done as a web poll, it’s likely useless. If it was done as a questionnaire via mail or Email, knowing the response percentage is important.

    Also, the date of the poll, please. Much has changed and continues to change.

  63. Smokey,

    Water vapour is the most powerful GHG, however it is not included in CO2e as it is incapable of driving temperature change. Its residence in the atmosphere is approximately 10 days (as opposed to centuries for CO2). To a first approximation the concentration of water vapour in the atmosphere is fixed for a particular temperature – Water vapour enters the atmosphere via evaporation – the rate is determined by the air and ocean temperatures and is governed by the Clausius-Clapeyron relation.

    So if any ‘extra’ water is added to the atmosphere, it precipitates out in a matter of days. However the amount of water vapour that the atmosphere can hold is a function of temperature, so if the atmosphere is warmed by an external influence then the concentration will increase and so its greenhouse effect will increase – a positive feedback. Of the factors that can influence climate over time, GHGs are dominant over the industrial age

    http://www.realclimate.org/images/ipcc2007_radforc.jpg

    If anyone has an example from the academic literature that demonstrates that the central value of 3 °C is an amplification by a factor of 2.5 over the direct effect of 1.2 °C (2.2 °F) please prove it.

    Proof is rare in science, however climate sensitivity is estimated in two ways:-, by examining historical forcings and the way the planet responded or by simulations from a climate model. There are many peer-reviewed papers using either method – a Google scholar search on ‘climate sensitivity’ produces >10,000 hits. One of the first was the Charney report to the NAS in 1979 which gave a range of 3C plus or minus 1.5C.

    http://www.atmos.ucla.edu/~brianpm/download/charney_report.pdf

    Most subsequent studies have confirmed this, with different uncertainty constraints.Here are a couple recent papers that discuss the issue:

    Annan, J.D., and J. C.Hargreaves, 2006. Using multiple observationally-based constraints to estimate climate sensitivity. Geophysical Research Letters 33

    Gregory J.M., R.J. Stouffer, S.C.B. Raper, P.A. Stott, and N.A. Rayner, 2002. “An observationally based estimate of the climate sensitivity”. Journal of Climate

    If anyone is interested I am self-employed, and advocate peaceful protest only. The thrust of my remark was impatience with purely ad hominem attacks on the Oscar-, Nobel- and Emmy- winning ex-VP, unsupported by any analysis of his arguments. There are indeed minor flaws in AIT, some identified (and some misidentified, eg corals) by a UK Judge are discussed here: http://www.newscientist.com/blog/environment/2007/10/al-gores-inconvenient-truth.html

    The details of the poll can be found by clicking the link.

  64. John Phillips,
    Anyone who reads Real Climate and New scientist without a healthy skepticism is bound to be lead astray.
    Mike Bryant

  65. John Phillip
    1)Please cite your CO2 residing in the atmosphere for centuries source. If true we should have 8000ppm or so from previous history.
    2)Your reference to the IPCC temperature chart ends with 2001 and speculation on the chart that the temperatures would go up asymptotically. The temperature did not go up to match the hockey stick graph even by your own statements.
    I appreciate that these are your beliefs and that you appear to only find thing in support of those beliefs. But maybe you are trying to get readers here to check your ‘facts’ and see how the AGW theory doesn’t fit the current reality. If so thank you for your efforts.

  66. @John Phillip:

    The details of the poll can be found by clicking the link.

    As a good skeptic, I clicked the link to ‘examine’ the survey and having found none of the answers to my questions, I asked you as you represented the survey to reflect reality.

    So, the questions still stand –

    How was the study population was selected?
    What are the qualifications of the studied population to opine on the questions asked?
    What were the questions asked?
    Did the population surveyed actually watch AIT AND read State of Fear?

    I am sure you fully investigated the methodology of the survey before presenting it here. I hope you will provide the answers to these important questions with the same zest and vigor as you have shown defending AGW, Hansen, Gore, Mann, etc…

  67. “The Day the Earth Cooled”

    may also be the day the Earth went dry.

    Most of you know we’re due for a Bond Event

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

    i.e. these occur ~ every 1500 years and the last one was ~ 1500 years ago; coincided with the Migration Period Pessimum

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

    Historically, Bond events are also “aridification events.”

    See for example

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

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4.2_kiloyear_event

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5.9_kiloyear_event

    An oft-suggested idea for the aridification is that atmospheric water vapor is continually lost as snow cover and ice, so over time, less and less precipitation falls, leading to very widespread drought.

  68. and in your latest comment you seem to be implying you haven’t actually READ the review that you are critiquing. Can this be true ;-)

    Actually, I directly stated in my last comment I spent three days reading all 400-plus pages of it.

  69. Corrections are made in comments. I have no power of edit at el Reg.

    - You confused CO2 with CO2e

    This makes my argument much stronger and Stern’s goals considerably more restrictive.

    - You confused consumption with production

    Corrected via comment. For the article it makes little difference. A consumption rate of 1.3% indicates GDP of under 2%. That it is a very serious lowball. (You also said or strongly implied that it included worsening climate effects, but it does not, a far more fundamental error.)

    - You stated Stern used the worse case IPCC scenario – he did not.

    He states a range. Actually, he goes even further than the worst case IPCC. And the media, of course, with no contradiction seized on the most apocalyptic scenarios. (There was a citation on that, which I assume you did not check).

    And, as I said, if he was not using the worst case, and he advocates sacrificing 1% per year to level off the effects, it just makes his proposals that much more draconian and strengthens my argument.

    Did you read her majesty’s government’s stinging critique of Stern? (I assure you it was far more interesting reading than the report itself.)

  70. John Philips

    “Eighty-four percent say they personally believe human-induced warming is occurring, and 74% agree that ‘currently available scientific evidence’ substantiates its occurrence. Only 5% believe that that human activity does not contribute to greenhouse warming; the rest are unsure.”

    I am a physicist, very strongly against AGW as a “chicken little” effect. Up until last November, I swallowed the AGW and accepted all the AGW rhetoric, trusting in the “scientific ethos”. After all, I would expect climatologists to trust me on the behavior of quarks. I first became curious and then suspicious when the hockey stick dominated the news: no medieval warming. I said to myself: that is funny. After all there was recently in the news the Roman period warming from that hunter who was mummified in the Alps and suddenly appeared, and also, even though a physicist I was aware of the thawing of permafrost and the settling of Greenland and Finnland.

    So I started reading TAR and than the AR, all the physics pages. I had a very hard time, I was walking around at times pulling at my hair on how bad the science and the use of tools was. Mind you I have 35 years experience in computer modeling, long before most of you ever heard of computers, and model evaluations.

    I agree with all the critics, the IPCC reports are not science, they are politics in scientific language and a disgrace to the scientific community.

    Nevertheless, as an “honest scientist” I would be in “and 74% agree that ‘currently available scientific evidence’ substantiates its occurrence. “, because of course humans affect climate in many ways: deforestation, urbanisation , irrigation, energy consumption, particulates in the atmosphere…also CO2. CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas ( wrongly called so, even the gurus of AGW agree to the bad use of the greenhouse analogy), mostly a small percentage of the effect water vapor has.

    It makes a great difference how poll questions are phrased, is what I am saying.

    I will not preach to the choir. People here are on the same wavelength, most of them after serious study of the data.

    I have a web page in greek, where I summarize the data versus the IPCC spaghetti models, which are the only source of “chicken Little” scenaria.

    1) the IPCC spaghetti temperature predictions for the average temperature diverge from data since 1998 at least ( not to say from the infamous Hansen speech in 1988)
    2) By all measures CO2 lags temperature, showing the increase of CO2 is an effect and not a cause. The 138 anthropogenic CO2 molecules in the 100.000 atmospheric molecules are a fly on an elephants trunk as far as additional shielding goes. ( including the logarithmic effect of doubling, and the frequency windows that H2O picks up if CO2 is not there)
    3) The tropical troposphere which was supposed to be the CO2 anthropogenic run away feedback fingerprint in earlier versions of the IPCC ( it has almost disappeared now, consistent with change the predictions when they do not fit principle) is absolutely not there. The air over the oceans is not heating.
    4) The runaway feedback of moisture driven by CO2 is not there. The atmosphere is drier

    One disagreement of a model with data, throws out the models and they have to be rethought from scratch.

    When Keenlyside at al reworked the PDO in the infamous climate models, lo and behold, they get cooling for the next ten years.

    Who can believe them except people who are making money or expect to make money or are looking for tenure and grants out of this mess?

    I am not giving links, since all these have been stated in this blog and in many others. Over at Climate Audit the new hockey stick is once again in splinters.

    Again at CA there is a thread on the last paper by Koutsoyannis et al, where not only the futility of using the IPCC models for predictions is amply demonstrated, but a deeply mathematical discussion on chaos and complexity went on for a while. Chaos and other complexity tools are the only way to study the multiparameter system of coupled differential equations that a true climate model must be, IMO.

    Do your research or not, I do not care.

  71. Please cite your CO2 residing in the atmosphere for centuries source.

    Certainly – Of a given pulse of emitted CO2, about one-third remains in the atmosphere after a century but about one fifth is still present after 1000 years. See fig 9a in this paper published in Journal of Atmospheric. Chemistry and Physics Vol 7, pg 2287-2312

    http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/7/2287/2007/acp-7-2287-2007.pdf

    Dee – the survey was by mail of a random selection of 489 AGU and AMS members. It does not take much detective work to deduce that if 64% of the scientists polled found Gore’s movie reliable, then the ‘don’t knows’ – those who had not seen it – must reside in the other 36%.

  72. @John Phillips:

    Lets see… the questions are:

    How was the study population was selected?
    Random from the self-identified members of AWS and AGU members.

    What are the qualifications of the studied population to opine on the questions asked?

    Not answered. How many were PhD, MS, BS? What was their discipline?

    What were the questions asked?

    Not answered.

    Did the population surveyed actually watch AIT AND read State of Fear?

    It does not take much detective work to deduce that if 64% of the scientists polled found Gore’s movie reliable, then the ‘don’t knows’ – those who had not seen it – must reside in the other 36%.
    Sorry, this is an assumption on your part. There is no evidence that supports this assumption.

    Perhaps you can provide the rest of the answers, please.

  73. Its residence in the atmosphere is approximately 10 days (as opposed to centuries for CO2).

    Centuries? Plural? I’ve read a number of competing estimates for CO2 persistence ranging from years to decades.

    (You also fail to note that according to the DoE and IPCC, half the industry-emitted carbon winds up in the land and ocean sinks.)

  74. Only 5% believe that that human activity does not contribute to greenhouse warming; the rest are unsure.”

    But was there a question separating CO2 from, say, land use? Or indicating that CO2 does increase the GH effect but only by a trivial amount?

  75. John Phillips comments that 8 inches of sea level rise in the past century or so is indicative human influence on climate change. What about the 2 meter drop in the past 2000 years? or the 100 meter rise since the last ice age which is only 75% of the rise two ice ages ago?

  76. The results of opinion surveys are very heavily dependent on how the questions are stated. Without seeing the actual questions, it is impossible to give credence to the results. Return rates are usually low on mail-out surveys, somewhere between 2 and 10%, so the number of recipients of the survy must be in the thousands if they got 489 back. If the survey team only sent out 489, then the probable number of returned surveys would be in the 10 to 48 range, too small a sample to be reliable.

    Mail-in surveys also have bias is that they usaually only evoke a response from those who feel strongly one way or the other. Luke-warmers usually don’t bother. So we must ask what the motivation was for completing and returning the survey.

    Interview type surveys are not much better. Studies have been done on interviewer bias. In effect, if the interviewer is told that a survey will result in 75% positive repsonses, it does turn out that way. If the interviewer is told that she/he can expect 75% negative responses, it turns out that way. Even when the questions asked are identical and show no bias one way or the other.

    We all know that research surveys are not reliable until they have been rigourously tuned to remove bias and proven to have validity. One-off surveys are interesting, but unreliable.

    I would trust the British Courts’ findings that AIT is seriously flawed more than a mail-out survey.

  77. John Philip
    Thanks for the link. The paper itself is is a discussion of models and does not include measured results. Indeed taken against even your quoted temperature changes are outside the papers expected results. The figure 9a references yet another model that even in its conclusion suggests that it may be used for AGW calculations. It too does not include any actual measurements of CO2 that confirms its results. It is only a model and an untested one at that. It is very easy to speculate with a model, I write code for a living. I have a Q/A department that tests all of my code before it is released into the marketplace. The code is tested and matched to real world events. If the code cannot meet these standards it is not released. Even after rigorous testing bugs may be found many years later. These models even in their publication discussions state that there are unexpected results.
    There is no real world confirmation of the life cycle of CO2 in the atmosphere according to your citation, only speculation. The speculation does not take into account how CO2 went from a very high level in the past to its current very low level.

  78. There is a very unusual story which appeared in the National Geographic about NASA’s report on the Ulysses space probe. It is so atypical of the National Geographic that I almost have to wonder if everyone from the Ministry of Truth was on vacation this past week.

    Sun’s Power Hits New Low, May Endanger Earth?

    http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/09/080924-solar-wind.html

    Read the full story but pay particular attention to the following paragraphs:

    “In the early 1600s Galileo and other astronomers observed only about 50 sunspots over a 30-year period. Normally, the early scientists would have witnessed closer to 50,000.

    Scientists have also speculated for centuries about an intuitive link between the sun’s intensity and Earth’s climate.

    There is evidence of the sun causing short-term impacts on Earth’s weather.

    The so-called Maunder Minimum, a time of low solar activity, lasted from about 1645 to 1715. During this time, access to Greenland was largely cut off by ice, and canals in Holland routinely froze solid, according to NASA.

    Glaciers advanced in the Alps, and sea ice increased so much that no open water flowed around Iceland in the year 1695. “

  79. “There is a very unusual story which appeared in the National Geographic about NASA’s report on the Ulysses space probe. It is so atypical of the National Geographic that I almost have to wonder if everyone from the Ministry of Truth was on vacation this past week.”

    I think it crashed NASA’s servers, since they seem to have all been down for almost a day now. JPL is still up though, but you may have hit upon the truth, that the Ministry of Truth controls and maintains NASA’s Internet Presence, and they have been on vacation and haven’t noticed the breach of security and breakdown.

  80. Hyonmin – depends on your definition of ‘model’ It was actually based on an analytic approach to the Bern cycle, and that paper’s findings are supported by this study, published in the Journal of Geophysical Research ….

    The carbon cycle of the biosphere will take a long time to completely neutralize and sequester anthropogenic
    CO2. We show a wide range of model forecasts of this effect. For the best guess cases, which include air/seawater,
    CaCO3, and silicate weathering equilibria as affected by an ocean temperature feedback, we expect that 17-33% of
    the fossil fuel carbon will still reside in the atmosphere 1 kyr from now, decreasing to 10-15% at 10 kyr, and 7%
    at 100 kyr. The mean lifetime of fossil fuel CO2 is about 30-35 kyr.

    http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~archer/reprints/archer.2005.fate_co2.pdf

    I know, I know, its ‘just another model’ … ;-)

    The speculation does not take into account how CO2 went from a very high level in the past to its current very low level.

    ‘in the past’ is just a bit vague. CO2 is now 35% higher than it has been throughout the period for which we have ice core proxies, some 650K years, yes?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Co2-temperature-plot.svg

  81. Moderator: OT and apologise for this but my computer at work has been blocked from posting on this blog. If it is at your end- please let me know and I’ll go away…a reason would be nice but not necessary.

    If it is NOT at your end, then someone in Tallahasse has placed WUWT on the blocked sites list…along with games, porno, ect…not especially a nice neighborhood, but noteworthy none the less as we normally have access to all climate sites as related to our duties….

    Your reply would be greatly appreciated!
    Env. Specialist II
    State of Florida
    CDL

    Reply: You are coming through loud and clear this time. Not sure what is going on in Tallahassee. Please fill us in if WUWT is actually blocked in Florida. Perhaps one of our resident gurus can provide you with some simple tests you can run at your workstation to see if you can reach us. – Anne

  82. John Philip

    http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html

    The CO2 has gone somewhere and it is not described in your links. By the way have you seen walking with dinosaurs. Ever think about how those animals survived for all those millions of years. They must have needed huge quantities of plants, nice and warm back then with lots of CO2. Amazing that the asymptote didn’t attack. It is thought that maybe the cold did.

  83. Hi Anna

    Thanks for taking the time to reply. A few thoughts

    the IPCC spaghetti temperature predictions for the average temperature diverge from data since 1998 at least

    As a physicist you will aware of the need to avoid cherry picking data points, e.g an anomalously high start point. Ten years is not a significant period in climate terms. The projected temperatures from the TAR are here: http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/552.htm

    They are baselined at 1990. They don’t diverge much in the first 2 decades, taking A2 as a typical midrange scenario, the projected trend for the first 2 decades is 0.165C/decade. Respecting the ‘no-NASA’ rule here, this compares well with the actual observed trend from the last three decades of RSS satellite data of 0.169C /decade.

    http://www.remss.com/msu/msu_data_description.html

    Switching datasets for no better reason than that the RSS annual figures are not readily available, the Hadley Centre figures are

    Actual IPCC Projected
    1990 0.162 0.162
    2000 0.397 0.322
    2007 0.404 0.443

    I’ve used the 5 year mean for the actual, except for 2007 where I’ve used the annual figure. The IPCC projected for 2007 is interpolated from the linear trend. The actual 2007 is just 0.039C below the projected, (versus a measurement uncertainty of 0.1C). Where have I gone wrong?

    By all measures CO2 lags temperature, showing the increase of CO2 is an effect and not a cause.

    Or the ‘the chicken came from an egg, therefore an egg cannot come from a chicken’ argument. At the glacial/interglacial timescales, temperature rises are driven by changes in orbital forcings. However once a warming is initiated it causes the release of CO2, which causes more warming, which releases more CO2 which causes more warming and so on until a new equilibrium is reached. This argument is advancd so frequently that the Royal Society has named it ‘misleading argument No 3 …’

    http://royalsociety.org/page.asp?id=6229

    When Keenlyside at al reworked the PDO in the infamous climate models, lo and behold, they get cooling for the next ten years

    Actually, no. This paper was widely misreported in the media. In fact, as Joe Romm has pointed out, the authors predicted

    – The coming decade (2010 to 2020) is poised to be the warmest on record, globally.
    – The coming decade is poised to see faster temperature rise than any decade since the authors’ calculations began in 1960.
    – The fast warming would likely begin early in the next decade ( similar to the 2007 prediction by the Hadley Center in Science) .
    – The mean North American temperature for the decade from 2005 to 2015 is projected to be slightly warmer than the actual average temperature of the decade from 1993 to 2003.

    See http://tinyurl.com/4xwwmf

    Again at CA there is a thread on the last paper by Koutsoyannis et al, where not only the futility of using the IPCC models for predictions is amply demonstrated,

    I have not read the CA thread but I am aware of the paper. Is it a fair summary to say that they examined the temperature records from some surface stations and compared them to co-located grid points in single realisations of a few climate models and found serious discrepencies?

    I thought the paper inconclusive, indeed ironic. Two problems: firstly, one of S. McIntyre’s issues is the sparseness of coverage by surface stations, and of course our host here has issues with the quality of some of the surface station records. Ironic then that records from just eight of these suspect stations worldwide is apparently sufficient to render the whole literature on climate modelling ‘futile’!

    Secondly, there are any numbers of reasons why metrics from a grid point in a GCM might not correspond exactly with an actual surface station – the station may be at an altitude different to the mean, it may have micro-climate effects, it may even be situated next to an air conditioner :-). GCMs are just not designed to be downscaled to single grid box resolution – and this does not detract from the IPCC’s conclusions – they state that detection and attribution of climate changes is only clearly possible at continental scales and above.

    regards,

    JP

  84. “John Philip”:

    Water vapour is the most powerful GHG, however it is not included in CO2e as it is incapable of driving temperature change.

    Water vapor is the major greenhouse gas. Alarmists tie themselves in knots trying to downplay that fact. If water vapor dropped to zero, are the alarmists saying there would be no effect?

    If H2O isn’t ‘driving’ the climate, then there’s no need to be concerned with the fact that the major greenhouse gas concentration has been trending downward: click

  85. Pingback: Daily Pundit » what global warming?

  86. Smokey

    That graph turned out to be invalid … A few days ago I posted a story highlighting the drop in water vapor in the atmosphere which initially looked like the entire atmosphere due to a labeling issue by ESRL, but turned out to be only at the 300 millibar height and not up to 300mb as the ESRL graph was labeled.

    JP.

  87. John Philip (06:19:32) :
    The central value of 3 °C is an amplification by a factor of 2.5 over the direct effect of 1.2 °C (2.2 °F).
    At best it is only an estimate which only lives in the theory and used in climate models. The 2.5 factor is unpoven in the real world of observed data. The 2.5 factor is nothing more than figrue to “balance the book” between CO2 and temperatue. Anything based on the CO2 theory with the amplification by a factor of 2.5 is pure speculation.

  88. CO2 is now 35% higher than it has been throughout the period for which we have ice core proxies, some 650K years, yes?
    Even if true (which I doubt), so what? C02’s warming effect is logarithmic. The first 20 ppm of C02 has more warming effect than the next 400.
    In fact, the higher C02 is, the better it is for plants, and of course for us.

  89. At the end of the day all that planet gore and IPCC have is a dud graph, models filled with fudge factors that work on bad theory and some natural earth warming of less than 1 deg C for the last 150 years.

    The planet is cooling and will most likely continue to cool making their propaganda even less palatable….i will enjoy watching them fall.

  90. John Philip, 16:22

    I was not trying to convince you on the error of your beliefs:), you are of course free to hold them.

    I was trying to tell you that the poll was biased, because even I, strongly convinced that the IPCC is off on a limb, would answer in the positive in that poll.

    Yes, ten years are enough. Why, they were even enough for Hansen in 1988 to jump on the warming bandwagon and strongly shout at congress. Sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander.

    8 locations are enough if they are random and not cherry picked. A model that cannot predict whether irrigation or drainage will be needed the next ten years should be trusted for the next 100?

    There is a very good mathematical reason why any linearized models as these GCM models are, will diverge from reality when applied to real data. If you know mathematics, follow this:

    The GCM models make grids (boxes) of the atmosphere and apply linear approximations to the solutions of SOME of the differential equations that have to apply at the boundaries. Let us ignore SOME.

    It is very well known that coupled differential equations lead to chaotic systems. This is because the beats of the different solutions that are pushing and pulling in mathematical reality can unpredictably build up enormously, or disappear ( the seventh wave, the 100th lightning,…). This means that linearity in any modeling can be reasonably applied for a limited number of time steps before the true nonlinear nature of the solutions explodes. These same models are used to predict the weather for next week, with different boundary conditions than when they are turned climate. It is evident for even non mathematical people that the time stepping of the models fails after ten days or so.

    When the meteorology models are turned into climate models, i.e. even more linearization of the true solutions by applying many more average values at boundaries, this stepping problem does not disappear; the approximations will inevitably fail after some steps because the true solutions are drastically not linear. They do not fail in a week because of the averaging, but they do fail in ten years.

    Now SOME, like the PDO. I have read the paper of Keenlyside et al, they are trying to include some of the SOME to save the sinking boat and keep up the AGW mantra. It cannot be done. The only solution is to go the chaos way, as Tsonis et al have done in a limited way ( PDO and the Atlantic Oscillation) in a fairly recent paper using neural nets for the modeling. Complexity is a subject that crosses over all scientific disciplines and is at the frontier of research at the moment. I have a hard time understanding the tools ( I am retired and follow interesting lectures in my region) but I think it is the only way to go for weather system modelings.

  91. Few years ago Michael Crichton wrote this: http://www.michaelcrichton.net/essay-stateoffear-whypoliticizedscienceisdangerous.html

    Unfortunately since then we can see more and more phenomena related to the AGW theory and environmentalism that resemble the pattern of nazism upheaval in 20-30’s. Today again powerful geopolitical interests are using the science as a vehicle to indoctrinate the brains of young people. Hopefully the interests of the rising Third World will stop the consequeses of the AGW madness on global scale but the Western World is endangered – the history of Germany doesn’t tell good news for any state which follows blindly the AGW doctrine.

  92. John Philip (16:55:17) :

    “Smokey

    That graph turned out to be invalid … A few days ago I posted a story highlighting the drop in water vapor in the atmosphere which initially looked like the entire atmosphere due to a labeling issue by ESRL, but turned out to be only at the 300 millibar height and not up to 300mb as the ESRL graph was labeled.

    JP.”

    mislabeled, not invalid.

    Quoting from a later and more thorough examination:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/06/21/a-window-on-water-vapor-and-planetary-temperature-part-2/

    “So, what do these time series tell us?
    To begin with, what atmospheric moistening is believed to have occurred is at altitudes basically well below the surface altitudes of the major ice shields, Greenland and the East & West Antarctic and much of Earth’s land surfaces.

    Secondly, the atmospheric region of most interest from a weather/climate perspective appears to be on a drying trend, contrary to that expected under the enhanced greenhouse hypothesis.

    Simply eyeballing the time series suggests the 1977 Pacific phase shift is a much better fit with changes in trends than is the steady increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide.

    Bottom line is that the regions climate models are programmed to expect atmospheric moistening are not actually doing so, making either the models or the atmosphere wrong. ”

    Thus the fourth point: that the huge humidity feedback driven by anthropogenic CO2’s tiny contribution, predicted by the models, is invalidated.

  93. ” Actual IPCC Projected
    1990 0.162 0.162
    2000 0.397 0.322
    2007 0.404 0.443

    I’ve used the 5 year mean for the actual, except for 2007 where I’ve used the annual figure. The IPCC projected for 2007 is interpolated from the linear trend. The actual 2007 is just 0.039C below the projected, (versus a measurement uncertainty of 0.1C). Where have I gone wrong?”

    In the eye of the beholder.

    Have a look at the following figure which is from AR, not TAR (moving goal posts)

    Forget about the IPCC spaghetti. Does the temperature trend look like anything sharply rising and catastrophic?

    It is the IPCC lines that make the eye think of runaway heating, and the data does not comply.

    You want to see rising, you see it. I want to see stability and I see it , except as Lucia has analyzed statistically, stability is what the data are saying and not rising. It is easy to fool the eye.

  94. Is it possible that the GW fanatics are rushing to implement their “solutions” so that they can claim credit for the global cooling ?

  95. Anne:
    Thanks for the assist. With your answer to my test post from my home computer on the screen I was able to demonstrate to the local IRM folks that 1. my system at home worked just fine & 2. the one right here on my desk did NOT! they tracked down a system update that had taken me off the tracks..so…everything fixed! Thank You!
    cdl

    Reply: Glad you are back with us at home and office. Hopefully no one was banning WUWT at office. – Anne

  96. The more crap that Algore spouts, the hotter under the collar I get.
    Is that contributing to “Global Warming”? His new Global Warming
    avocation reminds me of a bit by the late George Carlin called
    “Occupation Foole”.

  97. Is anyone even paying attention to these Wing Nut AGW people. With 1/2 of america worried about havting to eat cat food during their retirement, Global warming is the last thing on their mind.

  98. I’m just asking, mind you, so please don’t shoot the messenger, but what is the cite information for the 0.7 degree decline, the bringing us back to 1930, etc.? When I go to the Goddard site, I see a totally different summary from them for 2007. See the following:

    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/

  99. Sam (06:45:47) :

    “I’m just asking, mind you, so please don’t shoot the messenger, but what is the cite information for the 0.7 degree decline, the bringing us back to 1930, etc.? When I go to the Goddard site, I see a totally different summary from them for 2007. See the following:

    GISS is playing its own ture. Also note that it is annual points. The .7 drop is in the following plot, where monthly points are shown

    also have a look at this:

    If you wait a bit the updated for september will come here , as soon as the institutes publish their numbers. GISS is the last, as they do a lot of back corrections before they publish.( change old data by mysterious algorithms).

Comments are closed.