The Salt Lake Tribune – July 16, 2009
Article Excerpt: Tom Tripp, a member of the UN IPCC since 2004, is listed as one of 450 IPCC “lead authors” who reviewed reports from 800 contributing writers whose work in turn, was reviewed by more than 2,500 experts worldwide. (Tripp, a metallurgical engineer, is the Director of Technical Services & Development for U.S. Magnesium.) […]
At Thursday’s [Utah Farm Bureau] convention, Tripp found a receptive audience among the 250 people attending the conference. He said there is so much of a natural variability in weather it makes it difficult to come to a scientifically valid conclusion that global warming is man made. “It well may be, but we’re not scientifically there yet.”
Tripp also criticized modeling schemes to evaluate global warming, but stopped short of commenting on climate modeling used by the IPCC, saying “I don’t have the expertise.” Full article here:
With that, I’d like to resurrect Christy & Douglass 2008:
Limits on CO2 Climate Forcing from Recent Temperature Data of Earth
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0809/0809.0581.pdf
Notably
“Models giving values of g greater than 1 would need a negative climate forcing to partially cancel that from CO2. This negative forcing cannot be from aerosols.”
I would like to thank Mr. Tom Tripp for his honesty.
I also would like to thank the Commerce Secretary Gary Locke for his honesty.
“Americans ‘Need to Pay’ for Chinese Emissions”
http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2009/07/17/commerce-secretary-americans-need-to-pay-for-chinese-emissions/
I know it does not state anything about our climate, if we are cooling or warming.
It only tells us that human evolution has resulted in an epidemic of madness.
He said: I don’t have the expertise. Apart from this as an IPCC lead author he must be considered to be one from the 2500 World’s top scientists.
Of course it is not his personal fault and I appreciate him for being honest to his audience.
It is a nice surprise as this attitude has been released by an IPCC leader. Perhaps they already are noticing the lack of correspondence of their idea on an anthropogenic climate change with respect to observations of the natural world.
Saying “I don’t have the expertise.” as a member of IPCC!
Why did he not resign?
A friend of mine has met a member of IPCC who did not know El Niño!
That is the summum,maximum,das schlimmste,l’inepsie,Dummheit-pur,no word can express what I feel.
The IPCC staff individuels are incompetent and have been paid for a political report with no, no, scientific value.
Gore, Pachauri make money on the faith of silly people with politics assisting.
You mean there was an honest man among that group of thieves and montebancs?
Tripp is a metallurgical engineer and the AGWiers bitch when some guy with an MIT physics degree but now in finance makes a comment against their religion. How real is this world?
From his own words we can resume what the IPCC is… a hand full of people “without proper expertise” that review and decide what the lawmakers should know.
Am I missing something here?
OK Gang, carefull, carefull…
My background (aside from the PE’s, the Masters (Mech) and the post graduate diploma) includes the title: B.S. Metallurgy.
Now with a specialty in heat transfer and finite element analysis for the MS mechanical, I consider myself QUITE able to work with the integral/diffe-Qs of radiation heat transfer, and I’ve learned QUITE a lot in the last 5 years on classic “atmospheric physics”.
SO having a Metallurgy background doesn’t mean you are an ignoramous.
Then again, consider our “Energy Secretary”. Having a Nobel Prize (in one narrow area) doesn’t make you a cupable expert in other areas too…
Sorry, I still want my PILOTS to have 3000 plus hours IN THE AIR, not just degrees in Aero Engineering.
For climate research, frankly, I don’t know HOW to draw the line except READING WHAT THEY WRITE and examining it with the background I have…
and everything I can learn.
Mark H.
PS: Svendsmark STILL is my big hero, however. Do most people understand what it takes to build a 1/2 ATM “vacuum” chamber of SIZE (basement of his office building) and then arranging to cool it to -40F (-40C) to duplicate the “Stratosphere”??? What a MENSCH!
Adam Soereg:
“He said: I don’t have the expertise. Apart from this as an IPCC lead author he must be considered to be one from the 2500 World’s top scientists.”
His contribution was to Vol. 3 “Industrial Processes and Product Use”
http://www.ipcc.ch/meetings/session22/doc12.pdf
So I don’t think he was involved with any of the parts dealing with models.
It Is the Best of Times and the Worst of Times for Science
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/it-is-the-best-of-times-and-the-worst-of-times-for-science/?print=1
Says Professor Plimer:
The hypothesis that human activity can create global warming is extraordinary because it is contrary to validated knowledge from solar physics, astronomy, history, archaeology and geology.
I’m a natural scientist. I’m out there every day, buried up to my neck in sh**, collecting raw data. And that’s why I’m so sceptical of these models, which have nothing to do with science or empiricism but are about torturing the data till it finally confesses. None of them predicted this current period we’re in of global cooling. There is no problem with global warming. It stopped in 1998. The last two years of global cooling have erased nearly 30 years of temperature increase.
Czech President Vaclav Klaus, another brave and honest man, endorsed Plimer’s book:
This is a very powerful, clear, understandable and extremely useful book. … [Plimer] convincingly criticizes the UN, the IPCC, U.K. and U.S. politicians, as well as Hollywood show business celebrities. He strictly distinguishes science from environmental activism, politics, and opportunism.
This has now become an urgent matter because the political Left in Europe and America is desperate to lock in tax and trade as quickly as possible, before everybody understands they’ve been suckered.
Writes Richard Booker in the U.K. [3] Telegraph:
The moves now being made … to lock us into December’s Copenhagen treaty to halt global warming are as alarming as anything that has happened in our lifetimes. … Britain and the U.S. are already committed to cutting their use of fossil fuels by more than 80 percent. Short of an unimaginable technological revolution, this could only be achieved by closing down virtually all our economic activity: no electricity, no transport, no industry.
—————————————
The lesson is: when science lies, people die.
—————————————–
The media chasing scare stories, and fake “scientists” chasing the media. They fed each other lie after lie after lie. It was a very profitable partnership.
————————————————
If this is the best of times, it is also the worst of times — with a fetid plague of fraud whipped up by the likes of Al Gore, who helped to put fanatics like [4] James Hansen into power. Hansen is not a scientist. He is a zealot who uses math models to push his personal crusade.
————————————————————
Any half-decent scientist can whip up a computer model to predict anything you want. Disasters are easy to build into a model, because all you need is a positive feedback loop. CO2 is supposed to reflect heat back to earth, which is supposed to increase other greenhouse gases, and if you fiddle long enough, yes, you can predict the world is coming to an end. The same kind of model will predict that your body will explode in a big puff of steam tomorrow. Or that your brain will go into a epileptic fit. Models that run out of control are a lot easier to conjure up than models that predict stability in a hypercomplex, nonlinear climate system. What’s really hard to explain about the climate is those long, long periods of stability.
As Professor Fred Singer and others have shown, none of the climate models can “retrodict” the solid data of the past. How could any decent scientist therefore claim to predict global temps in the distant future? Global warming was always a flaming fraud, and at some level a lot of scientists knew it. They just kept their heads down — to their everlasting shame.
—————————————————
My question is, what shall we do with the science frauds once everybody gets it? The rules are very clear. Science organizations and universities have strict regulations against fraud. Proven liars are fired, and if they have stolen money by deception, they should be held legally responsible to pay it back or go to jail.
Bernie Madoff is a small operator compared to James Hansen. Madoff just got 150 years. Hansen is still ranting against the plain evidence.
There are all sorts of scientists who may have valuable insights and criticisms relevant to the IPCC report. The fact that this guy is not a meteorologist or “climate scientist” is not very important.
This is an example of what I have often referred to in conversation as the “deep reservoir of scepticism about AGW” that is in the science community. (It sounds like Nixon’s “Silent Majority,” and I hate that, but there you go…)
Those who are committed to the AGW view, agitate for it vigorously because they fear the sky is falling. Those who are not…think their own thoughts and maybe write columns or serve on review boards. Is one supposed to write a paper for a peer-reviewed journal, the content of which would be to point out the sloppiness of other scientists? No. Thus, as Oreskes pointed out in her summary of her survey of literature on the topic, there was not a SINGLE article in her sample rejecting the AGW view. Not surprising. Professional scientists have better work to do.
For the last fifteen years or so, I make a point of asking everyone I meet with a Ph.D. in geology, oceanography, and the like, “What’s your view?” The clear pattern is that unless they are working on global warming projects, they shrug and say, “Maybe. We’ll see…”
There have been a number of well regarded former and current IPCC authors and contributors who have come forward to dispute the IPCC scenarios on various grounds. I certainly hope that they and their positions are known to the Washington policy makers who are intent on taxing us into oblivion based on nothing more than the vaporware produced by suspect climate models.
Mark Hugoson (09:58:35) :
I am not claiming that this Dr. Tripp has not any scientific background or some sort of expertise in climate or atmospheric science. I think after a number of years following the whole debate and reading the papers lots of people became climate scientists… but it is the attitude of some of those “climate scientist” that is, for the lack of other words, drole.
However, from his own lips he said he had not the expertise for judging the climate models… I am sorry but this whole AGW idea is based on climate models.
“I don’t have the expertise.”
Perhaps climate science is a bit like the banking problem. During the good times when stocks and property were rising those who got results in this environment got promoted within the banks. The regulators were expected to have the “expertise” so they were taken from the industry and carried over the industries way of thinking. What they needed was someone at the top who was not an expert in the industry, this way they would be free to question the way business was done and would be not polluted by the group think.
Being a climate scientist whose result conform with AGW is easy when temperatures are rising, like the banker when property is rising. What both need are an honest man/woman who does not have the “expertise” to look at it objectively and ask the tough questions. If temperatures drop like the banks did, climate science is not getting any bail out.
Even in areas of much less controversy than the present Armageddon of AGW, I haven’t seen a huge scientific “consensus” as claimed these days ever before. Scientists are just not that palsy-walsy and “understanding” of their colleagues when it comes to scientific theory. A bristling debate is always bubbling, even over Einstein’s theories (which, after all, fell short of a Unified Field Theory). I believe this to be a true scientific proof that the grand consensus claimed for the End-of-the-worlders” never was.
Indeed, a corollary of this theory is that one can predict that when such a consensus is claimed, it is of the same political-agenda-anti-science form as the soon-to-be-shamed AGW scientific consensus. Indeed, it has been politicians and new world governance demogogues that have minted “the consensus” and many scientists among the AGWers have been rather uncomfortable with the label. Moreover, with the passage of time, the failure of the evidence to appear and the atrocious shrill and debasing behaviour of the political propagandists that have usurped the field, thoughtful, troubled AGW scientists have been quietly and not so quietly: http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2009/06/foaming_at_the_mouth_with_joe.php
slipping away from this so-called consensus. Most recently Real Climate, too:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/07/14/real-climate-gives-reason-to-cheer/
Although they don’t appear to have mutinied, they pretty well have stepped away from the “consensus” giving themselves a decent decade to save face and complete the transformation. Let us not ridicule such as they. Let us open the door to them. Give them and wayward others someplace to go. See if you can find a paper of merit they have written and post it. Such magnanimity will help speed the ending of this Neo-Dark Ages in science.
Mark H.
PS: Svendsmark STILL is my big hero, however. Do most people understand what it takes to build a 1/2 ATM “vacuum” chamber of SIZE (basement of his office building) and then arranging to cool it to -40F (-40C) to duplicate the “Stratosphere”??? What a MENSCH!
Mine too! And he NEVER trash talks anyone on either sied of the climate debate.
In re “I don’t have the expertise”, and at least one poster’s call for resignation:
Metallurgists are responsible for the composition of nearly all parts of a modern combustion engine. That does not imply they have any expertise in engine design. That one might have no clue how to design an engine does not make his own area of competence any less important to the total process.
And while the IPCC is telling us for years on a role that Anthropogenic CO2 is the driver of Global Warming, Mr. Tom Tripp sheds doubt just about that fact and NOAA is delivering the “proof” that the planet is warming and Dr. Pielke Sr. has offered to eat his hat if NOAA is right, Mr. Chip Knappenberger tells us “Why Waxman-Markey Is Not A Climate Bill”.
I tell you, it’s a mad, mad world.
http://www.icecap.us
Mark Hugoson:
“culpable expert”!!! — If deliberate, nice one. If not, it is still a keeper.
I thought the science was settled.
Evidently a number of settlers are leaving the settlement.
They don’t come any cheaper:
http://www.politico.com/blogs/glennthrush/0709/Big_Dem_cash_dump_on_eve_of_climate_vote.html?showall
I ask myself, if it is true that votes can be bought so cheap and the people accept this
scam, why all the fuzz?
What I understand is that he doesn’t have the expertise on climate models. He still can be an expert climatologist without knowing the Fortran code behind the models the computers are running. (or C++ or whatever, I hope it is not written in Perl)
Whats that funny graph, ending in 2007?
Speaking of former IPCC experts, Here’s Dr Vincent Grey
Ron de Haan 9:12:51
With respect to Gary Locke, he is a former governor of the state of Washington. The state now publishes its ballots in two languages, English, and Gary’s language, Chinese. It’s his most visible legacy.
There you have it – your understatement and QOTW – “we’re not scientifically there yet.”
So not there yet they say, however a good super El Nino should get the temps. back to following the CO2 level.
One problem though, the current ‘weak’ El Nino is having major trouble intensifying, and according to the TAO site there were some big changes today showing a sizable decrease in the subsurface warm spot intensity and the surface warm pool being cut off pretty good from the rightmost side of the map.
Bernie on Mark Hugoson;
Actually, Bernie, he said “cupable” expert. He also said “carefull”. Twice. That’s why there’s no BA in the list of degrees. Still, culpable would be nice.
While Mr. Tripp name appears in several IPCC meetings (see WTH comment at 9:59) I could not find his name as a lead author in the AR4, but I might have missed his name in the large list. Having said that I think he’s honest enough to feel uncomfortable with all the blah, blah, blah, about the “science is settled” and similar stuff from IPCC lunatics and Gore followers. I wonder how many did contribute honestly just to find out a bunch of “modellers” did turn the knobs of the GCM’s until they obtained the results they were looking for, adjusting parameters until the graphs were catastrophic enough to continue lying – and receiving funds – for another decade.
For a very impressive list of famous environmental scientists that are now man-made climate change skeptics look at this posting on the US Senate web site:
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=927b9303-802a-23ad-494b-dccb00b51a12
There is a definite smell of s&”t hitting the fan. Even the Schmidt is planning his exit strategy. The only ones that aren’t are the half-witted politicians of the US and UK and the zealots like Hansen. The next 12 months will be very very interesting.
Ed Scott (10:04:09) :
Does this mean GISS is running water boarding techniques on their data?
@ stephen.richards (13:21:22) :
“………………………. The next 12 months will be very very interesting.”
I hope you are not invoking that old Chinese curse. 😉
Is it just me or are the rats deserting the sinking ship in record numbers?
Just my observation, but I’m betting that Mr. Hugoson’s use of the word “cupable” was intended to be “capable”, not “culpable”. This fits the original sentence better and is less entertaining.
Everyone written/called/faxed their Senators on HR2454? I’d suggest chiming in on the House and Senate health care plans while you’re at it.
“Does this mean GISS is running water boarding techniques on their data?”
If it was just waterboarding, I don’t think we would be complaining so much, but we have battery cables, racks, iron maidens, and don’t forget, most of all, the Procrustean bed.
D’OH!
Waterboarding is passe. Now we just “adjust” the data and it tells us anything we want. Who needs measurements? Congress “adjusts” numbers all the time, and look at what they accomplish. (OK, maybe that wasn’t a good example.)
I think Tripp is far more qualified than what’s-his-name who chairs the IPCC.
Why is there the “supplemental image – one example of an unresolved issue” graph on this article? And only ten years – surely they know the correlation will be heavily influenced by data near the end points, yeah?
Wel, there is certainly a global warming pause right now which may be linked to ocean/atmospheric coupling, thermohaline disruptions and cloud dynamics. I am certainly more open to models and theoretical frameworks which explain in great detail how cooling may be a prolonged effect and showing a solid conclusion how AGW is either “over,” or not something to be concerned about. I am noticing many flaws and even High School math errors in the part of many working climatologists; this raises my concern over whether the “trend” overestimates AGW. The data seems to still be repeated and thus validated enough to point towards a warming trend, and the physics/chemistry of the issue seems solid, however, I share concerns that enough data has been fudged mathematically (statistically) that error analysis is of great concern.
There are metalurgists who would not know the first thing about engine metals as they might be specialists in the sheet steels for the bodies and frames of cars.
Also, remember the “profession” of climatology is pretty new within the last 20 years and from the looks of it the ranks are made up of a few wonks who knew how to create GCM’s in fortran.
Richard Heg that was very insightful.
I’d add that during my 30 years of working with large computer software applications, I became fascinated by the irrational faith people had in them. Both the people who developed the software and those who used the results unquestionally accepted what the computer told them. Major errors would go undetected until something went seriously wrong in the real world.
And therein lies the problem with the climate models. We won’t find out the major errors in them until 20 or 30 years down the road and after trillions of dollars have been spent.
Which is why commercial and business software is always extensively reviewed and tested by a separate specialist group.
The same is needed for the climate models using a group headed by someone like Steve McIntyre.
If you want to know where the US is heading if your politicians refuse to listen to their electorate , follow the European/British model , where your views will become irrelevent :
THE PRIME MINISTER
2 February 2009
Dear Neil
Thank you for your email of 4 December, which was passed on to me by the Simon Mayo Radio Show.
I know that arguments over the science of climate change continue to provoke heated debated and strong feelings. I don’t intend to rehearse all those arguments here, but I will tell you why the British Government has confidence in the assessments provided by the IPCC.
The Assessments represent the consensus of thousands of scientists worldwide, who gather to review the vast emerging scientific literature on climate change as published in the leading peer-reviewed scientific journals. No one government, organisation or individual has sole responsibility for any part of the report – thus ensuring overall shared responsibility. The objectivity of the IPCC’s reports are ensured by the broad and open review process for the draft reports, in which anthropogenic climate change sceptics participate.
For example, the 2007 Assessment Report on the Physical Science Basis of Climate Change was produced by a Working Group featuring more than 600 climate scientists, whose names and affiliations are listed in the report. Given their subject matter, it is entirely appropriate that the other two Working Groups on Impacts, Adaptation & Vulnerability and on Mitigation drew input from a more diverse pool of experts, including specialists in economics, sociology and technology.
I appreciate the point you make that global temperatures have fallen slightly over the past three years. However, this is entirely consistent with the effects of short term natural climate variability – particularly the strong La Niña conditions currently prevailing in the Pacific – within a
– 2 –
trend of long term warming. The La Niña effect is expected to disappear soon, after which the long term warming trend is expected to resume.
In conclusion, I am entirely satisfied that it the Government should continue to accept the advice and evidence of the IPCC, and I see no evidence from the conditions of the last three years to change that view.
I know you will disagree with that conclusion, but nevertheless, I am very grateful for your email.
This was after I had complained about the government propoganda spouted by the BBC about “2500 of the worlds leading scientists”
I have the original signed letter in PDF , if anyone wants a copy
….and for the opposition Conservative Party viewpoint:
Dear Mr Hyde,
Thank you for your e-mail, regarding your concerns about our approach to tackling climate change.
I am aware that David Cameron has been in touch with you previously via your local Member of Parliament, Sir Nicholas Winterton, setting out how politicians have a duty to take the best available scientific advice when deciding how to deal with important issues like climate change.
The National Academies of all the G8 nations, plus India, China and Brazil, all signed a letter in 2004 agreeing with the thesis that global warming is happening and that man is the cause of it. This was backed up in February 2007, when 2,500 of the world’s leading Climatologists published a report saying they were ’90 per cent sure’ that human activity had led to dangerous levels of global warming.
That is why it is so important that we take a lead in suggesting ways to reduce carbon emissions and why we all need to take action now in order to mitigate the risk of disastrous consequences in the future.
While we take on board what you say in your e-mail, we firmly believe that we all have a responsibility in this generation to make sure we provide a greener and cleaner planet for our children. We simply cannot go on as we are in terms of the way we run Government and live our lives. That is why we want to create incentives for people to help them make greener choices.
We are prepared to make tough choices. We have been honest, and have said very clearly that taxes on pollution will go up. Yet, those increases will be offset pound for pound by reductions in family taxes to help people meet the rising cost of living.
Our approach is completely different to Labour’s. Gordon Brown has given green taxes a bad name by using them as additional stealth taxes. We believe taxes on pollution can play an important role in tackling climate change, but only if they are replacement taxes, matched with tax reductions elsewhere. That is why we have established a Family Fund into which all of the new taxes on pollution will go. That money will be ring-fenced – no civil servant will be able to get their hands on it – and it will be independently audited. So, as taxes on bad things, like pollution, go up; taxes on good things, like families, will come down.
We believe this is the best and fairest way to encourage people and businesses to make greener choices while helping us reduce taxes for hard-working families.
Thank you, once again, for writing to David Cameron about this issue.
Yours sincerely,
Edward Young
Office of the Leader of the Opposition
House of Commons
London
SW1A 0AA
Slightly O/T, but that sure looks like a real quiet sun right now.
Did that last weeks ‘whopper’ sunspot take what little extra reserves the sun had and plumb wear it out?
It will be interesting to see if the sunspot that just happened survives the trip around the backside. In the meantime the eastern US will enjoy a nice spillover of cool Arctic air the next several days while we wait and see…
I am loving this global warming here in Ky. A strong front came through today and it feels like Football season is about to start here in Mid July and it should be 90ish. Yes, I know, it’s just weather and all. The next few days are 73, 75, 80, 82, 85 and normal is 89.
Hi 73°F
Lo 61°F
Precip (in)
0in.
Thu
2
OBSERVED
Hi 72°F
Lo 61°F
Precip (in)
0in.
Fri
3
OBSERVED
Hi 78°F
Lo 62°F
Precip (in)
0in.
Sat
4
OBSERVED
Hi 75°F
Lo 60°F
Precip (in)
0.48in.
5
OBSERVED
Hi 75°F
Lo 64°F
Precip (in)
0.23in.
6
OBSERVED
Hi 84°F
Lo 57°F
Precip (in)
0in.
7
OBSERVED
Hi 84°F
Lo 58°F
Precip (in)
0in.
8
OBSERVED
Hi 84°F
Lo 60°F
Precip (in)
0.01in.
9
OBSERVED
Hi 86°F
Lo 65°F
Precip (in)
0in.
10
OBSERVED
Hi 87°F
Lo 68°F
Precip (in)
0.88in.
11
OBSERVED
Hi 83°F
Lo 70°F
Precip (in)
0in.
12
OBSERVED
Hi 84°F
Lo 68°F
Precip (in)
0in.
13
OBSERVED
Hi 83°F
Lo 61°F
Precip (in)
0in.
14
OBSERVED
Hi 85°F
Lo 58°F
Precip (in)
0in.
15
OBSERVED
Hi 80°F
Lo 69°F
Precip (in)
0.14in.
16
OBSERVED
Hi 84°F
Lo 70°F
Precip (in)
0in.
Adam from Kansas (11:45:29) :
So not there yet they say, however a good super El Nino should get the temps. back to following the CO2 level.
There are actually two problems (you say one)- if it takes El Nino to put things back on the CO2 track and La Nina can take it back off again, then C02 is easily overwhelmed by natural cycles.
There seems to be a basic difference between “numerical” and “non-numerical” scientists. Journalists will accept Tim Flannery, a paleontologist and english literature specialist, as an expert on climate, but reject say Lubos Motl, a physicist into string theory, as a non-climate specialist.
Numerical scientists and engineers, who in essence are heavily applied mathematicians, understand that setting up computer models that require heavy massaging of the input data to even look like they are on the right track implies the particular theoretical approach is on the road to nowhere.
I feel a deal of sympathy for the warmist scientists. They are constrained in their findings. If they discover that humans have negligible impact on climate, their funding will be cut off. With this whole AGW debate, what is most irritating are the proposed solutions. Ineffective, expensive, ugly, and irrational.
His comment “I don’t have the expertise” refers to climate models.
There are many areas of expertise under the climate science umbrella. So inferring he has no expertise in any area is a pretty weak argument.
Maybe it was a dig at those who have ‘no expertise’ in an area and don’t let that stop them….
Boy, this has REALLY been a bad week for the modelers. I know it’s premature to say this, but it does seem like the wheels are coming off this thing?
I am wondering if any changes in worldwide usage of hydrocarbons over time (and especially in this recession) have been visible at all in the CO2 ppmV data.
Dear Anthony and Mr Moderator.
The following is not intended for posting so I will summarise course you can post it if you like:-
1 I post at the Guardian Comment is Free.
2 It seemed uncensored but after a while I realised that Monbiot’s and Hickman’s bloggs especially seemed to be covered by three agressive posters.
I did wonder whether the three were in cahoots.
3 The strategy I now realise was to insult and abuse.
4 Most responses to this abuse were subsequently moderated out but the abusers comments remained. I am a big boy and it didn’t worry me except when I started getting moderated.
5 This moderation was especially noticeable, if adverse comments were made about censorship at RC . Posting links to your site or Climate Audit resulted in more abuse Climate Fraudit etc.
6 About two weeks ago I was put in pre-moderation and except for some anodyne comments all my posts have been censored. This coincided with comments about censorship after Leo Hickmans article about Mr Schmidts, noise and signal argument in support of censorship.
7 The three untouchables go by the name of MeFinny2, Nefastus and Jezebel216.
I have copied my post using messages from two of the parties here:-
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jul/16/climate-change-milband-2020?commentpage=2&commentposted=1
Recommend? (1)
Report abuse
Clip | Link sonofgood
18 Jul 09, 2:01am (1 minute ago)
@Nefastus
Jezebel216: “nefastus in answer to your posting on another thread – I did! ;-D”
and I’ll reply on the other thread as well.
@Jezebel216
Absolutely nefastus! and I’ll check it out (if that thread hasn’t closed)
How sweet and they call it puppy love.
The temperature is rising and you will see why here at this thread
http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2009/jul/16/sexual-healing-repulsed-by-sex?commentpage=2&commentposted=1
@Nefastus
Jezebel216: “At least you are open to considering sex to be a normal human activity. Personally, I wouldn’t follow the advice of the people here who have posted ‘use a prostitute’ – because I don’t see how that would do anything other than reinforce the sex is bad message.
The big key is to meet the right person – but that really is easier said than done. Meanwhile, you could make a mental note of which people, whether in real life or on TV/movies – you find yourself physically attracted to, because nothing’s gonna happen unless you are attracted in the first place. And as some others have said, take it slowly, there’s no need to rush, slow is good.”
I cannot recommend this more.
My late wife and I were at it hammer and tongs day in, day out.
Whilst I’ve dated after her death, nothing has come close.
Attraction is both physical and mental.
Porn doesn’t do it !
@Jezebel216
nefastus
Attraction is both physical and mental.
Porn doesn’t do it !
Porn seems to do it for a lot of men, some women too, but pornography is ultimately soulless. It appeals to that animal instinct, not the fragile veneer of humanity we desperately try to cling to.
We’ve all been superficially attracted to someone purely based on physical appearance, only to discover that there was nothing substantial to it, and the attraction just disappears overnight (even though they’re still the same gorgeous hunk/woman). Mental attraction is the only one that has staying power.
Well done Nefastus use the dead wife to chat someone up.
Hows your mate MeFanny hopefully not jealous youv’e gone off post.
Comment is free if you agree.
Don’t mess with the grown ups
Dear Anthony
These are vicious posters who the Guardian allow otherwise I would not do this.
Take care
Sonicfrog (18:01:08) :
The smart ones have taken stock of the seaworthiness of the ship, and are taking to the lifeboats.
The dumb ones have visions of glory and invincibility filling thier eyes..
“Iceberg Dead Ahead” .
“we’re not scientifically there yet.”
A lot of us have been saying that for a while now, some for a long time.
Jim (16:06:25) : This is the other Jim. Looks like the spot isn’t there …
http://www.spaceweather.com/
Juraj V. (11:17:42) : “Whats that funny graph, ending in 2007?”
Does it not end in 2008?
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Jacob Mack (14:59:15) : “The data seems to still be repeated and thus validated enough to point towards a warming trend,”
A warming trend began about 17,000 years ago as the last major glacial period ended. This warming seems to be continuing in fits and starts with examples being the MWP and the LIA. I’m still waiting for someone to tell me why we should not expect this pattern to continue.
I’m quite surprised at the number of posts showing reverence for experts. What’s up with that?
quote If it was just waterboarding, I don’t think we would be complaining so much, but we have battery cables, racks, iron maidens, and don’t forget, most of all, the Procrustean bed. unquote
I think you mean Procrustean statistics.
JF
Neil (15:39:34) :
….and for the opposition Conservative Party viewpoint:
Dear Mr Hyde, ….
Neil,
It has become clear how effective the IPCC strategy of a “closed circuit”
has become.
The IPCC has become the “exclusive” supplier of climate data and is “trusted” by the ruling establishment including the opposition.
Not only have they isolated our politicians but they also have effectively shut out any opposition to their publications.
This is a dangerous situation which can lead to very “bad political decissions”.
As this model proves successfull we wil see it emerge in all corners of our society.
Because such a system is per definition undemocratic, even totalitarian, it is a threat to our freedom.
Therefore we should fight it to the bone.
These kind of practices undermine our society and our progress.
We are not only fighting the semi science, the wrong conclusions based on this semi science but also the system that is build lour our politicians into this web of scam.
We do not want to be ruled by such methods.
This is pure fascism and I am sure everybody visiting this blog will reject it.
Ed Scott (10:04:09) : Hansen is still ranting against the plain evidence.
Unless John Christy is around.
I am forced to admit that RC censors heavily and even I, as a general supporter find my posts indicating my doubts of the current severity in AGW due to the currrent “pause.” As far as CO2 rising and falling and such (and other) changes due to natural climate variability, well, yes of course. The models are still heavily flawed, and not all of us can do all those computer apps. The physics and chemistry are major components, but the actual, natural system input/output and non-linear activity are not well understood.
So there isn’t even a consensus amongst the warming brigade…
Mark Hugoson (09:58:35) :
Coherent comment. One of my favorites.
“we’re not scientifically there yet.”
My vote also for this as QOTW.
my personal vote for quote of the week
RICH (09:28:23) :
The planet is stable, it’s the alarmists that are not.
I was just watching,with my loving Wife, a Red tinted volcanic ash enhanced sunset.
NE Oregon. We are finally seeing itsy tomatoes on our plants.Reading this and other
signs of possible cracks in the plaster of the AGW statue -think cheap mexican ceramic
of AlGore nude with a clock in his stomach stuck on five mintues to midnight-gives me some hope…
“John F. Hultquist (19:31:06) :
Does it not end in 2008?”
No, seems to end in November 2007. I meant, why not to use data till 2009, where the recent drop is much more visible. http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:1997/scale:150/offset:250/plot/esrl-co2/from:1997
Curiousgeorge (10:17:41) :
taxing us into oblivion based on nothing more than the vaporware produced by suspect climate models.
ITYM vapadata produced by scareware.
Neil (15:32:13) :
If you want to know where the US is heading if your politicians refuse to listen to their electorate , follow the European/British model , where your views will become irrelevent :
THE PRIME MINISTER
2 February 2009
I have the original signed letter in PDF , if anyone wants a copy
Yes please. Part of my evidence when I take the govt to the small claims court for the return of the fuel levy on my last 3 years of flights. rog at tallbloke dot net
> “This is the same James Hansen who in 2008
> called for > trials of climate skeptics for ‘high
> crimes against humanity.’ ”
> Hansen said Thursday in an e-mail » “I have never
> said any such thing about ‘climate skeptics,’
Next thing you know, the AGW types will be telling us that back in the 1970’s, the scientific community never forecast an ice age… oops. By the way I think that Hansen shot a gaping hole in his credibility . See http://www.worldwatch.org/node/5798 which is titled…
“Guest Opinion: Global Warming Twenty Years Later
by James Hansen on June 23, 2008”. And I quote…
> CEOs of fossil energy companies know what they are
> doing and are aware of the long-term consequences
> of continued business as usual. In my opinion, these
> CEOs should be tried for high crimes against humanity
> and nature.
> But the conviction of ExxonMobil and Peabody Coal
> CEOs will be no consolation if we pass on a runaway
> climate to our children.
That was a guest article by Hansen himself, so he can’t claim to be misquoted, words put in his mouth, etc, etc. I urge others here to download and save a copy of that webpage, before the Winston Smiths of AGW turn it into an “unarticle”.
I initially came to WUWT because it validated my own suspicions about mainstream global warming theory, that it was more hype than substance, and was politically motivated. However, to combat this politicized issue, it has become necessary for many skeptical websites to offer their own counter arguments against renewable energy and in support of continued unflagging use of fossil fuels. I frankly find this disappointing because I would like to see the science of global warming debated without the usual partisan bickering.
Whether or not you subscribe to the theory of “Peak Oil”, it is irrefutable that fossil fuel is a finite resource. In skeptical blogs it’s common to see the opinion expressed that renewable energy is a myth that offers no future promise of freedom from fossil fuel. Intrinsically, this has nothing to do with climatology, and only raises suspicions that a conservative agenda is at work in debunking global warming. Because of the limited supply of petroleum, every barrel taken from the ground is a step closer to a world where our children will be faced with the eventuality of energy sources with modest EROEI, or the renaissance of fission nuclear energy with its attendant issues of waste and runaway reaction. Research continues on fusion energy, which will one day be the solution to our energy problems. In the meantime, the gathering of second-hand fusion energy from the sun, combined with all other renewable sources, are the only options we have in a honest long-term appraisal of our energy portfolio.
Here is an essay that purports to debunk Peak Oil, while accepting that oil will peak someday. In spite of this apparent contradiction, “CONFESSIONS OF AN EX-DOOMER” is a journey through several epiphanies, and makes good reading:
http://peakoildebunked.blogspot.com/2006/07/307-confessions-of-ex-doomer.html
Even though mainstream global warming is dubious at best, we should accept that renewable energy is still in its infancy, and refrain from viewing the debate as anti-AGW / pro-fossil fuel.
“Not Scientifically there yet!”
The truth is, If the whole AGW thing was about the application of the Scientific method…. AGW would have been a discredited Hypothesis a long time ago.
However, it is not about science or empirical evidence. It is about Politics and specialised agendas. The Policy makers don’t have to be “Scientifically” anywhere…. Those mob always work best by playing on people’s emotions.
The equilibrium temperature of Earth’s climate system is not set by the sea surface temperature as normally defined.
The equilibrium temperature is set by the net global average temperature of the oceanic water which lies just below the layer of ocean surface involved in the evaporative process.
The temperature of that water is shielded from any changes in the composition of the air by the evaporative process. It is
however affected by changes within the oceans which alter the rate of energy emission to the air and by variations in solar input.
The evaporative process ensures that a change in the composition of the air affecting the radiative properties of the air does not alter the rate of energy release from that layer of water which lies below the region affected by evaporation.
Changes in the composition of the air alone can only result in a change in the speed of the hydrological cycle with no effect or no significant effect on the net global average temperature of the air.
The level of climate debate has stooped to the level of convenience. If someone agrees with a certain AGwarmist point of view, his expertise is highly regarded and talked up. If he has a cooler attitude, his (perhaps equivalent) expertise is disregarded. Thats just how the game is played. Attacking the messenger is standard practice when you have nothing else of substance and especially if the messenger is pointing to the really cool elephant in the room.
The level of political debate is the point of least resistance and plausible denial. It is far easier to blame a “panel of 2500 experts” than actually take a personal stance that might be criticized. It is the glorious “rule by committee” where no one is really responsible and either way, if I can get a good deal for my constituents, I might even come out looking good.
You don’t have to be a PhD or anything to establish that the actual reason the room is so cold is that someone placed the heater next to the temperature sensor for the air conditioner. Cause and effect isn’t always understood in the realm of narrow expertise but is populated by people who have a broader understanding and can draw from each specialty and provide a unified hypothesis.
I see the power of this forum as being able to bring different questions to the table and also contributors who can offer different expertise and explanation to build a greater understanding. I am also really impressed how the collective enthusiasm of the contributors over at CA can dissect a paper so quickly. Why would you bother with peer review when you can be so thoroughly examiner in so short a time?
neil,
The scariest thing about the letter from the opposition is the comment about the leading national academies being all on side on AGW. I think this is true and indicates that at some level at least there has been an international conspiracy. Probably initially some kind of “environmentalists” working to get “the environment” higher on the agenda. From what I’ve seen it’s quite easy to take over a scientific organisation because most members don’t want anything to do with the administration/politics. So if a small group shows some enthusiasm for that side of things they are welcomed because because most people are relieved that they don’t have to do it.
The next step as I see it is that AGW, whether literally true or not, advances the broad agenda. I’ve often heard the view that whether AGW is happening it’s a good thing that we (meaning you) lower our (meaning your) consumption. What’s missing is what everyone here knows (nearly) the economic impacts will be. Never mind, we are a wealthy country (yes. I have a not very well paid gubmint job,but they wii just keeep paying, whatever) so we can afford it (whatever it is).
Oliver Ramsay (19:40:48) :
“I’m quite surprised at the number of posts showing reverence for experts. What’s up with that?”
You’re quite surprised are you, yeah, what IS up with that?
Oh I get it now, you’re not really surprised at all and that gives you right to be condescending to the commoners at WUWT.
Riight, that makes perfect sense when you think you’re talking to sub par flat earth intellects on the crazy interwebzzzz.
Frankly, it’s damn insulting and makes no sense when you are trying to talk smartly to us shills for the oil industry and lovers of nuke Armageddon fission factories.
Yes, all us slack jaw energy evil doers hang out at the #1 science blog and strut our irreverence to most outside thought or science.
Well, dang, unless we can make us some $$$ by selling cheap energy to innocent unsuspecting children of the next generation. Bwahhahaaha, you can’t stop us! We will control the world with cheap energy whilst saving the next generations billions(oh wait, I mean trillions. A billion just doesn’t cut it anymore with the 2009 bail out correction, erm? Sorry, rescission/depression that inflates the prices on oil, don’tchyea know?) in wasted resources for a non existent problem. A natural occurring of warming, then cooling, then warming again and now a cooling over the last 30 years. Wow, I lived it!
You think I have reverence for a IPCC hack experts who gladly excepted money and 1/1000 of a noble prize for their stamp of approval. But now they question the volatility of the modeling data years later, on something they admit knowing very little about at the time?! WTF?
Oh yeah, this big chance they took years later to bring forth a “win(deflect) win” situation for themselves!.. Meh.
Reverence ? Now that IS truly funny! Bwaahahaha!
So, who do I vote for if I want to make a stand on Global Warming. Extremists cant be the alternative!
tallbloke YHM
Tripp, a metallurgical engineer, is the Director of Technical Services & Development for U.S. Magnesium.)
Hold on here, this guys not a Climate Scientist!!!!
It doesn’t really matter if you are a climate scientist or not. If you have any experience of engineering or physics you come across this push-pull effect when trying to get to the bottom of some process. But some people always call it too soon and then make so much of a fuss trying to back pedal when all they needed to do was say ‘we may be calling this too soon’ so lets keep investigating. I guess its human nature, the Red Queen effect so to speak. AGW has gone off a bit too strong and now we are seeing some doubt and cracks (i.e. cooling trend for now but then back to CO2-driven warming = the pipeline we were talking about is actually much much longer but trust us its still there) when ultimately we still haven’t really progressed any further in our understanding of the principal and secondary drivers of climate.
And lastly, any enginneer and especially physicist learns to respect our interactions with Nature and not to shout out with hubris when we think we have her figured out
The Goracle has just visited Melbourne and he refused to meet with Steve Fielding to discuss with the Senator why the planet has not warmed over the past 15 years while atmospheric CO2 has increased.
I am not a scientist, but I am eager to learn about an issue, the response to which can have a major effect on our future well-being. I enjoy being educated by the many fine scientists who contribute to this wonderful blog and I believe you have convinced me that a major determinate of our climate is the interaction among cosmic rays’ ability to affect our atmosphere through cloud formation, which in turn is influenced by the output of our sun. Apparently there appears to be a strong correlation between the level of cosmic ray activity and cloud cover as well as a strong correlation between the radiance of the sun and cosmic ray activity. Am I wrong in my understanding?
Notwithstanding the forgoing, from a public policy perspective shouldn’t the questions be (1) is gradual warming since the little ice age bad for mankind; assuming arguendo that it is(2) is there anything that man can do about it, and assuming arguendo, if we can, (3) does the prospective benefit justify the costs?
Anthony,
You have labelled the graph that you show “one example of an unresolved issue”. However, a more accurate label would be, “one example of a deceptive graph from ICECAP”.
That graph has the relative axes for CO2 and temperature scaled so that the temperature would only be expected to go up at the same rate as the CO2 if the transient climate sensitivity (TCS) were about 9 C per CO2 doubling. The actual IPCC best estimate of the TCS is about 1/5 or 1/4 of this. If the graph were scaled appropriately, there would no longer be any appearance of a strong disagreement between the CO2 and temperature. (What would be clear is that given the noisiness in the temperature data, the time period in question is too short to say whether the trends are aligned or not.)
I have pointed this fact out about this graph (or similar versions of it) many, many times here on WUWT (mainly in response to Smokey’s linking to it) so it is quite frustrating to see people continuing to use it.
Gerard (06:04:06) :
Steve Fielding should be made Australian of the decade in my opinion. To have even one politician with his integrity is a huge bonus. He might just manage to save Australia from this ETS madness.
http://www.stevefielding.com.au/blog/comments/the_real_reason_ill_fight_in_the_senate_on_climate_change/
His statement of “I don’t have the expertise” wrt modeling leads me to the observation that neither does the IPCC.
Joel, surely there is only deception if the temperature is going up at a similar rate to CO2 and the scales are deliberately biased to show a difference. Surely what the graph is showing is that temperature isn’t rising while CO2 is? The scales are irrelevant especially as even if temperature were rising it wouldn’t necessarily rise at the same rate as CO2. I believe that Al Gore’s famous saw tooth graph had the scales deliberately distorted to show temperature rising exactly in line with CO2.
I just can’t figure out why some really rich person(s) or organization(s) can’t just put together a class action law suit, claiming fraud and/or some violation of some civil or moral right and stick it to these AGW thieves.
Drag these charlatans into court, stick them under oath, use the evidence discovery process to expose the customized models, tricked up data sets, special unique adjusting and smoothing algorithms that claim just 1/10,000 th more CO2 in the atmosphere will end all life on this planet and then tear them a new one.
If you can sue McDonalds for millions for coffee that is served to HOT why not sue them for billions for creating a money making scam that will hurt the vast majority while enriching a thieving minority.
COME ON. JUST DO IT. MAKE IT A PAY PER VIEW COURT EVENT.
Serenity now!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Brian Dobson (1:07-7/18), I have enjoyed your comments. Regarding this one, I once thought in much the same way. Almost everyone on this site seems committed to renewable energy and most have made significant changes in their own lives and have helped their communities do the same. What you are reading (“unflagging use of fossil fuels”) is the knowledge of most commenters that we do not yet have the technology to move QUUICKLY in this direction and we need the affluence/prosperity of current energy resources in order to develop the renewables. The AGW people who pretend they are “green” are asking (and acting) to bankrupt the developed world (for whatever purposes); if this happens, we will move toward “dark ages” rather than advance with renewables through technological development. Ask yourself how long each cycle of technological development has taken before it becomes relatively inexpensive and useable by large numbers of people around the world. Also notice that the one country in the forefront of democratizing technology and (cleaning up pollution by-products) has been the U.S.A.
To help ease your current concerns I suggest Musings From the Chiefio, E.M. Smith, a regular on WUWT. “There’s no shortage of stuff” and “There’s no shortage of energy.”
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/category/world-economics/
Okay. It was fifty degrees this morning when I woke up. Fifty. Five-Zero. I am 40 and was born in this same town. It has never (NEVER) reached 50 degrees in the middle of July. I ain’t sayin’ no ice age, y’all, but it sure ain’t no global warmin’. As you might could tell, I ain’t got no education and I sure ain’t no scientist, but how can anyone say the entire globe is heating up? In the article the dude said, “I don’t have the expertise.” Well, neither do I. But if this cap and trade nonsense is allowed to continue… it’ll be worse than any of these knuckleheads’ AGW supposed scenarios.
Yes, climate can cause horrible conditions for humanity. So can idiots in power, and the ignorance that keeps them in power. Thanks for providing a forum in which ignorance can be reduced. It’s the real reason why those in power hate blogs.
Joel Shore (06:39:19),
You poor baby! Things haven’t been going your way lately, have they?
Here’s another chart that will get your panties in a bunch: click
Sorry about the wedgie. Is that graph deceptive, too? Apparently you believe that all the graphs that debunk AGW are ‘deceptive’.
For a truly deceptive graph, see here. Y-axis trickery. Starting at zero ppmv, it’s not nearly so alarming.
To put the CO2 concentration in perspective: click.
The fact is that rising CO2 emissions are a function of rising temperature across all time scales; a higher temperature causes CO2 outgassing, not vice versa. It’s like a warm beer, see? Higher temps = more CO2.
Anyway, more harmless, beneficial CO2 added to the atmosphere can not cause more than a very tiny, fraction of a degree warming — and sensible people want a warmer climate, not a colder one.
Natural global warming causes increased natural CO2 emissions, that’s all that is going on here. But I suspect you already knew that.
It is worth looking at exactly how Tom Tripp is an “IPCC lead author”.
WTH already found the relevant document. Yes, Tom Tripp is indeed lead author of Volume 3, “Industrial Processes and Product Use”. However, this is a volume of the “2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories”.
The IPCC is organized as follows:
1. Working Group I – The Physical Science Basis
2. Working Group II – Climate Change Impacts, Adaption and Vulnerability
3. Working Group III – Mitigation of Climate Change
4. National Greenhouse Gas Inventories Programme
5. Data Distribution Centre
So Tripp has helped to write the guidelines for GHG bookkeeping, according to which the past GHG emissions are compiled and offered to the scientists to ponder. He seems to have had no part in either the actual data collection nor in the writing of the AR4 synthesis report.
Ask yourself: How does the above make him qualified to assess “It well may be, but we’re not scientifically there yet.”?!?
Ask yourself: When someone talking about climate science is introduced as a “IPCC lead author”, do you or do you not consider this to mean “lead author of the IPCC synthesis report”? I consider this a stretching of someone’s credentials. If you do not think so, please show me another instance of an “IPCC lead author” commenting on the science of climate, who was not involved in the actual synthesis reports.
Neil (04:26:01) :
tallbloke YHM
Neil, TVR 🙂
Stephen Wilde (01:54:45) :
The equilibrium temperature of Earth’s climate system is not set by the sea surface temperature as normally defined.
The equilibrium temperature is set by the net global average temperature of the oceanic water which lies just below the layer of ocean surface involved in the evaporative process.
Which presumably is not measurable by satellite so we only have estimates of ocean heat content to go on, which are too blunt an instrument, even if they weren’t systematically underestimated to fit the co2 forcing.
But you are saying we can infer it from the lower tropospheric temp. Right?
“…difficult to come to a scientifically valid conclusion that global warming is man made.” …“we’re not scientifically there yet.” Though commendable, I find these statements still rather frightening, as it implies a definite agenda: that of getting there, meaning proving AGW/CC. Still, not surprising, as that has always been the assumption of the IPCC, and is the very basis for its existence.
“…natural variability in weather…” Yes, of course it would be WEATHER that is naturally variable, not climate. Perhaps if he could just show a bit more backbone, I’d be more impressed.
Gary (07:17:38) :
Well said sir. You don’t need an education to be intelligent.
tallbloke (08:11:53)
I think the best we can do without a vast network of sensors in the oceans is to determine the direction of trend.
To do that we need to identify the average net latitudinal position of all the air circulation systems combined to determine whether the global air temperature is rising or falling.
However one need not be too specific to get a general idea.
From 1975 to 2000 many observed the poleward shift. Around 2000 I observed an equatorward shift.
The systems are currently well equatorward and cold weather reports are proliferating.
How much money and time needs to be spent on greater precision ?
We are not in control, we are not responsible, we never will be.
Neil
Thanks for those two letters. I keep hoping Cameron’s outfit is just keeping its powder dry until next May, whereupon it will suddenely “discover” the anti-AGW science and embrace the rationalist view. But it isn’t going to happen. I am therefore off to Canada, where I will buy a sharp axe, a long rifle, a large box of ammunition and a cabin in the woods. I’ll post the Lat & Long here idc so that AGW impoverished refugees can join me. Entry requirements are 1000 rounds (calibre to be confirmed), and a marriageable daughter.
Stephen Wilde (09:41:31) :
tallbloke (08:11:53)
I think the best we can do without a vast network of sensors in the oceans is to determine the direction of trend.
To do that we need to identify the average net latitudinal position of all the air circulation systems combined to determine whether the global air temperature is rising or falling.
Well there is ARGO of course, for the future and recent past.
I’ve calculated that the ocean was stashing ~2.3% of the available incoming isolation between 1993 and 2003 and had been since the strong solar cycle at the start of the ’80’s. Your expansion of the tropical troposphere polewards would create a bigger volume for radiated heat from the tropical ocean to fill. That would raise global tropospheric temps in general. It would also reduce outgoing longwave radiation which is indeed what we see form the record. That would have the knock-on effect of reducing stratospheric temperature, which is also what we see in the observational record. The Equatorward shift in 2000 coincides with the start of the 4W/m^2 increase in OLR and the stabilising of stratospheric temperatures.
I’m liking your hypothesis more and more.
It’s also dawned on me why the global temp didn’t drop much postwar. The oceans were topped up with heat from the 1930-1940 strong solar period, plus the whopper cycle in the fifties which didn’t seem to lift surface temps much. It was getting stashed in the ocean to rebuild the heat reserves depleted by the postwar emission and subsequent cold PDO.
Your poleward shift would also explain the increased storage in the north atlantic and it’s associated high late C20th anomaly, due to increased humidity restricting ocean heat emission. That also helps explains the low increase in OLR during the solar min of solar cycle 22. And therefore the increase in trapped heat. There’s your global warming.
Do we get a prize?
So in a nutshell, your poleward shift didn’t act as a governor or regulator for the earth as a whole, but redistributed tropical heat over a much bigger area, including a lot more landmass, regulating the excess heat buildup in the tropics.
Fielding nails it:
The real reason I’ll fight in the Senate on Climate Change.
If all our politicians would do the same, we are out of the woods.
http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/the-real-reason-ill-fight-in-the-senate-on-climate-change?from=news.com.au
I have some other letters from our elected “people” ( really wanted to use some rather derogatory terms!!) if there is general interest I will scan them and post.
TB , will scan them tomorrow and mail to you .
tallbloke (various)
You are getting there.
I’m just not getting any feedback to indicate that my hypothesis is faulty. It deals with all observed phenomena without involving CO2 and continues to reflect the real world to this day.
The latitudinal shift of the air circulation systems beyond normal seasonal variability has happened twice in my lifetime.
After the first shift and during the warming spell the Discovery Channel in a show about the jet streams asserted that the poleward shift was our fault.
It clearly happened. The movement was clearly linked to a change in global temperature trend.
It was clearly following global SST changes not leading them.
I’ll repeat this again, it’s important:
“The equilibrium temperature of Earth’s climate system is not set by the sea surface temperature as normally defined.
The equilibrium temperaure is set by the net global average temperature of the oceanic water which lies just below the layer of ocean surface involved in the evaporative process.
The temperature of that water is shielded from any changes in the composition of the air by the evaporative process. It is
however affected by changes within the oceans which alter the rate of energy emission to the air and by variations in solar input.
The evaporative process ensures that a change in the composition of the air affecting the radiative properties of the air does not alter the rate of energy release from that layer of water which lies below the region affected by evaporation.
Changes in the composition of the air alone can only result in a change in the speed of the hydrological cycle with no effect or no significant effect on the net global average temperature of the air. ”
Full article here:
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=3735
The latitudinal shift of the air circulation systems beyond normal seasonal variability has happened twice in my lifetime.
Stephen Wilde, I haven’t studied your theory in detail, but the lattitudinal (poleward or equatorward) shift is really what the term ‘climate change’ should mean. Because this is the only way the Earth’s climate can change.
Early on in the climate change saga, it was asserted that poleward shift of circulation systems was the signature of climate change. However, when no long trend appeared, this was quietly forgotten about, at least in the public arena.
Changes in the composition of the air alone can only result in a change in the speed of the hydrological cycle with no effect or no significant effect on the net global average temperature of the air.
What can effect the hydrological cycle is factors that influence phase changes of water. Specifically aerosols and Svensmark’s GCRs.
I’ll now go and read your paper.
masonmart says:
As I noted, if you plot the graph correctly…i.e., by scaling the relative axes for CO2 and temperature such that the temperature would be expected to go up on the graph at about the same rate as the CO2 if the IPCC projections were correct…then it would be readily apparent that there is not really any statistically-significant disagreement. I.e., it would be visually apparent that the temperature graph is so noisy that any reasonable error bars in the temperature trend would include the IPCC projection.
It is easy enough to try this yourself. Just take the current graph, in which the CO2 rise is plotted so that it goes up from about 0.1 to 0.8 C on the temperature scale and replot it so that it only rises from about 0.1 to 0.25 C on the temperature scale. I think you will agree that it changes the visual conclusions one draws from the graph dramatically!
Smokey says:
Really. So, why is the CO2 level rising at a rate that is so coincidentally pegged at about 1/2 the rate at which we are adding CO2 to the atmosphere? And, what is happening to the extra CO2 that we add? And, why do we see the oceans actually increasing rather than decreasing their concentrations of CO2? And, that is not even mentioning the isotopic evidence that the increase in CO2 is due to our burning of fossil fuels.
But hey, if you want to believe that your picture is correct, I encourage you to argue this point whenever you communicate with scientists or policymakers as I think it will definitely help them decide how seriously to consider your arguments in general!
Joel, I don’t believe anybody on here has ever denied that there has been warming. What is being discussed on boards like this is the many fatal weaknesses in the AGW hypothesis. It has nothing to do with whether man made carbon dioxide concentration or temperature is rising or falling at any time only the lack of a causal link. Can I ask you to show one credible piece of evidence that man made carbon is causing Climate Change or some of the claimed results such as adverse weather. Can you explain the lack of Lower Tropospherical hot spot necessary if AGW is true? How about Arctic Ice not disappearing and Antarctic ice and temperatures being normal. It isn’t enough to regurgitate propaganda you need to produce the goods.
My CO detector doesn’t beep even on hot days.
Stephen Wilde (15:46:28) :
tallbloke (various)
You are getting there.
Changes in the composition of the air alone can only result in a change in the speed of the hydrological cycle with no effect or no significant effect on the net global average temperature of the air. ”
Full article here:
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=3735
Stephen, I’ll move over to your thread on climaterealists to continue the conversation, it’s getting confusing having this running across several threads here.
Cheers
tallbloke,
Start a new thread in my section here:
http://climaterealists.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=4
Others are also welcome.
Hi Lance,
Well, if I was surprised before, I’m astonished now! It never occurred to me that a non-expert could so thoroughly get the wrong end of the stick. I AM an oil industry shill. I hope you feel better with that off your chest.
“Hi Lance,
Well, if I was surprised before, I’m astonished now!”
Hi Oliver,
I’m both surprised, astonished, I’m dumbfounded!
So that you’re saying, is most of the time reading this blog you see posters that have irreverence to experts opinion? Of course you were surprised at the reverence, so you just had to ask”whats up with that?”
I added my post as a sarcastic joke to your post, of course, thinking that you where being faseshus.
Now if I was mistaken, as does happen on-line, I apologize.
And a answer to the last question,
Who is ever truly happy?
I will say though, your confession about being a oil industry shill did make me smile! 🙂 :p
Cheers
Lance in BC
Stephen Wilde (07:27:56) :
tallbloke,
Start a new thread in my section here:
http://climaterealists.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=4
Others are also welcome.
Stephen, I’ve replied to a couple of threads and continued our discussion on the water vapour thread.