New Study Shows Climate Change Largely Irreversible, Climate Modelers Given $140 Million Bonus

From NOAA News, Susan Solomon predicts the future with certainty. In other news, on the same day Caterpillar, Sprint, Texas Instruments, and Home Depot announce massive layoff plans to the tune of 50,000 peopleunemployed climate modelers get a government bailout today courtesy of our new president to the tune of 140 million dollars. That should be just enough to pay the electric power bill for the new supercomputer I’m sure NOAA will just “have to have” now to keep up with the new toy for the Brits at Hadley. (h/t to Ed Scott for the NOAA pr)

New Study Shows Climate Change Largely Irreversible

January 26, 2009

A new scientific study led by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reaches a powerful conclusion about the climate change caused by future increases of carbon dioxide:  to a large extent, there’s no going back.

The pioneering study, led by NOAA senior scientist Susan Solomon, shows how changes in surface temperature, rainfall, and sea level are largely irreversible for more than 1,000 years after carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions are completely stopped. The findings appear during the week of January 26 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

“Our study convinced us that current choices regarding carbon dioxide emissions will have legacies that will irreversibly change the planet,” said Solomon, who is based at NOAA’s Earth System Research Laboratory in Boulder, Colo.

“It has long been known that some of the carbon dioxide emitted by human activities stays in the atmosphere for thousands of years,” Solomon said. “But the new study advances the understanding of how this affects the climate system.”

The study examines the consequences of allowing CO2 to build up to several different peak levels beyond present-day concentrations of 385 parts per million and then completely halting the emissions after the peak. The authors found that the scientific evidence is strong enough to quantify some irreversible climate impacts, including rainfall changes in certain key regions, and global sea level rise.

If CO2 is allowed to peak at 450-600 parts per million, the results would include persistent decreases in dry-season rainfall that are comparable to the 1930s North American Dust Bowl in zones including southern Europe, northern Africa, southwestern North America, southern Africa and western Australia.

The study notes that decreases in rainfall that last not just for a few decades but over centuries are expected to have a range of impacts that differ by region. Such regional impacts include decreasing human water supplies, increased fire frequency, ecosystem change and expanded deserts. Dry-season wheat and maize agriculture in regions of rain-fed farming, such as Africa, would also be affected.

Climate impacts were less severe at lower peak levels. But at all levels added carbon dioxide and its climate effects linger because of the ocean.

“In the long run, both carbon dioxide loss and heat transfer depend on the same physics of deep-ocean mixing. The two work against each other to keep temperatures almost constant for more than a thousand years, and that makes carbon dioxide unique among the major climate gases,” said Solomon.

The scientists emphasize that increases in CO2 that occur in this century “lock in” sea level rise that would slowly follow in the next 1,000 years. Considering just the expansion of warming ocean waters—without melting glaciers and polar ice sheets—the authors find that the irreversible global average sea level rise by the year 3000 would be at least 1.3–3.2 feet (0.4–1.0 meter) if CO2 peaks at 600 parts per million, and double that amount if CO2 peaks at 1,000 parts per million.

“Additional contributions to sea level rise from the melting of glaciers and polar ice sheets are too uncertain to quantify in the same way,” said Solomon. “They could be even larger but we just don’t have the same level of knowledge about those terms. We presented the minimum sea level rise that we can expect from well-understood physics, and we were surprised that it was so large.”

Rising sea levels would cause “…irreversible commitments to future changes in the geography of the Earth, since many coastal and island features would ultimately become submerged,” the authors write.

Geoengineering to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere was not considered in the study. “Ideas about taking the carbon dioxide away after the world puts it in have been proposed, but right now those are very speculative,” said Solomon.

The authors relied on measurements as well as many different models to support the understanding of their results. They focused on drying of particular regions and on thermal expansion of the ocean because observations suggest that humans are contributing to changes that have already been measured.

Besides Solomon, the study’s authors are Gian-Kasper Plattner and Reto Knutti of ETH Zurich, Switzerland, and Pierre Friedlingstein of Institut Pierre Simon Laplace, Gif-Sur-Yvette, France.

NOAA understands and predicts changes in the Earth’s environment, from the depths of the ocean to the surface of the sun, and conserves and manages our coastal and marine resources.

About these ads
This entry was posted in Climate data, Climate_change, Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

231 Responses to New Study Shows Climate Change Largely Irreversible, Climate Modelers Given $140 Million Bonus

  1. Novoburgo says:

    Damn! I knew it, we are all going to die. I hate those modelers!!

  2. Robert Bateman says:

    So why the carbon and farming taxes if there is no turning back and warming in inevitable? Makes no sense to me, and I don’t buy AGW, I buy AGC solar forced by multiple back door mechanisms.
    On account of we ain’t go no solar activity to force heat into the system.
    The stop loss is broken 1 AU away.
    Attempts a sequestration so far have resulting in CO2 bubbling out of the ground.
    And if Archibald is right, pulling CO2 out of the system will plunge us back to the Ice Age. It’s Antifreeze, not greenhouse gas.
    Go run experiments on somebody else’s planet.
    Leave the Earth alone.

  3. Smokey says:

    Prof. Freeman Dyson shows that the persistence of atmospheric CO2 is only about 12+/- years. Susan Solomon claims it’s persistence is a millennium — for the human produced fraction of CO2. Hmm-m-m. Who to believe?

    This article shows how the system works, and what’s going on: click

    REPLY: The key question is: how much at the millenium? It has been said that we drink a few of the same water molecules as did Julius Caesar, and breathe a few of the same oxygen molecules once inhaled by Thomas Jefferson. So sure, it is plausible that few CO2 molecules emitted by Al Gore’s private jet or swimming pool heater might still be around in the atmosphere 1000 years from now.

    Is it relevant to the climate 1000 years hence? No. What is relevant is the period when we see a majority of it get recyled or absorbed by biological processes. Dyson’s 12 year lifetime seems more relevant than Solomon’s for the purpose of the “CO2 drives climate”. -Anthony

  4. MarcH says:

    That $140 million would certainly buy a lot of shore line protection to cope with what appear to be fairly modest sea level rises even with 2x current levels of CO2. It would also employ a hell of a lot more people.

    Sorry to see your taxes being misappropriated in such an appalling way!

  5. sky says:

    Bad science, if continued at the present rate of production, is going to have an irreversible long-term impact not only on human understanding of climate but upon the human condition. The climate, however, will ignore all academic follies and will continue to function in the same mysterious way that it always has.

  6. Robert Bateman says:

    Hmm… Deep Ocean Mixing. Sounds like the Global Warming course curriculum re-engineered. 1000 yrs?
    If the cold oceans suck C02 out, and we suck C02 out, when there’s none left then what? According to the geologic record, when the Earth decides to come out of the Ice Age, it will be 200-800 yrs before the C02 replenishes the antifreeze to return to Interglacial warm periods.

    Get back in your spaceships and tell your Ice Planet leader Earth isn’t buying.

  7. mark says:

    Noooo!!! H*** C***!!

  8. paminator says:

    A prior study that confirms the conclusions of this NOAA paper was made into a TV short. I recommend the scenes where Al Gore explains Global Warming, and Professor Farnsworth’s sun shade malfunctions, creating a heat beam that sweeps across the Earth’s surface.

    FUTURAMA – Crimes of the Hot
    Written by Aaron Ehasz
    Directed by Peter Avanzino
    Originally aired 11/10/02 as episode number 01 in season 05

    As Earth is unable to counter its rising temperature through the usual
    method (the dropping of a giant ice cube into the ocean), Gore leads an
    emergency conference in Kyoto, Japan, where Professor Farnsworth claims
    responsibility for the crisis. It seems love detoured him from
    observing proper emission standards on his prototype robot, and that
    could necessitate the destruction of all its “descendants.” That
    includes Bender, who resigns himself to having a farewell blowout
    before being blown up.

    The final solution involves robots creating enough impulsive force to increase Earth’s distance from the sun. A simple Geo-engineering exercise!

    On a positive note, the centennial doomsdays are now passe. It appears the alarmists now need to look a millennium into the future to conjure up climate catastrophes.

  9. Allen63 says:

    “…“It has long been known that some of the carbon dioxide emitted by human activities stays in the atmosphere for thousands of years,” Solomon said…”

    Could someone link an authoritative report that explains how CO2 remains in the atmosphere for thousands of years — while specifically considering each phenomena that tends to remove it — and offers conclusive evidence that the proposed explanations are more than opinion or as yet unsubstantiated hypotheses.

    I’m serious. I’ll read it. Until I do, its hard to believe.

  10. Syl says:

    ‘Ocean mixing’ ‘heat expansion’

    The ocean is their last stab at countering the current cooling. Where did all the heating go after 2000? Into the ocean of course, or thats what the models say. And since we won’t know for not a decade, not fifty years, not a century, but not for a thousand years, they don’t have to prove it!

    As we outside the darkened halls of modeldom say…

    Give me a break!

  11. Bill in AZ says:

    This article is satire, right? right?

    REPLY: Afraid not, it is your tax dollars at work. – Anthony

  12. P Folkens says:

    Oh the wisdom of Solomon! How does she know ““. . . that some of the carbon dioxide emitted by human activities stays in the atmosphere for thousands of years,”? Did they happen to discover a carbon dioxide molecule floating around that had been emitted by a human activity 2000 years ago? I seem to have missed that paper.

    When making a statement like “sea level rise by the year 3000 would be at least 1.3–3.2 feet (0.4–1.0 meter) if CO2 peaks at 600 parts per million” does she and her colleagues know that the sea level has fluctuated over 4 feet since 1000 prior to the Industrial Revolution? How do government employees with such ignorance regarding the historical record of their own chosen field get permission to make such absurd statements?

  13. paminator says:

    “It has long been known that some of the carbon dioxide emitted by human activities stays in the atmosphere for thousands of years,” Solomon said.

    It has also long been known that *some* (i.e. one molecule) of the carbon dioxide emitted by human activities stays in the atmosphere for billions of years. And some of King Tut’s exhaled breath yet lingers in our lungs today. So what?

    Amazing what passes as science these days…

  14. AKD says:

    “But despite this grim prognosis, Solomon says this is not time to declare the problem hopeless and give up.

    ‘I guess if it’s irreversible, to me it seems all the more reason you might want to do something about it,” she says. “Because committing to something that you can’t back out of seems to me like a step that you’d want to take even more carefully than something you thought you could reverse.’”

    http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=99888903

  15. Roger Carr says:

    Somewhere there is a master-form with appropriate blank spaces to be filled to meet a current reqirement…

    After reading the story above I began thinking “Ozone Hole”.
    Thinking further my mind turned to The Silent Spring.
    But isn’t there a disclaimer attached to this sory, Anthong? Something along the lines of: Only the names have been changed to protect…?

  16. Robert says:

    Well as long as this new study was “peer reviewed”,,,,,,,

  17. bucko36 says:

    “Beam Me Up Scotty, There is no intelligent life down here!.”
    On this planet, it’s inhabitants are allowing “Politics, Money and Computer Models” to determine and define the Laws of Science.

  18. P Folkens says:

    $140,000,000 for climate modelers? If that were applied to actual data instead of models pretending to be data it would provide $114,660 for every US surface station.

    REPLY: Gosh, just think, gold plated Stevenson Screens! On a more serious note, as I read the line items seen here, the bill DID have money to upgrade the surface network with automated stations like this one I blogged about last spring:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/04/29/what-the-modernized-ushcn-will-look-like/

    At about $20-30k each, they are quite a bargain for the value they produce.

    here is the text of the bill on that section

    “accelerating satellite development and acquisition, acquiring climate sensors and climate modeling capacity, and establishing climate data records” to the tune of $600 million, with $140 million going to climate modeling.

    – Anthony

  19. Fred says:

    Well, as we are already past the tipping point, why not ignore the whole thing and see how bad it gets? It will not make things any worse and it will be a lot cheaper.

  20. Garacka says:

    I can’t wait to read this one. Its got to have doozy written all over it.

  21. Alex Baker says:

    Hmmmm. Let’s see. $140,000,000 for climate forecasting of a naturally chaotic system or $2,333.33 of extended unemployment benefits and job retraining for each of the 60,000+ formerly employed peopled who found themselves looking for jobs today…

    Oh…wait…I guess the plan is to retrain them to work on modeling the climate…

  22. You can tell Al Gore is about to magically appear. All of the loony “scientists” are coming out of the woodwork with ever more cockamamie conclusions. Fortunately these latest stories are proving almost effortlessly easy to discredit, as if there is some sort of negative feedback with frequency of publication. Next up for your perusal, a CO2 lifetime of 1000 years! I don’t even have a comeback for that one, I’m speechless! I mean, what do you say to that? Far out, man???

    We are finally witnessing the last gasps of a dying theory. I hope it snows like hell in Washington on Wednesday…

  23. Roy Tucker says:

    So, when all of this is proven to be a fraud, will there be criminal prosecutions? I would enjoy watching the proceedings

  24. vg says:

    Let them keep going.. these articles ect eventually will bury them… I think they have forgotten the power of the internet.. the proof (re previous statements in concrete “antartcic cooling proves global warming” ect) will come to haunt them and their professional careers….You would have thought that they would realize this by now…

  25. evanjones says:

    They also don’t consider the effect of a set of pole-to-pole reflecting satellites (“mylar-in-space”, etc.).

    Idiots.

    It takes a high IQ to be that stupid and blind. I have often felt that so-called “superior” intelligence leads many (if not most) of those who have it right off the intellectual cliff.

    I shudder to imagine a world where 160+ IQ types made all the decisions. Arrogance and lack of (and contempt for) common sense is a disastrous combination.

  26. Clive says:

    I can’t help but feel what with the latest Nature article on the Antarctic, and now this new incredible doomsaying study, that the eco weenies must be feeling the heat of probable cooling and are scrambling to stir up the masses. They have to save their scientific (script-writing) careers so they won’t have to learn how to fry chicken. Oh? Those jobs are drying up as well, eh?

    I was naive enough to think the stable (and declining) world temperatures might win the day for us evil skeptics. Boy I am stoopid. Maybe it is because because my brain is frozen solid from one of the coldest winters in a few years.

    Anthony … Keep up the solid work here. I enjoy your site immensely. Thank you!

    Clive
    Alberta, Canada

  27. Mike Ford says:

    Regarding Michael D Smith (20:29:42)

    Absolutely correct. All of these recent “no turning back now” stories are specifically designed for algore to bring up in his congressional hearing this week (I think it’s this week).

    Meanwhile, I’m freezing my tookas off shoveling snow in -2F right now.

  28. Ric Werme says:

    evanjones (20:38:12) :

    It takes a high IQ to be that stupid and blind. I have often felt that so-called “superior” intelligence leads many (most) those who have it right off the intellectual cliff.

    I shudder to imagine a world where 160+ IQ types made all the decisions. Arrogance and lack of (and contempt for) common sense is a disastrous combination.

    Being a long time member of Mensa (thank whomever that there is no periodic retest), I’ve concluded that intelligence is the MSG of aptitudes. I.e. it lets you do more with the other aptitudes you have. If you don’t have any other aptitudes (I think “common sense” is one), you’re just a waste of carbon footprint.

    Mensa was originally founded to provide a resource for the British government to help solve all its problems. People quickly discovered that more than intelligence was required, but a lot of people had interests other than solving all the British government’s problems.

    BTW, I think a lot of people here would readily qualify for Mensa (Evan, for example). You’d be surprised at how average we are. :-)

    I can think of a few Mensans who’d make or are good leaders. They generally lack the patience for dealing with politics and have enough intelligence to not want the job….

    BTW, Icecap seems to take a dim view of this work too.

    That 1000 year forecast comes with a moneyback guarantee from NOAA. Too bad they don’t offer the same on their seasonal forecasts. the last two winters were forecast to be warm in Alaska and the lower 48 states. Susan can’t help but keep embarrassing herself first with her work on the ozone hole, then the IPCC AR4 report for which she was a Lead Author and now this.

    Ouch.

  29. Garacka says:

    Smokey (19:51:43) :

    Segalstad paper at http://folk.uio.no/tomvs/esef/ESEF3VO2.htm shows a number of studies of CO2 residence time from 2 to 15 years and comes up with a 5 year average. Four different methods were cited: natural carbon-14; including living and dead biosphere; Suess Effect; bomb carbon-14; and carbon-13/carbon-12 mass balance. The last 2 from 1992 both came up with 5.4 years.

    They summarize;

    “The short atmospheric CO2 lifetime of 5 years means that CO2 quickly is being taken out of the atmospheric reservoir, and that approximately 135 giga-tonnes (about 18%) of the atmospheric CO2 pool is exchanged each year. This large and fast natural CO2 cycling flux is far more than the approximately 6 giga-tonnes of carbon in the anthropogenic fossil fuel CO2 now contributed annually to the atmosphere, creating so much political turmoil (Segalstad, 1992; 1996).”

    I wonder how Susan Solomon comes up with 1000 years if CO2 residence time is only 5 years?

  30. They must maintain the State of Fear. Only when the people are in full panic mode, will they permit what the leftists have in mind for the US. It will only take a few months for the administration to make irreversible changes.

    Here come the Greenshirts!

  31. Kum Dollison says:

    Well, folks, if those Daily UAH Temps are right we have had a very hot January.

  32. Jerker Andersson says:

    Not a single positive thing can happen according to NOAA if temperature rises together with CO2. Everything will be worse.

    To make me belive that their study is serious they need to throughly examine positive and negative effects but they don’t. It is all catasroph reporting all the way. I guess that gives more government money.

  33. Andrew Anderson says:

    Wow, I feel much better now that that little problem has been answered and that the bailout money is being used for some great science. Does anyone that actually paid attention in High School Chemistry really believe this stuff anymore?

    And thanks Anthony for answering a question that I have had for a long time. As a suburban dweller in several cities over the past few decades it always baffled me as to how we could get 6 inches of snow or an on 1.5 inches of rain and the official amount would be 2/10ths of an inch or something so far off as to make you wonder if they were in the same State.

    Asphalt, concrete, and city bubbles do seem to answer that which is what I had always seemed me to be a problem of lack of common sense in the first place. I had not realized it was an policy to exclude where I was living most of the time.

    I appreciate you shedding light on the station situation.

    Keep up the good work.

    Cheers,
    Andrew

  34. Paul Penrose says:

    Now they are predicting climate 1000 years into the future. How can anybody believe this stuff anymore? I like that last bit – “NOAA understands and predicts changes in the Earth’s environment…” Sure they do.

  35. bucko36 says:

    Mike Ford (20:52:13) :

    “for algore to bring up in his congressional hearing this week (I think it’s this week).”

    (Posted on Drudge Report this afternoon)

    GORE HEARING ON WARMING MAY BE PUT ON ICE
    Mon Jan 26 2009 17:59:26 ET

    Al Gore is scheduled before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Wednesday morning to once again testify on the ‘urgent need’ to combat global warming.

    But Mother Nature seems ready to freeze the proceedings.

    A ‘Winter Storm Watch’ has been posted for the nation’s capitol and there is a potential for significant snow… sleet… or ice accumulations.

    “I can’t imagine the Democrats would want to showcase Mr. Gore and his new findings on global warming as a winter storm rages outside,” a Republican lawmaker emailed the DRUDGE REPORT. “And if the ice really piles up, it will not be safe to travel.”

    A spokesman for Sen. John Kerry, who chairs the committee, was not immediately available to comment on contingency plans.

    Global warming advocates have suggested this year’s wild winter spells are proof of climate change.

    Developing…

  36. Garacka says:

    Is there a law against Government employees publishing propaganda?

  37. Joe says:

    I don’t see much here to refute the claims in Solomon’s paper, especially given that the lifetime of CO2 in the atmosphere is hundreds or thousands of years. What’s your counter argument? And, please, some facts instead of vague conspiracy theories.

  38. Robert Bateman says:

    Amazing. All this time they are modeling an overheated planet, but when it comes time for them to fork over the Final Solution, they balk.
    “It’s too late, we’re going to overheat I mean freeze, oh I don’t know”.
    What shall we call this new climate modeling computer system?
    Backpeddler? Global CO2 Coolermaster with Fan/Heatsink?
    Run for your lives?
    Faster, Faster, you fool!
    I’m melting, freezing. Oh, what a world !
    Livermore Laurentide Ice Lancer?
    Parboiled Popsickle Predictor?

  39. hereticfringe says:

    Well if it is irreversible and too late… F it! Lets have a party around a bonfire, invest in summer clothing businesses, soon to be beach front property, and roll with the changes!

  40. henry says:

    So if the standard # of years for a single generation = 40 years, then the next 25 generations are screwed, even if we stop all CO2, and remove the existing CO2.

    By then, we’ll be listenening to Al Gore the 25th, and the Hockey team will be off the ice. Synchronized swimming, anyone?

  41. Robert Bateman says:

    $140M for a new climate modeling scheme.
    Why would they need a new model if their current one is as rock solid as they have been preaching?
    Maybe somebody called thier bluff.
    Al Gore cannot save them now, for his magic only works on heat.
    It’s too late, remember?

  42. hotlink says:

    So, would this be a super co2 particle with a super expanded life time?

  43. Robert Bateman says:

    They don’t have enough tar sands in Canada to melt an Ice Sheet.
    Perhaps in the next Millenia Al Gore the Ice Slayer will arise to save mankind.

  44. Alan Wilkinson says:

    Where is Richard Feynman when science needs him?

    vg is right, this kind of nonsense will provide laughs for at least 3000 years.

  45. Chris V. says:

    Umm… aren’t you the guys who are always pointing out that CO2 lags temperatures by 800 years in the ice cores?

    It seems to me that that’s how long it took for the carbon cycle to re-establish equilibrium. So that “1000 year” lifetime for CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere looks pretty reasonable to me.

    I think guys like Dyson who claim an atmospheric persistence of 12 years for CO2 are confusing the lifetime of an individual molecule of CO2 with the lifetime of a certain concentration of CO2- and they are definitely NOT the same thing!

  46. It’s the old, ‘we’re ruining the future for our children’ argument in the guise of a scientific study by experts. Chosen for this work undoubtedly because they volunteered to work without pay, just to save the planet for their progeny. Right?
    Surely nobody would accept money in pursuit such a noble cause.

  47. In the spreadsheet linked above, the 140,000,000 in climate data modeling is noted in a comment left by j.p.emanuel on Jan 16, whoever that is…

    I guess you can just go in and comment a cell, and BANG, $140,000,000 is YOURS, baby! Sorry about all that real data guys, 140 Larg(esse) is for vaporware! Who is this guy, an intern?

    Does anyone know who made this spreadsheet? And PLEASE tell me there is some detail backing up this exercise? Is this a private citizen summarizing the spending proposal, (if so, thanks), or is this a real government document amassed after serious deliberation / negotiation (and please just shoot me dead right now)? And why does it all go to the government?

    Does the smallest unit of measure really have to be $1,000,000? Could we put some of that whiz-bang climatology horsepower into breaking this out into a few smaller eigenvectors describing exactly what kind of hockey stick or doomsday scenario the thing is supposed to produce next? I’d like to know what I’m paying for up front. For that kind of money, I want REAL sea level rise, hundreds of feet, all in one wave. Volcanoes. Icebergs! LOCUSTS! I want RESULTS, so let’s quit messing around!!!

    Now seriously… How would one go about tracking that exact $140,000,000 over the next few years, to the penny. I think that would make an incredibly interesting story.

  48. DavidR says:

    Joe

    I do not see anything in that Nature article to uphold Solomons assertations.

  49. Joe (21:45:14) :

    I don’t see much here to refute the claims in Solomon’s paper, especially given that the lifetime of CO2 in the atmosphere is hundreds or thousands of years. What’s your counter argument? And, please, some facts instead of vague conspiracy theories.

    Link leads to an article that states:

    “The effects of carbon dioxide on the atmosphere drop off so slowly that unless we kick our “fossil fuel addiction”, to use George W. Bush’s phrase, we could force Earth out of its regular pattern of freezes and thaws that has lasted for more than a million years. “If the entire coal reserves were used,” Archer writes, “then glaciation could be delayed for half a million years.”

    This is a bad thing?

  50. Ed Zuiderwijk says:

    This reminds me of the scare stories in the 70-ties about the heavy smog in California at the time which also was deemed to have become “irreversible” and would persist for thousands of years even if humankind would disappear tomorrow. In the event it only took cleaner cars and a few heavy rainstorms to clear the lot.

    What a load of crap! These people must be desperate to get their funding and so hang on to their job.

  51. Glenn says:

    A thousand year forecast reference, pfft. Childs play. See your thousand and raise you a hundred thousand:

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090125142118.htm

    “Whereas some coastal dead zones could be recovered by control of fertilizer usage, expanded low-oxygen areas caused by global warming will remain for thousands of years to come, adversely affecting fisheries and ocean ecosystems far into the future.”
    [...]
    “Together with senior scientists Steffen Olsen oceanographer at Danish Meteorological Institute and Jens Olaf Pepke Pedersen, physicist at National Space Institute, Technical University of Denmark, Professor Shaffer has performed projections with the newly-developed DCESS Earth System Model, projections that extend 100,000 years into the future.”

  52. Aviator says:

    Joe – read Garacka (21:09:14). That should answer your question. [snip]

  53. Sandra says:

    Tabloid News and now Tabloid Science.

    I see the whole problem with all this climate speculation was that the sun is a mathematical constant in their calculations. I am an idiot in math.

    The government has no money to give anyone, no, not the UN abortion programs, not the food programs in the world, not the unemployed climate modelers. The government has NO MONEY for anything. So why don’t they shut up and get to work cutting funds to these sycophantic idiots?
    Thank God for this blog.

  54. Phillip Bratby says:

    According to the BBC at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7852628.stm :

    “People have imagined that if we stopped emitting carbon dioxide the climate would go back to normal in 100 years, 200 year – that’s not true,” said researcher Susan Solomon, the lead author of the report, quoted by AP news agency.

    What is normal climate? An ice age according to some? Looks more amd more like carbon dioxide is preventing an ice age! Hurrah for carbon dioxide.

  55. Richard Heg says:

    Hopefully with this extra money it will allow unemployed financial modelers to find a new career. We all know what a fine job they did until it was tested by a little unimportant thing called reality.

  56. janama says:

    hey – give the lady a break – her job is obviously up for review and she needed to publish something.

  57. wattsupwiththat says:

    Michael D. Smith

    If you’ll read the actual bill passed in the House of Representatives here

    http://readthestimulus.org/hr1_text.pdf

    You’ll see this text:

    Provided further, That not less than $140,000,000 shall be available for climate data modeling.

    That is on page 52 of the 647 page pdf document.

    But wait there’s more!

    On page 53

    For an additional amount for ‘‘Science’’, $400,000,000, of which not less than $250,000,000 shall be solely for accelerating the development of the tier 1 set of Earth science climate research missions recommended by the National Academies Decadal Survey.

    The quotes around the word science, are part of the bill itself, not my editing. Odd they would have to delineate it that way.

    If you read through the bill, many examples of porkus maximus are evident.

  58. Ron de Haan says:

    RJ Hendrickson (22:26:20) :

    “It’s the old, ‘we’re ruining the future for our children’ argument in the guise of a scientific study by experts. Chosen for this work undoubtedly because they volunteered to work without pay, just to save the planet for their progeny. Right?
    Surely nobody would accept money in pursuit such a noble cause.”

    What future? We are all doomed!

  59. Demesure says:

    Chris V. (22:19:38) : “I think guys like Dyson who claim an atmospheric persistence of 12 years for CO2 are confusing the lifetime of an individual molecule of CO2 with the lifetime of a certain concentration of CO2- and they are definitely NOT the same thing!”

    ——————————————-
    Neither the notion of lifefime of “an individual molecule” or of “a certain concentration” exist. That’s junk science !
    In physics & chemistry, only the notion of half-lifetime exists.

    Dyson is an eminent physicist. He would certainly not use the junk-science notion of “molecule lifetime” or “concentration lifetime”.

  60. Joe (21:45:14) :

    I think the studies mentioned earlier mean 5-12 years at meaningful levels. In any reservoir with sources and sinks, you will be dealing with an e^-x relationship for the amount of the original fluid present over time. For example, Lake Erie refills every 2.5 years, a simple source and sink with a tank. Assume for the sake of discussion that it mixes well. After N years, the amount of original water left from T=0 will be e^-(N/2.5), or at 2.5 years e^-1 or 36.8%. At 5 years 13.5%, 10 years 1.8%, 100 years, 4.2E-16%, 1000 years 1.9E-174% , Now, anyone could argue that there are still water molecules left from 1000 years earlier, and they might be right, even in my oversimplified example (but man that’s a lot of zeros)

    So, no, I can’t argue with the fact that CO2 lasts thousands of years. It does. Some of it will be recycled hundreds of times by then, some of it not once, and some of it will end up in a subduction zone probably not to reappear before the sun swallows the earth. So, if you’re interested in LOTS of zeros after the decimal point, then, yep, thousands of years (or millions or billions if you like). All depends on what level you’re interested in… For practical matters however…

  61. Richard deSousa says:

    $140,000,000 for research and modeling but how much for due diligence to insure the data they are using are accurate? I suspect less than 1%.

  62. Ron de Haan says:

    This starts to look like a typical case of a State that has turned wicked on it’s own citizens.
    Especially because it is not the first scary story: http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/01/scare_watch_arctic_warming_is_1.html

    And if you think 140.000.000 for modeling is much, look what ACORN is going to get!

    It’s time to wake up and put an end to this BS before Obama has it’s planned Civil Army in place.

    The longer you wait the bloodier the struggle will be.

    Beside that, what have we got to loose, we’re all doomed!

  63. anna v says:

    Chris V. (22:19:38) :

    Umm… aren’t you the guys who are always pointing out that CO2 lags temperatures by 800 years in the ice cores?

    It seems to me that that’s how long it took for the carbon cycle to re-establish equilibrium. So that “1000 year” lifetime for CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere looks pretty reasonable to me.

    I think guys like Dyson who claim an atmospheric persistence of 12 years for CO2 are confusing the lifetime of an individual molecule of CO2 with the lifetime of a certain concentration of CO2- and they are definitely NOT the same thing!

    There is also the short cycle seen in http://icecap.us/index.php/go/in-the-news/qualitative_thoughts_on_co2/
    of a few months delay of CO2 changes, probably of biological origin,

    So it is established that there is a long term sink/source ( 800 to 2000 years) and a short term sink/source ( five to nine months). I would expect that in our lifetimes the shorter one is important, because that is the one we affect, we are part of the biological cycle after all, emitting half a ton of CO2 per year each of us just by existing.

    Models, which is all this study is about, are GIGO, par excellence, for such a long term prediction.

    The total amount of CO2 exchange with the atmosphere is so great, any excess by biological inputs is a noise in the chaotic system IMO.

  64. Where did I read this?… GIGO=Garbage In, God’s truth Out.

    http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,,24934655-7583,00.html

    Good story of historical cycle projection vs GCM predictive accuracy. Guess which approach wins? (big DUH)

  65. tokyoboy says:

    I wonder how they can be ignorant about the definitive fact that the CO2 abosorbed/released by living things (mostly plants) amounts to 400 billion tons a year, which is as large as 1/7 of the total amount (2.75 trillion tons) in the atmosphere ?
    Taking the sea-atmosphere CO2 exchange into account, the average lifetime of atmospheric CO2 should be as short as 5 years!
    As a chemist studying photosynthesis for over 40 years, I am definitely convinced of this.

  66. Neil Mc says:

    “Such regional impacts include decreasing human water supplies, increased fire frequency, ecosystem change and expanded deserts. Dry-season wheat and maize agriculture in regions of rain-fed farming, such as Africa, would also be affected.”

    A warmer world is surely a wetter world, on average. All that water locked up in icecaps will circulate between the liquid and gaseous phases. Some places that are dry may get drier, but this cannot be the norm. In countless debates, I’ve never had an AGW believer rebut this point.

  67. Gerard says:

    In Melbourne, Australia this morning our local ABC (government funded radio) broadcaster Jon Faine who tries to promote AGW at every opportunity questioned the weather bureau senior forecaster regarding the forecast for the next 4 days temperature (in Celsius) of 38, 40, 41, 42 and 40 that this must be a record heatwave and is obviously linked to climate change, he was deflated by the forecaster’s reply that this also occured in 1908 and that last year was the coldest Sydney year for 100 years.

  68. Harold Pierce Jr says:

    RE: 385 ppmv

    Do any of you really know what that number means. Probably not. More importantly, the climatologists (i.e., the white-coated welfare kings and queens living and working in the academic and government research ghettoes) haven’t got a clue to what it means. (Note: The term “white-coated welfare queen” was coined by the irascible Prof Rutum Roy, a material scientist at the Univ. of Pennsylvania and constant critic of US goverment research funding policies, about 35 years ago).

    The concentration of the various components in air taken at any site after analysis is computed and reported for a defined reference state known as “Standard Dry Air” (SDA), which is bone-dry air that is comprised only of nitrogen, oxygen, the inert gases and carbon dioxide (i.e, the so-called fixed gases) and is at standard temperature and pressure (STP, i.e., 273.2 K and 1 atm pressure). One cubic meter of SDA contains 385 ml or 17.2 millimoles of pure carbon dioxide. However, SDA exists at no place on the earth because “real air” is never at STP and always contains water vapor and clouds, the climatologists’ worst nightmares. The term “real air” is used by engineers for local air at the intake ports of air separation plants.

    The _relative ratio_ of the fixed gases is, quite remarkably, constant thu out the atmosphere except for minor variations due to site. This is the origin of the term “well-mixed atmospheric gases”. The composition of real air is, however, always site specifc and depends mostly on elevation, temperature, pressure and absolute humidity.

    The ideal gas law is usually given as: PV = nRT, which can be re-arranged to:
    n/V = P/TR. What this equation means that _absolute amount_ of the fixed gases will fluctuate rapidily in the air and follow the weather. Thus, even in “dry real air” there is _no unifom temporal and spatial distribution of the atmospheric gases_ and hence it not possible to model climate with any useful skill and accuracy.

    Enter the nightmares water vapor and clouds. The absolute amount of water vapor in air can range from 0 to about 5 % by volume. There are few places on the earth where the absolute humidity is absolutely O all the time. The Atacama Desert in the Andes is the most famous of these. As the absolute humidity increase, the absolute amount of the fixed gases decreases. Since absolute humidity is quite variable and fluctates rapidly, so will the absolute amount of the fixed gases. As above this limits the skill and accurracy of climate model projections.

    Clouds are reservoirs of liquid water in the air and are in equilibrium with water vapor in local air, and they are constantly moving. If the clouds move in a region of lower humidity, they can rapidly release water vapor. If they move into region of higher humidity, the droplets can grow bigger and come down as rain.

    Carbon dioxide is quite soluble in water (cf, soda water) and it can be rapidly absorbed or released from water droplets as function of local temperature, pressure, humidity. In fact, prolonged heavy rain can wash out a fair amount carbon dioxide which reduces the absolute amount in local air.

    Based on the above, are you guys rapidly coming to the conclusion that the above white-coated welfare queens and kings are peddling scientific phony balony? Jimmy the Sandwich Man has been selling this stuff for public consumption from his deli in NYC for over two decades. Keep your eye Jimmy for he always has thumb on the scale!

  69. crosspatch says:

    You could do a lot more to stimulate the economy by simply sending 1,400 random Americans a check for $100,000.

    That this is buried in an “economic stimulus” package says the entire thing is just a scam to use an “emergency” to shovel money to cronies and pet projects. Rather despicable in my opinion.

  70. Claude Harvey says:

    The earth warmed and the people cried, “The Gods are angry! What must we sacrifice to appease them?”

    The voodoo priests replied, “A lump of coal, a dash of oil, and a methane belching cow.”

    Then the people noticed the earth was cooling and asked the same question. The voodoo priests replied, “Same deal, except now you gotta’ double down.”

    CH

  71. Pierre Gosselin says:

    El Nino’s coming!!
    http://www.osdpd.noaa.gov/PSB/EPS/SST/climo&hot.html
    So, 2009 may be a warm year after all.

  72. Harold Pierce Jr says:

    Much of the info in my previous post is from a technical bulletin which you can find at Universal Industrial Gases Inc.’s website as well a lot of interesting info on air separation plants. GO: http://ww.uigi.com/air.html.

    You will also learn why carbon capture and storage is technically not feasible.

  73. alexjc38 says:

    Re: AKD: Solomon says:

    ‘I guess if it’s irreversible, to me it seems all the more reason you might want to do something about it,” she says. “Because committing to something that you can’t back out of seems to me like a step that you’d want to take even more carefully than something you thought you could reverse.’

    Is it just me, or is that last sentence nonsensical? If Global Warming was irreversible, taking steps to either help or hinder it would be 100% irrelevant. The logical thing to do would be to divert every last dollar that would have been spent on countering Global Warming into things we could actually do something about – preventing disease, for instance, or improving crop yields. Which sounds similar to the kind of thing that Bjorn Lomborg has been saying all along.

    Logic and AGW really don’t go together, do they.

  74. Filipe says:

    I was under impression that the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere in the last 50 years was only roughly half of what we have poured there.

    I don’t have access to PNAS, do they model the CO2 cycle or just assume it stays constant?

  75. Jerry says:

    Joe (21:45:14)

    On reading the Nature article, written by “Mason Inman is a freelance science writer currently based in Pakistan.” I saw a lot of half truths.
    What people seem to be ignoring is the means of removal of CO2 from the atmosphere. As several have remarked the ocean both absorbs and emits CO2, so in the long term it is neutral. CO2 is “permanently” removed by weathering rocks and being deposited in sediments. So, there is a natural annual flux of about 20 times the human emissions wherein CO2 is emitted and then absorbed. Since CO2 molecules do not come stamped with a little “Proudly Man-made” label, they are all treated the same. I know of no natural system which is not capable of coping with fluctuations of that sort of magnitude. Le Chatelier’s Principle is strictly only applicable to chemical systems, but since a) it seems also to apply to all other dynamic systems and b) CO2 balance is essentially a chemical system we should bear it in mind. As Chris V pointed out above, it looks as if the extra availability of CO2 accelerates weathering such that it takes about 800 years (in current temperature regimes) to reduce the levels again.
    My thought is that CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is dependent on temperatures. There is obviously a small feedback warming effect, as the modellers say, but the historical record shows essentially no causative effect of any significant magnitude. The mechanism is fairly simple: Earth heats up, oceans release CO2, permafrost melts and releases methane, which is oxidised, atmospheric CO2 rises, slight greenhouse warming and acid weathering of rocks increases, soon overcoming the greenhouse effect of CO2. Earth starts to cool, oceans absorb CO2, high latitudes freeze, locking up plant material in permafrost, rock weathering continues in lower latitudes and atmospheric CO2 concentration falls.
    Anything wrong with that?
    All I see from Dr. Solomon is undue reliance on computer models that have yet to make a verified prediction.

  76. Malcolm says:

    Man made CO2 emissions last for 1000 years in the atmosphere…………..natural emissions last for only 12 years in the atmosphere.

    Changes to the climate are irreversible………………….but can be reversed within 4 years.

    The Antarctic is cooling, “we knew that”…………………the Antarctic is warming, “we knew that too”.

    The planet’s land surface will get drier…………………………….the planet’s atmosphere will be getting wetter.

    Such contradictory statements leads to the conclusion that computing power is inversely proportional to climate modeller’s brain power.

    Doesn’t anyone do proper science these days?

  77. Alan the Brit says:

    Well, which is it, atmospheric CO2 retention of 5 years? 10 years? hundreds, or thousands of years, it surely cannot be a mixture it must be one or the other. I suspect it may well be on the lower side as I have seen on other sites in what appear to be logically written papers by calm authors devoid of hysteria.

    In UK latest science from Auntie Beeb is that the King Penguin will be extinct by the end of the century because of, yep you guessed it, all that melting ice in Antarctica, despite the fact that sea-ice extent is at a record high. At one & the same time we’re receiving reports from same Auntie that the snowdrops are very late this year because of, wait for it, wait for it! The COLD!

    Now (& I am completely neutral) why do the BBC insist on refusing to allow the broadcast of the Palastinian appeal for aid, on the grounds that it could well jeopardise the BBC’s long held journalistic tradition of neutrality & impartiality? Beats me! They gave that up on Climate Change years ago. To use the cockney rhyming slang, sound like a load of old “pony & trap”!

  78. John Philip says:

    The key question is: how much at the millenium?

    Exactly! Or, to rephrase it slightly, by how much and for how long does a given pulse of CO2 elevate atmospheric CO2 concentrations? This is a slightly different question than the average molecular residence time addressed by Dyson and by the (unreviewed and unpublished) Segalstad. Dyson’s figure was from a totally hypothetical scenario that will never happen in the real world, btw.

    Part of our nominal pulse of CO2 will soon be absorbed into a carbon reservoir – however it will increase the concentration of that reservoir, changing its equilibrium exchange rate with the atmosphere and and so continuing to contribute to elevated CO2 levels even after individual original molecules have been absorbed. To determine how long until CO2 levels return to the value before the emission of the pulse you have to apply an analytical approach over this cycle (The Bern Cycle).
    Doing this reveals that the level drops relatively rapidly initially, only about 33% of the CO2 increase is still present after 100 years, but the curve has a ‘long tail’, after 1000 years about 19% of the pulse is still contributing to increased concentrations.

    For those who asked for references: Journal of Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics. Vol 7, 2287-2312 esp Fig 9a

    See also GRL and Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences (in press).

    JP.

    REPLY: but then there’s the logarithmic response of CO2 to longwave IR, so any effect of millennium residuals doesn’t have a linear effect, and thus isn’t very worrisome. – Anthony

  79. Ozzie John says:

    So the idea here is….

    Create your own model, assume it’s 100% correct, then make a statement of certainty. No debate required !

    Credibility is an overrated personal trait anyway (Especially in 1000 years from now !!!).

  80. Stan says:

    “”It has long been known that some of the carbon dioxide emitted by human activities stays in the atmosphere for thousands of years,” Solomon said”

    How can they know this? We’ve only been emitting CO2 through fossil fuel use for a couple of hundred years, so how can they know that they last for thousands of years?

    It doesn’t make any sense.

    And how scientific is “some”? Is that 50%, 10%, 1%? What proportion of total CO2 emissions (natural and anthropogenic) is that “some”?

  81. cohenite says:

    I must say I find the isotope basis for the assertion that the sole reason for the increase in CO2 is ACO2 a bit problematic; this is despite Engelbeen’s always interesting expositions in support of this position; see for example;

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/01/the-origin-of-increasing-atmospheric-co2-a-response-from-ferdinand-engelbeen/

    See also Ghosh and Brand’s paper correlating the reduction in C13 with the growth of fossil fuel emissions.

    Garacka above has already referred to Segalstad’s excellent counterview and also mitigating the C13 position is Behrenfeld’s paper and the work of Steve Short, an expert on cyanobacteria, both of whom theorise that large blooms of these organisms may be responsible for C13 proportionate reduction independent of fossil fuel emissions. With the C13 argument subject to debate the retention period of ACO2 becomes much more straightforward and is referable to AR4 and DOE data; FIG 7.3 of AR4 [p515] clearly shows that human emissions of CO2 are 3.67% of all emissions; the DOE information about retention and re-absorption is here;

    http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/FTPROOT/environment/057304.pdf

    At Table 3 on p6 the level of reabsorption is 98.5% leaving 1.5% retained; the ACO2 % of the amont retained is 1.5/100 x 3.67 = 0.055%.

    Leaving aside the complete absence of any primary proof that ACO2 is causing heating or confirmation of any AGW prediction [ie THS, stratosphere cooling etc] there is then the possibility that ACO2 is merely a miniscule part of the retained CO2.

  82. Chris Schoneveld says:

    I stick to what Engelbeen says on the subject:

    http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/co2_measurements.html
    One of his remarks:

    “if we should stop all CO2 emissions today, then the increase of 100 ppmv since the start of the industrial revolution would be reduced to 50 ppmv after some 40 years, further to 25 ppmv after 80 years and 12.5 ppmv after 120 years…”

  83. Rhys Jaggar says:

    I have to say I listened to your new President last week on CNN from Switzerland’s snow lands and was impressed.

    Last night, however, there was a 4 minute piece at the BBC website from Mr Obama about energy independence.

    Some of it was good stuff, but he was clearly not au fait or really confident on the carbon dioxide issue. You notice when the most eloquent politician in years suddenly seems like a method actor at first rehearsal……….

    What it seemed to me was this:

    1. Bailout of Detroit = environmentally friendly cars. Good idea.
    2. New energy generation capability to reduce dependence on Middle East Oil. Definitely a reasonable option for a US President to consider.
    3. Energy efficient homes. Seems good for your average Joe and Jane shivering in the winter on $15,000 a year.

    There was less detail about carbon dioxide.

    Overall, as a citizen of the world, I’d say he’s on the right track and hence it may be that he’s palming off the climate modellers for a while whilst he gets his Presidential ducks in a row.

    After all, he’s got Iraq, Guantanamo, Afghanistan, Gaza and Wall Street in his in-tray right now.

    The world’s climate won’t shift so radically in 2 years, whatever the modellers tells us, will it?

    Good call Mr President………

  84. Cold Englishman says:

    After the Polar Bears, it’s now the Penguins!!
    Yet another daily dose of nonsense from the BBC.
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7851276.stm

  85. Don says:

    “NOAA understands and predicts changes in the Earth’s environment, from the depths of the ocean to the surface of the sun, and conserves and manages our coastal and marine resources.”

    If NOAA thinks they do this well, THAT is the height of arrogance!

  86. Allen63 says:

    evanjones,

    Statistically (and in my experience) about half the people with PhDs are not intellectual standouts. And, to do good science, one needs objectivity and the ability to publicly admit mistakes — most of us struggle to get those two right. Thus, a PhD who’s actual performance is brilliant is “rare” (not “common” as the media leads to believe).

    At the end of the day, having PhD does indicate a certain level of education and a willingness to work hard in school for extra years — good characteristics — but not proof of final ability.

    All in all, I am not a bit surprised by the “bad science” from PhDs. In my experience, there is much more of that in the scientific world than “good science”.

    Moreover, a PhD in a subject is not required to do “good science”. Many with expertise in other fields are equally or even more capable.

  87. Demesure says:

    John Philip (02:30:25) : For those who asked for references: Journal of Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics. Vol 7, 2287-2312 esp Fig 9a

    See also GRL and Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences (in press).

    Contrary to your claims, there has been no “analytical approach”, no experimental data to give the “CO2 lifetime” in the links above.
    Only calculations from model. And handwaving.

  88. rhodeymark says:

    Just another reason to stimulate the economic collapse, partially brought on by modelers of another stripe. In other news, Same Old Hibernating Orb (SOHO) hangs out the “Shhh” sign yet again.

  89. Peter Jones says:

    If once in the atmosphere, it takes 1000s of years to remove, then why do C02 levels rise and fall seasonally?

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/04/06/co2-monthly-mean-at-mauna-loa-leveling-off/

  90. Mike McMillan says:

    Irreversible.

    Doomed to no more ice ages.

    We are therefore condemned to a 20+% increase in crop production, even without G.M. crops. (Genetically Modified, for us non-Europeans, not the failing auto company. E.U. has strict controls on G.M. crops, lest the golden rice escape the fields and end up in your lawn, which apartment dwelling Europeans don’t have.)

  91. VG says:

    Just for the record as a skeptic again prepared to admit that La Nina does not appear to be proceeding as I ascertained previously so me wrong. Not like most warmist who do not concede. LOL

  92. Peter Taylor says:

    The basic engine of the predictive models are all the same – they assume a ‘gain’ factor for the carbon-water vapour equation of 300% which is unproven (Richard Lindzen’s original objection to the model). These models were then ‘validated’ by Afact they replicated the dip from 1945-1978 using assumptions about man-made aerosol pollution – since proven incorrect (a raft of papers in Science in 2005 and finally IPCC endorsement that the ‘dip’ was not man-made and original attribution to pollution was unsound – the data was biased by northern land measurements). Then the models were further ‘validated’ by replicating the build up of heat in the upper ocean – where 84% of ‘global warming’ is stored. But then in 2006-2008 several reassessments of the upper ocean heat content revised that heat store downward by 200%!

    The models have yet to catch up with these revisions! They validated themselves by predicting the past – but the past was illusory and so then are the models.

  93. Trevor says:

    Anthony- Slightly OT but thought this may be useful

    I was doing some study on what makes people have expertise or be skilful within a domain of knowledge.

    Came across this link at the US CIA in a monograph. Some very interesting ideas.

    https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/books-and-monographs/analytic-culture-in-the-u-s-intelligence-community/chapter_5_methodologists.htm

    Under the “Paradox of Expertise” was this quote:

    “The strengths of expertise can also be weaknesses.[15] Although one would expect experts to be good forecasters, they are not particularly good at it. Researchers have been testing the ability of experts to make forecasts since the 1930s.[16] The performance of experts has been tested against Bayesian probabilities to determine if they are better at making predictions than simple statistical models. Seventy years later, after more than 200 hundred experiments in different domains, it is clear that the answer is no.[17] Supplied with an equal amount of data about a particular case, Bayesian probability data are as good as, or better than, an expert at making calls about the future. In fact, the expert does not tend to outperform the actuarial table, even if given more specific case information than is available to the statistical model.[18]”

    Immediately thought of Hansen et al with the notions of “Pattern” and “Heuristic” biases within experts who are key forecasters. The inter-disciplinary fields of contributors to this blog could well be argued to give a more balanced approach to a complex inter-disciplinary field such as Climate Studies than does the views of a single “expert” from a narrow specialisation.

    Worth reading the article as it implies to me that the CIA suggest that forecasting in any field of knowledge is fraught with danger when the so called experts in a narrow field of that expertise are doing the forecasting.

  94. R Campbell says:

    Obama, you’re FIRED!!!

    If it could only be that easy….

  95. Roger says:

    I would bet Al Gore is hopping mad – He said this was going to happen in 5 years, not 1000. Damn, how “inconvenient”.

  96. cohenite says:

    Harold Pierce Jr; that link to Universal Industrial Gases Inc doesn’t appear to be working; could you repost?

  97. Bill says:

    I one used “it is well known” in an undergrad paper and my prof returned marked up in red saying “How” “Prove it”… her prof must not have been as good as mine…

  98. Katherine says:

    Chris Schoneveld wrote:

    I stick to what Engelbeen says on the subject:

    http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/co2_measurements.html
    One of his remarks:

    “if we should stop all CO2 emissions today, then the increase of 100 ppmv since the start of the industrial revolution would be reduced to 50 ppmv after some 40 years, further to 25 ppmv after 80 years and 12.5 ppmv after 120 years…”

    So…? You still haven’t established why it would be desirable to stop CO2 emissions. Higher CO2 levels haven’t been proven to cause higher temperatures; however, they have been shown to improve crop production at levels of up to 1000ppm.

    If climate change is irreversible and 1000ppm is expected to raise sea levels by less than one inch per decade (to be more specific, 0.768 inch or 1.95cm), what’s the big deal?

  99. Pierre Gosselin says:

    Steve Berry,
    What’s wrong with you?
    Of course it’s true!
    The BBC says so, damn it!
    You ought to know better than to question them. Really!

  100. Wilson Flood says:

    Of course “some” carbon dioxide emitted by humans remains in the atmosphere for thousands of years. That is just basic physical chemistry gas state theory. As a piece of science though, nobody should be allowed to get away with “some”. Examiner’s comment – be precise, state percentage.

  101. Nick Yates says:

    This off topic, but here is more serious damage being caused by the rush to biofuel.

    http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24967830-11949,00.html

  102. Pierre Gosselin says:

    Seve Berry:
    http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.365.south.jpg
    Looks pretty darn normal to me.
    The BBC’s report is based on stupid computer models that say that Antarctic is going to cool, but yet get warm. It’s saying the penguins are gonna die if the ice melts.

    And if it doesn’t rain for the entire summer, crops will die too. Aint that something!

  103. Rhys Jaggar, good comment.

    Despite JP’s “no peer-review” nonsense, Prof Segalstad has done some ****** good work on CO2 lifetime, and on the ***** IPCC line on this. He quotes 35 studies and says Judged from the data of Table 2 there is apparently very little disagreement from early works to later works regardless of measurement method, that the atmospheric CO2 lifetime is quite short, near 5 years. This fact was also acknowledged early by IPCC’s chairman Bolin (Bolin & Eriksson, 1959).

    Engelbeen thinks the CO2 rise IS due to our output but has no warming effect; OTOH many here think the CO2 rise is, say, the oceans still warming and outgassing as Akasofu suggests and Segalstad’s studies imply. People behind desks seldom stop to consider the AWESOME power of the oceans to store heat and moderate it and circulate CO2. Read my primer (refs to Segalstad there) and page on CO2.

    Another plug for a skeptics’ wiki – it would be so nice to have a place where Segalstad and Engelbeen are explained, with pics, so we have a skeptics’ gold standard with which to counter the repetitive challenges that refer back to their leaden info standards, RealClimate, Gristmill, New Scientist, etc, as if they are valid. I’d start it but don’t have the time right now. But I’m sure THAT would be a real gift to the future.

  104. Pierre Gosselin says:

    For Gore’s end of world sermon tomorrow, freezing rain and sleet are in the forecast for DC, with winter storm warnings over much of the upper midwest and northeast.

  105. Bill Illis says:

    It seems clear now that the climate modellers have gone back to their old position, that the deep oceans will absorb some of the global warming (half or so) and it will stay in the deep oceans for more than a thousand years (perhaps Susan Solomon is talking about the impact of CO2 rather than CO2 itself).

    That means we do not reach +3.0C by 2100, we only reach +1.8C or so and it takes another 1,000 years before we get to the +3.0C. That is more-or-less what Hansen’s newest presentation says as well.

    I don’t agree with this, it seems CO2 needs to warm both the atmosphere and the deep oceans so we don’t ever get +3.0C, we only get to +1.8C at which point both the deep ocean and the atmosphere reach equilibrium.

    The climate modellers were more-or-less assuming lately, the deep oceans were isolated from the surface and all the global warming would go into the atmosphere and the surface layers of the ocean.

    The temperature rise to date is forcing them back to the earlier theory, that the deep ocean requires more than 1 thousand years to warm up ( just 1C or so) equivalent to the surface rise. The deep ocean absorption just means there will be less warming at the surface.

    And it is illogical for global warming to dry out the planet and cause all these droughts. Relative Humidity has to stay broadly constant for the warming numbers to get to +3.0C and if relative humidity stays broadly constant, then so will rainfall.

    If there are more droughts, then there will not be as much global warming. the warmings seem to just ignore the basic logic required for their theories to work. There is nothing but inconsistencies in all these propositions.

    Plants and oceans are absorbing more than half of our CO2 emissions currently (2 ppm (4 GTs) of our 4 ppm emissions(8.0 GTS). If CO2 emissions stopped and plants and oceans continued absorbing at these rates, it will just take 70 years to return CO2 to its pre-industrial level.

  106. Robert Doyle says:

    The proposal, that CO2 remains for 1,000 years should be evident in the
    underlying data and graph of CO2. The graph seems linear, and not a function of compounded accumulation.

  107. Alan Chappell says:

    Thank you ALL !
    having spent $1,400,000 of my families money with a psychiatrist these last 20 years trying to solve my problem of impersonating Plato, I now know it is the Co2 that he exhaled that is in my system.
    Anybody reading this want to swap Plato Co2 for some of Jules Vern’s ? That’s what Susan Solomon’s got and I want some!
    (those that are to smart to go into politics are ruled by idiots) (Plato 426 BC )

  108. Bernie says:

    “Ideas about taking the carbon dioxide away after the world puts it in have been proposed, but right now those are very speculative,” said Solomon.

    In other words, my pronouncements of what will happen over a 1000 years is science and not speculation, but your pronouncements about how the consequences of my science can be alleviated are speculations. Hubris anyone?

    Never mind CO2 sequestration, does anyone really think that we could not “engineeer” as much desalinated water as we need over the next 1000 years and pump it into existing acquifers?

  109. Non-Mensa Tom n Florida says:

    Questions: Are CO2 molecules that are originally emitted by human activity and then absorbed into the oceans only to reemerge back into the atmosphere later (perhaps many times over) being counted as the same molecule and part of this 1000 year life cycle? Or are they referring to a molecule that actually floats around in the atmosphere that long?

  110. JimB says:

    “For an additional amount for ‘‘Science’’, $400,000,000, of which not less than $250,000,000 shall be solely for accelerating the development of the tier 1 set of Earth science climate research missions recommended by the National Academies Decadal Survey. ”

    Never thought it would be appropriate here, but I’ve gotta say…That takes a lotta NADS 8)

    JimB

  111. Karen Sundstrom says:

    This makes me sick. Is there anything we can do to stop this farce from going any farther? Or all we all doomed to suffer through bad science that they figure out ways to skirt the system. By putting a thousand years in this report it takes them off the hook to having to prove what they are saying is correct.

    Will the cooling trend we all now is happening help stop this lunacy?

  112. John Philip says:

    Demesure:

    Contrary to your claims, there has been no “analytical approach”, no experimental data to give the “CO2 lifetime” in the links above.
    Only calculations from model. And handwaving.

    As I said the idea of a ‘CO2 lifetime’ is ill-defined and largely irrelevant to the problem. There is in fact a wealth of experimental data to support the models used. For example, the first paper’s projection is based on an analytical approach using the the carbon cycle model presented by Joos et al in this paper.

    An efficient and accurate representation of complex oceanic and biospheric models of anthropogenic carbon uptake

    And the models concerned have been extensively backtested against 150 years of CO2 concentration observations, to name just one output.

    See http://www.bgc.mpg.de/~martin.heimann/projects/CCMLP/CCMLP_GAIM_2000.pdf

    and references contained therein.
    Of course any projection a millenium into the future must be model based, in this case the models used have been validated against experimental data, contrary to your assertion. Unless, of course, you question the validity of the Bern carbon cycle itself, which would put you in a distinct minority; this is pretty uncontroversial stuff.

    cheers,

    JP

  113. Allan M R MacRae says:

    Re comments above on CO2:

    See this beautiful animation of atmospheric CO2 seasonal increase and decrease at

    http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a000000/a003500/a003562/carbonDioxideSequence2002_2008_at15fps.mp4

    It is difficult to see the impact of humanity in this impressive display of nature’s power.

    Regards, Allan

  114. Bruce Cobb says:

    Actually, what this study shows very clearly is that once on the path of government-funded pseudo-science there is no turning back. The garbage these so-called “scientists” turn out reeks to high heaven, and yet the politicians and the MSM will gobble it with gusto, as if it were the finest French cuisine. The damage they do to science, and ultimately to humanity will be severe, and largely irreversible.

  115. Tom says:

    If climate change is irreversible, doesn’t that mean we would better spend our money on sensible adaptations rather than economic poison pills intended to reduce carbon output?

  116. Chris Schoneveld says:

    Katherine (04:29:44) :
    “So…? You still haven’t established why it would be desirable to stop CO2 emissions. Higher CO2 levels haven’t been proven to cause higher temperatures; however, they have been shown to improve crop production at levels of up to 1000ppm.”

    I agree totally with you, Katherine. If you read Engelbeen you will appreciate my point, since he also sees no obvious or alarming relationship between CO2 increase and global warming. I just posted this to show that the 1000 year influence is an exaggeration.

  117. Stefan says:

    Extra computing power may, perhaps, make it harder to produce consistent model results.

  118. JimB says:

    Rhys:
    “There was less detail about carbon dioxide.

    Overall, as a citizen of the world, I’d say he’s on the right track and hence it may be that he’s palming off the climate modellers for a while whilst he gets his Presidential ducks in a row. ”

    I think that supposition is based on you not getting the level of details that we get here.
    He just signed legislation that gives each individual state the power to regulate vehicle emissions due to C02 being a pollutant.
    We’ve been through a small part of this before, when you couldn’t buy the same car in California that you could buy in Arizona or Massachusetts. Manufacturers were forced into making separate models just for california.
    Now, at the extreme, we could have 50 different model requirements.

    As a citizen in the U.S. who reads news items constantly, I see no let up in the pounding of the C02 drum at all, in fact, I believe it’s intensifying.

    JimB

  119. Don Shaw says:

    Am I missing something? What has happened to the data from the ARGOS buoys? I haven’t seen anything since last March. Is the government holding back data until they get it adjusted to show warming?

    This is last report I have seen:

    http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=291423153272209

  120. philincalifornia says:

    I wonder if every carbon atom on the planet has been in the atmosphere at some point ?? Half-life of 4 Billion years and still counting, eh ?? Do I win a prize ??

    For the purportedly relevant stuff, i.e. that which is in the atmosphere now, it looks to me, by eyeballing the downslopes on the seasonal Mauna Loa curves on Wikipedia, that the sub-10 year half-life estimates would be the most appropriate in the actual real world. Is the real world relevant ??

  121. Harold Pierce Jr says:

    ATTN: cohenite

    The link is http://www.uigi.com/air.html

    Didn’t you notice that there was only 2 w’s?

  122. realitycheck says:

    Trevor:

    Interesting find. Reminds me a little of “The Wisdom of Crowds” by James Surowiecki (which everyone should read). The collective power of a group of non-experts far outways the skill of any “expert”.

  123. realitycheck says:

    I’d also suggest every “expert” should read the following before forcing more AGW fiction down our throats

    http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/taleb08/taleb08_index.html

  124. Ed Reid says:

    I am amazed that nobody has yet commented on the implications of anthropogenic carbon emissions being “stopped”.

    Once we and our animals are all gone, who but Mother Gaia would care?

    I wonder how long a period of Darwinian evolution would be required for politicians and political “scientists” to evolve again. Regardless, I would be beyond caring by that time.

  125. Wondering Aloud says:

    So… the climate changes that clearly are not happening are irreversible. Wow isn’t that a horrible prospect!

  126. Wondering Aloud says:

    Two comments on the discussion. My current heating bill says this year we averaged 11 degrees colder than last. Last year was the coldest in 3 decades. This global warming is sure scarry.

    Second, leave Mensa out of this, the ability to do well on a test has little to do with anything. (Though it sure made getting high scores in the humanities requirements mighty easy)

  127. John W. says:

    This sure as **** isn’t science!

    My first reaction was that this must be a promo for one of those crummy made for SciFi channel disaster flicks.

    Then I realized, it’s old fashioned, garden variety Millenarianism. (See wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millenarianism)

  128. Look at this: http://www.independent.org/blog/?p=1041. Only recession will save the planet from AGW´rs?

  129. Bruce Cobb says:

    Joe (21:45:14) :

    I don’t see much here to refute the claims in Solomon’s paper, especially given that the lifetime of CO2 in the atmosphere is hundreds or thousands of years. What’s your counter argument? And, please, some facts instead of vague conspiracy theories.

    Well, Joe, you are probably just a one-hit AGW troll, as most are, but in case not, try The Lynching of Carbon Dioxide -
    The Innocent Source of Life

    You AGWers never seem to tire of the “conspiracy theories” straw man, do you, even though all it does is make you sound retarded.

  130. Fortunately, in the long run, real science has been made always by intelligent individuals like you, not by any government institution. Real progress is made by individuals not by herds of well fed employees.

  131. Demesure says:

    John Philip (05:15:46) : “As I said the idea of a ‘CO2 lifetime’ is ill-defined and largely irrelevant to the problem. There is in fact a wealth of experimental data to support the models used. For example, the first paper’s projection is based on an analytical approach using the the carbon cycle model presented by Joos et al in this paper.”

    The “CO2 lifetime” is irrelevant (and must I remind you, UNDEFINED, contrary to the scientific notion of half life time) but it has not prevented “consensus” scientist to largely misuse it to make wide media headlines.

    And again, your claim that “there is a wealth of experimental data to support CO2 models” is unsustanciated. The Joos et al paper you showed said precisely that ! And what Joos has done is to trade others’ speculations and unvalidated models for HIS speculations and unvalidated model.
    Take a very simple example : can you show me where are the data to determine the oceanic/terrestrial CO2 fluxes fractions ? No you can’t.

    Scientist still don’t know the whereabouts of 40% of human emissions after decades of research, what is pudically called the “missing sink” in IPCC parlance (google or search for it in the IPCC’s AR4 WG1 report). So how can you hint that CO2 cycle models are “supported” ? It’s unsupported !

  132. BobW in NC says:

    I love nature’s irony. From Drudge…

    GORE HEARING ON WARMING MAY BE PUT ON ICE
    Mon Jan 26 2009 17:59:26 ET
    http://www.drudgereport.com/flashghi.htm

  133. Hank says:

    Talk about, uncertainty piled on top of uncertainty.

    “the authors find that the irreversible global average sea level rise by the year 3000 would be at least 1.3–3.2 feet (0.4–1.0 meter) if CO2 peaks at 600 parts per million”

    Shouldn’t that just be …….. at least 1.3 feet?

    Putting this information in more relevant terms that’s 1/2 to 1 meter in 33 generations. 33 generations should be plenty of time to adapt. This study is good news.

  134. Ray Reynolds says:

    OT but a more likely glimpse of the future.

    http://www.wnem.com/news/18566890/detail.html

  135. JP says:

    Of the $850 billion Stimulus, only $80 billion is actually going to things that could “stimulate” the economy. Of the $80 billion slated for roads, bridges, underpasses, etc… less than 3% will be spent in fiscal year 2009. So much for the “$350 billion in shovel ready” projects. BTW, the states have yet to go through the $250 billion 2006 Transportation Bill money. Of the remaining $82 billion in stimulus, only 19% will be slated for expendture in FY 2010.

    So, where is the remainder of the $850 billion going? Hard to tell, as not even the House Committe Chairmen are given headsup. Most of the details are in House Speaker Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Reid’s offices. Occaisonally details do come out ($140 million for Climate Modelers, $750 million for birth control).

    I would like to know how Pelosi’s office came up with the $140 million number? Why not go for broke and ask for $1 billion? Anthony, have you petioned your Congressman (or woman) for some of the stimulus? Your work is important, and it does benefit the work on “Climate Change”. How about asking for $5 million to cover the costs of a full audit. You can hire an assistant from that amount and point that this money would go towards positive job creation.

  136. Suzanne Morstad says:

    Solomn’s paper is just another example of “thought experiments” and modeling substituting for science. When is the bulk of the scientific community going to catch on that the climate models are the hypothesis and are worthless unless validated by real world data. Harold, I’ve found that most climatologists are quietly examining packrat middens, lake varves, ocean sediments and ice cores as well as looking at a multitude of historical records. It is only a small, and very vocal, group of climate modelers who call themselves climatologists that are coming up with the scenario of climate catastrophe with their models. Every time I read a paper by people like Solomn, Mann or Hanson, I am struck by their complete ignorance of the basic biology and chemistry behind climate proxies. The modelers work usually ignores the real record of the past and what meterologists have learned about how climate works through over a hundred years of careful observation. It is amazing to me how a blind activist like Michael Mann can tweak his computers and get more attention than the entire body of work of the “Father of Modern Climatology”-Reid Bryson.

  137. superDBA says:

    ‘I guess if it’s irreversible, to me it seems all the more reason you might want to do something about it,” she says. “Because committing to something that you can’t back out of seems to me like a step that you’d want to take even more carefully than something you thought you could reverse.’”

    Whaaaa? POP! Excuse me, that was my head imploding.

    If that is the kind of common sense that makes it’s way through our universities to achieve advanced degrees, then I’m glad I didn’t finish the sheepskin and went and “did” instead of talking in circles with other idiots.

  138. paminator says:

    John Philip- you say “And the models concerned have been extensively backtested against 150 years of CO2 concentration observations, to name just one output.”

    The only CO2 concentration observations I am aware of that covers a 150 year time-frame are the peer-reviewed publications summarized in Ernst Beck’s recent paper. As we all know, the ice core CO2 measurements are woefully inadequate to provide useful CO2 measurements before 1957 or so, when systematic CO2 measurements began to be taken.

    As far as the atmospheric lifetime of CO2, the half-life or 1/e life has been measured at 5-7 years back in the 1950′s thru 1970′s. Beyond that, the *lifetime* definition for CO2 has been altered to include cycling through the biosphere. However, this definition should also be applied to other atmospheric gases. For example, the 1/e lifetime of water vapor is reported to be a few days. But, when including biosphere cycling, the *lifetime* of water vapor is almost infinite, thanks to our immense liquid oceans.

  139. Steve M. says:

    “If CO2 is allowed to peak at 450-600 parts per million, the results would include persistent decreases in dry-season rainfall that are comparable to the 1930s North American Dust Bowl”

    wait, we had a dust bowl before CO2 peaked at 450-600 PPM????

  140. Ken Hall says:

    “The ocean is their last stab at countering the current cooling. Where did all the heating go after 2000? Into the ocean of course, or thats what the models say.”

    Except that the argo deep sea probes are showing a definite cooling of the oceans…Hmmm I guess that means the heat is going into the atmosphere? No? Oh well, perhaps Hansen’s team can “influence the nature of the measurements” or Mann can “devise a new statistical technique that uses data from Argo to make a new estimate of temperature trends”

    Then AGW will be back on track and large IPCC supported grant money will be flowing again.

    Oh and what about the poor emperor penguins? Apparently global warming means that lack of sea ice is threatening them, but I would claim the opposite. The current record ice extents mean that females will have even further to walk in the winter to get to the sea to bulk up on food for their young. Too much ice will wipe them out.

  141. hotrod says:

    Harold Pierce Jr; that link to Universal Industrial Gases Inc doesn’t appear to be working; could you repost?

    There is a typo in the URL add one more W so it starts as www. instead of ww.

    http://ww.uigi.com/air.html —> http://www.uigi.com/air.html.

    Larry

  142. Sam says:

    Let’s take NOAA News at face value: If CO2 and heat transfer keep temps constant(?) for m yrs, then how can you forecast future expansion of ocean waters by warming? Surprisingly, the est. rise of sea level in this report is but half the current trend. No mention was made of “global warming”, only the (implied direct) action of CO2. I sense a “new spin”, since “warming” is fast losing its appeal or validity. CO2 is about the only climate indicator expanding. All the rest appear to be in a negative mode at the present. Oh yes, I forgot that Antarctica has warmed to negative 50 deg.

  143. David Snyder says:

    http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/

    BOE estimate
    Mauna Loa data suggests that at 390 ppm, CO2 concentration falls about 5 ppm during the each annual cycle (i.e. 1/2 year) This suggests it woulds fall by half in about 40 years, & I think thats a maximum. This is much closer to Dyson 12 yrs than the IPCC’s thousands of years.

  144. Retired Engineer says:

    There could be a benefit to the recession. In the EU, ‘carbon credit’ prices have dropped from 30 euros per ton to 10, causing many carbon reduction projects to be delayed or cancelled.

    And algore could go broke. (wishful thinking…)

  145. John McDonald says:

    Slightly off topic: Anyone interested in starting a line of “Global Warming” winter wear with 5% of all proceeds going to AGW research aka WUWT? (think Columbia or REI) ;-)

    I’d love to buy a jacket or two

  146. Rhys Jaggar says:

    JimB

    Thanks for your informative and enlightening comments re seeohtwo.

    Taken on board.

    Rhys

  147. Simon Evans says:

    Bruce Cobb (06:42:35)

    I’ve looked at the Hertzberg document you’ve linked to above, viz. http://carbon-sense.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/hertzberg.pdf.

    It contains a graph headed “Accepted early global temperature reconstruction” which it attributes to the IPCC 1990.

    This graph is reminiscent of Figure 7c from IPCC 1990, however: i) the y-axis has been reworked, so that Hertzberg’s graph suggest a variation of c.1.6C from MWP to LIA, whereas the IPCC 7c suggests c. 0.7C. Hertberg has rescaled the graph to more than double the original’s range; ii) 7C ends at 1950, with the final 50 year period being entirely different; iii) 7C ‘s y axis is labeled ‘temperature change’, not ‘temperature deviation from average’; iv) 7C is described as a schematic diagram, not a global temperature reconstruction.

    Hertzberg labels his graph: “Source: IPCC 1990. Since adjusted.” It appears to have been adjusted by him!

    The genesis of the IPCC’s 7c graph is not made clear in the FAR, however Steve McIntyre attributes it to Lamb’s 1965 graphing of the Central England Temperature record (the IPCC figure 7c can be seen from this link too):

    http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3072

    Rather obviously, the record of temperature in Central England is a limited proxy for global temperature.

    Hertzberg might be excused for being unaware of the source of figure 7c, though he shows some chutzpah in describing it as an “accepted early global temperature reconstruction” if he is actually ignorant of how it was derived. I am not, however, inclined to find his fabrication of the graph which he attributes to the IPCC as being excusable, especially in that part of his document where he is discussing his accusation of “egregious fabrication” on the part of others.

  148. Ed Reid says:

    John McDonald,

    I’d like to order a 2XL in “Ice Blue”. Would they be Gore-tex?

  149. tarpon says:

    And just when you thought it was irreversible, it reverses.

  150. Jeff Alberts says:

    What shall we call this new climate modeling computer system?
    Backpeddler?

    Lol, that’s a good one!

    Or The Grant Generator!

  151. Ken Hall says:

    Malcolm (01:38:51) : Doesnt anyone do proper science anymore?

    Not if they want to get published, or keep their grants, they don’t!

  152. Jeff Alberts says:

    After all, he’s got Iraq, Guantanamo, Afghanistan, Gaza and Wall Street in his in-tray right now.

    He needs to ignore Gaza. No amount of fiddling is going to change what’s going on there.

  153. Smokey says:

    Warmists are generally big government types who do not want the fake problem they created to be solved: click

  154. Ed Scott says:

    More evidence of the demise of objective scientic research and the establishment of subjective politically motivated speculative science “worshipping” at the output of the quasi-god, the computer, bringing truth to the saying: Educated beyond their intelligence.

  155. Robert Bateman says:

    Doesn’t anyone do proper science anymore?
    That requires that one’s interest is indeed science related.
    Just let them continue make this stuff up as they go along.
    They will get voted off the planet along with thier 1,000 yr CO2 mummification projections leading to global barbecueing that is preceeded today by global freezing. Here, hold this paper for a 1,000 yrs while I jet off to the tropical paradise to escape the Ice Sheet. Thanks for the $140M.

  156. Bobby Lane says:

    3 feet of sea level rise over 1000 years. oh! whatever shall we do? meanwhile, it’s getting colder in Antarctica and even around the Arctic too. I hear snow is expected in DC where Mssr. Climate Change himself, Al Gore, is to be speaking before Congress.

  157. John V says:

    We’re never gonna get transparent aluminum are we?

  158. George E. Smith says:

    Read the fine print. The original report I saw did NOT say that the taxpayers were putting up $140M for the climate modelers.

    The money is specifically for “climate data modeling”.

    Climate modeling is old hat; so now they are going to make up the data as well.

    George

  159. George E. Smith says:

    I should add that the $140M is aimed at getting employment for unemployed climate modellers; as in create jobs; you know economic stimulus.

    Dr Roy Spencer says he is not aware of the existence of even one climate modeler; well one with any credentials in climate modeling. But since the USA legally imports 180,000 new legal immigrants EVERY MONTH, not to mention those who come uninvited; then that means we need to find at least 180,000 new jobs every month. Why not climate modeling, since many of these new immigrnats come from countries with good computer schools.

    As for Joe’s question: The very well known Mauna Loa CO2 data shows clearly that in that region, the natural processes remove 6-7 ppm of CO2 in just 4 months out of each year. The less well known pole to pole version of that NOAA data shows that at the north pole the amount removed in just four months, is 18 ppm.
    Assuming an exponential decay, that initial rate indicates that the time constant for a return to 280 ppm or removal of 100 ppm would be 5 1/2 times that 4 months or 22 months, and taking five time constants to decay 99% of the way (to just 1% residual) would be 110 months or about 9 years. It would only be a bit over five years to decay 95% in three time constants.

    And tell us once again how the atmosphere identifies a (typical) man made CO2 molecule, including the ones WE breathe out, from a typical one that comes from a rose bush. I believe I said a typical one; not a marked card.

    George

  160. George E. Smith says:

    Excuse my hiccup; that is one UNEMPLOYED climate modeler, that Spencer says doesn’t exist.

    So anybody lacking a job who wants to do some climate modeling; now’s your chance.

  161. D. C. says:

    Thank God there is CO2 in the atmosphere as there always has been. I would hate to think of the consequences if it was totally removed as the Climate Change pundits advocate. I’m thinking of mass starvation as plant life would disappear without CO2.

  162. John Galt says:

    If it’s irreversible, why worry? Let’s party like it’s 1999!

  163. Smokey says:

    The government is shoveling our money to the wrong people: click

  164. Neo says:

    If, for a moment, we assume this report to be completely factual, we are left with 2 possible courses of action ..

    1) spend the wealth of nations to roll it back the tiniest fraction
    2) put the proverbial gun to our collective heads and “party like is 1999.”

    … any possible 3rd way is wasteful (so is the 1st)

  165. JimB says:

    “Jeff Alberts (08:57:29) :

    After all, he’s got Iraq, Guantanamo, Afghanistan, Gaza and Wall Street in his in-tray right now.

    He needs to ignore Gaza. No amount of fiddling is going to change what’s going on there.”

    I’d rather he fiddle with Gaza than C02, which isn’t going to change what’s going on there, either.

    “George,
    George E. Smith (09:50:56) :

    Excuse my hiccup; that is one UNEMPLOYED climate modeler, that Spencer says doesn’t exist.”

    No need for the correction…the statement works without it.

    JimB

  166. Jack Wedel says:

    An interesting news item on Canada’s CBC page which describes the sad situation of a cruise ship (300 passengers) and the rescue ‘Terry Fox’ ice breaker getting stuck in an ‘unprededented’ ice pack in the Gulf of St. Lawrence. Oh, for the wisdom of Solomon to explain such departures from the ‘irreversible’ CO2-induced global warming.

  167. Fernando says:

    Sorry:
    NASA/GISS…..?????…which is salary of Dr Hansen?

  168. Tamara says:

    “The pioneering study, led by NOAA senior scientist Susan Solomon, shows how changes in surface temperature, rainfall, and sea level are largely irreversible for more than 1,000 years after carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions are completely stopped.”

    I’ll do her one better. I’ll say those changes are largely irreversible for millions of years. These people are simply searching for a way to clothe any variation in the garb of AGW. How are these ridiculous statements tested? I feel it is time to completely stop emitting CO2. ……….lungs burning………….room growing dark…………

  169. edcon says:

    We need to see someone imitating Susan Solomon on Saturday Night Live with a molecule net trying to capture one of those millennium old CO2 molecules.

  170. Neo says:

    Isn’t this a case of seeing the CO2 800 year lag, upping it to 1000 years like any good government employee, and then misinterpreting it ?

  171. John Galt says:

    Has there ever been any permanent climate change? That is, did the climate change and stay that way indefinitely?

    First we’re told that CO2 drives climate change. Then when we look at the ice core data, we find that increased atmospheric CO2 lags temperature increase by hundreds of years. Then we’re told that since CO2 is a greenhouse gas, it must be contributing to climate change. (Doesn’t that negate the first point? Is it causing climate change or contributing to it?) Then we ask if CO2 keeps rising, how come we still had ice ages? Why hasn’t the planet ever heated up and stay heated up? Why have we never before seen a runaway greenhouse effect?

    An even better question — if the ice core data shows CO2 increases always follow warming, isn’t that most likely what we experienced last century? Natural global warming followed by natural increases of atmospheric CO2? If we use past climate as a model, won’t CO2 continue to increase for some time after global cooling kicks in?

    Here is something we can all bank on. It’s going to warm up, then it’s going to cool again (this is probably already happening). Then it’s going to warm up again, followed by cooling. Repeat endlessly. CO2 has nothing to do with it.

  172. About Dr. Solomon

    2 year ago I was watching the IPCC press conference from Paris, the one in which they said that most of the global warming during last 50 years was caused by human activities as unequivocal.
    I was watching from BBC’s Internet web site the whole press conference live in order to better understand their arguments.

    At one time during the press conference dr Solomon lined over toward Pachauri and whisper to him if they should mention anything about the cooling of ocean water near Antarctica. He then answered her that he thinks they should not. Apparently they believed that they could not be heard over the microphones. They were wrong.

    I was absolutely baffled when I heard that.
    So much for scientific objectivity and openness.
    Of course that is not what this is about. It is all about agenda driven subjective activism, not about science.

    I saw that you are discussing the lifetime of co2 in the atmosphere.
    Well, I checked the Mouna Loa CO2 graph.
    Each year the seasonal variation of CO2 is about 5 ppm and the current level is about 380 ppm. If you dived 380 by 5 you get about 75. That means that the average life time for co2 in the atmosphere can not be longer than 75 years.
    It can be lower if you account for absorption from the oceans and also the biosphere in the southern hemisphere.
    With my approximation I think the average life time should be about 50 years for co2 in the atmosphere.

  173. George E. Smith says:

    “” JimB (10:19:44) :

    “George,
    George E. Smith (09:50:56) :

    Excuse my hiccup; that is one UNEMPLOYED climate modeler, that Spencer says doesn’t exist.” “”

    Well he’s employed; and likely more productively than doing climate modeling. Notice how much easier it is to get a job in climate modeling, if you don’t find anything wrong with the official doctrine.

  174. Before Gore Kneel says:

    Fair is fair. They can make claims, and I get to beat them with my wiffle ball bat for every failed prediction. Right now I am leaning towards a simple five wacks but I am willing to entertain proportionality. Suggestions?

    ps. this solution should be open to every one worldwide. For the sake of time and space considerations, and also to provide Solomon and friends a further opportunity to make more predictions I am willing to let someone stand in for me. But they ought to be made to come to some public place at least once a year….

  175. Mike T says:

    Well, it’s great all that money for modeling. Wouldn’t it be nice if the Administration could spare just a fraction of this to sort out all the surface stations which Anthony has worked so hard on – even add a few more around the world. We might then get some useful observations to check on how well this modeling money is spent!

  176. Lewis says:

    Removing carbon dioxide from the air to slow or reverse global warming is as ridiculous as removing oxygen from the air to minimize corrosion of metals.

  177. Fat Man says:

    I regard this as good news. Normal means ice ages and glaciers a mile thick over my house. I am now safe for a thousand years. Praise the LORD!

  178. Gary Hladik says:

    Moderately OT:

    I assume this is the same Susan Solomon who wrote “The Coldest March”, an attempt to show that Captain Robert Falcon Scott’s party was done in by freakishly cold weather on the way back from the South Pole. Solomon’s name caught my eye because I’m currently re-reading Roland Huntford’s earlier “The Last Place on Earth”, which takes a somewhat different view.

  179. George E. Smith says:

    I was thinking over this climate modeling, as it relates to evaporation/water vapor/precipitation.
    I mentioned two pivotal papers (IMHO) the Jan 1 2001 Geophysical Research Letters paper by John Christy et al from UAH and also Hadley Centre; the crux of which was that oceanic near surface water and air temperatures are not correlated, and that for the regions and times of the study the air temp warming was measured at about 60% of the water temp warming. That in itself is interesting, but remember they aren’t correlated swo you cannot recover one set of data from the other. Specifically, you cannot reconstruct oceanic (and therefore global) lower troposphere temperatures, which weren’t measured form random depth water temperatures which historically were measured; so prior to about 1997/80 the global temperature record is essentially flying blind, and worthless to compare against recent history.

    The second paper was the Wentz et al form SCIENCE July 2007, that measured evaporation, atmospheric water, and precipitation all increased at a rate of 7% per deg C of surface temp warming ( they didn’t have a whole degree of warming during the study). The GCMs agree with the 7%K^-1 for total atmospheric water, but claim only 1-3%K^-1 for evaporation and precipitation; which yes they do say match.

    Now if you think back to the classroom demonstration of evaporation placing some water under a glass (beaker). The more energetic molecules of the molecular energy distribution, escape from the surface into the air, increasing the humidity. then some water molecules fromt he air shoot back into the water, until a dynamic equilibrium is established with the same number of molecules exiting, and entering the water. There are essentially no current in the vessel,a nd the air and water temperatures eventually reach equilibrium, and you have saturated water vapor pressure 1005 relative humidity, and in fact since you have the glass wall surfaces for water to condense on, you aslow get a constant precipitation of water which forms droplets on the surface.

    Now that in general does not occur out in the wild. I have never been in a tropical Rain Forest; but I have been in the Washington State Olympic National Forest which is a rain forest, and basicvally got rained on from forest generated moisture (not external rain); and I have been in some hot tropical high humidity regions, like the Florida Keys.

    But mostly during daylight hours, it isn’t always 100% relative humidity, and it isn’t usually recondensing since there aren’t a lot of cold surfaces to condense on.

    So we have in the oceans, water warmed by the sun and the atmosphere which creates evaporation purely as a function of water surface temperature exactly as happens under glass.. but without the glass, the humidity isn’t 100%, so the evaporation rate is not limited by the water content of the atmosphere nor by its temperature away from the surface. The air is capable of holding more moisture, and it moves moisture away from the surface by convection so saturation doesn’t occur (generally).

    So it seems to me, that under these conditions, the rate limitation of evaporation is set by water temperature, and not by air temperature.

    The warm air rises, and moves off elsewhere, and eventually, it does reach 100% relative humidity at some cooler temperature at higher altitude, and if nucleation sites are available then droplets, and clouds can form, and eventually the water in the clouds gets dense enough for precipitation to occur. And the total water in the atmosphere rises till the precipitation equals the evaporation; but the total water level is a function of the atmospheric temperatures; at least the atmopsheric water capacity is; and it doesn’t depend on the water temperatures. All the water temperature decides is how fast the atmospheric total water can be raised to the stable level.

    If water temperatures and air temperatures aren’t correlated,a nd they aren’t, the total water in the atmosphere would seem to be limited by the evaporation rate which depends on only the water temperature.

    All that the air temperatures dictate, is what the average relative humidity is going to be in the atmosphere. The warmer the atmosphere is, for a given water temperature, the lower the relative humidity is going to be; but the toal water content of the atmopshere would not change with atmospheric temperature; only the humidity changes.

    Now I admit, this is a lot of hand waving; scribbling with a stick in the sands on a desert island; sans Google to get data.

    But the upshot of my armchair “modeling” is that total evaporation, total atmospheric water content, and total global precipitation ought to al increase and decrease in lockstep; ata rate determined only by water surface temperatures, and independent of atmospheric air temperatures.

    And basically, this is what Wentz et al claimed from their actual satellite measurements; although they don’t give my rationale for why it must be so.

    So I don’t understand what could possibly be the assumptions of the GCMs that can lead to the atmopsheric total water content increasing at seven times the rate of evaporation/precipitation increase.

    It would seem that they must be assuming that just because the warmer air is CAPABLE of holding more water, that it must do so; essentially arguing that the humidity either doesn’t change, or it changes in such a way that the total water content increases 2.3 to 7 times faster than the warmer waters can supply it.

    Well my model must be limited by what I can scribe in the beach sands; but maybe somebody out there can explain the error of my ways; well they wouold also have to prove Wentz et al are wrong since my seat of the pants thesis agrees with their results.

    George

  180. Smokey says:

    The penguins are not gonna take this globaloney any more: click

  181. Joseph says:

    Re:
    Don Shaw (05:56:04)
    Ken Hall (08:07:06)

    NASA has decided that some of the ARGO floats reported faulty data that requires “adjustment”. As it turns out, the ocean is warming after all, maybe. Don, you were right.

    http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/OceanCooling/

  182. Mike H. says:

    George E Smith, I’d like that job as a climate modeler. Does it come with cameras or do you have to own them? Also, do you have to stick with climate modeling or can you do runways too?

  183. Richard M says:

    George E. Smith (09:50:56) :

    “So anybody lacking a job who wants to do some climate modeling; now’s your chance.”

    Hey, I could use some extra money. Where do I report for the lobotomy?

  184. Corrinne Novak says:

    ‘I guess if it’s irreversible, to me it seems all the more reason you might want to do something about it,” she says. “Because committing to something that you can’t back out of seems to me like a step that you’d want to take even more carefully than something you thought you could reverse.’

    My interpretation is if it’s irreversible, it means it is a NATURAL cycle and MANKIND HAS NO IMPACT, so why are we giving China our hard earned dollars. They already own over 30% of the US debt.

    Garacka wrote: “Is there a law against Government employees publishing propaganda?”
    It should be but considering the proposed Carbon Tax diverts US tax money to foreign countries like China for the building of factories etc in direct competition to the USA perhaps this is more appropriate.

    THE LOGAN ACT
    The act is short and reads as follows:
    Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
    This section shall not abridge the right of a citizen to apply, himself or his agent, to any foreign government or the agents thereof for redress of any injury which he may have sustained from such government or any of its agents or subjects.
    http://law.jrank.org/pages/8357/Logan-Act.html

    Seems to me a person taking USA tax funds and using said funds to create lies in the interest of diverting US taxpayer funds to a foreign Nation based is a traitor to the USA.

    Also of interest to those of us against the further bankrupting of the USA.

    “This [Supreme] Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty.” – Reid v. Covert, October 1956, 354 U.S. 1, at pg 17. A treaty can be nullified by a statute passed by the U.S. Congress (or by a sovereign State or States if Congress refuses to do so), when the State deems the performance of a treaty is self-destructive. The law of self-preservation overrules the law of obligation in others.

    The Constitution authorizes the United States to enter into treaties with other Nations. The UN and the WTO are NOT nations. However a quick fix apparently took place in the U.S. Senate on March 19, 1970. According to the Anaheim (Cal) Bulletin, 4-20-1970, the Senate ratified a resolution recognizing the United Nations Organization as a sovereign nation.
    Here is the reason behind all the propaganda.
    “…There is no indication that American public opinion, for example, would approve the establishment of a super state, or permit American membership in it. In other words, time – a long time – will be needed before world government is politically feasible… This time element might seemingly be shortened so far as American opinion is concerned by an active propaganda campaign in this country…”
    Allen W. Dulles (cfr) from a UN booklet, Headline Series #59 (New York: The Foreign Policy Association., Sept.-Oct., 1946) pg 46.

    <a href="www.sweetliberty.org/issues/staterights/treaties.htm"sweet libertyt

    lawful gov

    http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/statesrights/treaties.htm

  185. George E. Smith says:

    “” Gary Hladik (12:25:48) :

    Moderately OT:

    I assume this is the same Susan Solomon who wrote “The Coldest March”, an attempt to show that Captain Robert Falcon Scott’s party was done in by freakishly cold weather on the way back from the South Pole. Solomon’s name caught my eye because I’m currently re-reading Roland Huntford’s earlier “The Last Place on Earth”, which takes a somewhat different view. “”

    Well there was some very cold weather to be sure; it can get down to -90C on the Antarctic plateau; there were also a lot of storms; which hap[pen all the time on that continent.

    Then there were some major errors like taking horses instead of sled dogs, as Roald Amundsen did. In the end it was sheer bad luck that stranded them in a storm close to One Ton Depot, and likely safety. Truly one of the great sagas with an unfortunate ending; but which inspired generations of british and Colonial people (including me).

    “To strive, to seek, to find; and not to yield . ” RFS

  186. John Galt says:

    Didn’t Mann use tree ring proxies for reconstructing past climate? In his research, Mann used growth to indicate warming, and slower tree growth for cooler temperatures? Does this mean Mann got everything backwards?

    Alert the IPCC!

  187. Oldjim says:

    Apologies if I missed this somewhere in the thread but this interview may be worth listening to http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=99888903

  188. John Galt says:


    Ric Werme (21:08:15) :

    evanjones (20:38:12) :

    It takes a high IQ to be that stupid and blind. I have often felt that so-called “superior” intelligence leads many (most) those who have it right off the intellectual cliff.

    I shudder to imagine a world where 160+ IQ types made all the decisions. Arrogance and lack of (and contempt for) common sense is a disastrous combination.

    Being a long time member of Mensa (thank whomever that there is no periodic retest), I’ve concluded that intelligence is the MSG of aptitudes. I.e. it lets you do more with the other aptitudes you have. If you don’t have any other aptitudes (I think “common sense” is one), you’re just a waste of carbon footprint.

    Mensa was originally founded to provide a resource for the British government to help solve all its problems. People quickly discovered that more than intelligence was required, but a lot of people had interests other than solving all the British government’s problems.

    BTW, I think a lot of people here would readily qualify for Mensa (Evan, for example). You’d be surprised at how average we are. :-)

    I can think of a few Mensans who’d make or are good leaders. They generally lack the patience for dealing with politics and have enough intelligence to not want the job….

    BTW, Icecap seems to take a dim view of this work too.

    That 1000 year forecast comes with a moneyback guarantee from NOAA. Too bad they don’t offer the same on their seasonal forecasts. the last two winters were forecast to be warm in Alaska and the lower 48 states. Susan can’t help but keep embarrassing herself first with her work on the ozone hole, then the IPCC AR4 report for which she was a Lead Author and now this.

    Ouch.

    My wife likes it when I take her to Mensa meetings. It makes her feel that I am much more normal. (I’ve been a Mensa member for 25 years.)

    High IQ is certainly no guarantee of horse sense or financial sense. Nor does it improve the “smell test” sense. Highly intelligent people are no better than anybody else when it comes to evaluating their closely-held beliefs with reality. Many suffer from the “Smart Guy Syndrome” — if only everybody did what they told them to, the world would be perfect. SGS suffers tend to have a lot of anger, too.

  189. ragingcaveman says:

    These children playing with their computer video game climate models are insane. They forget to think for themselves. The bottomline is that they did not include into their false scheme, all the deforestation of years past, excessive mining, land defromation via suburban sprawl and many other variables. They did not create models that include solutions that can reverse the situation.

    This is all propaganda to create an environmental 9/11. Just another excuse to clamp down control, and the gov feeds these bananas more money as a reward for producing ambiguously fearful results. Everything in the world is treated as a worst case scenario. The idea that the climate changes cannot be reversed in ludicrous. There are so many ways that this can be done and I alone know of several more than viable solutions, that could reverse the situation in as much time as it took to get here.

    These loopey scientists, paid to propagandize the science of climate change, have not modeled the natural methane and CO2 emissions of the planet to see that no matter what we do the heavy gases will always be there. They did not calculate that geological activity in the next 1000 years that could very suddenly reverse the whole thing.

    The motives of science and government are highly suspicious. More of the gloom and doom type story coming for apparently apparently increasingly nearsighted supposed professionals. These computer models are terribly misleading as they will never be as dynamic as actual nature is. This planet has gone through volcanic activity in our recorded history that caused mini-ice ages and after only a few years, the effect was gone and the climate stabilized again on it’s own.

    What comes after such horrifying news? New laws criminalizing water usage, oversized carbon footprints, and the likes. People, open thine eyes and see what’s going on. Hydrogen as a fuel, from water has been known about for over 100 years, perfected in 1996. Why is it not the norm today? because of politics, science and oil working together to create the conditions that would, justify absurd laws and control tactics.

    The blame will be put on you, the choke-chain will be put on the average person. You are not the reason for the climate problems. It’s the jokers in the government, science and oil who have painted this false picture and create the climate problems, by shunning away for decades, the solutions that have been there and are still here.

    They are justifying a horrid future that they continue to manipulate because you just don’t know any better. I do, by doing my homework, my own research. All the works of Tesla, Einstein, Meyers and so many others, has proven we have clean options and yet, these idiots at the top, have discarded the studies of those “scientists”, who were far more legitimate and qualified then todays pompous, self-righteous and near-sighted clowns.

    It’s a ruse. The fact is if we disappeared today, in 20 years the climate would be fine again. Since we can’t calculate what we don’t know, that is, all the other variables the stupid computer models don’t take into account, the word of these scientists is perverse and misleading. Nice to see misinformation coming from the top shelf, they themselves even admitting their models are not the word of God.

    Do your own research, learn what has been done by the greats, learn what is out there, educate yourself and you cannot be dupped, over and over and over again. Bush taught us nothing apparently. What we should have come away with from his ‘regime’ is the no one can fool the educated and aware.

    Nuff said.

    Caveman Dan
    The Raging Caveman Show

  190. wildpen says:

    I think that the planet is able to withstand more than we imagine, which will make it very difficult to forecast anything.

    With that being said, nothing has changed the face of the earth more than man.

    James Miller
    http://www.realestategozone.wordpress.com

  191. DaveE says:

    George E. Smith (09:27:02) :

    Climate modeling is old hat; so now they are going to make up the data as well.

    LMFAO too true George, but I’m afraid to say they’ve been doing that already!

    On top of that, I have a question.

    Could our current CO2 rise just be the MWP coming to visit?

    DaveE.

  192. Syl says:

    “Removing carbon dioxide from the air to slow or reverse global warming is as ridiculous as removing oxygen from the air to minimize corrosion of metals.”

    Heh.

    I say we get us a gigantic sponge, and soak up some of that water vapor–voila, problem solved!

  193. Redemption says:

    “Wah Wah Wah”

    All you eggheads and losers that don’t believe in global warming should stop crying and get a life. The earth is warming up you idiots it is freakin’ hot where I live.

    “Oh but 2 ‘scientists’ is Podonk Kansas has just debunked global warming so it must not be real and there’s no consensus whether it is actually happening.” Shenanigans! I tend to believe the other half a billion other scientists who say it is than a couple of Appalachians who got their degrees in community college.

    Stop your bitchin’ and embrace reality.

    REPLY: “redemption” I suggest that you embrace this reality, just posted

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/27/james-hansens-former-nasa-supervisor-declares-himself-a-skeptic-says-hansen-embarrassed-nasa-was-never-muzzled/

    And while you are at it, learn manners.

    - Anthony Watts

  194. Harold Pierce Jr says:

    Redemption

    Go to “Projects” and read my post (the last one). There is a very omnious chill in the air coming out the north west that I have never experienced in the last 35 years. There is monster coming out of the North Pacific Ocean that is going to put a cold spell on NA that will rival the Little Ice Age. Start stocking up on earmuffs and wool socks because it is going to get damn cold.

  195. squidly says:

    Ah, come on people, its not CO2 … its Nitrous Oxide!

    Nitrous Oxide From Ocean Microbes Could Be Adding To Global Warming

  196. E.M.Smith says:

    ragingcaveman (15:20:20) :
    These children playing with their computer video game climate models are insane. They forget to think for themselves.

    I originally thought near these lines. Some time spent looking at the GISStemp code has lead me to think otherwise.

    You can tell a lot about how someone thinks by how they write computer code. Are they messy or neat? Scrupulously thorough or ‘close enough gotta go’? Are they cryptic (implied deceitful) or strive for clarity? Yes, you can read those ‘mind prints’ in the code someone writes. So what do I see in GISStemp?

    The style varies from major part to major part (many hands in the pot). Some contractors or interns on small bits? Some parts neatly done.

    The style is sometimes quite good: many comments (clarity and openness) with tests for conditions that ‘cannot happen’ and print error messages if they are reached (careful and detailed thinker willing to take care of any problem, even the impossible ones that sometimes do happen – a compiler error caused one of my ‘impossible case’ traps to print error messages…), nicely spaced and printed for easy reading (cares about work quality and the opinion or needs of others) etc.

    In most of the code the style shows few or none of these traits. But it does not show cryptic deceit either. It shows someone knocking out a bit of code on a government job good enough to work as the spec describes, or a person who has a day job as a researcher but learned to program and thinks that makes them a professional programmer too (and since they understand what the code does why put in any comments or document the file layouts?).

    But what I see as the basic ‘style fault’ is not in the coding. The programs I have gone through so far work as advertised. They do what they claim to do in broad scope (though some details broken, some that matter). So where is the problem? The problem is in the choices of what to do. The basic idea that is being converted to computer code. That is not deceit (other than self deception) and it is not insane, it is far worse: it is someone who truly believes they ‘have it right’ and didn’t bother to check the idea around to see where the made a major mistake.

    Now it’s buried in the code and no one will be going back to dig it up again and examine it. The basic premise is simply accepted as valid, since that decision was made long long ago.

    Example:

    GISStemp does a zonal based ‘correction’. On another thread I gave this more detail, so I’ll give a short form here. Everything from 30 to 60 degrees North Latitude is considered fungible for correcting temperature slopes. San Francisco is a very flat temp curve in summer (fog) while inland is very hot and varies. The hot air rises and pull fog over SF until the central valley cools some. Then the wind slows or stops, and things start over. SF is inversely correlated with the inland valley for temperatures. Hot valley cools SF. Yet to ‘correct’ the UHI of SF, inland sites are used (there isn’t much ‘rural’ out to sea..).

    Basically, the notion that a zone of fungibility exists is broken. It sounded good to someone long long ago, and now is in the code, and no one will be going back to revisit it unless pushed kicking and screaming. Nobody wants to do maintenance on old ‘established’ code if they can avoid it and the person who made the decision that this was the right way to do things has no interest in revisiting it; physically or mentally they have ‘moved on’. The new guy has what he is interested in and doesn’t want to spend his time reviewing ‘old stuff’ when he could be ‘making his bones’ on his ideas. There is no audit process for research computer code. So the problem just stays. Part of the detritus of ‘established science’.

    It is the collection of many similar errors of this sort, accumulated over decades, and no longer revisited, that makes the GISS data useless.

    BTW, I generally look for ‘edge effects’ when doing a code review. “Off by one” errors is a specific example of edge effects. It’s not the middle, it’s the start or the end that folks ‘flub’. In the case of GISStemp, I think it is a literal edge that is there error here.

    Most people live on coasts, ergo most city UHI problems will be in big cities on coasts. Up and down the coast will be people. Where is it rural? Inland. So where does the ‘rural reference station method’ used by GISStemp end up looking for corrections? In exactly the place that is guaranteed to be a different kind of climate. Coasts are ‘moderated’ by the water, inland is not. Adjusting out the moderation is an error. Period. I believe this is why the Pisa GISS graph under the Italy thread is so dismal.

    So I think it is more correct to “never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity” and refrain from attributions to malice …

  197. E.M.Smith says:

    Adolfo Giurfa (06:43:56) :
    Fortunately, in the long run, real science has been made always by intelligent individuals like you, not by any government institution. Real progress is made by individuals not by herds of well fed employees.

    Adolfo, If I’m ever down your way I’m buying you a night in your local pub! You deserve it.

  198. Joe says:

    Still waiting for those facts and figures. Several of you who seem to be confused about the difference between the time constant for a return to equilibrium levels after an increase in atmospheric CO2 versus the expected lifetime of a given CO2 molecule in the atmosphere. George Smith seems to think that the time constant can be calculated by examining the seasonal variability of the Mauna Loa CO2 measurements, but I’m not quite sure how this would apply unless the seasonal variability (due to photosynthesis or uptake changes due to seasonal ocean temperature changes?) ends.

    BTW, a link to an actual peer reviewed paper would be helpful.

  199. lesfriendly says:

    definitely, funding to projects that will have long term and more devastating effects should be prioritized

  200. DocWat says:

    See above, it wasn’t that he owed much tax. They used “new Math” to calculate the penalties and interest.

  201. Harold Pierce Jr says:

    Redemption

    Just recently two NASA scientists showed that sea surface water temperture was the primary forcing that drives climate and that CO2 has little or no effect on climate.
    Don’t have the link but you can find it over at ICECAP.

  202. mick says:

    Yes, indeed they relied on some measurements as well as models. Isn’t that contradictory?

  203. tonyb says:

    Redemption

    Just because it is ‘freakin hot’ today where you live doesnt mean it hasn’t been even more freakin hot in the past does it?

    Even our instrumental temperature records show we have been this way before. Perhaps you believe Michael Mann who thought ‘the MWP was an outdated concept’ when the reality is that it would have been much freakin hotter than today, and of course the Roman warm period was even hotter, which even then wasn’t as warm as the two Holocene maximums.

    Are you aware that following the last ice age temperatures jumped from -10c to +10c in fifty years, so we cant even claim our climate is warming quicker than ever before?

    Perhaps you might learn some manners and contribute to this blog in a more reasoned manner and realise we are in an paranoid age when terrorism, financial problems, so called climate change are causing many less informed people to succumb to a condition which H L Mencken observed as folows;

    “:The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.”

    tonyB

  204. dennis ward says:

    So some people are complaining about bad science and at the same time complaining that money is being spent to make better science. There’s no pleasing some people.

    Don’t listen to the Luddites.

  205. Alan Wilkinson says:

    Joe, sure, we’ll give you a peer reviewed estimate of time to revert to “normal” CO2 levels just as soon as there is some actual accurate long-run data of reduced total CO2 emissions to calibrate our models against.

    What do you mean, there isn’t any such data?

  206. Araucan says:

    Why cann’t I find reference of this article on the PNAS web site ?

  207. Harold Pierce Jr says:

    ATTN: Redemption
    RE : Global Warming: A Closer Look at the Numbers

    GO : http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

    NB : Monte Hieb is a mine safety enginner, and is knowleable of the chemistry
    and physics of gases. His calculation assume an abs humidity of 1 % and
    temperature of 15 C.

  208. John Galt says:

    ragingcaveman (15:20:20) :
    These children playing with their computer video game climate models are insane. They forget to think for themselves.

    I originally thought near these lines. Some time spent looking at the GISStemp code has lead me to think otherwise.

    You can tell a lot about how someone thinks by how they write computer code. Are they messy or neat? Scrupulously thorough or ‘close enough gotta go’? Are they cryptic (implied deceitful) or strive for clarity? Yes, you can read those ‘mind prints’ in the code someone writes. So what do I see in GISStemp?

    The style varies from major part to major part (many hands in the pot). Some contractors or interns on small bits? Some parts neatly done.

    The style is sometimes quite good: many comments (clarity and openness) with tests for conditions that ‘cannot happen’ and print error messages if they are reached (careful and detailed thinker willing to take care of any problem, even the impossible ones that sometimes do happen – a compiler error caused one of my ‘impossible case’ traps to print error messages…), nicely spaced and printed for easy reading (cares about work quality and the opinion or needs of others) etc.

    In most of the code the style shows few or none of these traits. But it does not show cryptic deceit either. It shows someone knocking out a bit of code on a government job good enough to work as the spec describes, or a person who has a day job as a researcher but learned to program and thinks that makes them a professional programmer too (and since they understand what the code does why put in any comments or document the file layouts?).

    But what I see as the basic ’style fault’ is not in the coding. The programs I have gone through so far work as advertised. They do what they claim to do in broad scope (though some details broken, some that matter). So where is the problem? The problem is in the choices of what to do. The basic idea that is being converted to computer code. That is not deceit (other than self deception) and it is not insane, it is far worse: it is someone who truly believes they ‘have it right’ and didn’t bother to check the idea around to see where the made a major mistake.

    Now it’s buried in the code and no one will be going back to dig it up again and examine it. The basic premise is simply accepted as valid, since that decision was made long long ago.

    Example:

    GISStemp does a zonal based ‘correction’. On another thread I gave this more detail, so I’ll give a short form here. Everything from 30 to 60 degrees North Latitude is considered fungible for correcting temperature slopes. San Francisco is a very flat temp curve in summer (fog) while inland is very hot and varies. The hot air rises and pull fog over SF until the central valley cools some. Then the wind slows or stops, and things start over. SF is inversely correlated with the inland valley for temperatures. Hot valley cools SF. Yet to ‘correct’ the UHI of SF, inland sites are used (there isn’t much ‘rural’ out to sea..).

    Basically, the notion that a zone of fungibility exists is broken. It sounded good to someone long long ago, and now is in the code, and no one will be going back to revisit it unless pushed kicking and screaming. Nobody wants to do maintenance on old ‘established’ code if they can avoid it and the person who made the decision that this was the right way to do things has no interest in revisiting it; physically or mentally they have ‘moved on’. The new guy has what he is interested in and doesn’t want to spend his time reviewing ‘old stuff’ when he could be ‘making his bones’ on his ideas. There is no audit process for research computer code. So the problem just stays. Part of the detritus of ‘established science’.

    It is the collection of many similar errors of this sort, accumulated over decades, and no longer revisited, that makes the GISS data useless.

    BTW, I generally look for ‘edge effects’ when doing a code review. “Off by one” errors is a specific example of edge effects. It’s not the middle, it’s the start or the end that folks ‘flub’. In the case of GISStemp, I think it is a literal edge that is there error here.

    Most people live on coasts, ergo most city UHI problems will be in big cities on coasts. Up and down the coast will be people. Where is it rural? Inland. So where does the ‘rural reference station method’ used by GISStemp end up looking for corrections? In exactly the place that is guaranteed to be a different kind of climate. Coasts are ‘moderated’ by the water, inland is not. Adjusting out the moderation is an error. Period. I believe this is why the Pisa GISS graph under the Italy thread is so dismal.

    So I think it is more correct to “never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity” and refrain from attributions to malice …

    I’m curious, how did you come to be able to review the code for GISSTemp? Is it publicly available?

    I’m also curious how we test code when we don’t know what the correct answer is? I use test cases where the results are known, given specific inputs. Don’t these models just make assumptions about how parts of the climate system interact?

    I’ve been told these climate models are extremely complex. From reviewing the code, what’s your take on this? Can you give us an idea of how many lines of code are in GISSTemp? What programming language is used and what system does it run on?

    Thank you

  209. Joel Shore says:

    Harold Pierce Jr says:

    Just recently two NASA scientists showed that sea surface water temperture was the primary forcing that drives climate and that CO2 has little or no effect on climate. Don’t have the link but you can find it over at ICECAP.

    Actually, their paper doesn’t really address what effect CO2 has because they assumed that the sea surface temperatures had risen as measured…but this begs the question of why the sea surface temperatures rose. In other words, they essentially found that if you force the temperatures to be higher over the 70pct of the globe covered by oceans, then you will also find the temperatures to be higher over land.

    Oh, and by the way, this study was all done with climate models…You know, those things you don’t trust anyway.

    tonyb says:

    Are you aware that following the last ice age temperatures jumped from -10c to +10c in fifty years, so we cant even claim our climate is warming quicker than ever before?

    Do you have a cite for those numbers? Even the ice age – interglacial transition only resulted in global temperature change of ~4-7 C. (The changes were almost double that in the polar regions.) These changes generally took place over thousands of years at an average rate of maybe 0.1 C per century for warming (generally slower for cooling).

    It is true that there were some much more rapid changes in climate recorded in the ice cores although these were likely not global changes (or were even see-saw changes where some places warmed and others cooled) and I don’t think you have the magnitude right.

  210. Alan B says:

    Would someone from this site please contact me. I can’t find a contact e:mail.

    Thank you!

    Reply: info [ at ] surfacestations dot org

  211. geo says:

    God, I love these kind of stories. So, as we know from other such stories, we have only 10 years to avoid this fate. . .and now we know if we don’t it will last for 1,000 years.

    Well, well. The 1,000 years bit certainly gives me an idea. I have a modest proposal for a new Tag here at WUWT for such stories. My suggestion is they all be Tagged as “Reichstag Fire” to commemorate another famous morally bankrupt attempt to herd humanity into a destructive 1,000 year cultural revolution.

  212. TonyB says:

    Joel Shore

    Try these references, one refers to a BBC programme you can listen to and the other is a bibliography. The programme was fascinating as it deals with Doggerland-the area between Britain and Europe flooded after the ice age.

    http://www.biab.ac.uk/A4volume9-2005.pdf

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00gw18s

    TonyB

  213. Harold Pierce Jr says:

    ATTN: Joel Shore

    What caused the sea surface water temperature to increase was probably the shift of the PDO into a warm phase in 1977, which Don Easterbrook has called the “Great Climate Shift”.

    You’re right. Current climate models are all fatally flawed. But climate models built upon a distributed heating system with water as the working fluid are probably more realistic and don’t require the participation of GHG’s including water vapor as GHG. Water vapor is steam coming from warm water and it transfers heat from the warm water into the continents when wind blows air over the surface of the water from which it orginates.

  214. Smokey says:

    It seems that atmospheric CO2 was slightly higher in the past: click

  215. Concerned Citizen says:

    Anthony

    You missed the $400 million for Earth sciences in the NASA budget from the Stimulus package.

  216. E.M.Smith says:

    tonyb (00:26:47) : causing many less informed people to succumb to a condition which H L Mencken observed as folows;

    “:The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.”

    Wow. Maybe I need to read some Mencken…. I’d heard the name before but just ‘wrote it off’ as ‘trendy whatever’. This leads me to believe the guy ‘Has Clue’….

    Thanks! You have pointed me at a path for new understanding…

  217. E.M.Smith says:

    dennis ward (01:29:41) :
    So some people are complaining about bad science and at the same time complaining that money is being spent to make better science. There’s no pleasing some people.

    Some of us are complaining about handing huge buckets of money to the same folks who gave us the bad science in the first place. Giving more money to folks without clue does not give them clue…

    Want better science? Give me the money! (only 1/2 ;-) unfortunately. I’d rather stay retired, but the present crop of, er, “stuff” being produced really needs some adult supervision and I know of at least one person who could provide it…)

  218. E.M.Smith says:

    John Galt (06:32:03) :
    ragingcaveman (15:20:20) :

    It was actually me, E.M.Smith that was most of your quote…

    I’m curious, how did you come to be able to review the code for GISSTemp? Is it publicly available?

    I came to review by my own choice. (One of ‘The Team’ that regularly supports AGW here was silly enough to post a pointer to the place where I could down load it) From my docs of it:

    To download the GISSTEMP source code go to:

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

    and click on the download link.

    Unpack the archive, and read gistemp.txt

    I’m also curious how we test code when we don’t know what the correct answer is? I use test cases where the results are known, given specific inputs. Don’t these models just make assumptions about how parts of the climate system interact?

    As near as I can tell, no testing as you are familiar with was ever done.

    And yes, they make gross assumptions about ‘how parts of the climate system interact’ that are clearly false, then they run with them. No questions asked…

    In particular there are two ‘brokennesses’ that I’ve found.

    1) Temperatures from the GHCN (no TOB or equipment correction) and USHCN (with TOB and eq. correction) data set are compared and a difference calculated based on subtracting GHCN from USHCN. This is limited to at most 10 years of data. The idea is to make a ‘delta’ that is used to ‘correct’ USHCN to remove its Time of Observation Bias and equipment change corrections; to better match GHCN. Nice in theory, wrong in practice.

    Why? If, say, Reno had a thermometer change 8 years ago that resulted in an increased temp reading, what sense does it make to subtract this from the temperatures recorded in 1910 or 1940 or 1970 or… Perhaps this is why GISS data often re-write past temperatures lower…

    2) The “Reference Station Method” is used to ‘adjust’ the urban heat island effect in cities. Unfortunately, they look at ‘rural’ stations up to 1000 km away and use those to change the data for cities. Just what do Lodi and Reno tell you about San Francisco?

    This matters because most population is on the coasts. There is not much ‘rural’ out to sea, so the ‘corrections’ come from inland. OK, where’s the problem? Inland temps have a steeper slope. Yes, the ‘anomalies’ correlate, but non-linearly. The code uses a linear adjustment… (Either a straight line or a line with a single ‘knee’ in it, but never a proportional percentage or other slope adjusted correlation …)

    I’ve been told these climate models are extremely complex. From reviewing the code, what’s your take on this? Can you give us an idea of how many lines of code are in GISSTemp? What programming language is used and what system does it run on?

    The GISStemp is not a climate model. It is a ‘gather temperature data from many sources and change it’ process. Unfortunately, that is an exact statement of function and not a political comment.

    By the time GISS temperature data reaches the models it is already fatally flawed and not in touch with reality. The models don’t have a chance…

    The code is fairly trivial. Most of it is minor format changes (change ‘data missing flag’ from “-” to “-9999″) and file concatenations / deletions. There are about 6000 lines of code in GISStemp of which I would estimate about 1000 are truly ‘functional’. It consists of 6 coded “steps” in 5 directories plus a couple that are not coded (manual data download, for example). These are numbered STEP0 STEP1 STEP2 STEP3 STEP4_5 (plus the un-numbered steps of manual data download, and subroutine compilation / installation …)

    The code in STEP1 is Python (with two major function libraries in “C” that Python calls). All the other STEPs are FORTRAN.

    It ought to run on any system with f77 or similar compiler, Python, and “C”. Unix or Linux ought to be your best bet. So far I’ve seen nothing in the code that is tied to a particular architecture. I have seen a lot of ‘crufty practices’ such as writing scratch files in the same place where the source code is ‘archived’ and treating FORTRAN like an interpreted language (compile in line in scripts, run binary, delete binary. An example of why so many lines are ‘non-functional’ IMHO.)

    (Apologies to anyone not a programmer. “Cruft” is clearly understood by programmers to mean “crud, not good, junk accumulated over time and never swept up, junky style” as an approximation; but seems to be a word that is not known to standard English. I’ve used it for about 40 years professionally and to this day don’t know where I learned it… Isn’t jargon fun?)

    I have also downloaded the ModelE simulation code but have not looked at it… yet.

    I have posted pointers to the data and source code downloads in the comments section of the ‘resources’ tab on this site.

    Hope this is helpful to you…

  219. TonyB says:

    E M Smith 21 40 00

    Excellent post. One of my particular bugbears are ‘global temperatures to 1850′

    I have a great problem with the notion of global temperatures anyway as they are so wildly inconsistent in methodology even before they are adjusted. However the data back to 1850 become even murkier with so few stations, frequent changes of location equipment and operator. This person was usually untrained and was not averse to making up temperatures they might have missed out (we call it interpolation these days) The location for thermometers (often uncalibrated) was sometimes bizarre and more for the convenience of the operator than the science. This practice seems to go on to the present day judging by surfacestations.org.

    I wondeted if you had looked at this subject and what your opinion on ’1850′was?

    It is absolutely crucial to the science and basic proposition of AGW to be able to point to temperatures from 1850 and to be able to state to fractions of a degree that we are the cause and its unprecedented. (Lets not get into the MWP or Roman warm periods et all for the moment).

    TonyB

  220. E.M.Smith says:

    TonyB (12:04:54) :
    Excellent post. One of my particular bugbears are ‘global temperatures to 1850′

    Thanks!

    I see a couple of problems with 1850. Since missing gaps are ‘made up’ any tendency for older data to have more gaps results in more ‘made up’ past. Also, since all of past temps are re-written based on a recent anomaly, then a TOB bias change in 2008 re-writes temperatures recorded in 1851. This resulted in a 1.75 C movement for the not too distant past of Pisa. Who knows what it would do to 100 year earlier temperatures!

    I fail to see how either of these is an improvement in accuracy…

    Since the NOAA directions I posted some threads ago still advises that missing highs / lows can be ‘estimated’ (i.e. made up) I don’t see that the 1850 data are any more made up than the recent ones!

    That’s the real data I’m talking about, not the created, er. adjusted, no, make that interpolated, I mean fabricated, oh just call it the GISS ‘data’…

  221. George E. Smith says:

    “” DaveE (16:46:37) :

    George E. Smith (09:27:02) :

    Climate modeling is old hat; so now they are going to make up the data as well.

    LMFAO too true George, but I’m afraid to say they’ve been doing that already!

    On top of that, I have a question.

    Could our current CO2 rise just be the MWP coming to visit?

    DaveE. “”

    Well Dave, that IS what one would deduce from Al Gore’s ice core data that he waved around in his sci-fi movie. 800 years ago was 1200 AD; seems like the middle of the MWP to me.

  222. George E. Smith says:

    I learned some new Physics today; from a climate scientist, who does active research in “remote sensing” He may be Northern California area so I’m guessing he might work at RSS, in Santa Rosa.

    Anyhow here is the jewel that he threw at me on another web forum, where the subject is anything but climate; but If I dare make mention of some “climate issue” that might relate to the subject (fishing); all manner of real environmental climate scientists emerge from the woodwork and immediately slam me for being anti-environment and uneducated to boot. One even complained that he felt insulted, because someoine else suggested a “Follow the money” scenario.

    I was actually commenting on the Eric Steig/Michael Mann et al paper on Antarctica warming; mainly to point out that it was a storm in a teacup, because it would take 5000 years for the place to get up to the melting point at the obseved rate of warming; and that the satellites only measure the surface temperature, and since ice and snow are good thermal insulators, th ewarmed layer wouldn’t be very much total ice mass compared to the 6-10,000 feet of ice that is there.

    So here is the new Physical Dogma:-

    Ice by definition at atmospheric pressure is at zero C/32F; no matter what.

    So all that gigatons of ice covering Antarctica is at zero deg C; no matter what, evn if the eair immediately above it where the Owl box is, is at -90 deg C, the ice itself remains at zero c; by definition; he says.

    Now I only have a Bachelor’s deg, in Physcis, and maths, and radiophysics, and mathematical physics; so my education got cut off before I got to learn that ice is at zero deg C by definition at one atmosphere pressure.

    No wonder I have been figuring everything wrong all these years.

    So there you have it; scoop of the day.

    George

  223. George E. Smith says:

    “” John Galt (14:32:28) :

    Ric Werme (21:08:15) :

    evanjones (20:38:12) :

    It takes a high IQ to be that stupid and blind. I have often felt that so-called “superior” intelligence leads many (most) those who have it right off the intellectual cliff.

    I shudder to imagine a world where 160+ IQ types made all the decisions. Arrogance and lack of (and contempt for) common sense is a disastrous combination.

    Being a long time member of Mensa (thank whomever that there is no periodic retest), I’ve concluded that intelligence is the MSG of aptitudes. I.e. it lets you do more with the other aptitudes you have. If you don’t have any other aptitudes (I think “common sense” is one), you’re just a waste of carbon footprint.

    Mensa was originally founded to provide a resource for the British government to help solve all its problems. People quickly discovered that more than intelligence was required, but a lot of people had interests other than solving all the British government’s problems.

    BTW, I think a lot of people here would readily qualify for Mensa (Evan, for example). You’d be surprised at how average we are. :-)

    I can think of a few Mensans who’d make or are good leaders. They generally lack the patience for dealing with politics and have enough intelligence to not want the job….

    BTW, Icecap seems to take a dim view of this work too.

    That 1000 year forecast comes with a moneyback guarantee from NOAA. Too bad they don’t offer the same on their seasonal forecasts. the last two winters were forecast to be warm in Alaska and the lower 48 states. Susan can’t help but keep embarrassing herself first with her work on the ozone hole, then the IPCC AR4 report for which she was a Lead Author and now this.

    Ouch.

    My wife likes it when I take her to Mensa meetings. It makes her feel that I am much more normal. (I’ve been a Mensa member for 25 years.) “”

    Not sure who said what above; but I once asked my Mother in law (she’s Mexican Indian) if she would like to join Mensa (which I believe means “Table” in Latin); and she damn near died laughing.

    “Why would I want to join an organisation for crazy ladies?” was her response.

    It seems that in Spanish table is MESA, not Mensa.

    And Mensa comes from a different Latin root from which we get Month, Menses, Menstruation and the like.

    Anyhow, in colloquial Mexican lingo, it literally means a crazy lady; one who has gone lala; probably something to do with the moon or the month.

    So i though it was priceless, that this organisation for high IQ special people evidently are unaware what their organisation name means in other languages.

    I asked a SFSC language professor, who was interviewing the SF chapter of Mensa President, or whatever they call their leader, on a talk radio program; did Mensa have very many Mexican women in their organisation.

    He cut me off, and never did aks why I asked such a weird question (and he’s the language prof). the Mensa chap said they were not a racist organisation, and anyone could join who met the IQ requirement.

    Ah well; language can do funny things to us.

  224. George E. Smith says:

    “” Harold Pierce Jr (00:57:14) :

    RE: 385 ppmv

    The concentration of the various components in air taken at any site after analysis is computed and reported for a defined reference state known as “Standard Dry Air” (SDA), which is bone-dry air that is comprised only of nitrogen, oxygen, the inert gases and carbon dioxide (i.e, the so-called fixed gases) and is at standard temperature and pressure (STP, i.e., 273.2 K and 1 atm pressure). One cubic meter of SDA contains 385 ml or 17.2 millimoles of pure carbon dioxide. However, SDA exists at no place on the earth because “real air” is never at STP and always contains water vapor and clouds, the climatologists’ worst nightmares. The term “real air” is used by engineers for local air at the intake ports of air separation plants. “”

    That has to be the dumbest way of specifying gas mixtures, I’ve ever heard of. For a start, there’s that 385 ppm !!-V-!! . Really wonderful; as you rise up through the atmosphere form ground level you have to keep recalculating the amount of gas in a volume, and then try to partition it among the component gases.

    At least if they said 385ppmW or ppmM you would have some chance of figuring oit out.

    What is so darn hard about specifying the concentration as simply the ratio of the numbers of each moleclular species.

    Then you would know there are 78 N2 molecules for every 21 O2 molecules, and 1 Ar molecule, and 385 out of every million molecules was CO2.

    Well evidently those are the wrong numbers; and you need a computer and a PhD to figure it out.

    Next time I see atmospheric concentrations specified as ppmv, I am going to pull alol my hair out.

    When they teach climatology in college, don’t they ever mention the atomic theory of matter ?

    No wonder the science is in such a mess.

  225. JimB says:

    OT, but speaking of climate models, I ran across this interesting article on Wired:
    http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/02/supercomputer.html

    Worlds fastest supercomputer being built for Lawrence Livermore.

    A few interesting tidbits:
    “The progress they make in quantifying the range of error in their models could have far reaching impacts in the branches of science that use predictive models extensively, like modeling climate change or the protein interactions inside cells. ”

    “Initially, Sequoia will be dedicated to the National Nuclear Safety Administration work. That means some of the exciting weather science will have to wait. With 20 petaflops of computing power, meteorologists could predict local weather down to the 100-meter range. For an event like a tornado, that could mean being able to predict the path that the twister takes through a town, allowing for targeted evacuations that save lives.

    It’s performance like that, Seager argues, that’s changing the way that science is done, making simulation another branch of the scientific method along with theory and experiment.

    “Scientific simulation is the telescope of the mind,” Seeger said. “We work with highly non-linear systems that have very complicated mathematics and models. It’s just too difficult to hold all that in our brain and analyze it. So by simulating them, we’re extending our brains’ capabilities.”

    I really like the “making simulation another branch of scientific method” bit.
    Does that mean that’s NOT happening now, and life will be much better when it does?

    JimB

  226. JimB says:

    Ok…another OT, and from the same source, actually, but this article does a great job of positioning the discussions we frequently have with AGWers both here and in 3D.

    Clive Thompson on How More Info Lead To Less Knowledge”

    http://www.wired.com/techbiz/people/magazine/17-02/st_thompson

    “As Farhad Manjoo notes in True Enough: … if we argue about what a fact means, we’re having a debate. If we argue about what the facts are, it’s agnotological Armageddon, where reality dies screaming.”

    JimB

  227. E.M.Smith says:

    JimB (15:47:48) :
    “ For an event like a tornado, that could mean being able to predict the path that the twister takes through a town, allowing for targeted evacuations that save lives.”

    Will all the folks on the East side of Maple street please evacuate to the West side… 8-}

    I’d rather know with more warning that the tornado was coming; don’t bother with that 50 feet better precision… If the thing hits anywhere in my town, I’m bookin’ it out!

  228. JimB says:

    One of the things that I find interesting about such claims regarding new-found compute power is that no one seems to pay any attention to how/what data will be collected to accomplish this.

    JimB

Comments are closed.