“Gore Effect” on Steroids: Six straight days of record low temperatures during COP16 in Cancun Mexico – more coming

The irony, it burns. Do you think maybe Gaia is trying to send the U.N. and the delegates a message? One record low was funny, three in a row was hilarious, a new record low for the month of December was ROFL, but now six straight days of record lows during the U.N. COP16 Global Warming conference? That’s galactically inconvenient. The whole month so far has averaged below normal:

Here’s today from Weather Underground, Today’s low was 55°F and the old record was 60°F in 1999:

And here are the other 5 days, and more record lows are forecast, see below:

======================================================

The forecast for Cancun is not encouraging:

Existing record lows for the next two days are:

Dec 11 57 °F (2003)

Dec 12 55 °F (2008)

It is likely we will see a full week, possibly 8 days of record lows, and another new all time record low for the month of December is possible also.

About these ads

202 thoughts on ““Gore Effect” on Steroids: Six straight days of record low temperatures during COP16 in Cancun Mexico – more coming

  1. Just imagine what kind of apocalyptic weather would occur if they had these things in say Denver or Saskatoon (which I’m sure has a bustling winter convention scene) in January. -40 degree temps (conveniently where C and F match), 5 feet of snow, Imperial Walkers appear on the horizon, but alas Al Gore’s Tauntaun collapses under his heft and the Rebellion is crushed!

  2. 1999°F? Why, that’s almost 0.08% of the temperature of the interior of the earth! (at least if you assume that ol’ Al literally meant 2,000,000°F when he said ‘millions of degrees’)

    REPLY: Cut and past error made that typo, fixed thanks – Anthony

  3. “Has anyone compiled a list of the Gore effect events?” – Mark Bowlin

    We did, but we threw it away and just kept the value added data.

  4. Interesting how low the dew point is during this spell. Once again water vapor soundly trumps CO2.

  5. “Galactically inconvenient”

    Mr. Watts, two days in a row I bow to your clever wordsmithing. Yesterday was your “knobs” double entendre. Today, this.

    Regarding the Gore Effect, it is truly getting creepy in its predictability. In a good way, of course, but creepy nonetheless.

  6. Do not confuse weather with climate!
    These temperatures are completely consistent with Global Dooming.

  7. What is more noteworthy is the huge temperature swings in an area close to the ocean. You usually don’t expect that. It’s going from ~50F to ~77F through the day, that’s like a temperature swing in a desert.

  8. It must be the oil companies. They have devised a weather-modification machine which they can move about to follow these conferences, in an attempt to undercut the movement.

    Nothing else can account for these “coincidences”.
    /sarc

  9. Last year during Copenhagen, I said they need to do their theater in July. It is too risky in the winter.
    It is very difficult to ignore this reality.

  10. Given our extreme left “friends” at Cancun who want (a) the UN tax us, (b) destroy the US economy and (c) stop the economic development of the west, I say let them freeze their doohickies off.

  11. @Mark Bowlin

    ‘Has anyone compiled a list of the Gore effect events?’

    I once tried but the ink in my pen froze solid. I tried warming it up a little, but stopped when this chill run up my spine. I’m not superstitious but . . .

  12. This helps me get over the fact that so many bureaucratic parasites are down there junketeering on my dime. I am sure the Canadian delegation is large, given the alternative for these useless government drones is to be doing nothing in freezing Ottawa. May you all get food poisoning, puking is about the only thing productive you will ever do.

  13. This has GOT to be more than just coincidental. GOT to be.

    I’m betting the day after the conference ends, typical temperature will prevail in Cancun.

  14. If they want to get their point across, why not hold the conference in the Maldives during an astronomical high tide?

    (You know, … the ol’ long walk / short pier thing.)

  15. The delegates went off to the sun
    To enjoy all the talks and the fun
    But the logic was flawed
    In the models adored
    So Gaia turned down the temps in Cancun

    [Reply] Equally brilliant if not more so! :-) ~tallmod

  16. If these people were told they could get inspiration by hitting themselves between the eyes with a hammer they would do it.

    Look for the next meeting of these political power hungry hacks to be on the equator in mid summer. And look for it to snow.

  17. This story induced a fit of Giggles that grew to full blown hysterical laughter , followed by cough fit… sadly.. this extreme episode of exhalation did use of my carbon credits for the day..

  18. Our witty and puissant comment is .01 cm from surfacing to consciousness, mounting a gigantic tsunami of Warmist drivel. At this rate it will be undeniable, fully settled, in a mere 10,000 years.

    Ban Ki-moon (drum-roll) asserted in September 2009 that absent $10-trillion [yes, trillion] deposited post-haste to UN coffers, by January 2010 Planet Earth would become a baking desert. Climate? Weather? As towering dunes submerge the deflowered Champs Elysees while Americans in Paris flag down camel caravans, who’s laughing now?

  19. And apparently the 14 day period November 24 – December 7 2010 in the UK was the coldest in the Central England Temperature record, which dates back to 1659.

    The world is not all like us, of course. But most of Europe north and East of the Alps has been fairly chilly for the past 4 weeks………

  20. Perhaps gloom and doom psyche have a quantum effect on the weather and they reached their tipping point :0)

  21. How do we know these records are valid? If American meteorologists were too stupid to take accurate temperature readings for the first 80 or 90 years of the 20th century, then surely all the past Mexican temperature readings are suspect and must be adjusted by the all knowing James Hansen.

  22. I’m starting to believe in this Gaia theory. Seems like she does the opposite of whatever the “experts” predict. Coincidence? Hmmm.

  23. @ Kath says:
    December 10, 2010 at 8:07 am

    Given our extreme left “friends” at Cancun who want (a) the UN tax us, (b) destroy the US economy and (c) stop the economic development of the west, I say let them freeze their doohickies off.

    First, you are assuming they have doohickies; and 2nd, that they could find their doohickies with both hands and a flashlight. :)

  24. Lighten up, John. It is perfectly reasonable to make fun of a high-profile, government-sponsored farce.

  25. What’s more inconvenient is the causes behind the cool weather in Cancun. High pressure over the Arctic has once more (like last winter) opened up a pipeline of cold air to the south. At the same time we are seeing record lows in Cancun, we’ve been seeing record warmth is areas of the north like Greenland. Are these related? Probably. Are they related to AGW warming? Possibly. Cold air in areas not used to it is NOT a sign that AGW is not happening…far from it. I think some AGW skeptics should get beyond a simple linear way of thinking of the effects that the 40% increase in CO2 could be having on global weather patterns. One thing that must happen though, if AGW happening is an acceleration of the hydrological cycle. Look for extreme floods, rains, snowfalls, etc.

  26. Serves them right.

    Last time, they booked Copenhagen in mid-winter, and got a whole load of Global Warming at least 25cm deep. Red faces all around.

    This time, they thought, ‘ok, lets meet before winter sets in, and lets go somewhere warm. Somewhere where journos cannot keep joking about snow in an AGW conference’.

    So they go to the coldest Cancun ever recorded. Are they Goons, or Cancoons?

    .

  27. The only thing wrong is that they need a good plastering of sleet.

    Would be nice if it could be localized to the convention so as to save the locals the discomfort.

    I will contribute $1000 to the first person who manages to develop a usable long-range remote-controlled personal-size cumulonimbus cloud.

  28. Each year this just gets better and better. Like a poster in another thread I’m thinking of taking up the Gaia religion because that broad has one funny sense of humor! Mother Nature FTW baby, all the way!

    I do hope that our buddy Monckton brought his wool socks with him.

  29. Olen, as I understand it next year it will be Durban’s pleasure to host the circus – sub-tropical but still a long way from the Equator. Rather than snow, pray for 100% humidity – not pleasant, even for the locals. Some visitors might call it suicide weather…………….

  30. I guess they should have been meeting in Lisbon, where they have been setting record highs for most of the past week. :-)

  31. You would think these guys could find a place that is actually warm to hold a conference on Global Warming. Total incompetence. At least Hansen got the air conditioning turned off back in 88 (?) for his rant.

  32. The politico left , with flawed reports from Bro’s
    Headed to Cancun on taxpayer perks , all glows
    Enter Al Gore
    Which the flawed climate Bro’s adore
    Then the true climate arrived , and all Cancun just froze

  33. John Doyle says:
    December 10, 2010 at 8:54 am

    Illuminating content. I don’t know why I bother with this site.

    ===

    Since you clearly have no sense of humor, I don’t know either. Lighten up, Francis.

  34. John Doyle says:
    December 10, 2010 at 8:54 am

    Illuminating content. I don’t know why I bother with this site.

    Simply because the chances of them “homogenizing” the temperatures in Cancun DOWNWARD are nill to none.

  35. R. Gates says: Are they related to AGW warming? Possibly. Cold air in areas not used to it is NOT a sign that AGW is not happening…

    Thank you. Of course it’s colder because it’s warmer. That’s perfectly gore-ical. Or is the proper terminology gore-ish? Whatever, it fits like O.J.’s glove.

  36. All those tranzie groupies must be severelydisappointed that their tax-payer funded Caribean vacation in the hot Sun was ….. well …. ermm……NOT

  37. R Gates… 40% increase of next to nothing is still next to nothing…

    It sounds so alarming, but really the trees are much happier….

  38. RGates –

    The interesting counterepoint to your comment is that where you can say maybe I can say maybe not. Neither of us actually knows and enough has been posted here to suggest that at least the proofs of the warmers have been shown seriously lacking. Just because we have warmer weather in Greenland (funny that name – why is that again) doesn’t mean anything either.

    WE must stay amused and make fun of these localized outbreaks of coldness wherever the warmists convene their worship services. We all know local weather is not climate, but since that is what these arrogant statists used to pump up concern, we can’t help but pump up the news of localized cold to show them for the hypocrits they are.

  39. “Illuminating content. I don’t know why I bother with this site.” – John Doyle

    Illuminating content, I don’t know why you bothered. Maybe you have some kind of argument to make? Then make it.

  40. John Doyle,

    I don’t know why you bother, either. However I will suggest you skip the posts which are obviously aimed at humor, and focus on the more strict science. Unfortunately there is a bit of humor, even there. So perhaps you are right. You should avoid this site altogether. You wouldn’t want your face to crack.

  41. @R. Gates

    ‘we’ve been seeing record warmth is areas of the north like Greenland.’

    Oh yes a deedy it is very warm. Like -15° C in Thule on the northern west coast and -28° C in Denmarkshavn on the northern east coast.

    But I’m sure your demagogue propaganda definition of “record warmth” hold true but in our reality’s relative terms it be a bit more refined a defined.

  42. R. Gates says:
    December 10, 2010 at 9:21 am
    What’s more inconvenient is the causes behind the cool weather in Cancun. High pressure over the Arctic has once more (like last winter) opened up a pipeline of cold air to the south. At the same time we are seeing record lows in Cancun, we’ve been seeing record warmth is areas of the north like Greenland. Are these related? Probably. Are they related to AGW warming? Possibly. Cold air in areas not used to it is NOT a sign that AGW is not happening…far from it. I think some AGW skeptics should get beyond a simple linear way of thinking of the effects that the 40% increase in CO2 could be having on global weather patterns. One thing that must happen though, if AGW happening is an acceleration of the hydrological cycle. Look for extreme floods, rains, snowfalls, etc.

    Asi is usual for a true believer of the CAGW myth, you have got your logic twisted round to suit your doctrine.

    Yes, when the planet warms through its normal oscillating cycle of cool, warm, cool…e.t.c, this increases the rate of energy disipation of the hydrological cycle.

    This prevents further heating by sending more warmth to the poles where it is lost to space and eventuality this cooling slows down the hydrological heat engine again, which starts warming once more.

  43. Jeff says: December 10, 2010 at 11:32 am
    “2010 Hottest Year On Record”

    Saying the 2010 is the Hottest year on Record indicates that someone does not understand what the word Record means. It means that you have recorded something; you can not record a future event, except in climate scientology.

    All the Measured Data for 2010 is not collected, not that it matters to the Believers since the Models for 2010 were completed a long time ago.

  44. It is somehow very funny when certain people shout out record warmth around the arctic when the arctic, apparently, have been thickening of late, what with all that “warming” in the arctic going on. It ought to be above the arctic me thinks if it push’ the cold arctic surface air down further south. It becomes very hilarious when some people actually believe that the yearly weather of the northern climate behaves exactly the same as an earlier year because that year was statistically positive to them.

    Hippies?

  45. Andrew30 says:
    “All the Measured Data for 2010 is not collected….”

    From the article:
    “Many scientists use the climate year, which runs from December of the preceding year to November of the current year, to evaluate long-term climate trends. The combined land-ocean temperature readings NASA’s Goddard Institute posted Friday indicate that 2010 has surpassed what it identified as the previous warmest climate year, 2005. The findings are significant, according to experts, and barring some temperature anomaly in December, should place 2010 as the warmest year on record overall.”

    Don’t think some cold days in Cancun are going to change the conclusion.

  46. Mike D. says:
    December 10, 2010 at 10:36 am
    R. Gates says: Are they related to AGW warming? Possibly. Cold air in areas not used to it is NOT a sign that AGW is not happening…

    Thank you. Of course it’s colder because it’s warmer. That’s perfectly gore-ical. Or is the proper terminology gore-ish? Whatever, it fits like O.J.’s glove
    __________
    Mike, fortunately you’re simplistic way of looking at the effects of a 40% rise in CO2 is not followed by the thousands of scientists studying this around the world. When you disrupt climate patterns you’re going to see new extremes– especially in the hyrdological cycle.

  47. Amidst all the fun – release of tension perhaps? – I’m pleased to see that R Gates is being taken seriously by some commenters.

    R Gates, while I don’t think your analysis is right, I do agree that we should keep our attention on the bigger climate picture even while diverting into local weather for some fun. But when you say “I think some AGW skeptics should get beyond a simple linear way of thinking of the effects that the 40% increase in CO2 could be having on global weather patterns.. One thing that must happen though, if AGW happening is …“, the problem is that this way of thinking can and must cut both ways. So, for example : AGW warmists should get beyond a simple linear way of thinking that global weather patterns can all be explained by the 40% increase in CO2. One thing that must happen though, if AGW is happening, is that the tropical troposphere (where in theory AGW actually begins) must warm more than the surface.

    Re your reference to the hydrological cycle. Your point may well be valid, but if such changes do occur it is necessary also to eliminate the possibility that they could be from natural causes. After all, the “hydrological cycle” is a cycle.

    If we openly examine all the available evidence, maybe we can make progress.

  48. Tenuc says:
    December 10, 2010 at 11:34 am
    R. Gates says:
    December 10, 2010 at 9:21 am
    What’s more inconvenient is the causes behind the cool weather in Cancun. High pressure over the Arctic has once more (like last winter) opened up a pipeline of cold air to the south. At the same time we are seeing record lows in Cancun, we’ve been seeing record warmth is areas of the north like Greenland. Are these related? Probably. Are they related to AGW warming? Possibly. Cold air in areas not used to it is NOT a sign that AGW is not happening…far from it. I think some AGW skeptics should get beyond a simple linear way of thinking of the effects that the 40% increase in CO2 could be having on global weather patterns. One thing that must happen though, if AGW happening is an acceleration of the hydrological cycle. Look for extreme floods, rains, snowfalls, etc.

    Asi is usual for a true believer of the CAGW myth, you have got your logic twisted round to suit your doctrine.

    Yes, when the planet warms through its normal oscillating cycle of cool, warm, cool…e.t.c, this increases the rate of energy disipation of the hydrological cycle.

    This prevents further heating by sending more warmth to the poles where it is lost to space and eventuality this cooling slows down the hydrological heat engine again, which starts warming once more.

    ______
    The acceleration of the hydrological cycle is a long term response of the planet to an increase in CO2, and seems to be the natural way the planet trys to balance the level of CO2. This process naturally occurs over millions of years through the weathering of rock (which reduces CO2). However, this natural feedback mechanism works when CO2 rises relatively slowly. The geologically speaking rapid rise in CO2 since the 1700’s is new territory for the hydrological cycle. The core question is how the earth will respond to what represent a virtually instant 40% jump in CO2 levels. We know the hyrdological cycle will accelerate, but since this feedback will not reduce the source of the rapid rise in CO2 (i.e. human activity), at least not immediately, a question of sensitivty and chaotic effects becomes quite important.

  49. It is interesting to note on the graph that the minimum temperature is very close to the sunset dew point in most cases. This is, in fact, a very good way to forecast the overnight low if skies are clear and there is no wind. A bit OT but quite a while back I was developing a method/model to predict low temperatures. This becomes especially important when the low is around zero in the growing season. I developed a model based on black body radiation and then modified for cloud cover, wind, and relative humidity. I worked for quite a while developing this model. I then decided to compare it to using the straight old dew point at sunset as the overnight low under clear and calm conditions. Well…the simple dew point method generally worked a lot better. So it goes to show you that the more complicated method is not always the best, even though it may be based on what you believe to be more sound physics.

    It is also often difficult to admit that the model you worked so long on is really not that good. I believe that this is where a lot of climate modelers have a problem. Even though they may know the model has serious failings, it is hard to admit that after you put so much work into it. And in a way I can sympathize with them on this issue. But that does not excuse them from portraying their model as more that it really is.

  50. Well, since you are all starting to talk about what will, and will not, happen with the hydrological cycle; how about some data?

    I found this site that makes nice little plots of the temperatures vs the precipitation. Throughout all of history (with minor excursions and trivial variations in lead / lag) the temps and precip pretty much track. Until you get to GISS data…

    http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2010/12/10/does-rain-call-giss-liars/

    But I’m sure R. Gates will find some way to show that CO2 caused more rain / temp ratio in the early 1900’s and far less in the late 1900’s… It’s magic, after all … ;-)

  51. R. Gates says:

    Look for extreme floods, rains, snowfalls, etc.

    Same old tired crap, missy. Well we’ve been looking for those for 20 years now, and weather has not strayed outside of norms. There’s no increase in extreme floods, rains, snowfalls, etc. Under normal circumstances people would admit their conjecture is not happening.

  52. Mark Bowlin wanted a Gore Effect list – from the posts on this page

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/09/gore-effect-strikes-again-new-coldest-ever-december-record-temperature-in-cancun/#more-29153

    you will find this

    Werner Brozek says:
    December 9, 2010 at 7:19 pm
    “Merrick says:
    December 9, 2010 at 1:30 pm
    Does anyone have available a fairly exhaustive list of major AGW events and/or Al Gore appearances related to AGW that might serve as a basis?”

    Is this what you were looking for to get you started:
    http://www.climatedepot.com/a/1869/Climate-Depot-Factsheet-on-the-Gore-Effect-Phenomenoncite>

  53. There once was a man named Al Gore
    who foretold what the world had in store.
    But when he warned of heat,
    he was buried in sleet
    like he never had seen it before.

  54. There once was a boss named Ki-Moon
    who assembled his flock in Cancun
    for some money to spend,
    but it came to an end,
    for some sheep turned to wolves all too soon.

    with thanks to the Russians.

  55. There once was a Stoltenberg, who
    were to lead all his climate change crew.
    But this climate change pope
    seemed to lose all his hope
    as no country would sign: I O U.

  56. Jeff says: December 10, 2010 at 12:48 pm
    “Many scientists use the climate year..”

    Since when?

    http://gcmd.nasa.gov

    Global temperature database: 500 stations. Measurements since 1720
    Temporal Coverage
    Start Date: 1720-01-01

    Should the start date be 1719-12-01 OR 1719-11-01?

    How many is “Many scientists”, 2, 5, 10?

    “Many scientists use the climate year”

    In keeping with the NASA mandate to support other cultures they have tried to accommodate the Arabic (Hijri) calendar. So they dug up an obscure definition of ‘a year’ that came closest to last day of the last Hijri year (30th of dhul-Higiha, 1431) aka (Tuesday 7 December 2010).

    If the temperature record had been different they would have used the Australian school year as a base. If it is convenient (i.e. warmer) in 2012 they may use the Mayan calendar from that point forward so that they can say that the year was the warmest that could ever possibly be recorded, since the calendar ends in 2012.

    “Don’t think some cold days in Cancun are going to change the conclusion.”

    Don’t think some cold days in Cancun are going to change the foregone conclusion.

    http://gcmd.nasa.gov/KeywordSearch/Metadata.do?Portal=GCMD&KeywordPath=Parameters%7CCLIMATE+INDICATORS%7CAIR+TEMPERATURE+INDICES%7CCOMMON+SENSE+CLIMATE+INDEX&OrigMetadataNode=GCMD&EntryId=Rimfrost&MetadataView=Full&MetadataType=0&lbnode=mdlb3

  57. There once was one Anthony Watts
    who made up one of Earth’s hottest spots
    where the heat was turned on
    with each new climate con
    on which skeptics all fired their shots.

  58. There once was a Kyoto deal
    which so many thought was there for real.
    Like a bolt out of blue
    it expired its due.
    By its grave, all the warmers will kneel.

  59. There once was a Gates on this blog
    who mistook NASA’s temperature log.
    For its large weather range
    did not mean Climate Change,
    even though it kept Gates in a fog.

    [reply] Excellent! Keep ‘em coming Geir ~tallmod

  60. There is a Tim Gore from Oxfam who is presently in Cancun. No relation I suppose…………………….. :o)

  61. Andy, you’re struggling, but that’s okay. We can reconvene on Dec. 31, 2010 and see if the data and scientific findings have changed.

  62. R. Gates says:
    December 10, 2010 at 9:21 am
    One thing that must happen though, if AGW happening is an acceleration of the hydrological cycle. Look for extreme floods, rains, snowfalls, etc.
    ==================================================
    Do you really think that’s happening right now Gates?
    Do you really think our planet is that unstable?
    That this little bitty rise in CO2 is really doing that?

  63.       Al Gore the Exposed Racketeer
     
    You know Briffa and Trenberth and Wigley and Hansen,
    Monbiot and Lovelock and Phil Jones and Revkin.
    But do you recall
    The most egregious swindler of all? 

    Al Gore the Exposed Racketeer
    Had a very greedy scheme,
    And if he could have used it,
    You would truly want to scream.

    All of the other scammers
    Used his ploy for their own gains; 
    Would not admit their misdeeds
    As they put us all in chains. 

    Then one icy Copenhagen day, 
    Skeptics came to say: 
    “Climategate really sank this ship,
    There’ll be no agreement signed this trip!”

    Then how the skeptics delighted, 
    As they blogged about with glee,
    “Al Gore the Exposed Raceteer,
    You can kiss our big hiney.”

  64. GISS Nov 10 0.73

    OK I can only comment on Sweden and Norway

    In Sweden this was one of the 6 coldest Novembers in 110 years according to SMHI. Just checked SMHI (Swedens NOAA), the figures from GISS are wrong, terribly wrong, 1 to 1.5 degree C to high. Norway (second coolest on record according to YR.no) is worse, 2-3 degree C to high. This can not be an error, this is something else, GISS please!

  65. John Doyle says:
    December 10, 2010 at 8:54 am

    “I don’t know why I bother with this site.”

    That’s not surprising. We’re still trying to figure out if you know anything at all.

  66. R. Gates says:
    December 10, 2010 at 1:08 pm

    “….I think some AGW skeptics should get beyond a simple linear way of thinking of the effects that the 40% increase in CO2 could be having on global weather patterns…..”

    AND

    R. Gates says:
    December 10, 2010 at 12:59 pm

    “….Mike, fortunately you’re simplistic way of looking at the effects of a 40% rise in CO2 is not followed by the thousands of scientists studying this around the world….”

    ————————————————————————————–

    I think that it is YOU sir that “should get beyond a simple linear way of thinking of the effects that the 40% increase in CO2 could be having on global weather patterns.”

    AND

    I also think sir, that YOUR “simplistic way of looking at the effects of a 40% rise in CO2 is not followed by the (at least a thousand) scientists studying this around the world.” See http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/08/shredding-the-climate-consensus-myth-more-than-1000-international-scientists-dissent-over-man-made-global-warming-claims-challenge-un-ipcc-gore/

    But thanks as always for stopping by to help us fine tune our arguments.

  67. There once was a Ms. Hedegaard
    who in Denmark was more than a bore.
    She invented a scheme:
    all the scammers’ wet dream,
    but the taxpayers’ wallets got sore.

    She lost more than 7 billion bucks.
    And the scammers drove money in trucks.
    And the EU said: Hey!
    This old lady’s OK!
    Now she’s leading the climate change chucks!

    So she sits in Cancun and she serves
    Mammon, which she thinks that she deserves.
    All our money she spends
    for her climate change friends
    and she digs deep into our reserves.

    She is making a lot of fat friends
    with the money she recklessly spends.
    Consequences aside,
    she is the perfect aide
    to the scum of the earth and their ends.

  68. I’ve read comments on pro-agw sites, and their huddled masses are spouting how this is entirely consistent with “global climate distruption” (or whatever lame appelation has been attached to it this week.)

    whatever do they put in that brew to so thoroughly destroy the ability of their followers to think critically?

  69. Re JEM says: December 10, 2010 at 9:24 am

    I will contribute $1000 to the first person who manages to develop a usable long-range remote-controlled personal-size cumulonimbus cloud.

    No money necessary. How do you thing the cabal is doing this? Not all weather satellites are read-only.. :p

    But given the remarkable knack the Gore effect demonstrates for generating widespread cooling, it would probably cost much less than $100bn or 1.5% of GDP a year to keep these delegates on the road cooling down previously hot spots. May also keep them from causing any more trouble back in their home countries as well.

  70. What the warmies have is a religion. Religions are based on non disprovable hypotheses. For instance, “no matter what the weather does, it is proof of global warming.”

  71. In regards to the general acceleration of the hydrological cycle with increases in CO2, I would suggest a few links:

    http://www.eos.ubc.ca/~mjelline/453website/eosc453/E_prints/AnnRev.28.1.611.pdf

    http://www.karst.edu.cn/carbon/rockd.htm

    http://www.uwsp.edu/geo/faculty/ritter/geog101/textbook/earth_system/hydrologic_cycle.html

    And in regards to whether such a phenomenon is occurring with our current CO2 levels being at the highest levels in at least 800,000 years, you might go here:

    http://www.umass.edu/newsoffice/newsreleases/articles/104895.php

    http://explorations.ucsd.edu/Research_Highlights/2010/Mar_Apr/argo/

    Or simply ignore the science and continue to make up little limrics instead…(which is probably much more fun)…so…

    There once was a skeptic from Hell (that’s in Norway)
    Who pryed open a scientist’s mail
    Inside he did lift
    Unremarkable script
    Sending some down a fantasy trail

  72. latitude says:
    December 10, 2010 at 2:19 pm
    R. Gates says:
    December 10, 2010 at 9:21 am
    One thing that must happen though, if AGW happening is an acceleration of the hydrological cycle. Look for extreme floods, rains, snowfalls, etc.
    ==================================================
    Do you really think that’s happening right now Gates?
    Do you really think our planet is that unstable?
    That this little bitty rise in CO2 is really doing that?

    _________
    Yes, I think it is more likely than not that the earth is responding to a rise in CO2 the same way it has millions of years…with an acceleration of the hydrological cycle.

    The term “unstable” is not very scientific. If you live in an area that gets a lot of earthquakes, you might feel the earth to be very unstable. Looking at the earth’s past, we see long periods of relative stability in the climate punctuated by periods of rapid change when many species go extinct (we seem to be going through one such period now).

    The 40% rise in CO2 in the last few hundred years is hardly tiny. It has risen to a level not seen in 800,000 years. We still are not certain of how sensitive the earth is to such a rapid rise (geologically speaking) in CO2. If the earth responds the way it has to previous periods of high CO2 levels, we should see general global warming and an acceleration of the hyrdological cycle. There is mounting evidence that this is exactly what is occurring.

  73. The irony, it burns. Do you think maybe Gaia is trying to send the U.N. and the delegates a message?

    Do you think they care? Demolish the US economy or ban water – if it “sounds right” it obviously is right.

    It’s like watching 1780’s France via the internet. The Aristocracy prance in Cancun while the commoners are left to “eat cake”. Lock and load boys and girls – these people won’t stop until they are made to stop.

    Blue helmet resistance to a .357 – now there’s a scientific paper I could happily propagate.

  74. R. Gates says: {December 10, 2010 at 9:21 am}
    “At the same time we are seeing record lows in Cancun, we’ve been seeing record warmth is areas of the north like Greenland”

    What are record lows for Cancun and what’s record warmth for Greenland do not really mean it is actually cold in Cancun and warm in Greenland. In fact I wouldn’t speak to any temperature in Greenland right now as “warm”. Attaching words like warmth to Greenland are purposely misleading. Perhaps you would give us the actual temperatures there.

  75. I once heard someone suggest that the human mind was device designed to collapse probability wave fronts (something to do with the strong anthropic principle, IIRC). Perhaps climate/weather is simply a probability field and all those “minds” in Cancun are actually responsible for the weather turning out on the brass monkeys side.

  76. R. Gates says:
    December 10, 2010 at 9:21 am

    What’s more inconvenient is the causes behind the cool weather in Cancun. High pressure over the Arctic has once more (like last winter) opened up a pipeline of cold air to the south. At the same time we are seeing record lows in Cancun, we’ve been seeing record warmth is areas of the north like Greenland. Are these related? Probably. Are they related to AGW warming? Possibly. Cold air in areas not used to it is NOT a sign that AGW is not happening…far from it. I think some AGW skeptics should get beyond a simple linear way of thinking of the effects that the 40% increase in CO2 could be having on global weather patterns. One thing that must happen though, if AGW happening is an acceleration of the hydrological cycle. Look for extreme floods, rains, snowfalls, etc.

    Could you enlighten us as to what to look for to prove AGW is not happening? Please? Pretty please? It is a serious question, but one that I have never seen answered.

  77. R. Gates says:
    December 10, 2010 at 4:47 pm
    Or simply ignore the science and continue to make up little limrics instead…(which is probably much more fun)…so…

    Given the quality (ahem) of your limerick writing, I can see why you want to get serious on our friday night knockabout.

    Don’t give up the day job. ;-)

  78. There is a young man called R. Gates
    Who doesn’t have many mates
    So he hangs out round here
    While we’re swilling our beer
    On and on, and on he prates!

    Lighten up guy.

  79. R. Gates says:
    December 10, 2010 at 4:47 pm
    And in regards to whether such a phenomenon is occurring with our current CO2 levels being at the highest levels in at least 800,000 years, you might go here:
    ======================================================
    Why 800,000? What an odd place to start counting from.
    Why not a million? too inconvenient? ;-)

    Gates you know that CO2 levels have been as low as around 180, and as high as over 7000. What happened?

    At 180 the temperatures went up.
    At 7000 the temperatures went down.

    There has never been run away global warming.
    A CO2 is a CO2, there’s no such thing as a man-made CO2.

  80. R. Gates says:
    December 10, 2010 at 9:21 am
    ……………….”One thing that must happen though, if AGW happening is an acceleration of the hydrological cycle. Look for extreme floods, rains, snowfalls, etc.”
    ==========================
    Which would be different, how?

  81. E.M.Smith says:
    December 10, 2010 at 1:18 pm

    Well, since you are all starting to talk about what will, and will not, happen with the hydrological cycle;[....]

    Ah.. atmosphere … the continuation of Ocean by other means

  82. Hmmm – I was certain we went around this before. Didn’t we determine that R.Gates was female? Judging by the faulty logic, I would definitely assume young female (with apologies to the notable female skeptic commenters here).

    You can always tell a cAGW believer. But you can’t tell them much. The profile is pretty well established: blind belief, and a complete lack of knowledge about anything in the past (ie. youth). And a youthful naiveté that is almost touching in some ways. Almost.

  83. R. Gates says:
    December 10, 2010 at 9:21 am
    “One thing that must happen though, if AGW happening is an acceleration of the hydrological cycle. Look for extreme floods, rains, snowfalls, etc.”

    It must happen? If there is AGW and if it is an acceleration of the hydrological cycle?

    Not much of a hypothesis you have there. Is that the best AGW can do? I will treat it as a hypothesis and see what can be made of it.

    I lived through the 1,000 year flood in St. Louis in 1973. Then I lived through its child in 1982, also a 1,000 year jobbie. Then I lived through its grandchild in 1992, also a 1,000 year jobbie. Thousand year floods are hard to take when they arrive every 10 years or so. Since 1992, there has not been so much as a 100 year flood in St. Louis, not even a 10 year flood. It has been 18 years. What happened? In my humble opinion, the number of serious floods and similar events in North America has been amazingly low for twenty to thirty years. Will you count this as evidence against AGW? Why or why not? If not, why do you discuss such events at all? And what would count as disconfirming evidence for AGW – a series of negative model runs?

  84. Can we book this circus in May here in South India? We could do with some “public air conditioning” in that period as it is usually damn hot then: between 35C and 40C with 80% humidity.
    I am not sure if we have enough 5 star hotels though.

  85. tallbloke says:
    December 10, 2010 at 5:32 pm @ RGates

    ==================

    That was classic! Thanks.

    Chris

  86. Do these records go back far? Before the time of Pancho Villa? It doesn’t seem right that there can be so many broken records. It is a long record?

  87. I have torn down my birdfeeder. I have uprooted the two magnificant oaks in my back yard. I have constructed a pool complete with a wave machine and a sandy beach, all covered by a Dysan dome with radiant heating. The rare Cancun penguin must be saved. One of only two penguins adapted to live in tropical temperture {the Galapogos penguin is the other}, it is quite rare and quite small, only a foot tall. It is beyond endangered, indeed nearly extinct. I hope I have built its last refuge. This cold wave may be its death knell; it must have warm weather to survive. If the esteemed delagates to the Cancun conference will search for and find specimens and bring them to me, I pledge to do all in my power to preserve the last remnants of this diminuative species. The task I give the delegates is very difficult, much like catching a snipe {the American Snipe is a real bird, look it up}, but the rewards are great. Think about how you could help preserve the Cancun penguin, one of the rarest birds in the world. Some my say my sacrifice is too great [I miss the oaks already], but no sacrifice is too great if you are an environmentalist.

  88. Jeremy says:
    December 10, 2010 at 7:55 am
    What is more noteworthy is the huge temperature swings in an area close to the ocean. You usually don’t expect that. It’s going from ~50F to ~77F through the day, that’s like a temperature swing in a desert.

    Maybe it was one of Michelle’s food deserts.

  89. Weather Underground:

    “Life-giving rains have returned over the past two months to Earth’s greatest rainforest–the Amazon–after it experienced its second 100-year drought in five years this year. The record drought began in April, during the usual start to the region’s dry season, when rainfall less than 75% of average fell over much of the southern Amazon (Figure 2.) The drought continued through September, and by October, when the rainy season finally arrived, the largest northern tributary of the Amazon River–the Rio Negro–had dropped to thirteen feet (four meters) below its usual dry season level. This was its lowest level since record keeping began in 1902. The low water mark is all the more remarkable since the Rio Negro caused devastating flooding in 2009, when it hit an all-time record high, 53 ft (16 m) higher than the 2010 record low. The 2010 drought is similar in intensity and scope to the region’s previous 100-year drought, which hit the Amazon in 2005, according to Brazil’s National Institute of Space Research. Severe fires burned throughout the Amazon in both 2005 and 2010, leading to declarations of states of emergencies.”

    http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=1705

    *******
    “Climate change is causing wildfires to burn more fiercely, pumping more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than previously thought, according to a new study to be published in Nature Geosciences this week. This is the first study to reveal that fires in the Alaskan interior – an area spanning 18.5 million hectares – have become more severe in the past 10 years, and have released much more carbon into the atmosphere than was stored by the region’s forests over the same period.”

    http://www.uoguelph.ca/news/2010/12/post_209.html

    Have at it….

  90. Terrorists are being brought to justice in civil courts these days…
    Al Gore and the global warming alarmists such as left wing politicians, pseudo scientists, journalists, the Hollywood idiots, have been inflicting psychological terrorism upon a whole generation of children all over the world for the last 15 years.
    These charlatans should be brought to justice as the perpetrators of the biggest scam in the history of this planet.
    The social,financial and psychological damages that they caused are beyond comprehension.
    No criminal organization in history has come even close to having such a desastruous impact on so many people, for such a long time, and make so much money in the process.
    They should not be permitted to get away with it.
    Hundred of billions have been wasted on a fraud, social and economical policies have been altered based on a fraud….the moral authors of this fraud should be in jail for the rest of their lives and their fortune seized.

  91. Murray Grainger says:
    December 10, 2010 at 8:37 am

    I guess you have to be Brit to rhyme “flawed” and “adored”!

    :D

  92. stan stendera,

    Please tell us you’re being sarcastic, which seems likely. If so, fine parody on the eco-lunatics.

    Otherwise, who annointed you as the arbiter of which species should exist, and which species should not survive because of outside [human] intervention.

    Should we protect the smallpox virus from eradication? It deserves to live, too.

    Because Gaia loves diversity and all.

  93. “Illuminating content. I don’t know why I bother with this site.” – John Doyle

    And vice versa. It’s mutual!

  94. “Mike says:
    December 10, 2010 at 1:57 pm

    Think globally.

    “NASA: Hottest November on record,”

    Mike, can you please give me a good explanation for the huge discrepancy between GISS and Hadcrut3? The November value for Hadcrut3 is not out yet, however its October value of 0.392 is the 9th highest of the last 15 years. See http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadcrut3gl.txt
    However the GISS value for October of 63 is its 3rd highest of the last 15 years! I used http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
    And when the November data is posted on Hadcrut3, I expect it to be one of the lowest November values of the last 15 years, but we will have to wait and see. But for now, can you give a good reason why October was so different between the two?

  95. Ok, first I blew Cheerio’s all over my keyboard, now I have spit up coffee all over myself. After reading this posting and some of the wittiest comments I think I have ever read, I am in pretty bad shape….

    Attention: I’m seeking legal counsel in the morning and holding you all responsible!

    – Cheer’s my friends! .. and enjoy the show .. I sure am

  96. tallbloke says:
    December 10, 2010 at 5:43 pm

    Rgates,
    I suggest you go to the link you provided and read the last comment from ‘Guest’.

    http://explorations.ucsd.edu/Research_Highlights/2010/Mar_Apr/argo/

    he has saved me the trouble, by expressing exactly what I was thinking as I read the article.

    Can I drink my beer in peace now please?

    Thank you.

    WOW! … just WOW! … An absolutely scathing response! … Thank you so very much TALLBLOKE for that link! A MUST read for anyone interested in the topics presented by R.Gates … And, R.Gates, sorry man, you lose yet again…. next….

  97. CodeTech says:
    December 10, 2010 at 6:33 pm

    Hmmm – I was certain we went around this before. Didn’t we determine that R.Gates was female? Judging by the faulty logic, I would definitely assume young female (with apologies to the notable female skeptic commenters here).

    I believe you are correct sir! … my bad (faulty memory, getting old). I apologize to R.Gates, when I should in fact said “.. sorry MISS, you lose yet again…. next….

  98. JER0ME says:

    Could you enlighten us as to what to look for to prove AGW is not happening? Please? Pretty please? It is a serious question, but one that I have never seen answered
    ______

    Remove all the other known climate forcings such as Milankovitch cycles, ENSO, PDO, AMO, NAO, solar cycles, etc. and if you’ve got nothing left, then there would be no need for AGW…that’s how you could disprove it…or at least remove the need for it. Funny thing…GCM’s did that and they did have something left and many (but not all) of current climate dynamics fit pretty well such as polar amplification, cooling of the stratosphere, troposphereic warming, acceleration of the hydrological cycle, lower year to year levels of Arctic Sea ice, etc. making it more likely than not (actually, far more likely) that the 40% increase in CO2 is affecting the climate.

    _____
    u.k.(us) says:
    December 10, 2010 at 5:39 pm
    R. Gates says:
    December 10, 2010 at 9:21 am
    ……………….”One thing that must happen though, if AGW happening is an acceleration of the hydrological cycle. Look for extreme floods, rains, snowfalls, etc.”
    ==========================
    Which would be different, how?

    ____

    Not sure of the context of your question. An acceleration would be a change of velocity measureed over a certain time. EVERY time CO2 rises in Earth’s history, the hydrological cycle accelerates (as CO2 is the fuel for that very acceleration). It usually takes millions of years and is a negative-feedback mechanism to keep CO2 in check. The accelerated hydrological cycle weathers rock that takes CO2 out of the atmosphere and deposits into the ocean. What humans have done is essentially pour an incredible amount of this CO2 “hydrological accelerant” into the atmosphere in a short amount time. Exactly how sensitive the earth is to this is the central question to the AGW issue.

  99. R. Gates says:
    December 10, 2010 at 9:39 pm

    JER0ME says:

    Could you enlighten us as to what to look for to prove AGW is not happening? Please? Pretty please? It is a serious question, but one that I have never seen answered
    ______

    Remove all the other known climate forcings such as Milankovitch cycles, ENSO, PDO, AMO, NAO, solar cycles, etc. and if you’ve got nothing left, then there would be no need for AGW…that’s how you could disprove it…or at least remove the need for it. Funny thing…GCM’s did that and they did have something left and many (but not all) of current climate dynamics fit pretty well such as polar amplification, cooling of the stratosphere, troposphereic warming, acceleration of the hydrological cycle, lower year to year levels of Arctic Sea ice, etc. making it more likely than not (actually, far more likely) that the 40% increase in CO2 is affecting the climate.

    I appreciate taking me seriously.

    I was not truly clear. What events in the real word, not in any models, would prove AGW is not happening? I think there is a general distrust of models among sceptics, and for very good reasons (mostly bias confirmation).

    We are constantly informed that certain events are evidence of AGW. You imply the same quite strongly. What events, or lack of events, would disprove the theory (however little it may deserve the term) of AGW?

  100. Jeff says:
    December 10, 2010 at 7:58 pm

    Weather Underground:

    “Life-giving rains have returned over the past two months to Earth’s greatest rainforest–the Amazon–after it experienced its second 100-year drought in five years this year.

    This sort of statement just drives me nuts! When a meteorological event (such as a snow storm, flood etc.) is labeled as a 100 year event, it really means it has a 1% chance of happening in any given year, not as many people tend to believe, that it “should” only happen once each century.

    Never mind the minor issue that many of these events thresholds are based on very short histories so that they are hardly more than an educated guess vs a statistically valid statement.

    Like throwing a pair of dice, the events are independent, and there is nothing unnatural or unusual about two or more 100 year events happening in close succession, just like it is not unusual for there to be a span of well over 100 years between such events.

    Unfortunately that distinction is lost on most of the general public and the media and some organizations with an agenda intentionally play on the misunderstanding with such stories as mentioned above.

    Larry

  101. Smokey

    The Cancun penguin does not exist, has never existed, and, thus, cannot be saved.

    As for smallpox, samples should be “saved” in labs just in case.

  102. Typical blog. Serious topic.. trollers with no brains.

    Ongoing climate change is undeniable and will be the greatest challenge man has ever faced. The science is real.

    No question the politics is much more difficult. How to convert our world to one where we pollute less is going to be our real challenge and the politicians are not up to the task. I blame this on poor media.

  103. “”R. Gates says:
    December 10, 2010 at 9:39 pm
    EVERY time CO2 rises in Earth’s history, the hydrological cycle accelerates (as CO2 is the fuel for that very acceleration)””
    ====================================================
    Gates, EVERY time temperatures have increased, CO2 levels have followed.
    Sun and temperatures are the fuel that accelerates the hydrological cycle.
    =======================================================
    “”and is a negative-feedback mechanism to keep CO2 in check.””
    ====================================================
    Gates, it doesn’t give a rats patoot about CO2 levels. It’s not some elaborate system
    designed around CO2.

  104. “Mike says:
    December 10, 2010 at 1:57 pm

    Think globally.

    “NASA: Hottest November on record,”

    Further to my earlier comment, even comparing November of GISS with the rest of this year so far reveals major differences compared to the others. November was the FOURTH HIGHEST reading for the year so far according to GISS. However according to UAH, November was the LOWEST month and according to RSS, November was the SECOND LOWEST month.

    If my science students plotted points to get the best slope and if one of the points was way off compared to the others, they would be told to reject the point that was way off.

    GISS reminds me of the mother whose son played in a band. At one point the mother said everyone in the band played the wrong note except her son.

  105. Larry, short answer is you can’t. Everything proves the theory. No data set can disprove religious belief.

  106. R. Gates says:
    December 10, 2010 at 9:39 pm
    Remove all the other known climate forcings such as Milankovitch cycles, ENSO, PDO, AMO, NAO, solar cycles, etc. and if you’ve got nothing left, then there would be no need for AGW…that’s how you could disprove it…

    Since temperatures are not unprecedented, nor rising more rapidly nor further than in the past, natural variation is still the null hypothesis and is doing just fine.

    It’s up to you to prove AGW, not up to us to disprove it.

  107. R. Gates says: (December 10, 2010 at 4:58 pm)

    The 40% rise in CO2 in the last few hundred years is hardly tiny. It has risen to a level not seen in 800,000 years. We still are not certain of how sensitive the earth is to such a rapid rise (geologically speaking) in CO2.

    Well lets see.
    A temperature rise of about 0.7C in 150 years (hardly unusual).
    No general increase in extreme weather events.
    The travesty of no statistically significant warming in over a decade (despite continuingly rising CO2).
    Solid evidence of CO2 level changes following temperature changes throughout the ice-core record (as opposed to vice versa).
    No increase in the overall rate of warming as atmospheric CO2 concentration has increased (despite the IPCC’s feeble attempts to show that there has been by drawing lines on a chart from cherry-picked start points).
    Meanwhile poly bears continue to multiply like rabbits, and vegetation is flourishing.

    And then we see proposals by the UN for energy-limiting laws and taxes which would see massive wealth redistribution under the governance of a central world power, with no prospect of third-world development – and no appreciable effect on world temperature projected by either sceptics or alarmists.

    Time to smell it, Mr Useful Idiot.

  108. latitude says:
    December 11, 2010 at 7:33 am
    “”R. Gates says:
    December 10, 2010 at 9:39 pm
    EVERY time CO2 rises in Earth’s history, the hydrological cycle accelerates (as CO2 is the fuel for that very acceleration)””
    ====================================================
    Gates, EVERY time temperatures have increased, CO2 levels have followed.
    Sun and temperatures are the fuel that accelerates the hydrological cycle.
    =======================================================
    “”and is a negative-feedback mechanism to keep CO2 in check.””
    ====================================================
    Gates, it doesn’t give a rats patoot about CO2 levels. It’s not some elaborate system
    designed around CO2
    ___________

    No one said anything about “it” giving a rats patoot about CO2 levels, whatever this “it” is that you’re referring to. Some anthropomorphism of Gaia perhaps? We are speaking here about what happens in the rock cycle over millions of years, and, based on the chemistry of earth, it just so happens that when CO2 levels are high, the hydrological cycle accelerates, leading to more weathering of rock, which absorbs the CO2 from the atmosphere, reducing the CO2 levels until the hydrological cycle declines. I didn’t imply that there is anything to give a rats patoot about this negative feedback cycle…it is simply the way the process works under earth’s chemisty.

    As a side note however, I would suggest that this does touch on the Anthropic principle from Cosmology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle), but in a broader sense, more akin to the Gaia principal that somehow the earth and even perhaps the larger cosmos) maintains the conditions for life in general, often sacrificing individual species (even most species, as in mass extinctions) so that life might go on. I think we are just on the threashold of discovering how plentiful life is in the universe (with many hundreds of exoplanets now having been discovered), and I would guess very soon now we’ll have evidence for life in many of these exoplanets. The point being, that somehow life and maintaining the conditions for such is one of things that seems to be “hardwired” into the structure of this particular universe. The CO2/rock cycle may be just that same principal on a very localized level.

  109. R. Gates, NOW I understand what you mean by attractors. Wherever it’s cold, you end up at a global warming convention.

    By the way, is your AGW-driven Arctic high pressure theory responsible for La Nina too? Looking forward to your answer on this one.

  110. JERoME says:

    “I appreciate taking me seriously.

    I was not truly clear. What events in the real word, not in any models, would prove AGW is not happening? I think there is a general distrust of models among sceptics, and for very good reasons (mostly bias confirmation).

    We are constantly informed that certain events are evidence of AGW. You imply the same quite strongly. What events, or lack of events, would disprove the theory (however little it may deserve the term) of AGW?”

    _____

    Sorry I misunderstood what you were asking. Obviously, to disprove or at least seriously discredit AGW, we would have to observe the general things that AGW predicts will happen, not happening. But before I talk about those, let me reinterate my position. I am 75% convinced that AGW is happening to one degree or another, though I reserve 25% of a skeptical position allowing for unknown natural cycles to be at work (Global Climate Models have accounted for all known cycles and still found a signature of AGW). I think there is a 25% chance that some unknown natural cycles related to the sun, the ocean, cosmic rays intensity, etc. to be causing the appearance of AGW. But still, I think it is more likely that the 40% increase in CO2 since the 1700’s is indeed causing the global climate to warm and change.

    But back to your question– what specifically in the real world would have to happen to disprove (or more likely discredit) the AGW hypothesis?

    1. Global Climate Models have predicted an seasonal ice free Arctic by anywhere from 2030 to 2200. The Arctic has been trending down toward this event for many decades. If this long term trend reversed in a significant way (not for just a few years, but over many decades) it would go a long ways toward discrediting AGW. I personally look at the Arctic as being the bellweather of AGW, since polar amplification of warming is one of the hypothesis’ key tenets.

    2. The stratosphere would reverse its long term cooling trend that we’ve seen and over the long term begin to warm once more. Global climate models have consistently indicated that the stratosphere would cool as more LW radiation is keep in the troposphere. If the stratosphere begins to warm over a long term cycle, then it would be a serious blow to the AGW hypothesis.

    3. GCM have predicted that in addition to the loss of sea ice in the Arctic, we’d see a general warming of the region leading to the melting of permafrost. This is exactly what is happening, but if over the longer term we see permafrost being restored and the Arctic warming trend reverse, it would be a serious blow to the AGW hypothesis.

    4. GCM’s have predicted a disruption of weather patterns leading to more frequent extreme events. These extreme events mean more: heavy rain, heavy now, cold spells, and drought and hot spells. The issue of cold spells and heavy snow seem ironic and even incompatible to some if the world is warming, but one must always take a global perspective on these issues. For example, how could global warming lead to heavy snow for Great Britain (or record cold in Cancun?). Poorly informed AGW skeptics make much of this as proof against AGW, but in fact, if they actually looked at the reasons for these extreme events they would not find support for their skeptical positions. During the last few winters we’ve had a very unusual pressure gradient setting itself up over the polar regions. This pressure gradient had broken down the normal closed low pressure systems that set themselves up over the arctic. Normally these low pressure systems serve to keep cold air primarily up north with only the occasional outbreak of cold air to the south. The past few winters the Arctic has been dominated by high pressure systems, and this has essentially been like leaving your freezer door open. The cold air from the north has had an open channel to be forced to points south. On flip side, the arctic had been warmer than normal during this time because of this high pressure, just as your freezer will get warmer inside if you leave the door open. The entire change in the pressure gradient from the equator to the poles (with the likely related Arctic Dipole Anomaly) is what I consider one of the “chaotic” effects from the 40% rise in CO2 since the 1700’s. It is chaotic in the sense that it came on very fast, and was largely unpredicted by GCM’s. None the less, it is causing the exact kind of effects that GCM’s predicted from AGW, and that is the disruption of normal weather patterns. Look for increasing extremes in weather worldwide. This doesn’t mean of course that EVERY extreme weather event is directly related to AGW, but we should see an increase in the frequency of extreme events. If we don’t see this over the longer term, then it would be a blow to the AGW hypothesis.

    These are only a few, but perhaps the most obvious of real world events that could disprove or discredit the AGW hypothesis. Obviously, like the proof for AGW, they would take many years and even decades to see. However, right now, as of today, they are all happening in way that supports the AGW hypothesis, hence why I am personally a 75% “believer” that the hypothesis is likely true.

  111. R Gates….you amaze me, you really do, at your seeming intransigence to not be able to drop the CO2 thing and just talk, inductively, about the science.

    You have shown yourself to be very intelligent from your posts, but also, and in repeated, multiple instances, you have also shown yourself unwilling to drop your ego, sit back and listen and learn from the actual experts on here, one of which, you have also proven, in multiple, repeated instances, to not be.

    I certainly am not one of those experts either. But I do listen and try to inductively take it all in.

    Listen more….talk less….and you might learn something.

    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  112. Trever says:
    December 11, 2010 at 6:03 am
    “Typical blog. Serious topic.. trollers with no brains.

    Ongoing climate change is undeniable and will be the greatest challenge man has ever faced. The science is real. ”

    Now that’s what i call the most convincing argument i’ve read since… since Al Gore’s proof of a million degrees in the Earth’s crust.

  113. Pamela Gray says:
    December 11, 2010 at 10:44 am
    R. Gates, NOW I understand what you mean by attractors. Wherever it’s cold, you end up at a global warming convention.

    By the way, is your AGW-driven Arctic high pressure theory responsible for La Nina too? Looking forward to your answer on this one.
    __________
    If they had held the convention in Greenland, they would have been greeted by record high temperatures….and these two events (record cold in Cancun and record warmth in Greenland) are related, interestingly enough.

    But on to your other question– the relationship to the current La Nina and the abnormal pressure gradient between the equator and the polar regions, leading to the higher relative pressure in the Arctic which has “opened the freezer” door for cold air to be pushed southward.

    Certainly La Nina itself causes changes in the jet stream and in weather patterns as the ENSO cycle can dominate global weather and we see the changes in pressure gradients in the ENSO signature. The abnormal pressure gradient that has been setting itself up between the equator and the polar regions seems to be a signal riding on topo of the normal ENSO pressure gradient change cycle as can partially be seen in the fact that it has survived both last winters El Nino cycle and now this winters La Nina. It appears, therefore, to be not directly related to the ENSO cycle (though it may have some indirect effects). The net result is that the relative pressure between the polar region and the equator seems to have shifted to some new regime, and it remains to be seen if this shift is part of a long term change or not.

  114. David, UK says:
    December 11, 2010 at 10:22 am
    R. Gates says: (December 10, 2010 at 4:58 pm)

    “Time to smell it, Mr Useful Idiot…”

    ____
    I would suppose that you like the sounds of your own echo chamber, and therefore issue forth ad hominems to make certain that any self-respecting person would not be inclined to actually respond to your postings and thereby break the monotonic echos of your lovely chamber…

  115. “”No one said anything about “it” giving a rats patoot about CO2 levels, whatever this “it” is that you’re referring to.””
    ========================================================
    Now you expect people to believe you are that dense?
    =========================================================
    “”“”R. Gates says:
    December 10, 2010 at 9:39 pm
    EVERY time CO2 rises in Earth’s history, the hydrological cycle accelerates (as CO2 is the fuel for that very acceleration)””
    =========================================================

  116. From what source do you say that GCM have accounted for all known natural “weather” cycles? Correct me if I’m wrong, but even the proponent scientists who created them acknowledge this weakness. They even go so far to say that short term cycles (such as clouds) are unaccounted for and/or underestimated in terms of influence. Me thinks you paint the picture in finer detail than the scientists themselves do.

  117. R. Gates,

    You’re being silly and illogical as usual. Well, 75% silly and illogical anyway.

    You say, “what specifically in the real world would have to happen to disprove (or more likely discredit) the AGW hypothesis?”

    What would have to happen is that global temperatures would have to exceed their historical parameters. But of course, that has not happened.

    I could fabricate a hypothesis that there is a rabid cat under your bed waiting to jump out and bite you. But it would be up to me to provide convincing evidence of my hypothesis that the rabid cat exists — while skeptics of the rabid cat hypothesis would have nothing to prove.

    All of your arguments are the same: they presuppose that CAGW is a fact, without real world evidence to support the conjecture. Saying that the Arctic [but never the Antarctic] will be ice-free ignores the fact that the Arctic has been ice free countless times in the past, regardless of CO2 levels. Basing your belief system on computer generated models is a fool’s bet, since GCMs are notoriously inaccurate.

    Next, you grasp at the stratosphere claim because the original, universally quoted ‘fingerprint’ of AGW — tropospheric warming — has failed to appear. That is a classic case of moving the goal posts to suit your belief system. Cognitive dissonance at its finest.

    Then you select a small region of the globe — permafrost — and claim that if there is melting, it supports your CAGW belief system. Yet you ignore the regular discoveries of Viking artifacts in Greenland, exposed by melting permafrost, which proves conclusively that the climate was significantly warmer back then, and has since cooled. Again, you are blinded by cognitive dissonance, and select only those facts which fit your preconceived beliefs of impending doom. The scientific method is completely alien to your thinking.

    And you put your faith in GCMs, which are notoriously wrong. One could fade the GCM wager and make much better predictions. And keep in mind that models are not evidence. They are opinion generators, used to elicit grant money.

    Finally, you speak of the “proof” of AGW. There is no proof. There isn’t even any empirical, testable evidence of AGW. The only measurable effect of increasing CO2 is increased agricultural production. Other than that entirely beneficial result, it can not be shown that the increase in CO2 has had any effect on global temperature, arctic ice, or anything else.

    Despite your assertions, you are not a “75% believer in AGW.” You believe 110% with your whole heart and soul in catastrophic AGW. It is a theme that runs throughout your comments. You have a desperate need to believe in human-caused runaway global warming.

    The antidote is simple. But like many things, it is difficult in practice: you must apply the scientific method to your conjecture. Unless you do that, you might as well drop to your knees and worship Gaia.

  118. In addition, there is no known mechanism for a more violent weather pattern disruption when the world is “warming” as they say. Since greenhouse gasses are said to be well mixed, its insulation value would result in warming every where. Even in cold climates. Less variation in temperatures would predict less pressure gradient differences, would predict less violent weather episodes, since it is extreme differences, not globally increasing temps, that cause extreme weather events. Please explain your mechanism theory related to the necessary extreme pressure gradient differences being cause by increasing insulation, caused by increasing CO2. Saying it is so does not make a plausible mechanism appear.

  119. Squidly says:
    December 10, 2010 at 9:27 pm
    tallbloke says:
    December 10, 2010 at 5:43 pm

    Rgates,
    I suggest you go to the link you provided and read the last comment from ‘Guest’.

    http://explorations.ucsd.edu/Research_Highlights/2010/Mar_Apr/argo/

    he has saved me the trouble, by expressing exactly what I was thinking as I read the article.

    Can I drink my beer in peace now please?

    Thank you.

    WOW! … just WOW! … An absolutely scathing response!

    It wasn’t intended to be scathing, just dry Brit humour. I just didn’t appreciate being scolded by R Gates for not taking the science seriously at midnight on a Friday when I was winding down from the week’s work. Especially when the link was the usual load of alarmist cobblers which isn’t supported by the evidence. As usual.

  120. Pamela Gray says:
    December 11, 2010 at 11:57 am
    In addition, there is no known mechanism for a more violent weather pattern disruption when the world is “warming” as they say
    ______

    Pamela, have you studied the the research done on the effects of CO2 levels on the acceleration of the hydrological cycle for example? I have given numerous links to these over many posts and now would simply suggest that if you’re interested in looking at how more violent weather can be created through increased CO2 you google these topics. It seems you are thinking about the accumulation of CO2 in far too linear of terms, discounting any chance for chaotic effects (which could lead to extreme weather events). I’ve used the one-grain-at-a-time on a sandpile metaphor here many times in relationship to the build-up of CO2 over the centuries. You’re assuming that CO2 can just build up forever in some linear way, but we know that in systems, such as the climate, that exist on the edge of chaos, that there can come a point where just one additional grain can collapse the pile.

    In short, to suggest there is no “known” mechanism whereby CO2 buildup in the troposphere could disrupt weather patterns leading to more frequent extremes in weather is just simply incorrect. Changes in ocean currents and changes in atmospheric currents (and therefore pressure gradients) can all be related to the additional energy in these systems which would be a result of the 40% increase in CO2 since the 1700’s.

  121. @R. Gates

    ‘No one said anything about “it” giving a rats patoot about CO2 levels, whatever this “it”’

    It is you smoking too much hashish I believe, which must be true. Maybe you’re a bit self-drawn to the autistic spectrum of life but you’re still reasoning like a badly spawned hippie on aside trip to the wrong kind of wonderland. Now if you were able to produce actual empirical, or at the very least show were it’s at, evidence, what with you’re defending the original claim and all, most, I humbly guess, wouldn’t have much problem with your, and your ilks, claim, so to speak. :p

  122. Response to Smokey says:
    December 11, 2010 at 11:53 am

    ______

    Smokey, the AGW hypothesis makes many verifiable, measurable, real-world predictions, which I have stated a few of in my post above. Quite simply it says:

    A is likely happening, if x, y, and z are happening.

    x, y, and z are happening, therefore, A is likely happening.

    The key word is likely. It is only to certain degree of probability that AGW is happening.

    x, y, and z could be happening for entirely different reasons.

    Many climate scientists who believe in AGW, put the probability in the upper 90 percentile. Thus, they might be considered for example 99% sure, with 1% uncertainty (which I would call skepticism).

    This kind of probability in the AGW debate is quite common. If you can’t accept the fact that I feel more comfortable with a 75/25 split for my own position, then so be it. In general, I think your skeptical rebuttals to my posts indicate a far more “religious” clinging to your skeptical viewpoint then any my 75% “warmist” stance.

  123. R. Gates says:
    December 11, 2010 at 12:50 pm
    In short, to suggest there is no “known” mechanism whereby CO2 buildup in the troposphere could disrupt weather patterns leading to more frequent extremes in weather is just simply incorrect. Changes in ocean currents and changes in atmospheric currents (and therefore pressure gradients) can all be related to the additional energy in these systems which would be a result of the 40% increase in CO2 since the 1700′s.

    1) There is as yet no evidence that co2 has raised temperature. Changes in co2 levels lag behind changes in temperature at all timescales.
    2) A warmer atmosphere diminishes the temperature differential with the ocean. This reduces the power of cyclonic and anticyclonic atmospheric systems.
    3) Perception of more extreme weather events is not the same thing as more extreme weather events. Reporting has increased in the modern era, but occurrences are little changed from earlier times.
    4) That said, various historical chronicles evince a picture of quiet and stormy periods which can extend to centennial scale in regional areas of the globe. This from a time before changing co2 levels could have affected anything.

    Learn some history before trying to peer into the future.

  124. Is ‘hydrological cycle’ the Gates hook of the week, or what?
    ====================================================
    “”R. Gates says:
    December 11, 2010 at 12:50 pm
    Changes in ocean currents and changes in atmospheric currents (and therefore pressure gradients) can all be related to the additional energy in these systems which would be a result of the 40% increase in CO2 since the 1700′s.”‘
    ==========================================================
    CO2 has gone from +/- 180 to +/- 380 and nothing flipped over Gates.
    CO2 has gone from + 7000 to +/- 180 also.
    Exactly what “changes” are you talking about?
    ==========================================================
    “”In short, to suggest there is no “known” mechanism whereby CO2 buildup in the troposphere could disrupt weather patterns leading to more frequent extremes in weather is just simply incorrect””
    ===========================================================
    Gates, wouldn’t that involve something actually happening in the troposphere first?

    There’s no hot spot………………………

    As you just said, a 40% rise in CO2 levels since the 1700’s, and nada, nothing is going on.

  125. So R. Gates, you seem to be admitting, (in your sly subtle way) that man-made increases in CO2, and to be succinct, the incredibly small increase in the % parts per million of CO2 that has been put there by fossil fuel emissions, has enough energy in that tiny % increase in ppm, has caused our La Nina to come about, or at least made it measurably worse. I would assume you also believe that El Nino is caused, or at least made measurably worse by that same % increase. Gotchya. You are talking nonsense.

    However, since you talk of energy change you are talking physics and this can be calculated. I would offer you the chance to provide the maths related to this theory of yours. Come on. Fill up a chalk board for us that shows mathematically your declared change in energy available and that it would be strong enough to steer changes in La Nina, or any other event you would like to insert into the equation. If you can’t remember it, then go to one of your papers you hold so dear and copy their calculation and paste it up here.

  126. @RGates

    It is interesting that a (slowly) reducing Arctic and a (slowly) increasing Antarctic are both proofs of AGW. If these were reversed, would the ‘proof’ remain?

    Has there been any statistically significant increase in extreme weather events? Every claim that there is seems to have been shown as exaggerated or just plain false AFAIK.

    Even after all of the above, say it is warming, and this warming is causing all of these aforementioned issues. Is this bad? Is warming overall a bad thing? It has always been seen as a good thing historically, hence the moniker ‘optimum’. It has certainly always been a boost to food production, and thus civilisation, and thus overall wealth.

    Even after all of the above, say it is warming, and it really IS bad. Is there any actual evidence that CO2 has anything whatsoever to do with this warming? Is it possible that this is just a natural variation, almost identical to similar warming periods, both in scale and duration, in the last couple of centuries that have been measured where there was no additional CO2 to be blamed? Could it just be natural, with an overall warming of 0.5C per century as a natural rebound from the LIA?

    There are so very many questions that aren’t answered adequately, but are treated with the AGW knee-jerk reaction and response that we are all going to die and must be forced to contribute $billions or even $trillions to the third world at the same time as massively crippling our own economies by abandoning fossil fuels (and thus the ability to generate these $trillions).

  127. Wonder what the rate of broken records is (to be taken with a grain of salt since many stations are no longer reporting)? I can’t help wonder what the people were thinking in 1900 when a record was broken by some extreme weather event. I think they may have taken it in stride. It could be possible that oft repeated oral histories of war and migrations West gave people a sense of “extreme” that is different than ours. We don’t remember, much less notice, those wars, or the dust bowl, the 50’s cold, or the 70’s cold, and all the heat waves in-between. Why? Because most folks today sit in temperature controlled homes and work places. Media reports of extreme weather get their attention. Not so back when people just got used to living through them instead of getting their panties in a bunch and blaming something or someone for weather.

  128. R. Gates says:
    December 10, 2010 at 9:21 am
    ……..Look for extreme floods, rains, snowfalls, etc……..

    In the links you provided later I could not see any evidence of extreme. I also see things like the following:

    Their analysis builds on a groundbreaking 2002 study which found the combined flow of the six largest Eurasian rivers increased by about 7 percent from 1936–1999.
    NEWS RELEASES – June 24, 2010

    What happened to the years 2000 to say 2008?
    Also

    …..the Arctic Ocean is predicted to become fresher as precipitation and river flows to the ocean increase, and as sea ice melts, but available data do not confirm this.

    I could go on but you can see why I have to take you evidence with a grain of salt. Finally, consider for just one moment, a decrease in Arctic rreshwater cycle. You know as well as I do that there would be screaming headlines about how the models predicted this also.

  129. zorro says:
    December 10, 2010 at 4:05 pm
    [snip - off color language - Anthony]
    My apologies, that was a deserved snip.
    On another matter, I have been reading the South China Morning Post the past few days and the warmist bias is very evident, the letters to the editor breathlessly stupid. It is easy to see why, though as the paper has full page IPO’s for renewable energy, in particular wind farms. There’s a fair chance that investors will lose their money on such investments.

  130. R. Gates says:

    “In short, to suggest there is no “known” mechanism whereby CO2 buildup in the troposphere could disrupt weather patterns leading to more frequent extremes in weather is just simply incorrect. Changes in ocean currents and changes in atmospheric currents (and therefore pressure gradients) can all be related to the additional energy in these systems which would be a result of the 40% increase in CO2 since the 1700′s.”

    ========================================

    Catch that last sentence everyone? A CLASSIC case of circular reasoning in action.

    Hey R! Not sure why any of us continually try to rescue you from being another statistic of GWGTD (Global Warming GroupThink Disorder), but maybe its because we think you might succumb to reason finally.

    If your posts are weak (which they almost always are), expect the sharks to circle and try to move in for the prey (as they always do).

    And WOW, has your chum drawn in some of the smartest sharks on here this time: Pamela, Smokey, Tallbloke, Latitude, among others…

    Smokey is right. You DESPERATELY want to believe in anthropogenic global warming.

    And as long as you have those prejudices, you will never EVER be taken seriously when it comes to scientific analysis.

    You are not a scientist. You are not a specialist. You have some knowledge. But your ego cock-blocks you from stepping back, taking a deep breath, and trying to join the inductive quest for truth on here.

    You seem impervious to advice but hell I will offer it one more time:

    Listen more and talk less.

    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  131. R. Gates says:
    December 11, 2010 at 1:08 pm @ Smokey:

    In general, I think your skeptical rebuttals to my posts indicate a far more “religious” clinging to your skeptical viewpoint then any my 75% “warmist” stance.

    =============================================

    How so??? LMAO!

    In classic Smokey fashion, he tirelessly gives the data with links always provided.

    You produce nothing but dogma, creed, and speculation.

    Who is the more religious here? Give me a ******* break!

    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  132. I will believe the “Sky Is Falling” global warming fearmongers are serious about “carbon footprint”, when I see legislation outlawing restaurant Soda Machines.
    Duh

  133. tallbloke says:
    December 11, 2010 at 2:50 pm
    1) There is as yet no evidence that co2 has raised temperature. Changes in co2 levels lag behind changes in temperature at all timescales.
    =========================================================
    R. Gates says:
    December 11, 2010 at 12:50 pm
    Changes in ocean currents and changes in atmospheric currents (and therefore pressure gradients) can all be related to the additional energy in these systems which would be a result of the 40% increase in CO2 since the 1700′s.
    =========================================================

    And right after the bottom of the LIA (about 1700), temperatures started to slow rise, dragging CO2 levels with it, and the additional energy in these systems which would be a result of the temperature increase since the 1700’s…………….

  134. As usual, he slips away like an eel through a fish net….

    Can’t stand the heat, R?

    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  135. savethesharks says:
    December 11, 2010 at 7:23 pm
    As usual, he slips away like an eel through a fish net….

    Can’t stand the heat, R?
    ______
    Believe it or not, I do have a bit of a life outside of WUWT, as great as I think this site is. A nice 2 hour workout at the gym followed by dinner with some friends took me away, but now I’m back and (while waiting for my laundry to finish) thought I’d see what interesting tidbits were here…

    ____

    Pamela Gray says:
    December 11, 2010 at 3:09 pm
    So R. Gates, you seem to be admitting, (in your sly subtle way) that man-made increases in CO2, and to be succinct, the incredibly small increase in the % parts per million of CO2 that has been put there by fossil fuel emissions, has enough energy in that tiny % increase in ppm, has caused our La Nina to come about, or at least made it measurably worse. I would assume you also believe that El Nino is caused, or at least made measurably worse by that same % increase. Gotchya. You are talking nonsense.

    However, since you talk of energy change you are talking physics and this can be calculated. I would offer you the chance to provide the maths related to this theory of yours. Come on. Fill up a chalk board for us that shows mathematically your declared change in energy available and that it would be strong enough to steer changes in La Nina, or any other event you would like to insert into the equation. If you can’t remember it, then go to one of your papers you hold so dear and copy their calculation and paste it up here

    ______
    First Pamela, except for the famous E=mc2 formula, there is no “energy” per se in the 40% increase in CO2 since the 1700’s in the sense that the CO2 is adding energy to the troposphere. The energy is the additional LW radiation that is being kept in the atmosophere and ocean systems. Of course, much of this heat “seems” to be unaccounted for, ala Trenberth’s “travesty” of not being able to account for the missing heat. Is some of it in the deeper ocean? This seems to be a strong potential for some of the missing heat, though it would be nice to get a real measurement of the amount of energy expended through the acceleration of the hydrological cycle– for we know that to accelerate anything takes an input of energy. We also know that historically (over millions of years) the acceleration of the hydrological cycle is the way the earth has responded to increases in CO2, so it might be good to really get an idea how much energy it takes to move all this extra water around from ocean to land. It always fascinates me that AGW skeptics seem unware of the huge amount of energy it takes to create large rain and snowstorms and that the cooler parts of the planet (i.e. Antarctica) are not the wettest but the most dry, as not much moisture actually falls on that frigid area, but most of the snow there is actually just blown around during ground blizzards. The big snow and rainstorms, as any Weather 101 student knows, required huge amounts of energy to produce, and if there is more energy trapped in the system through increased CO2, then there is more energy available (from a global perspective) to fuel these storms, hence one would expect to see more severe hydrological events as CO2 increases. This has been the pattern for millions of years, and no reason to think this time will be different.

    In regards to the ENSO cycle– no, the increases in CO2 that man has brought about through the use of fossil fuels did not cause this cycle, as no doubt the ENSO cycle has gone on for far longer than humans have been burning fossil fuels. It is possible (and I would think even likely) however that the additional heat trapped in the earth’s atmosphere and ocean systems very likely will change the nature of the ENSO cycle (and the PDO, AMO, NAO etc.). These all are cycles related to the balancing of large amounts of energy, and if CO2 is trapping more energy, then one would expect these natural cycles to change in character. This whole topic is of course the subject of much interest and a great deal of ongoing research.

    As mentioned numerous times, I am hardly qualified to display the “maths” necessary to “prove” any of what I say, and much of this is the very leading edge of climate research, but simple google searches will lead to all the studies currently being conducted on potential relationship between CO2 and alterations in the natural energy balancing cycles such as ENSO.

    ____
    JER0ME says:
    December 11, 2010 at 3:23 pm
    @RGates

    It is interesting that a (slowly) reducing Arctic and a (slowly) increasing Antarctic are both proofs of AGW. If these were reversed, would the ‘proof’ remain?

    Has there been any statistically significant increase in extreme weather events? Every claim that there is seems to have been shown as exaggerated or just plain false AFAIK.

    Even after all of the above, say it is warming, and this warming is causing all of these aforementioned issues. Is this bad? Is warming overall a bad thing? It has always been seen as a good thing historically, hence the moniker ‘optimum’. It has certainly always been a boost to food production, and thus civilisation, and thus overall wealth.

    Even after all of the above, say it is warming, and it really IS bad. Is there any actual evidence that CO2 has anything whatsoever to do with this warming? Is it possible that this is just a natural variation, almost identical to similar warming periods, both in scale and duration, in the last couple of centuries that have been measured where there was no additional CO2 to be blamed? Could it just be natural, with an overall warming of 0.5C per century as a natural rebound from the LIA?

    There are so very many questions that aren’t answered adequately, but are treated with the AGW knee-jerk reaction and response that we are all going to die and must be forced to contribute $billions or even $trillions to the third world at the same time as massively crippling our own economies by abandoning fossil fuels (and thus the ability to generate these $trillions).

    ____

    I actually am not in favor of the massive international government financial interventions nor especially geoengineering efforts that I suspect will be the next big push. I think small is much better, and efforts made by individuals to reduce their energy use should be strongly encouraged on all fronts. Big government programs means big waste and unecessary taxation. The encouragment of third world countries to develop small, decentralized green energy sources is most practical. These small, decentralized home energy solutions could be a great win-win for the industrialized world as we have the infrastructure and technological know-how to bring these cutting edge small decentralized energy systems to the third world and this could be a huge commercial benefit to nimble small companies ready to assist in this effort. This, to me, seems a much more direct and efficient way to reduce carbon footprints on a longer term basis than any carbon-trading plan enforced by what would amount to be a “world police”.

  136. Yeah yeah….we all have lives outside of WUWT.

    But that does not stop me from answering questions or defending my position when challenged to do so.

    On multiple counts, R….you do neither of the above.

    It is easier to escape through an uncleverly and hastily jerry-rigged strawman excuse….than it is to actually and honestly answer questions and defend it, isn’t it, R?

    Methinks you are overwhelmed.

    But, in keeping with narcissism, all of that doesn’t matter.

    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  137. R. Gates says:
    December 11, 2010 at 11:37 am

    David, UK says:
    December 11, 2010 at 10:22 am
    R. Gates says: (December 10, 2010 at 4:58 pm)

    “Time to smell it, Mr Useful Idiot…”

    ____
    I would suppose that you like the sounds of your own echo chamber, and therefore issue forth ad hominems to make certain that any self-respecting person would not be inclined to actually respond to your postings and thereby break the monotonic echos of your lovely chamber…

    The term “useful idiot” – especially in the context of the preceding paragraph – goes way beyond simple ad hominem (if I had just called you an “idiot” then that would have been different). Most people here know exactly what is meant by the term, as I’m sure you do. It’s funny how in your own reply you demonstrate exactly the behaviour you accuse me of. Projection, anyone?

  138. @RGates

    Well, I do agree on some points. I think every person in the developed world who believes in AGW should buy 100% renewable energy now, and invest their pensions and investments in renewable energy schemes. Put their money where their mouth is, not ours. If they did, renewable energy would become a non-problem with no UN or government intervention at all required.

    Frankly, anyone claiming to believe in it, and supporting UN and government intervention, and not doing this if they are able to, is a complete hypocrite. Why try to force us to when they don’t?

    I must point out, however, that you have sidestepped the main point entirely. What empirical (not modelling, projected or fancied) evidence would disprove CAGW?

  139. JER0ME says:
    December 12, 2010 at 1:40 am
    @RGates

    I must point out, however, that you have sidestepped the main point entirely. What empirical (not modelling, projected or fancied) evidence would disprove CAGW?

    _____

    In my previous post I gave you 4 concrete measurable (i.e. empirical) effects that have long been predicted by GCM’s when looking at the effects of CO2 and AGW. If any one of them failed to happen at least within the time-frame predicted by GCM’s it would at the very least cast a serious doubt on a substantial portion of the AGW hypothesis. You keep adding C to the front of AGW, and I think it is important to know than many (myself included) do not ascribe to a full catastrophic view of AGW. For example, I think it is far more likely and some warming most certainly occurs when you add CO2 to the atmosphere, thus, no matter how small, there is certainly some AGW going on and even many skeptics would concede this basic point. It is really matter of degree, literally and figuratively of course. Catastrophic AGW might very well involve unpredictable chaotic effects, and thus there is no way to dispprove it because we don’t have any theory (nor is any possible) for what the exact conditions are that produce those chaotic effects.

  140. David, UK says:
    December 12, 2010 at 12:52 am
    R. Gates says:
    December 11, 2010 at 11:37 am

    David, UK says:
    December 11, 2010 at 10:22 am
    R. Gates says: (December 10, 2010 at 4:58 pm)

    “Time to smell it, Mr Useful Idiot…”

    ____
    I would suppose that you like the sounds of your own echo chamber, and therefore issue forth ad hominems to make certain that any self-respecting person would not be inclined to actually respond to your postings and thereby break the monotonic echos of your lovely chamber…

    The term “useful idiot” – especially in the context of the preceding paragraph – goes way beyond simple ad hominem (if I had just called you an “idiot” then that would have been different). Most people here know exactly what is meant by the term, as I’m sure you do. It’s funny how in your own reply you demonstrate exactly the behaviour you accuse me of. Projection, anyone?

    ______

    Let’s be clear here:

    The term “Useful Idiot” means:

    “In political jargon, the term useful idiot was used to describe Soviet sympathizers in Western countries. The implication is that though the person in question naïvely thinks themselves an ally of the Soviets or other ideologies, they are actually held in contempt by them, and were being cynically used. The term is now used more broadly to describe someone who is perceived to be manipulated by a political movement, terrorist group, hostile government, or business, whether or not the group is Communist in nature.”

    Your implication is that I am somehow unaware of the scientific basis of my beliefs, and am being manipulated by some larger group to futher their political and/or economic interests. This I take to be about the greatest insult you could offer to me. As a proudly Independent American, I have no political affiliation toward any group and have been studying the issue of global warming long before larger politcal groups latched onto the topic. The “idiot” portion in particular would imply that I’ve not done the work required to know what the hell I’m talking about.

    Yes, I do think there are “Useful Idiots” on both sides of the AGW issue, as vast sums of money and political power are involved by the groups aligned on each side. I tend, for example to shy away from any affiliation with the wild-eyed folks that congregate in such organizations as Greenpeace, as I do think many of them are Useful Idiots, and on the same token I am suspicious of organizations such as (forgive me Anthony) the Heartland Institute, when I look at their past affiliations supporting the Tobacco industry etc. There is money to be made (and at the very least protected) by organizations of both sides of the AGW and the real Useful Idiots are the frontline grunts that do the heavy lifting.

    To me, AGW is not an issue but an area of keen personal scientific interest. I have never come on WUWT is support of any political movement or agenda, and those who do so are automatically, in my way of thinking, the true “Useful Idiots”.

  141. @ R. Gates

    The “idiot” portion in particular would imply that I’ve not done the work required to know what the hell I’m talking about.

    Let me start by apologising for the offence caused – maybe I misjudged you. Actually the “useful idiot” term, taken as a whole, in this case was simply intended to imply that – intentionally or not (and I believe not) you (like many others) are contributing to a creation of mass irrational fear of global warming/climate change/climate disruption. Fear is the favourite weapon of the political elite.

    When people are fearful of their futures (even of their lives, as some of the more naive Chicken Littles seem to be) they will make all kinds of sacrifices to the benefit of the political elite. The UN is on record as calling for a central world authority with powers to dictate to once-sovereign nations how to live, and how much of their earnings/GDP should be handed over to the central authority to redistribute as it sees fit, for so-called retribution for our fossil fuel-burning sins.

    As I said earlier (and to which you responded by saying I was in an “echo chamber”) – 0.6C in 150 years is not unusual, today’s temps are not unprecedented, extreme weather events are not on the increase… well, I won’t “echo” the rest again, but you surely take my point? Fear is being built on worst-case scenario projections, not on observable reality. These projections themselves are based on flawed reasoning and highly selective, adjusted (dare I say “fudged?”) data. You yourself have in other posts – quite rightly – referred to the AGW hypothesis as just that: a hypothesis. I find it highly suspicious that our political elite want us to make such massive sacrifices on the back of an unproven (which by definition they all are) hypothesis.

    One thing we have in common is that neither of us are politically affiliated. This probably helps us both from the outside to more easily see others being politically manipulated. A classic case in point is the so-called “war on terror” which galvanised conservative (in the main) support. The “war on climate” (this time targeted to liberals) is something I find infinitely more ridiculous than the transparently manufactured “war on terror” but because the stakes are presented as being so high millions are quite content to sacrifice evermore freedom (and money – which comes down to the same thing) in the “good fight.”
    I think it is nothing less than an obligation for one to be sceptical of anything Governments use to instil fear in the masses. CAGW is no exception.

    On another note – you say you have been “studying” the issue of global warming. Do you mean you have done your own original scientific studies, or do you mean that (like me, and other laypeople) you have been “studying the studies” as it were? What is your background? Apologies if this has been mentioned and I have missed it. And no offence will be taken if you prefer to decline to answer.

  142. @RGates

    I apologise – I have no idea why I did not see the remainder of your reply to me.

    What is interesting, however, is that these may possibly prove or disprove that the globe is warming. There is no way to prove or disprove the Anthropogenic aspect of any warming or lack thereof.

    1. Arctic ice: Depends on GW, not AGW specifically.

    2. Cooling stratosphere: OK, I am willing to accept that as a possible indicator. I have seen a lot of debate on that, so I am not sure if there is a definitive view there, but then I have not read in depth yet.

    3. Permafrost: Again, merely GW, not AGW.

    4. This is all supposition. I have not seen any empirical evidence of any increase in storms, cold records, hot records, floods or droughts that I can believe in. Records happen all the time, and each one is hailed as the harbinger of doom by the doom-sayers. This has probably been the case for thousands if not millions of years. As has been pointed out above, these areas used not to be frozen, and we were not to blame, nor did it lead to any feedbacks.

    As an aside:

    I have never come on WUWT is support of any political movement or agenda, and those who do so are automatically, in my way of thinking, the true “Useful Idiots”.

    I agree with both statements.

  143. “There is no way to prove or disprove the Anthropogenic aspect of any warming or lack thereof.”

    Start by subtracting the 0.6°C/century warming trend from all charts and graphs.

    That lets a LOT of hot air out of the balloon.

  144. Weather is not climate, but in the aggregate it becomes climate. It would be useful to have a common understanding of what that aggregate is.

    Here in Vero Beach, FL, we have had a record low low and a record low high today. December 2010 is on track to be the 2nd coldest December recorded in Vero Beach.

    The “usual suspects” will quickly translate “hottest year ever recorded” (should it turn out to be) to “hottest year ever”, which is, of course, absurd.

    It is a stunning indictment of the horrible state of public education that many students are so ill-equipped to deal with such propagandizing. That it is not public knowledge that the entirety of human history has been within one small portion of the latter stages of one insignificant interglacial of a routine ice-age cycle within an ice epoch of an ice era.

    AGW theory exploits the knowledge void reflected by so few who understand the typical (normal?) Earth climate where no permanent ice exists at sea level and temperatures are at least three times warmer than the most “catastrophic” of the IPCC’s crystal ball prognoses. Such climate has been prevalent for more than 90% of the time living organisms have existed on Earth.

    GW theory (not “law”) is under assault now, and for good reason. It is highly likely that so-called “greenhouse gases” do not contribute to Earth’s atmospheric warming in the way suggested by warmists. Shining light on the weaknesses of the GW theory will expose the extremely weak underbelly of the AGW theory.

    Merry Christmas to all!

  145. Brian,

    A great graphic. Saved.

    Thanks for shedding new light on IPCC’s AGW “theory” … perhaps we should restate the theory so it reflects the data:

    “Global warming is caused by a dramatic reduction in the number of temperature-reporting stations; catastrophe can only be averted by dramatically raising the number of stations.”

    Gee, it IS human-caused after all!

    :o)

Comments are closed.