I’m off to ICCC6 today, ahead of time as I have other things to do in Washington ahead of the conference. Posting will be light. Guest posts are encouraged. Authoirs that may want to submit stories please use the link on the sidebar. Bear in mind that I generally don’t repost stories from other website sin entirety, so be sure to excerpt stories referenced elsewhere.
I have a request for the WUWT communty while I’m traveling.
My talk at ICCC6 is about uncertainty in the temperature record. While I think I’ve got a good handle on it, I welcome submissions and graphs/imagery that readers have to illustrate the issue. I may have already covered portions of it, but I can see your input as being helpful in pointing out things I may have missed. So why not crowdsource the issue?
Feel free to expand on the uncertainty issue in other data sets as well. Kemp/Mann 2011 for example that Willis has illustrated.
Anyone attending ICCC6 feel free to look me up to say hello. I’ll be the first speaker in the first session.
More: http://climateconference.heartland.org/
Godspeed Mr. Watts
Open thread? Yippeee! Our Finest Minds on CNBC Department:
Heard a talking head from some Green org claim that “Ethanol takes CO2 out of the air.”
He was correct — until it’s used for fuel and goes right back in to the atmosphere.
Neither the host nor the talking head from American Enterprise Inst. caught this.
Make sure Wirth and his friends don’t sneak in and tamper with the air-conditioning.
Will we be able to see video of your talk? Other talks?
Good luck Mr. Watts.
Is possiblity of a North Atlantic hydro-magnetic loop an indirect link between solar magnetic output and the natural climate change?
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/HmL.htm
the correlation is high but so is the uncertainty.
Anthony,
In my opinion, there are no better records than those of Bob Carter, as regards temperature trends.
Good luck on your 15 minutes worth. May they also be wirthless?
Best of British,
Chris
actually online is Bob Carter going through the temperature record. Depends how long term the presentation is.
And this is in 4 parts
If you are speaking of uncertainty in the statistical sense, then I hope you are well versed in probability theory as well as the various statistical methods that may apply. I’d elaborate, but given the time restrictions, I doubt you would have time to cover a masters class. No offense, but it’s really too much to detail here. Good luck at the conference. 🙂
When I think of Washington, the “All things considered I would rather be here than in …” comes to mind.
Anthony
Break a leg in Washington for us all!
(Note to the uninitiated – thats a positive wish, not a negative one)
Mike
M.A.Vukcevic says:
June 26, 2011 at 2:20 pm
Is possiblity of a North Atlantic hydro-magnetic loop an indirect link between solar magnetic output and the natural climate change?
No, the energy isn’t there. The induced current is many, many, many orders of magnitude too small.
Be of good mind and have a great presentation.
And, whatever else you do, do not catch the “inside the beltway” disease. Remember that you report on weather and climate matters, you don’t control them … unlike the mindset of some former inside the beltway residents.
Presidential candidate Michele Bachmann, who has never believed in global warming disasters, asked if the perception of some in Washington that she is a “flake” is true:
Anthony: I’m not sure what your looking for to illustrate uncertainty in the instrument temperature record, but I’ve recerntly started to include two graphs in my monthly SST anomaly updates that show that the rise in global SST anomalies since 1982…
http://i56.tinypic.com/2ezh636.jpg
…is not what it seems. The linear trend of the volcano-adjusted East Pacific SST anomalies from pole to pole (90S-90N, 180-80E), or about 33% of the global ocean surface area, is basically flat:
http://i51.tinypic.com/2a9snjt.jpg
And the volcano-adjusted SST anomalies for the rest of the world (90S-90N, 80W-180) have risen in steps in response to significant ENSO events:
http://i51.tinypic.com/ev9mhh.jpg
I discussed this in the following post:
http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2011/03/03/sea-surface-temperature-anomalies-%e2%80%93-east-pacific-versus-the-rest-of-the-world/
Regards
‘splain this to me please…..
Is this really where they are getting the sea level trends from?
http://www.aviso.oceanobs.com/fileadmin/images/news/indic/msl/MSL_Map_J1_Global_IB_RWT_NoGIA_Adjust.png
From Peter Landesman published on American Thinker.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/the_mathematics_of_global_warm.html
“As an expert in the solutions of non-linear differential equations, I can attest to the fact that the more than two-dozen non-linear differential equations in weather models are too difficult for humans to have any idea how to solve accurately. No approximation over long time periods has any chance of accurately predicting global warming. Yet approximation is exactly what the global warming advocates are doing. Each of the more than thirty models being used around the world to predict the weather is just a different inaccurate approximation of the weather equations. (Of course, this is an issue only if the model of the weather is correct. It is probably not, because the climatologists probably do not understand all of the physical processes determining the weather.)
Therefore, one cannot logically conclude that any of the global warming predictions are correct. To base economic policy on the wishful thinking of these so-called scientists is just foolhardy from a mathematical point of view. The leaders of the mathematical community, ensconced in universities flush with global warming dollars, have not adequately explained to the public the above facts. “
Anthony, have a safe and productive trip!
This might be worth mentioning, as another voyage related to climate change is underway. This voyage is by friends of mine, Jake and Jackie Adams of Redondo Beach, California and their friend Bill Babington. They are sailing around the world and documenting with video the changes on the islands and islanders from climate change. Jake and Bill sailed to the South Pacific 13 years ago. The travelers’ intent this time is to create a commercial video after their trip. Jake is a registered Civil Engineer in California, meaning he is a Professional Engineer.
They have a web site at http://www.island-earth.com/ , where Jake and Jackie are on the sailboat Hokule’a, and Bill is on Solstice. There is a tracking map, and a journal or log of their travels. Click on Hokule’a for a menu of options, or on Solstice for a similar menu of options.
They are currently in the French Polynesia islands. They report that the islands are still there, none are underwater.
I wish I could be there to cheer you on. There are two issues that need continual repeating, the temperatures uncertainties are large compared to the anomalies and that the extraordinary weather is not a measure of climate. The extent of warming, temperature increase, is uncertain for multitude of reasons and that it is readily possible manipulate a given set of data to make any conclusion the analyst chooses. I am sure you can speak well to this issue. In addition, the temperature uncertainties make it almost impossible to partition the temperature anomalies that come from natural sources from those from green house gases. Also, as you recently pointed out, extraordinary weather events do not prove that the climate has changed. The climate changes we know about, Little Ice Age, were real climate events that lead to weather changes over a sustained period.
If we are so uncertain that the magnitude of a temperature increases and how they can be assigned to a given cause and that the evidence for climate change appears to be anecdotal including rising ocean water levels, melting ice caps, receding glaciers, flooding, fires, and tornadoes, what solid scientific evidence is left to demonstrate a concern that man is destroying the planet?
Good luck Mr. Watts
Perhaps you can find some use in this
The Myths and Omissions of AGW
1. The Historical Global Temperature Myth
“It will without doubt have come to your Lordship’s knowledge that a considerable change of climate, inexplicable at present to us, must have taken place in the Circumpolar Regions, by which the severity of the cold that has for centuries past enclosed the seas in the high northern latitudes in an impenetrable barrier of ice has been during the last two years, greatly abated.
(This) affords ample proof that new sources of warmth have been opened and give us leave to hope that the Arctic Seas may at this time be more accessible than they have been for centuries past, and that discoveries may now be made in them not only interesting to the advancement of science but also to the future intercourse of mankind and the commerce of distant nations.”
President of the Royal Society, London, to the Admiralty, 20th November, 1817 ( Royal Society Archives)
The Arctic.
Up to1882-83; records of the Arctic weather/climate , except for a few places between 67.7 and 70N are non-existant.Between 1883 and the 1930s records are few and far between, in both time and position. In 1937 the USSR established the first semi permanent Observation Sites on polar ice. From 1947 the US and Canada established DEWline Observation Sites on their N.Arctic Coasts. From 1979, 30 Arctic AWS drifting “Buoys” were estabished. From 1990 on; increasing satellite, surface AWS and manned Station observations are relied upon.
The Antarctic.
Climate/Weather records of the Antarctic have a more recent history stretching back to 1950. Prior to that there are no records.Between 1950 and 1970 , the records are sparce. The number of weather stations and AWS slowly increased, but at present only 11 out of the present 21 sites are operative.This is to cover land area of 13M square Km.Since C1970 Satellite and aerial measurements are extensively relied upon.
Ice core techniques to determine historical climate conditions are unreliable because of contamination and other causes; both time and climate conditions are vague and the margin of error too great to be included in computations.
Temperate, Tropical and Doldrum Latitudes- Land.
From C 1700 the Royal Navy established a weather reporting system at Royal and other National Naval Stations throughout the World. Tables of extremes and average/mean weather conditions were published in the Encyclopeadic Admiralty Pilots and Ocean Passages for the World.
From C1810 Admiral Beaufort standardised methods of weather measurements in the Royal and Merchant Navies of the UK.
Reporting Weather Stations were established by President U.S. Grant, and this system spread over Europe etc.. over the next two decades
Prior to 1882-3and the introduction of the Stevenson Screen, Land Weather and Climate Observations were unregulated and measurements unreliable. The International Polar Year Conference establish standards of observations . Wind speed was measured by the Beaufort Scale. Observations of pressure by accurate Mecury and Aeneroid barometers and Barographs was very limited. Relative Humidity and SALR and DALR were established.
Electronic weather measuring developed and was installed in satellites, but it was not until about 1975 that regular satellite measurements were accepted as reliable.Even today, Satellite Measurements are sometimes shown to be unreliabe when compared to surface and aerial( Sondes and Aircraft ) measurements.
Temperate, Tropical and Doldrum Latitudes-Sea.
From around 1880 and the introduction of the Stevensen Screen, a standardised method of maritime weather observations evolved and there are extensive records , covering the Worlds major sea lanes since then. However, these changed with e openings of the Suez and Panama Canals, so that voyages around Cape Horn and Cape Aghuilas became less frequent.
However, vast areas of the Southern Oceans remained empty and void of any weather observations . An approx indication of these areas is
South Atlantic 00Lat 22W long -40 S lat 5W long-50S lat. 42Wlong
S. Pacific 55S lat 105W Long -10S lat 125W Long-50S lat 180 Long
S Indian Ocean40 s Lat 40 E long- 76 E Long – 40 S. Lat 110E long.- 10S Lat 75E long.
The absence of records from virtually half the Worlds Surface, for most of the historical period in question means that to attempt to calculate a ” Global Historical Mean ” or graph a ” Global Historical Mean ” is a Global Historical ( or Hysterical) Myth.
over a year ago · Report
Laurie Ridyard 2. Recording Weather on a Merchant Ship at sea.
The ability to safely navigate a vessel of any nature across the World’s Oceans is an extremely difficult task.The fundamental task is to ensure the ship is stable at all times, which requires a mass of calculations involving shifting centre of gravity and centre of buoyancy.Navigation has progressed from the 3 Ls ; log ,lead, and latitude, and now involves the use of 6 instruments: Radar, sounding machine,log,sextant, chronometer and magnectic/gyro compass. Position fixing in the middle of the ocean requires pages of calculations involving Spherical Trigometry.Nowadays , it is all done by satellites and computers, but as we are so often reminded in Courts of Enquiry; these are only aids to navigation and to rely on just one often leads to disaster.Climatology and Meteorology are essential tools ; and the ability to predict weather to navigate in, away from and out of storms, ice fields, icebergs, fog etc., is essential. One has to be competent in Celestial Navigation to allow for breakdown of computers and/or satellites.
Measurements for weather are made every 6 hrs.starting 0000 GMT ( regardless of local time), and are/were:
Position Lat & Long; course, speed;Stevenson Screen Dry bulb and Depression of Wet bulb temp Sea Temp from a Sea Temp Bucket or ME intake; Pressure from a Marine Mercury Barometer, corrected for height above sea level and Latitude ( variations in G.). Aeneroid Barograph tendency. Wind direction and speed( estimated ) Cloud coverage (Clear-1/8th to 8/8ths }
Main Cloud Type and estimated height.Visibility Precipitation ( not measured ) type if any, fog, mist or any other restrictionof visibility. Past 6 hrs. weather summary.
In the Narrative section, we also had to report any rare or unlisted phenomenae , such as Solar/lunar and Complex Solar/lunar Halos , Green Flashes,unusual Radar Echoes ( In some conditions Radar Echoes can be picked up at multiples of the set Radar Range) meteorites, volcanic eruptions or evidence of same, dust storms water spouts, large numbers of whales, porpoise dolphins etc. with photos wherever possible .
The observations were encoded in numerical groups and sent via RadioTelegraph to the nearest Land Receiving Station.At the end of the Voyage , the Log Books were sent to the Met Office for use by the Climatologists.
All readings had to be taken according to the strict directions within the Log Book.
over a year ago · Report
Laurie Ridyard 3. Making Merchant Ship Records fit the AGW agenda.
The majority of land weather recording stations are sited in and close to urban areas, where local temperatures have increased with increased population and usage of of exothermal equipment, from cars to heating to refridgeration.I understand these are referred to as Urban Heat Islands . This has resulted in most such places having a temperature inversion (cold air above warm air) which can be clearly seen at a distance. Thus, the temp. of central London can now be as much as 4 or 5 degs.Centigrade higher than surrounding agricutural areas, and indeed than the air directly above it.To get an idea of the distribution of Historical and present day Land Weather Recording Sites see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:GHCN_Temperature_Stations.png
It is also worth pointing out that a 2006 US Govt. survey found that only 16% of land based sites could be described as exellent and 25 %were described as fair or poor; in terms of positioning and quality of measuring/reporting..
It follows that making a simple straight line graph of that increase from 0 to 5 degrees over 150years shows AGW scientists have much to play around with, in getting a Global Warming Mean or average.
Temperatures at , above and below sea level are a different kettle of fish.
The first problem is , whatever the weather, air temperatures at at one or two feet above sea level and sea temperatures at one or two feet below sea level are affected by evaporation and Latent Heat Of Evaporation. The more violent the sea becomes,because of spray, the greater that height becomes.
The second problem is the sudden rises and falls of air temperature-( not just due to sun and clouds) which are felt and measured with passing squalls. These occur all over the oceans,but are most noticeably in the Tropics, where the temp can be 90degF, with two or three water spouts and towering cumulo nimbus in sight. Within a few hours the Temp has plunged to 60 degF in a torrential downpour, occasionally of hail. This turbulent weather decreases with nightfall, so that temperatures are more stable.
The third problem is the adiabatic lapse rate.
Sailing ships’ instruments were situated at a height of perhaps 20 ft above sea level This height increased with the advent of steam and motor vessels. Although coastal and short sea ships had their instruments perhaps around 20 ft. above sea level; the height of deep sea vessels varied between 40 & 70 ft. Typically the height of my veesels was about 45ft above sea level.Present day deep sea vessels can have their instruments up to 100+ ft. above sea level.
The fourth problem is with sea temperatures. You may think has nothing to do with air temperatures. However, see what evolves.
Slow moving sailing ships used a reinforced wooden bucket,to scoop a sample of water then a thermometer immersed therein for 3 minutes. For obvious reasons, this was changed to a canvas bucket; then around the 1950s, to an insulated and padded sea water temperature cylindrical bucket, with the thermometer inside on a slide, so that it could be pulled out and read. Where not possible , temp from the ME cooling intake was given.
So what does the CRU,UEA have to say about this?
“What are the basic raw data used?
Over land regions of the world over 3000 monthly station temperature time series are used. Coverage is denser over the more populated parts of the world, particularly, the United States, southern Canada, Europe and Japan. Coverage is sparsest over the interior of the South American and African continents and over the Antarctic. The number of available stations was small during the 1850s, but increases to over 3000 stations during the 1951-90 period. For marine regions sea surface temperature (SST) measurements taken on board merchant and some naval vessels are used. As the majority come from the voluntary observing fleet, coverage is reduced away from the main shipping lanes and is minimal over the Southern Oceans. Maps/tables giving the density of coverage through time are given for land regions by Jones and Moberg (2003) and for the oceans by Rayner et al. (2003). Both these sources also extensively discuss the issue of consistency and homogeneity of the measurements through time and the steps that have made to ensure all non-climatic inhomogeneities have been removed.
Why are sea surface temperatures rather than air temperatures used over the oceans?
Over the ocean areas the most plentiful and most consistent measurements of temperature have been taken of the sea surface. Marine air temperatures (MAT) are also taken and would, ideally, be preferable when combining with land temperatures, but they involve more complex problems with homogeneity than SSTs (Rayner et al., 2003). The problems are reduced using night only marine air temperature (NMAT) but at the expense of discarding approximately half the MAT data. Our use of SST anomalies implies that we are tacitly assuming that the anomalies of SST are in agreement with those of MAT. Many tests show that NMAT anomalies agree well with SST anomalies on seasonal and longer time scales in most open ocean areas. Globally the agreement is currently very good (Rayner et al, 2003), even better than in Folland et al. (2001b). However, some regional discrepancies in open ocean trends have recently been found in the tropics (Christy et al., 2001).”
In short , the Day MATs are unreliable, only Night MATs are reliable; so theCRU use ” reliable” Day and Night SSTs as a comparison.
Of course, they are the ones who determine which is reliable and which is unreliable.
I would find their science more reliable if they produced graphs of Day MATs, Night MATs and SSTs without any of their real or imagined homogeneities.
The difficulties of relying on any SST are found in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_surface_temperature
This also quite clearly shows the considerable variations in Diurnal SSTs, yet the steady heat sopurce below 2 m depths.
See also
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88520025
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/08/spurious-warming-in-new-noaa-ocean-temperature-product-the-smoking-gun/
In conclusion, the reliance on on manipulated data derived from questionable sources to produce graphs of AGW is not science.
Bob Tisdale says:
June 26, 2011 at 2:54 pm
And the volcano-adjusted SST anomalies for the rest of the world (90S-90N, 80W-180) have risen in steps in response to significant ENSO events:
==================================================================
Bob, exactly how is that done?
I know this is SST’s, but I just ran into something with sea levels that makes no sense at all.
More Evidence that Global Warming is a False Alarm: A Model Simulation of the last 40 Years of Deep Ocean Warming
OHC, deceptive IPCC grafic , missing heat, Roy Spencer
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/06/more-evidence-that-global-warming-is-a-false-alarm-a-model-simulation-of-the-last-40-years-of-deep-ocean-warming/#comments
Lubos Motl posted:
However, let’s write the same numbers with January 2001 – the beginning of the new century – as the initial month. Note that we’re not trying to include the El Nino year 1998: instead, we just pick the most natural beginning of the centtury. It’s been more than 10 years and the linear regression in this period gives us:
-0.40 °C / century: globally
-1.16 °C / century: tropics
+0.22 °C / century: North extratropics
-0.19 °C / century: South extratropics
+3.83 °C / century: Arctic
-1.27 °C / century: Antarctica
-4.84 °C / century: contin. USA
-0.23 °C / century: North Hemisphere
-0.58 °C / century: South Hemisphere
http://motls.blogspot.com/2011/06/rss-amsu-all-cooling-and-warming-trends.html
Why is the continental USA cooling so quickly?
Latitude says: “Bob, exactly how is that done?”
Beyond what was presented in the linked post, what else do you need to know?
http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2011/03/03/sea-surface-temperature-anomalies-%e2%80%93-east-pacific-versus-the-rest-of-the-world/
Also, what didn’t make sense in the sea level data?
Guest posts are encouraged. Authoirs that may want to submit stories please use the link on the sidebar.
And which link would that be I don’t see any link on the side bar that would make me think it was useful for submitting a suggested story?? Or does this only apply to your regular contributors?
Larry
Ahh just found it on the top bar not the side bar. Minor detail.
Larry
One thing I have noted recently is how prevalent the “97%” meme is. It seems to be the first line of defense of every amateur warmist and recently it was being plugged on NPR which we get via ABC in Australia.
This horrible little statistic is everywhere like a weed. I know that it can be eradicated by application of the Lawrence Soloman essay but that is not always available for use unless one is debating on the internet and can throw in a link.
I think that this particular little needs to be tackled head on. It seems to ubiquitous and relied upon that if it can now be shown to be a fraud it might have a major effect on the warmist argument.
If I am told that ‘the vast majority’ or ‘97% of scientists’ support the idea I ask whether that is fact of heresay and start the slow process of dismantling the lie.
However, since in most cases this is a religiously held belief I feel I am wasting my time.
Any thoughts?
n. A principle in climatology holding that increasing the accuracy of measurement of one modelled quantity increases the uncertainty with which another conjugate quantity may be known.
Enjoy yourself.
Latitude:
“Is this really where they are getting the sea level trends from?”
Apparently Palau is now completely under water.. well, most of it..
anthony,
hoping you will preface whatever u say with a statement that there is no such thing as a “climate change denier” as everyone in the world knows the climate has changed, is changing and will change”. therefore, it is incumbent upon the media to put a stop to such an absurd and meaningless description of AGW sceptics, and to argue the case for or against AGW, and not on the misleading “climate change”. good luck.
here’s a giggle for your trip to the legislative capital!
26 June: UK Daily Mail: Binmen tell granny they won’t empty her wheelie bin because her rubbish is the wrong shape
‘I had washed out the tub and put it in with my other plastic bottles. When I phoned the council, they said if it had been bottle shaped, it would have been taken…
‘I’ve always put ice cream tubs in my recycling, and no-one’s ever complained before.
‘I don’t see why they couldn’t have taken the tub out and put it in my other bin if there was a huge problem with it.
‘The whole situation is a huge farce.’
But after the grandmother-of-two complained, the council backtracked – and claimed that they had made a mistake and square ice-cream tubs were now accepted for recycling.
The council told Mrs Tasker they would retrain all of their staff to teach them which objects can be recycled.
She added: ‘I couldn’t believe my ears when they said they were going to retrain all of their staff.
‘Surely all that’s required is a bit of common sense?’ …
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2008371/Binmen-tell-granny-wont-wheelie-bin-rubbish-wrong-shape.html
Antarctica–
plus 16 C(+61F) vs minus 77 C (-106F)–
plus 16 C will be recorded in the historical
record and minus 77 C will be discarded.
http://www.ogimet.com/cgi-bin/gsynres?lang=en&ind=89018&ano=2011&mes=6&day=26&hora=18&min=0&ndays=30
http://www.ogimet.com/cgi-bin/gsynop?lang=en&zona=antartida&base=bluem&proy=orto&ano=2011&mes=06&day=26&hora=18&vtn=Tn&Send=send
Worthless data will give worthless derived
statistics and models.
Bob Tisdale says:
June 26, 2011 at 4:26 pm
Also, what didn’t make sense in the sea level data?
=========================================================
thanks Bob, I thought so, they are trying to adjust for volcanoes on land, not in the sea….
Not one bit of satellite sea level makes one bit of sense so far……..
I think we’ve been had……
Latitude:
“Is this really where they are getting the sea level trends from?”
===============================================
Dave N says:
June 26, 2011 at 5:10 pm
Apparently Palau is now completely under water.. well, most of it..
=================================================
Apparently it is, and so is most of the Indo-Pacific……………
and if this trend continues, there’s going to be a mountain of water sitting there….
…you can water ski down hill without a boat
I used to have a simple set of pictures illustrating the differences in reading a thermometer meniscus by eye elevation. The measurement error exceeded what the warmists claim for this decade. If I have time tomorrow, I will duplicate it for you.
Anthony,
For what it’s worth:
Data are. They are measurements taken from instruments. Good data are taken from properly sited, properly installed, properly calibrated instruments. All other data are bad data. Missing data are simply missing. Bad data cannot be massaged into good data. Missing data cannot replaced. Anything not measured by proper instruments is of uncertain value. Anything not measured at all is merely uncertain; and, of no value. Once data is adjusted, in any way, it ceases to be data; arguably, it becomes undata.
All of the data collected to form the global temperature record (good, bad and missing) is converted into undata before it is used, thus destroying its provenance and its value. AGW rests uncertainly on this “foundation”.
So evolves “settled science”, unsettling as that may be.
Open thread contribution:
Understanding Engineers #1
Two engineering students were biking across a university campus when one said, “Where did you get such a great bike?” The second engineer replied, “Well, I was walking along yesterday, minding my own business, when a beautiful woman rode up on this bike, threw it to the ground, took off all her clothes and said, “Take what you want.” The first engineer nodded approvingly and said, “Good choice: The clothes probably wouldn’t have fit you anyway.”
Understanding Engineers #2
To the optimist, the glass is half-full. To the pessimist, the glass is half-empty. To the engineer, the glass is twice as big as it needs to be.
Understanding Engineers #3
A priest, a doctor, and an engineer were waiting one morning for a particularly slow group of golfers. The engineer fumed, “What’s with those guys? We must have been waiting for fifteen minutes!” The doctor chimed in, “I don’t know, but I’ve never seen such inept golf!” The priest said, “Here comes the green-keeper. Let’s have a word with him.” He said, “Hello, George. What’s wrong with that group ahead of us? They’re rather slow, aren’t they?” The green-keeper replied, “Oh, yes. That’s a group of blind firemen. They lost their sight saving our clubhouse from a fire last year, so we always let them play for free anytime.” The group fell silent for a moment. The priest said, “That’s so sad. I think I will say a special prayer for them tonight.” The doctor said, “Good idea. I’m going to contact my ophthalmologist colleague and see if there’s anything he can do for them.” The engineer said, “Why can’t they play at night?”
Understanding Engineers #4
What is the difference between mechanical engineers and civil engineers? Mechanical engineers build weapons. Civil engineers build targets.
Understanding Engineers #5
The graduate with a science degree asks, “Why does it work?” The graduate with an engineering degree asks, “How does it work?” The graduate with an accounting degree asks, “How much will it cost?” The graduate with an arts degree asks, “Do you want fries with that?”
Understanding Engineers #6
Three engineering students were gathered together discussing who must have designed the human body. One said, “It was a mechanical engineer. Just look at all the joints.” Another said, “No, it was an electrical engineer. The nervous system has many thousands of electrical connections.” The last one said, “No, actually it had to have been an environmental engineer. Who else would run a toxic waste pipeline through a recreational area?”
Understanding Engineers #7
Normal people believe that if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. Engineers believe that if it ain’t broke, it doesn’t have enough features yet.
Understanding Engineers #8
An engineer was crossing a road one day, when a frog called out to him and said, “If you kiss me, I’ll turn into a beautiful princess.” He bent over, picked up the frog, and put it in his pocket. The frog spoke up again and said, “If you kiss me, I’ll turn back into a beautiful princess and stay with you for one week.” The engineer took the frog out of his pocket, smiled at it and returned it to the pocket. The frog then cried out, “If you kiss me and turn me back into a princess, I’ll stay with you for one week and do anything you want.” Again, the engineer took the frog out, smiled at it and put it back into his pocket. Finally, the frog asked, “What is the matter? I’ve told you I’m a beautiful princess and that I’ll stay with you for one week and do anything you want. Why won’t you kiss me?” The engineer said, “Look, I’m an engineer. I don’t have time for a girlfriend, but a talking frog – now that’s cool.”
Smokey, nice. Much needed.
I think that there is no one on the planet who has thought more deeply on this topic Anthony – so will defer to your expertise. For ease of communication to people like me however – there are a pair of issues that present themselves:
a) accuracy vs. precision
b) absolute temperature vs. relative temperatures.
In my view the argument that only relative temperatures matter (over time) is a construct to get past the fact that the absolute temperatures are poorly recorded. The problem with this thinking is that site conditions (as you have so ably documented) change over time. Details actually DO matter.
As to the topic of precision vs. accuracy – since the changes we are dealing with are sooo small – I wonder if a false sense of precision is provided through all of the averaging. It worries me is all…
ICCC6 Keynote from Inhofe. Please let us know if he says anything wacky (again.)
The EU is going down to tube just listen to the talking heads.
Listen to the Jill Duggan interview about ½ way through @:
http://www.mtr1377.com.au/index2.php?option=com_newsmanager&task=view&id=8095
EU climate action commissioner Connie Hedegaard is as thick as a brick as are most people in her department. In Australia recently she sent down Jill Duggan the EU carbon commissioner. As an expert on carbon markets for the European Commission’s Directorate-General for Climate Action, Duggan will help mastermind the EU’s bold – and massively expensive – plans to reduce Europe’s carbon emissions by 20 per cent by 2020. Turns out she could not answer the most basic of climate, Temp, costs or CO2 questions on a radio interview.
She was asked:
1st question: What’s the expected cost is of this grand Europe-wide scheme to reduce carbon emissions by 20 per cent by 2020. Duggan says she doesn’t have a figure. So her interviewers put to her the estimate by (non-sceptic) Richard Tol: $250 billion.
2nd question: Does Duggan know what the estimated effect on global temperatures will be if Europe goes it alone in its carbon emissions reduction campaign? Her interviewers tell her 0.05 degrees C by 2100.
Interviewer:“You’re in charge of a massive program to re-jig an economy and you don’t know what it costs and you don’t know what it will achieve,”
Duggan claims that “a million” green jobs have been created in Germany; and that many hundreds of thousands of green jobs are going to be created in Britain. “Really?”.That would seem to contradict the real world evidence, which shows that, far from creating jobs; government “investment” in renewable energy is in fact destroying jobs in the real economy.
The late, great United Kingdom: click
Nothing too original, but some of the visualizations I produced of GHCN data and station locations might be useful. I’ll try not to spam too much with links:
Locations of thermometers in GHCN-v2. Yup, I need to do this again for GHCN-v3 at some point, but AFAIK, the stations included are still the same:
http://blog.qtau.com/2010/05/dude-where-is-my-thermometer.html
Visualization of warmer/colder adjustments to the GHCN-v2:
http://blog.qtau.com/2010/05/would-you-like-yours-well-adjusted.html
Time series graphs for all stations in the GHCN-v2:
http://climate.unur.com/ghcn-v2/
And the curious case of Giarabub, Libya where the temperature station seems to be 6 feet under:
http://blog.nu42.com/2010/04/what-is-up-with-giarabub.html
station_elevation: -2
Good luck. Thank you for both your hard work and the inspiration you have provided on this issue.
— Sinan
PETA Uses “Microwave Baby” Case as Billboard Inspiration
The ad, also here (slightly different).
That’s just… So completely absolutely wrong…
Who in their right mind would microwave a pork chop, uncovered? The meat would lose moisture and get dry, that’s not the long soaking heat needed to soften it up so it’ll be tough and stringy. And it would splatter everywhere, it’ll be a total mess to clean up.
Perhaps those not-natural factory-regurgitated tofu burgers act differently, but no sane person who knows how to cook raw meat properly would ever microwave a pork chop like that. These insane PETA people really need to do some research before they come up with these nutty ideas. Idiots.
Note: I admit not all of their ad ideas are bad. I particularly like how they put beautiful naked women on display, often in public. Maybe someday I’ll be able to stop admiring the fine ladies long enough to wonder why they do that.
Leland Palmer says:
June 26, 2011 at 7:55 pm “…What we do have are carbon isotope signatures showing the input of trillions of tons of C12 enriched carbon into the active carbon cycle, and oxygen isotope signatures showing large amounts of global heating at that time. There is also, of course, evidence of anoxic conditions on the floors of the oceans, including vast deposits of petroleum, left over from dead creatures preserved by low oxygen conditions, during these oceanic anoxic events associated with destabilization of methane hydrates….
Leland, you are amusing. Have you some links to back up your claims, quoted above?
Yes, at some point in the Permo-Cretaceous, in particular, vast quantities of kerogenic organic matter were deposited in a number of places, many of them rift basins and other restricted seas. That accounts in large part for your “anoxic events”. The other point to consider is that this was, geologically, one of the most prolific periods of living matter in the earth’s history.
Instead of the disaster you attempt to portray, life abounded. And it was about 6 – 10 degC hotter than, and quadruple the amount of CO2 as, today. Historically, however, that period had a fraction of the atmospheric CO2 of past times. So maybe, there are things other than CO2 to consider in the story of this world? Actually, much of the earth’s initial charge of CO2 is now tied up in carbonates and calcareous shales and gas deposits and coal deposits. The question really is: will we run out of it?
Did someone say “Open Thread”? Alrighty, then: click
And: click
And: click
Here’s a 0.365 million viewer shout-out to AGW enthusiasts.
“I’d happily recycle my foot in their…”:
“I once met a guy named Hurricane Bill.”
“Four hour segment devoted to igloos”:
For some time, I’ve been watching the NASA “Key Climate Indicators” page, which summarizes a number of trends that are interesting. It’s http://1.usa.gov/lNTFNB They have long had a split graph showing sea level rise up to about 1992 and since. The significance is supposed to be that there was an abrupt change in the slope at that time. No real explanation is given.
However, I’ve noticed that the graph has been slightly below the straight line. Better data was available by clicking “Credit: CLS/Cnes/Legos”, which in fact showed it farther off than NASA’s graph. A few days ago, I looked again. Now there is a new “Download Data” link, but it takes you to a very complicated place from which I haven’t been able to find data, just lovely graphics. The former link still exists as text but no longer as a link.
However, it doesn’t take a genius to find the page. Just Google “Cls Cnes Legos” and up it pops. http://bit.ly/iQ9Dyn Interestingly, while the NASA page shows a continued rise, the data which is supposedly the source shows a sharp reversal, carrying sea levels back down to about where they were three years ago.
So two questions. How did they get their graph? And, probably rhetorical, why don’t they want us to see the data?
Anthony,
I saw a graph a long time ago that was by (I think) Richard Lindzen. He took the NASA/GISS temperature record and plotted it on a degrees Kelvin graph that started at zero and went to about 350 if recollection serves me right.
Of course the result was an almost flat line. Even Michael Mann’s hockey stick graph looks like a flat line on that scale. Because it IS a flat line, which was the point of the graph. Our climate is REMARKABLY stable when considered in the big picture instead of the microscopic view in hundredths of degrees. The error bars elegantly showed that the line is flat, the error bars well exceed the supposed trend, natural variability exceeds the supposed trend, and we’ve got our panties in a twist over pretty much nothing.
All in one graphic, wish I’d book marked it.
Have a good time out there. Hope you get to look around a bit.
Rob wrote: They have long had a split graph showing sea level rise up to about 1992 and since. The significance is supposed to be that there was an abrupt change in the slope at that time.
See a quick “what were they thinking?!” analysis of that page here:
http://climatesanity.wordpress.com/2011/06/06/deception-from-nasa-satellites-are-true-cause-of-sea-level-rise/
“why don’t they want us to see the data?”
They don’t want anybody to become “confused.” Of message control, fearful frauds frantically fuss forever. Human beings are much more afraid of loss than any thing else, so what early on might have been somewhat innocent gain seeking on top of healthy curiosity has become a very worried aristocracy, doubling up on fine feathered appearances as they bide for more time to plan their getaway.
Maldives revolt against AGW: http://i.gadling.com/2011/06/26/maldives-meltdown/
“As political unrest swept through the Muslim nations of North Africa, even the remote island-nation of the Maldives was caught up in its own Arab Spring in the form of political protest and street clashes. One major difference: Efforts in the Maldives were focused on pushing out a young, democratically elected president and replacing him with an aging despot. President Mohammed Nasheed, 44, has gained accolades around the globe for his commitment to preparing the Maldives for the coming impacts of climate change on an island nation and simultaneously attempting to turn the country carbon neutral.”
davidmhoffer says:
June 26, 2011 at 10:11 pm
I saw a graph a long time ago that was by (I think) Richard Lindzen. He took the NASA/GISS temperature record and plotted it on a degrees Kelvin graph that started at zero and went to about 350 if recollection serves me right.
Is this the graphs you mean?
http://how-it-looks.blogspot.com/2011/01/temperature-anomalies-and-graphing-data.html
Although here the author suggests this is not really a good graph to use.
Poll: Do you think tackling climate change should be a priority for Australia?
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/an-inconvenient-fallacy-20110626-1glmu.html
http://www.geoffstuff.com/spaghetti%20Darwin.jpg
Nature article prior to Hansen’s 1988 alarmist spiel in Congress:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v329/n6135/pdf/329138a0.pdf
“The net effect of clouds is to provide a negative feedback on surface temperature, rather than the positive feedback found in earlier general circulation model studies without considering cloud optical depth feedbacks.”
h/t http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2011/06/when-climate-science-was-science.html (has a New Scientist blurb on it too).
JB Williamson;
Similar to that, but that’s not the one I recall. And it doesn’t have the error bars or the natural variation bars. the one you point to is part of an article explaining why it isn’t relevant and trying to make an analogy to stock market trending.
It is relevant, particularly in the context of natural variability and statistical error bars. The stock market is a completely artificial measure of value. It is entirely constructed of artificial measurements invented and agreed to through negotiation by human beings. Climate is governed by the laws of science, and they respond to neither artificial measurement systems nor negotiation by human beings or anyone else.
Open thread contribution
Why should I not be concerned about the reduction in Arctic ice volume as reported by PIOMAS here which suggests a reduction in volume of some 10,000km3 since 1979 and falling?
It seems substantial and worrisome to me, given that volume ranges from 12,000 to 29,000 km3 (approx) over the year.
Thanks,
Dermot
Worry away Dermot.
The reduction of ice volume is a naturally occurring event, but worrying about it isn’t going to do much good.
Remember that old world liberalism was a powerful force, in a real debate, not a cultural war, once the Democrats took off their “labor party” white hoods to see the light of day for a moment or two, historically.
Adenoid Hynkel (dictator of Tomania): “Soldiers: Don’t give yourselves to brutes, men who despise you, enslave you, who regiment your lives, tell you what to do, what to think and what to feel; who drill you, diet you, treat you like cattle, use you as cannon fodder. Don’t give yourselves to these unnatural men, machine men, with machine minds and machine hearts! You are not machines! You are not cattle! You are men! You have the love of humanity in your hearts. You don’t hate; only the unloved hate, the unloved and the unnatural.
Soldiers: Don’t fight for slavery! Fight for liberty! In the seventeenth chapter of Saint Luke it is written, “the kingdom of God is within man” — not one man, nor a group of men, but in all men, in you, you the people have the power, the power to create machines, the power to create happiness. You the people have the power to make this life free and beautiful, to make this life a wonderful adventure.
Then, in the name of democracy, let us use that power! Let us all unite!! Let us fight for a new world, a decent world that will give men a chance to work, that will give you the future and old age a security. By the promise of these things, brutes have risen to power, but they lie! They do not fulfill their promise; they never will. Dictators free themselves, but they enslave the people!! Now, let us fight to fulfill that promise!! Let us fight to free the world, to do away with national barriers, to do away with greed, with hate and intolerance. Let us fight for a world of reason, a world where science and progress will lead to all men’s happiness.”
No, the energy isn’t there.
There is no shortage of energy.
http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/379255
Travel with care, have a great time.
Via Andrew Bolt’s blog:
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/the_age_admits_theres_a_debate_after_all#84981
You can go to The Age (a warmist Australian newspaper) and vote on whether or not tackling climate change should be a priority for Australia.
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/an-inconvenient-fallacy-20110626-1glmu.html#ixzz1QSzYzTOJ
Why not drop in and cast a vote? It’s not limited to Australians!
Anthony, I hope you took your own chair http://icecap.us/index.php/go/political-climate
(scroll don to June 22)
Drat. Wrong url. Try http://icecap.us/index.php. June 22 under Political Climate column.
A quick question for the knowledgeable. I don’t have the time to more than browse a few blogs so there are quite a few gaps in my understanding of AGW.
When discussing CO2 levels, the usual reference is to Mauna Loa, presumably because the measurements there are the most uncontaminated? Regardless, I am curious. Are measurements made elsewhere? How do they compare?
Given that CO2 levels of the past must be deduced from proxies, what do those same proxies show when compared to modern instrumental data? How confident can we be regarding proxy derived estimates of CO2 levels for say the past 2000 years?
Ode to James Hansen and the “fools” he left behind:
Anthony
You carried an article by myself on Uncertainties in historical instrumental temperatures on your site here;
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/05/23/little-ice-age-thermometers-%e2%80%93-history-and-reliability-2/
It covered a great deal of historical information on reliability not often seen. In particular there are several links to very old books which indicates that there was a problem with the way temperatures were recorded even back then.
Don’t forget that Pat Frank also wrote an excellent article on this subject. Whilst he came from a mathematical angle and mine was from a historic viewpoint we both came to exactly the same conclusion-the temperature record shouldn’t be relied on.
tonyb
Graeme M
As regards Carbon Dioxide measurements, if you would like to read my article AND the comments in reaction to it, you will find a treasure trove of information from all sides of the debate
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2010/03/06/historic-variations-in-co2-measurements/
Regarding sea level rise, I understand that Atlantis is completely under water, as are large parts of Pangea…
Steven Brown, thank you I voted and as of now 74% are against the tax and this our leading but financially failing left wing newspaper. Who would have thunk such a result.
M.A.Vukcevic says:
June 27, 2011 at 1:20 am
“No, the energy isn’t there. ”
There is no shortage of energy.
http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/379255
But shortage of science. The solar input can be likened to a little boy peeing into the canal upstream.
NOW SHOWING UPWARDS OF 1.8 INCHES IN THE NORTH BAY THROUGH TUESDAY EVENING…WITH LESS THAN A HALF INCH ELSEWHERE. THE GFS AND ECWMF FORECAST CONSIDERABLY LESS RAINFALL IN THE NORTH BAY…GENERALLY ONLY ABOUT A HALF INCH. LATEST AMSU PW OUTPUT SHOWS A MOIST PLUME OF AIR WITH PRECIPITABLE WATER VALUES IN EXCESS OF 1.5 INCHES IS FEEDING INTO THIS SYSTEM ALONG 40N. SO THE POTENTIAL IS CERTAINLY THERE FOR RAINFALL TOTALS TO APPROACH THOSE FORECAST BY THE NAM. THE AIRMASS WILL BECOME SOMEWHAT UNSTABLE ON TUESDAY AS COLDER AIR BEGINS TO MOVE IN ALOFT…BUT WIDESPREAD CLOUDINESS WILL INHIBIT SURFACE HEATING ON TUESDAY AND LESSEN POTENTIAL FOR THUNDERSTORMS. IN ANY EVENT…THEIR MAY BE ENOUGH FRONTAL LIFT FOR EMBEDDED CONVECTION ALONG THE FRONTAL RAIN BAND. SO WILL KEEP SLIGHT THUNDERSTORM CHANCES IN THE FORECAST FOR TUESDAY AND TUESDAY EVENING.
========================================================
OK, I’ll write it: 2011, The Year Without a Summer.
We’re still experiencing a mid spring weather pattern (or is it an early Fall one, hard to tell which). Gulf of Alaska storms, less frequent than “Winter” but present at this latitude at a lower frequency of occurrence. In between storms we alternate between offshore wind events and a certain degree of the marine layer at and near the coast. Classic early May (or mid to late October) conditions.
More information on solar power costs:
http://www.triplepundit.com/2011/06/announcement-bank-america-putting-billions-solar/
I can’t tell for sure whether all costs are included, but there is no mention of subsidies other than the federal loan guarantee.
733MW of power at a cost of $2.6 billion gives (assuming at least 80% of rated power for at least 30 years for at least 250 days per year for at least 8 hours per day): 3.52E10 kwh at a cost of $2.6E9, or $0.0739/kwh.
As concentrated PV power is mass produced, the cost per kwh should be cut in half in a few years. We’ll see.
Septic Matthew says: June 27, 2011 at 12:28 pm
More information on solar power costs:
[…]
733MW of power at a cost of $2.6 billion gives (assuming at least 80% of rated power for at least 30 years for at least 250 days per year for at least 8 hours per day): 3.52E10 kwh at a cost of $2.6E9, or $0.0739/kwh.
My 1KW rated, fixed panels give significant output for less than six hours per day maximum, and output just over 4 kilowatt hours per day on average, in western Colorado. The most I have ever seen is just over 5 in a day, and rarely. Unless the panels move, the output will be half and therefore the KWH cost 2X.
(A) Liberals = NO!
(B) Conservatives = ROW!
(C) Libertarians = GO!
A+B+C = INFINITY and the Roman Empire, the Renaissance, Reformation, and Rocky Balboa.
“Whenever I draw a circle, I immediately want to step out of it.” – Buckminster Fuller
“God is fully contained in the last digit of pi.” – Nik
There is now a winter weather advisory up for the NorCal high country. The higher passes in the mid Sierra may be sort of hairy tomorrow.
It seams to me that the exhaust of the sun should be water. Could this be why sea levels rise?
Whales, plankton migrate across Northwest Passage. Interesting read.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iqTYm_vYaki39R4dEkBao68LlSTQ?docId=bd0645f05e494649bf7e56ae512e0b82
martin457 said on June 27, 2011 at 8:16 pm:
Say WHAT? Our sun is still relatively young and primarily generating energy by fusing hydrogen into helium. It’ll be a very long time until our sun begins producing oxygen. Thus the sun can’t be exhausting water, it only has one of the two elements needed to make water.
Does anyone have a pointer to list of of the 1951-1980 normals data that NOAA and GISS use? I’m talking a list of numbers, not a map. I’m particularly interested in the sites they have for Canada. This may or may not lead to a guest post, depending on what I can dig up.
wayne Job says:
June 27, 2011 at 5:35 am
“Steven Brown, thank you I voted and as of now 74% are against the tax …”
The “No” votes are now down to 53% with 9 hours to go. The AGWankers must be desperate to push it over the tipping point.
Steve Keohane, the “8 hours per day” works in places like S. California (LA, San Bernardino, Imperial, SD, Riverside counties) and probably S. Arizona and S. New Mexico and S. Texas.
My expectation is that, in places like these, electricity from roof-mounted PV panels will cost $0.04 per kwh in the next 3 – 7 years, in those southern sunny climes. Although I am 64, my grandparents lived long enough that I expect to live long enough to see PV power at $0.01 per kwh, net to consumers. Home Depot sells modular systems, and I intend to follow the costs through the years.
Here are California electricity supply and demand curves for today:
http://www.caiso.com/outlook/SystemStatus.html
There is scope for California to meet a substantial fraction of its peak demand by PV cells.