Open Thread

I’m off on a small adventure today, chasing and logging a USHCN weather  station which had been misidentified in the early days of the surfacestations project.

One of the results of the project is that it forced NCDC to provide better metadata in their online MMS database. This includes adding a USHCN flag to identify which stations were in fact USHCN from the more numerous COOP stations. When we started, lat/lons were coarse, and there was no such identification. Now there is and ID and the lat/lons are accurate enough to locate the stations reliably.

I have a feeling this one will be interesting, given the description of the location.

In the meantime, talk quietly amongst yourselves, don’t make be come back here.

;-)

About these ads

157 thoughts on “Open Thread

  1. OK, I have a question for those who like to solve problems….

    Assume that all the ice in the world melted, how much of an increase in the sea level would we see?

  2. I’m presently reading Merchants of Doubt, by Naomi Orestes and Erik Conway. Specifically, Chapter 6 on “The Denial of Global Warming.” Has anyone else read this? If you have, what are your thoughts on that chapter?

  3. Roger Sowell says:

    “I’m presently reading Merchants of Doubt, by Naomi Orestes and Erik Conway. Specifically, Chapter 6 on “The Denial of Global Warming.” Has anyone else read this? If you have, what are your thoughts on that chapter?”

    I went to the bookstore and searched high and low through the fiction section, but couldn’t find it.
    Is it in humor??

  4. Roger Sowell ,
    I haven’t read the book , and after seeing Oreskes and Conway on Book TV a few weeks ago , I don’t intend to . However , I recall Oreskes opining that Freeman Dyson’s skepticism to his feeling old and irrelevant and , as such , in need of attention . The woman is far too ugly to be taken seriously .

  5. For whichever brilliant person who figures out sea level rise if all the ice melts I would like to add two difficulty factors. The ocean bottom may lower with the weight of the increase in water. Not all the melted ice water will make it to the ocean. Greenland might be a vast lake.
    Maybe the figuring won’t be necessary. Maybe the answer is in the very old geologic record.

  6. The whole subject of ‘denial’ often gets incredibly emotive – for obvious reasons. However, Orestes uses the term with the assumption that CAGW is not only true, but CLEARLY true for anyone of normal intellectual functioning. I find the best context in which to place this is Salem around 300 years ago. If you couldn’t see witchcraft and witches everywhere you were in denial – according to the priests of the day.
    I usually see myself as merely quite sceptical – of most things, but especially CAGW. If pushed, though, I’d have to admit that (until I see some evidence) I deny it.
    Witches too

  7. I am currently reading Paul Johnson, “Modern Times:”

    Steve McIntyre reflects briefly on politics/politicians in responding to Hansen’s recent editorial. Steve’s graciousness in rare in today’s debates. Johnson addresses the abuse of parliamentary and other political systems, during the 20s and 30s, especially by Leenin, Staalin, and Hiitler [aberrant spelling to avoid moderation filters]. These men preferred decrees and diktats over messy republican/democratic give-and-take.

    Do readers, other than I, perceive similarities between our times and 1916-1936? Does not a political system offer greater opportunities to address problems [real AND imaginary] than does the IPCC model? I think political systems work; further, blogs enhance the republic of Ideas: I want MORE political engagement.

  8. Here’s a question for you guys. The maddening thing to most of us skeptics it seems to me, is that the information and scientific arguments against the AGW orthodoxy are both highly credible, and highly available. When I listen to a guy like Al Gore asserting that “pseudoscientists are being paid” to come up with bogus arguments against the “reality” of global warming, I can barely stand it. But he can get away with it, perhaps he even really believes it, because true believers simply never bother to question their own assumptions, which is a form of blindness…
    Of course in poker terms, Al Gore is “all in.” He’ll go down with the ship.

    But beyond that, what do you guys think we lay skeptics can do, if anything, to enlighten people? We can read the blogs, we can donate money to them, but every time I even bring the subject up among my liberal friends, it takes about 5 seconds before tempers flare. It just seems so hopeless for now…

  9. To Bob Diaz,
    If the land based Greenland ice all melted, a rise of about 20 ft would occur. If all of the Antarctic land based ice cap melted and ran into the ocean, several hundred feet would be added. However, some of the melt for both would be captured in inland seas, so it would be some less than max possible. However, the energy to melt all this ice would take several thousands of years to accumulate. Also, even if the temperature in the Antarctic went up 10 degrees C on average, it still would be well below freezing over most of the ice sheet all year long (only the lower altitude levels even get near freezing anytime). Ice requires a lot of energy to melt. Since past ice core and sea bed sediment records indicate that we should be heading for a glacial period soon (several hundreds to a few thousands of years away), it is more likely that refreezing would to occur before much melt occurred, so I would not worry. In fact, cooling is much more likely the next couple of decades.

  10. August 13, 2011 at 12:21 pm
    Steve Keohane says:

    “and what side of the road is the sign on?”

    The top side, if it was the underside only drivers in the northern hemisphere would be able to see it.

  11. Roger Sowell, Oreskes’ book is devoted primarily to attack a particular group of scientist of whom only one still lives to defend himself. He (Fred Singer) has defended himself many times, here for instance:

    http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/06/science_and_smear_merchants.html

    Although another scientist she attacks, William Nierenberg is now deceased, his son still lives, and maintains a blog where you can find extensive rebuttals of the attacks on his father:

    http://nierenbergobservations.blogspot.com/

    Sadly Robert Jastrow and Fred Seitz have no one in particular devoted to defending them, but given how shoddy and biased her scholarship has been shown to be attacking Singer and Nierenberg, I see no reason to believe any of her attacks on the others.

  12. John R T says:
    August 13, 2011 at 12:19 pm

    I like to think of it as a 100 year behavioral cycle . . . 1864, 1964
    Civil War, Civil Rights

    1863,1963
    Abraham Lincoln assassinated, JFK assassinated

    I could go on . . . but I won’t . . .

    Behavioral cycles are man made, but climate change has an influence . . . .

  13. As for the increase in sea levels, would that not depend on the amount of water that is added to our Scotch Whisky?

  14. I recently upgraded an ancient version of FreeCiv and to my utter chagrin and disgust, I find that the global warming feature annoys me and it cannot be turned off.

    It’s not the global warming per se, but that just like the real AGW, this ‘feature’ totally destroys the fun of the game by introducing tedious make work, a digital version of German recycling (aka washing your litter and separating it into 9+ containers)

    Meh, just wanted to vent, those pesky zealots seems to plaster their junk science anywhere and everywhere, even into games. Is there nowhere safe?

  15. As for the increase in sea levels, for me that would depend on whether you think continents can float or rise with the sea level . . .

  16. Enjoy your adventure Anthony.

    During my 35 years of storm watching in the Chicago suburbs, I just witnessed something new.
    This storm announced it arrival with a constant low rumbling, and some very agitated, boiling clouds.
    It produced some moderate wind gusts, a brief heavy rain, and some pea sized hail.
    The new part was the constant low rumble, which preceded the storm for 20 minutes, continued during the rain and hail, and lasted another 20 minutes until the storm departed.
    There were no individual lightning bolts or thunderclaps, just the low rumbling (I assume it was lightning in the cloud tops).
    Pretty cool!

  17. Hexe Froschbein says:
    August 13, 2011 at 1:18 pm
    “It’s not the global warming per se, but that just like the real AGW, this ‘feature’ totally destroys the fun of the game by introducing tedious make work, a digital version of German recycling (aka washing your litter and separating it into 9+ containers)”

    Heh. We’re not the only crazies on the planet.

    http://www.theblaze.com/stories/militant-environmentalists-call-for-executions-and-decisive-ecological- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jB1o-Pt7FCo&NR=1
    (h/t Marc Morano)

  18. Leonard Weinstein says:
    August 13, 2011 at 12:41 pm

    Leonard did you assume the area of ocean would remain the same as now or did you allow for the increased area of ocean due to the land flooding?

  19. More on the Charles Monnett story. This reminds me of the sotry in July where it was showd that the EPA grants money to environmental groups that then sue them to push their agenda forward. The article here and numerous other places ( http://americaswatchtower.com/2011/07/09/the-epas-circle-of-trust )

    Now read this article ( http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/08/13/watchdog-group-slams-epas-scientific-integrity-proposal/ )

    Do they look familiar? Check out their leftist web site http://www.peer.org/

    Their phone number is (202) 265-7337 which ironically is also the same number for a Patagonia store in Washington, DC.

    Research skills, I has them

  20. As a complete non-scientist I am curious regarding the question whether there is a greenhouse effect on Venus with all its high atmospheric CO2 content. A guy I came across via Google says NO, there isn’t, but I am not competent to find out whether there is some merit in his argument and its implication regarding AGW, or whether it’s balderdash. Here’s the link: http://theendofthemystery.blogspot.com/2010/11/venus-no-greenhouse-effect.html
    Comment anyone?

  21. In all seriousness I wish to know why the bottoms of the oceans are much colder than the surface.
    I know the surface gets sunlight during the day and radiates heat at night.
    What I don’t understand is why radiant heat is not trapped at the bottom.
    Why is IR radiation from the surface not been trapped at the bottom of the ocean?

  22. pokerguy says:
    August 13, 2011 at 12:34 pm

    But beyond that, what do you guys think we lay skeptics can do, if anything, to enlighten people? We can read the blogs, we can donate money to them, but every time I even bring the subject up among my liberal friends, it takes about 5 seconds before tempers flare. It just seems so hopeless for now…

    To keep tempers under control, an excellent method is to challenge opponents to make a bet against you on future global temperatures (per GISS) or ice extent on Intrade. Both sides can then sit in silent satisfaction awaiting vindication and making the other guy pay for his sins. (You may not enlighten them, but you’ll lighten them.)

    Here’s the link: https://www.intrade.com/v4/markets/?eventClassId=20

  23. @Bob Diaz. Or 97 m depending on how much ice you believe is in the Antarctic (30 million m^3 here, 62.5 million in my last post – there seem to be wide ranges out there).

  24. Laurie Bowen says:
    August 13, 2011 at 1:26 pm

    As for the increase in sea levels, for me that would depend on whether you think continents can float or rise with the sea level . . .
    ===========================================================
    exactly….
    There will be no measurable sea level rise at all…
    …the UofColorado is having to add to the measured sea levels now because the weight of all the new water is making the sea floor sink…..pushing it down…………….That is the way they explain the lack of measured sea level rise…….

    So, the more ice melts, the more water goes into the oceans, the more weight pushes the sea floor down more……no measured sea level rise at all

  25. pokerguy says:
    August 13, 2011 at 12:34 pm

    What can skeptics do? Never get mad in conversation.

  26. pokerguy says:
    August 13, 2011 at 12:34 pm

    “But beyond that, what do you guys think we lay skeptics can do, if anything, to enlighten people? We can read the blogs, we can donate money to them, but every time I even bring the subject up among my liberal friends, it takes about 5 seconds before tempers flare. It just seems so hopeless for now…”

    Item number one is take every opportunity to write letters to your local newspapers, if you are in a position to reveal your identity. (Isn’t it a sad day in America when such a thing must be said?) These are focused letters about specific events so that you capture the attention of your local audience. Do your homework and focus on details.

    Item number two is volunteer to give lectures in schools. Such volunteering is to be arranged with individual teachers not school bureaucrats.

    Item number three is attend official meetings of local government agencies whose planning addresses climate change in some way. Do your homework. Explain how risky it is to dedicate large amounts of dollars to mitigation.

    Item number four is the same as three except do it with federal agencies, especially anything involving your congressional representative. Notice that you are lobbying your local and federal officials.

    There are more. I bet you get the picture.

    All these efforts are mutually supportive. When you can quote a communication from Congressman Handsome in one of your letters to the editor, people begin to take notice.

  27. Mike Hoffman,

    For starters, Huffman ignores albedo.

    “This result also flies in the face of those who would say the clouds of Venus reflect much of the incident solar energy, and that therefore it cannot get 1.91 times the power per unit area received by the Earth — the direct evidence presented here is that its atmosphere does, in fact, get that amount of power, remarkably closely.”

    That’s more than enough for me.

  28. u.k. (us) says:
    Aug. 13, 2001 at 1:32 pm

    We get that rumbling thunder frequently here in N.E. Colorado. We have always called it “hail” thunder. It means that someone, close-by and soon, will be getting hail. We had that kind of thunder twice last week, on both Tuesday and Wednesday, and although I did not get hail at my house, there was hail within a few miles of me both days, breaking windows and devastating corn and hay fields. Since it is so flat and treeless here, we can see storms coming and going for great distances, so I have wondered if that thunder has to do with our geography. ( apparently not ) It can rumble for up to an hour at a time, and as with your experience, we see very little lightning.

    http://www.9news.com/news/article/212935/188/Large-hail-sweeps-through-Sterling-causes-damage-

    watch the slideshow for an idea of the hail size

  29. Here’s one I have been dwelling on…….
    In minerals exploration and assessment of drill core data, we have a whole discipline known as geostatistics – which in effect says that knowing the data at a point is not enough, we need to also look at its (three dimensional) location. This way, we avoid overweighting or underweighting (say) three high samples collected close together, commpared to a lower one more distant.
    Simple question – given that some weather stations reportedly show warming, and some show cooling, how is handled in working out global temperature shifts?
    Viz – is each station weighted according to the surface area between it and the next adjacent station? Looking at the post a few weeks ago, it seems to me we have clusters of lots of weather stations in developed locations which show warming. But in less developed locations (or on oceans) we have sparse stations, some showing cooling. Surely we don’t weight these all equally in working out global “average” temperatures, do we?
    Anybody?

  30. Roger Sowell says:
    August 13, 2011 at 11:25 am

    I read Merchants of Doubt, by Naomi Orestes and Erik Conway sometime last year. I don’t have it handy to refer to Chapter 6. I picked it to read because as it was referred to as being one giant ad hominen.

    It was.

    John

  31. Mike

    This is a college course lecture and explains how the basic CO2 warming equations were derived.

    He derives them for the earth , mars and Venus.

    He does correct for albedo which is quite high for Venus.

  32. Just another comment on sea level. Apparently the rate of sea level rise is increasing even though sea level is, or has been falling. Reason given is adjustments neccessary because of the La Nina cooling. Does anyone have a recollection of University of Colorado doing downward adjustments to compensate for the 1998 and 2010 El Nino’s.
    Why am I expecting an answer in the negative?
    And shouldn’t there be a physical, rather than virtual increase, because of all the heat being stored (allegedly) in the deep ocean.

  33. Pokerguy, I have two most maddening things for me:

    1) The historical and archealogical record CLEARLY show natural variations in global and regional “temperatures”.

    2) The argument from ignorance. “The warming can’t be from anything we can think of, therefore it must be due to THIS thing we just made up”.

    This is an admittance that the TEAM doesn’t know, ie, is ignorant, therefore what they say MUST be true. Let’s face it, we don’t know everything, our understanding is incomplete. And, BTW, fode the “precautionary principal”.

    OK 3 things:

    3) The assumption of computer models over real data.

    BTW In describing paranoid “results of global warming”, most deserts are COLD and dry, not HOT and dry, yet the drought argument is used to represent the effects of global warming. A warmer world would bring Northern Canada and Siberia into agricultural production; these are the two largest land areas of the planet. We could feed billions more.

    BBTW Temperature is NOT the correct measure, energy is.

  34. pokerguy But beyond that, what do you guys think we lay skeptics can do, if anything, to enlighten people?
    ..
    I even bring the subject up among my liberal friends, it takes about 5 seconds before tempers flare.
    JK:
    1. Try asking them for the evidence that underlies their belief. Pin them down for real evidence.
    2. Ask them what percentage of annual CO2 emission is from mother nature. (96% of CO2 emission is natural NOT man made.)
    3. Ask them what percentage of the greenhouse effect is due to CO2? (Less than 1/2)
    3. Ask them if they know that Al Gore lied about the Greenland ice cores – they show warming first, followed by CO2 increase 800 years later on average.

    More at sustainableOregon.com

    Thanks
    JK

  35. Surface area of a sphere is 4*pi*R*R
    Mean radius of the earth is 6,371 km
    Surface area of the earth is 510,064,366 km^2 (assuming a sphere)
    Oceans are 71% of earth’s surface or 362,145,700 km^2
    Greenland land ice volume est at 5,100,000 km^3
    Antarctic land ice volume est at 30,000,000 km^3
    Total land ice (35,100,000 m^3) divided by surface area (362,145,700) m^2 is 0.097 km or 97 m.
    Ignores glaciers (are most land-locked?), isostatic effects of extra water (puts downward pressure on ocean bottom), increasing ocean percent as water rises, non-spherical nature of the earth, inability of New Yorkers to notice the difference and ice in the scotch (although that shouldn’t be a problem if you don’t empty your glass).

  36. Has anyone read the science fiction book ‘Directive 51′ by John Barnes and his sequel to it ‘Daybreak Zero’? They are about a group of ideological environmentalists initiating a total all out terrorist war on industrialized society. War as in billions people killed by the ideological environmentalists.

    It is fiction and it is very grim reading, but I recommend them for a shock value view of possibilities for our future given the current values of existing ideological environmentalists . . . . .

    John

  37. Mike Hohmann,

    I too, in the ’80s, was scared by the Venutian story. However, quite apart from Venus being much closer to the Sun and receiving more energy, it also has a much more massive atmosphere. Yes, it is 100 atmospheres at the surface, and 500C. But, at the altitude where the atmospheric pressure is 1 atmosphere, equivelent to Earth’s surface, the temperature is more or less the same as at the Earth’s surface.

    The lapse rate seems almost to be a universal constant. I suggest you Bing “lapse rate”.

  38. Alvin, I always suspected Patagonia of Deep Greenery, and hence never bought stuff from them (don’t feed the monkey). Now you prove it. Ta, mate!

  39. It’s like 1859. BHO is James Buchannan. The Tea Party has arrived on the scene just like the Republicans had just arrived in 1855. The Cold Civil War we are currently in will go hot in the urban areas in 2014.

  40. Re the psychology of skeptics, I think it’s strongly connected to the essential difference between experiential learners and formulaic learners. In yesterday’s topic on the cartoon about technicians, note how many WUWT readers are techs. Also note that many serious meteorologists and engineers are ‘skeptics.’ When your mental focus and experience rely on accurately measuring some aspect of reality, finding and justifying a baseline, and interpreting data, you can see the problem with the CO2 theory in an instant. Lagging, not leading. That’s all you need to see. And when you’ve worked around research in any field at all, you know a lot about the corrupting influence of tenure, careerism and peer review!

    The people who buy the theory are either theoreticians who live on the level of pure math, or complete non-scientists who don’t know how corrupt science has become, and tend to trust experts because experts have Advanced Degrees, which are the modern equivalent of aristocratic titles.

  41. Doc MArtin,

    A famous boot indeed.

    However water is densest at 4C, and the bottom of shallow seas and deep lakes are 4C. Warmer or colder water float above the 4C water. Not sure what happens when water is under 100 atmospheres of pressure. It is incompressible, though.

    Trust me, I’ve been there as a Scuba diver.

  42. Open thread!

    Today I’m going to introduce my 5 year old son to some REAL culture! Star Wars – A New Hope (note I call it the 1979 name, not the remade name). :)

  43. jim karlock,

    Good answers for Pokerguy. When I’m discussing the “carbon” scare, I like to ask the other person to tell me exactly how much CO2 is in the air. Most don’t know that it’s a minuscule 0.00039 of the atmosphere [0.039%]. And it’s good advice to never get mad. Smile and act superior.☺

  44. DocMartyn says:
    August 13, 2011 at 2:10 pm

    In all seriousness I wish to know why the bottoms of the oceans are much colder than the surface.
    I know the surface gets sunlight during the day and radiates heat at night.
    What I don’t understand is why radiant heat is not trapped at the bottom.
    Why is IR radiation from the surface not been trapped at the bottom of the ocean?
    ——————–Reply;
    when the polar ice at either pole freezes in its respective winter, it squeezes out most of the salt that accumulates into the close to 2c sea water that then becomes denser than the warmer or fresher water, due to both the fact that water gets densest at around 4 to 2 degrees C and the more salt is added to the solution. This colder denser salter water drops to the bottom of the oceans and spreads out covering the worlds ocean floors, Most of the heat loss from the poles is moved this way, when the heat loss is fast enough then sea ice forms and as it thickens it starts to insulate the 4 to 6 degree C sea water, as it spreads it regulates the limit of heat that can escape into space.

    The reason Tenbreth cant find the missing heat in the depths of the oceans is that due to any warming, from contact with warm spots on the sea floor, the slightly warmer water is less dense and rises slowly back to the surface until it finds water the same temperature, the deep currents that are assisted by lunar declinational tidal disturbances, helps to regulate the changes in medium flow rates of these deep currents, but the main driver is the amount of heat loss at the poles.

    At the same time lunar declinational tidal effects in the atmosphere vary over an 18.6 year cycle from min to max angle at culmination, changing the turbulence patterns in the atmosphere by driving the Rossby waves and movements of the jet streams, as the angle between the current lunar and solar declination goes in and out of concurrence. The large blocking patterns seen in the atmosphere form when the solar and lunar declination is close to the same, and the loopiness of the wave patterns is enhanced, the resultant timing of the pattern enhancement shifts through the seasons as the relationship evolves over the 18.6 year Mn period.

    Long term patterns of ICE/NO ICE changes in the arctic follows the effectiveness of the transfer of equatorial heat into the polar regions, that effect the balance between “the sea water cooling enough to freeze” or just create dense water for the bathyscaphe cold water cyclic circulation which gets taken care of first. When there is enough cooling in the depths to displace the thinning warm layer on the oceans surface then it is easier to form more polar ice.

    The whole process is just another three phase thermostatic process that helps to regulate the earths climate, which is why a lot of people are keenly watching the sea ice balance.

  45. Roger Sowell says:
    August 13, 2011 at 11:25 am

    I’m presently reading Merchants of Doubt, by Naomi Orestes and Erik Conway. Specifically, Chapter 6 on “The Denial of Global Warming.” Has anyone else read this? If you have, what are your thoughts on that chapter?
    ***
    Roger – in my country (NZ) most Global Warming books disappeared from the bookshops a year or more ago. Such books that are left are mostly being remaindered. No-one is reading or buying them.

  46. DocMartyn says:
    August 13, 2011 at 2:10 pm
    In all seriousness I wish to know why the bottoms of the oceans are much colder than the surface.
    I know the surface gets sunlight during the day and radiates heat at night.
    What I don’t understand is why radiant heat is not trapped at the bottom.
    Why is IR radiation from the surface not been trapped at the bottom of the ocean?
    ———-
    It’s the ocean circulation between equator and poles.

    The surface water is warmed most at the equator and currents move it to the poles where it radiates it’s heat to space and cools. When it cools it also sinks and forms deep currents that return to the equator.

    Short answer the deep cold water comes from the poles.

  47. Mike Hohmann says:
    August 13, 2011 at 1:40 pm
    As a complete non-scientist I am curious regarding the question whether there is a greenhouse effect on Venus with all its high atmospheric CO2 content. A guy I came across via Google says NO, there isn’t, but I am not competent to find out whether there is some merit in his argument and its implication regarding AGW, or whether it’s balderdash. Here’s the link: http://theendofthemystery.blogspot.com/2010/11/venus-no-greenhouse-effect.html
    Comment anyone?
    ————-
    Some people get cause and effect confused. So it’s balderdash.

    The incorrect argument used is based on the correct observation that there is a temperature gradient between the surface and the top of atmosphere and that accounts for the surface temperature of Venus.

    The temperature gradient is related to the atmospheric pressure or more simply the amount of atmosphere on Venus. Which is also correct as far as it goes.

    But an additional important factor that is mislaid in the incorrect analysis is the height of the atmosphere.

    It’s easy to prove that pressure is not the single factor that determines planetary surface temperature. A thought experiment suffices:

    Turn off the sun. Allow the temperature of the surface of Venus to fall below the freezing point of the atmosphere. Let’s say the temperature goes from 500C to -200C. The pressure at 500C was 50 atmospheres or whatever, it makes no difference to the argument.

    What is the new atmospheric pressure at -200C?.

    Answer; exactly the same, 50 atmospheres.

    In short no matter what the surface temperature is, the pressure is always the same.

    Putting this the other way around you can have any surface temperature you like for the surface of a planet, the surface pressure is irrelevant.

    The surface temperature of the planet is determined by solar heating of the surface and also by how much the atmosphere slows down the passage of the surface heat to outer space.

  48. “He (Fred Singer) has defended himself many times, here for instance”

    It is a matter of record that Singer posted a false claim (most glaciers are increasing) on his website, and when challenged, sourced the claim to a study in ‘Science’ that was a complete fabrication. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2005/may/10/environment.columnists

    An outright lie. I think anyone behaving in this manner forfeits the right to be taken seriously, certainly Singer is no scientist. Some might even say that such behaviour damages the image of climate scepticism. Perhaps somebody would care to ‘defend’ that?

  49. Judy F. says:
    August 13, 2011 at 2:45 pm
    ===========
    Thanks for the reply and info.
    I never knew.

  50. Latitude misleads
    ———
    That is the way they explain the lack of measured sea level rise…….
    ———

    They don’t say that at all.
    ———-
    So, the more ice melts, the more water goes into the oceans, the more weight pushes the sea floor down more……no measured sea level rise at all
    ———-
    Bad Story telling. Can’t happen because the density of rock is much higher than the density of water.

  51. Phil Hutchings says:
    August 13, 2011 at 2:52 pm
    ) we have sparse stations, some showing cooling. Surely we don’t weight these all equally in working out global “average” temperatures, do we?
    Anybody?
    ———-
    The temperatures are weighted according to area as you surmised.

  52. 1863,1963
    Abraham Lincoln assassinated, JFK assassinated

    I think you mean 1865. Lincoln was elected to a second term, which he did not finish. I tend to believe in 98 year behavioural cycles . . .

  53. Anthony–

    Last night I was looking through your archives, and looked at your first blog — Nov 17, 2006. Almost everyone who posted comments said that they were sad to see you leave the school board. It appears that you actually had spare time on your hands back then. Just wondering if you ever have any spare time these days. It makes me happy to see you occasionally take time off from your blogging to spend time with your family, Families are important.

    Best regards —
    lp

  54. Here’s a quiz for your Saturday evening entertainment.

    Who wrote this?

    “Can renewable energies provide all of society’s energy needs in the foreseeable future? It is conceivable in a few places, such as New Zealand and Norway. But suggesting that renewables will let us phase rapidly off fossil fuels in the United States, China, India, or the world as a whole is almost the equivalent of believing in the Easter Bunny and Tooth Fairy.”

    The answer can be found at ClimateAudit.

  55. @pokerguy who said “every time I even bring [AGW] up among my liberal friends, it takes about 5 seconds before tempers flare. It just seems so hopeless for now…”

    Agreed. The believers either get mad or refuse to debate intelligently. It might be best to get a new set of friends. If that’s too onerous, stop bringing it up in their presence. Nothing short of time will solve the problem. Give them a way to save face by never having to justify their beliefs again. However, if they bring it up and try to provoke you, just smile and say “You know I’m waiting to see some of the more unusual forecasts to come true. I am not willing to modify the economy ‘just in case they might.'”

  56. Laurie Bowen says:
    August 13, 2011 at 1:26 pm

    As for the increase in sea levels, for me that would depend on whether you think continents can float or rise with the sea level . . .

    Rest easy. They don’t. They do, however, respond to loads above them. When glaciers advance over a continent, their weight press the continents downward because the continents, like icebergs, “float” in the semi-fluid mantle. As glaciers retreat, the continents rebound and regain isostatic equilibrium. It’s a slow process. N.A. is still rising slowly where the last glaciers used to be. Melting the ice in Greenland or the Antarctic would have the same effect.

    However, by the same reasoning, adding all that fresh water to the oceans should cause the ocean floor to drop a small amount. But I believe that was mentioned in the question.

  57. Philip Clark,

    Please don’t post any more links to anything written by the Moonbat, whose source for your labeling Dr Singer a “liar” is that the Moonbat didn’t see it. I wasted 5 minutes of my life reading that mindless drivel.

    Really, if that’s the quality of your appeal to authority, you have less credibility than George Moonbat – if that’s even possible.

  58. “I have a feeling this one will be interesting, given the description of the location.”

    Too easy, Anthony.

  59. Off topic but the sun is spotless for the first time in 198 days.

    [Nothing is O/T (except per site Policy), this is an Open Thread. ~dbs, mod.]

  60. well down under we are getting ready all our signes and we are all going to wear black because it is our darkest day since the 2nd world war . the rally will be 16th of august 12 noon CANBERRA GROVER THE TRUCKIE IS WALKING FROM ALBURY. the other night at a motel sombody broke in and stole his signes he was very upset but sombody gave him new ones

  61. Philip Clarke-I recommend you learn to separate issues in your mind. Whether Singer generally makes valid points or not, and whether some specific point was wrong or not, is irrelevant to whether the man has the right to defend himself from attacks on him personally. On the matter actually at hand, what evidence have you to refute the arguments that Singer makes in his own defense against attacks by Oreskes? Can you justify her blatant falsehoods and misrepresentations with the sole objective being the Character assassination of these individuals? I think not, since you chose, apparently, to indict the character of one of those individuals on the basis of an incident which appears to have peak the ire of one UK columnist and yourself, but has other than that escaped the attention of most people paying any serious attention to meaningful issues.

    By the way, if we want to use individual incidents to judge the character of individuals, Monbiot is perhaps well judged by his recommendation to solve floods in Bangladesh by drowning airline executives…

  62. @DCC:

    – Texas is not having, and did not have, rolling blackouts during the recent heat wave. A level 1 alert simply calls for conservation, such as time-shifting discretionary electrical usage, plus calls on all available generating resources. To quote the ERCOT website, ” EEA 1 gives ERCOT operators authority to call on all available power supply, including power from other grids if available.”

    Texas ERCOT did issue a stage 2 alert, where some consumers were shut off – with their prior agreement.

    source: http://www.ercot.com/content/alerts/html/normal.html

    Texas today and yesterday is receiving rain, with 3 inches of rain in some places. (South of Lubbock, per a close friend of mine who lives there.)

    Wind power is not designed to replace dispatchable power such as gas-fired power plants. Not until economically attractive, grid-scale electric power storage (or the equivalent) is available will wind power do so.

    Wind allows natural gas-fired power plants to throttle back, and use less gas than they would without wind power. The impact is exactly the same as having part of the grid load reduced. Wind power, in its current form, is simply a way to produce power without burning natural gas, or in some places, coal. It is not meant to be, nor is it, a replacement for dispatchable power.

  63. DCC says:
    August 13, 2011 at 6:52 pm
    @pokerguy who said “every time I even bring [AGW] up among my liberal friends, it takes about 5 seconds before tempers flare. It just seems so hopeless for now…”

    Agreed. The believers either get mad or refuse to debate intelligently. It might be best to get a new set of friends. If that’s too onerous, stop bringing it up in their presence. Nothing short of time will solve the problem. Give them a way to save face by never having to justify their beliefs again. However, if they bring it up and try to provoke you, just smile and say “You know I’m waiting to see some of the more unusual forecasts to come true. I am not willing to modify the economy ‘just in case they might.’”

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

    Switch the topic to polar bear populations. Most people who don’t follow this think that there are maybe 12 or 15 polar bears left or something. The fact that you can tell them that polar bear populations have increased, and back it up, even with data from warm-ish sites the following day, has been a kind of impeachment moment for them on more than one occasion.

    Actually, the super highly educated people I hang out with frequently here in the Berkeley area know this is a crock. If you think they’re Al Gore fans, forget it. I’ll expand on this, if anyone’s interested.

  64. Lazy Teenager says:

    What is the new atmospheric pressure at -200C?.

    Answer; exactly the same, 50 atmospheres.

    And what’s the new volume? Hint, it is not the same.

    In short no matter what the surface temperature is, the pressure is always the same.

    No kidding. There are three direct factors, pressure and temperature are only two of them. Determining cause and effect is impossible other than the fact that the energy is from the sun.

    Putting this the other way around you can have any surface temperature you like for the surface of a planet, the surface pressure is irrelevant.

    As long as the volume can adjust, sure.

    The surface temperature of the planet is determined by solar heating of the surface and also by how much the atmosphere slows down the passage of the surface heat to outer space.

    Actually, the amount of energy is determined by the energy input from the sun relative to the the amount of energy that escapes. The pressure, temperature, and volume will adjust accordingly coupled with other factors as well (gravity.)

    Mark

  65. John R T
    Paul Johnson writes interesting history. Modern Times was the first one I read and I learned alot about how the world operated then.
    and we need to beware, both in science and politics, of dictatorial edicts.

  66. Pokerguy – there have been some excellent responses to your very important question. I’ll add one from a slightly different angle: You can use all the responses given here, but generally speaking you aren’t going to suddenly convert dyed-in-the-wool warmists or even give them a slight glimmer of understanding. What you can do, however, is influence third parties – those in less committed territory. So keep engaging warmists, keep putting out proper scientific arguments, but understand who your real audience are. It’s a lot less frustrating if you see it that way…..

  67. RE: Philip Clarke
    Monbiot says:
    “I went through every edition of Science published in 1989, both manually and electronically. Not only did it contain nothing resembling those figures, throughout that year there was no paper published in this journal about glacial advance or retreat. ”

    Yet a search for 1989 “Science” articles with “glacier” in the text provides 31 results including:

    Growth of Greenland Ice Sheet: Measurement
    H. JAY ZWALLY, ROBERT A. BINDSCHADLER, ANITA C. BRENNER, JUDY A. MAJOR, and JAMES G. MARSH
    Science 22 December 1989: 1587-1589. [DOI:10.1126/science.246.4937.1587]
    …region geophysical surveys glacial geology glaciers Greenland Greenland ice sheet ice movement ice sheets measurement…ofthe ocean (2) and melting of small glaciers (3) contribute to sea-level rise, the…in a warm-er climate (4) is ofconcern. Glaciers respond to both precipitation and temperature…

    and

    Geophysics from Triton to the Deep Blue Sea
    Science 22 December 1989: 1562-1563. [DOI:10.1126/science.246.4937.1562-a]
    …views on the effects ofglobal warming on glaciers, especially in Antarcti-ca. Researchers…will, in fact, be the net growth ofsome glaciers. For instance, they concluded that the…warming effects on other aspects of glacier dynamics, Meier came up with his modest…

    and

    Bringing Down the Sea Level Rise
    RICHARD A. KERR
    Science 22 December 1989: 1563. [DOI:10.1126/science.246.4937.1563-a]
    …views on the effects ofglobal warming on glaciers, especially in Antarctica. Researchers…will, in fact, be the netgrowth ofsome glaciers. For instance, they concluded that the…warming effects on other aspects of glacier dynamics, Meier came up with his modest…

  68. Philip Clarke,

    Now that John W has shown Moonbat to be mendacious, you have an opportunity to be a stand-up guy and retract your accusation that Dr Spencer “lied.”

    Or, you can prevaricate.

  69. netdr, thanks for the video, but I don’t understand his equation. Note that I can do differential and integral calculus in my sleep. But why is it that the energy from the “glass pane” that comes back down to Earth isn’t reflected back up? The infinite sum of halves is the original value. For example, start with 1 and add up all successive halves, 1/2, 1/4, 1/8, etc. and you will get a total of 1. Note that this has to be true, otherwise you’d have only half the energy going back into space and have a runaway black hole system (though I’m dubious about the exact 1/2 figure he’s using anyhow as this would effectively create twice the incoming energy if Earth was a black body).

    Also, his faucet and sink analogy is flawed. The obstacle to the drain works with the sink because the output path is independent from the input path. With the atmosphere, the obstacle would block both incoming and outgoing energy. I know he’s talking about CO2 blocking infrared and not sunlight. But this won’t be true of all greenhouse gases.

  70. Here is one for discussion: MIT study finds IPCC underestimated Arctic ice melt

    After comparing IPCC models with actual data, Rampal and his collaborators concluded that the forecasts were significantly off: Arctic sea ice is thinning, on average, four times faster than the models say, and it’s drifting twice as quickly.

    The findings are forthcoming in the Journal of Geophysical Research – Oceans. Co-authors are Jérôme Weiss and Clotilde Dubois of France’s Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique/Université Joseph Fourier and Centre National de Recherches Météorologiques, respectively, and Jean-Michel Campin, a research scientist in EAPS.

    Part of the problem, Rampal says, may be inadequate modeling of mechanical forces acting on and within the ice in the Arctic basin. Thus far, the IPCC models have largely focused on temperature fluctuations, which are one way to lose or gain ice. But according to Rampal, mechanics can be just as important: Forces such as wind and ocean currents batter the ice, causing it to break up. Ice that’s in small pieces behaves differently than ice in one large mass, which affects its overall volume and surface area.

    http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2011/arctic-ice-melt-0810.html

  71. @Pokerguy, re how to engage true-believers in the CAGW topic.

    I have had lots of opportunity because I give speeches on the topic of AGW. One of the most effective questions to ask is, “Why does CO2 ignore some temperature-measuring locations, and warm up others that are very close by?” Then demonstrate that many, many locations show either zero warming, or an actual decrease in temperature trend over a roughly 100 year span. Most warmists do not know this…. and are stunned to learn it. I did a post on my blog this that shows many locations in the USA have zero warming or a slight cooling, with graphs and trend-lines for each. If CO2 were an agent of warming, it must behave impartially. It cannot pick and choose which locations to warm, and which to ignore. Those who think this through, find it devastating to the warmists’ argument.

    Here’s the link if you care to have a look, or share it with the warmists.

    http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2010/02/usa-cities-hadcrut3-temperatures.html

    I am not an accredited scientist, just an attorney with a background in chemical engineering. However, at least one other person with serious credentials has published roughly the same thing, James D. Goodridge, the former state climatologist for California. His work in 1991 or 92 showed that counties in California with small populations had zero warming, while counties with large populations had a measurable warming. I find it very strange that CO2 would ignore an entire county just because there were few people living there. Very strange, indeed.

    Also, our host, Anthony Watts, has stated that Dr. Goodridge was instrumental in turning his attention to the inconsistency in warming by location.

  72. The citation for Dr. J.D. Goodridge’s paper is “Goodridge JD (1992) Urban bias influences on long-term California air temperature trends . Atmospheric Environment 26B (1): 1-7″

  73. u.k.(us) says:
    August 13, 2011 at 7:52 pm
    LazyTeenager says:
    August 13, 2011 at 6:22 pm
    =====
    Someone needs a geology lesson.
    ————–
    Feel free to teach me that rocks float on water.

  74. Discussing CO2 as an atmospheric percentage, I throw this out as 4 parts in every 10,000. So if the parts are meters (or metres), select 10 kilometres as a familiar distance between two local landmarks known to you and your audience. Then say less than 4 metres of that distance is the atmospheric CO2 content.
    Substitute yards, feet or miles as needed.

  75. philincalifornia @8:11 p.m.

    Phil, please do expand on your experience with highly educated individuals in Berkeley. I’m curious as to your experience talking with such individuals. Do they buy into CAGW or do they think it is nonsense, but just keep their thoughts to themselves for the most part? Other observations?

  76. Mark reckons
    ———

    Actually, the amount of energy is determined by the energy input from the sun relative to the the amount of energy that escapes. The pressure, temperature, and volume will adjust accordingly coupled with other factors as well (gravity.)

    Mark
    ————
    mostly correct since you paraphrase what I said.

    But for an atmosphere fixed in quantity the pressure at the surface is a constant– you were wrong about that, it does not change with temperature.

  77. RE: Philip Clarke

    “The World Glacier Inventory contains information for over 100,000 glaciers through out the world.” http://nsidc.org/data/g01130.html

    “Mass balances of more than 300 glaciers have been measured at one time or another since 1946. All of these data are included, but the short analysis represented in these tables and graphs emphasizes the 1961-2001 time period.”
    http://nsidc.org/glims/glaciermelt/index.html

    LOL, 0.3% have been measured “at one time or another” and yet they can definitively say that the statement “most glaciers are growing” is incorrect! Yea right. From the looks of their database about all they can definitively say is where a glacier used to be the last time they looked.

    You can access their database:
    http://nsidc.org/glims/
    If you can get anything useful you’ve got my kudos. What a mess, you’d think the hocky team were in charge of their data. There’s no way to compare one year’s to another year’s extent or volume or any other measure of any significant number of glaciers that I could figure out.

    But, take a look at their map:
    http://nsidc.org/glims/
    Notice all that blue down there where the “warming” don’t go (sub-peninsula Antarctica). There’s no way of knowing for sure either way, the data base just isn’t complete enough, but if I was a betting man I’d bet most glaciers (or at least most glacial ice) are in Antarctica and are probably growing.

    Check this out:
    http://www.criticalthinking.org/starting/

  78. @ pokerguy, re interacting with CAGW believers: (posted these on my blog, but copied them over here for convenience.)

    Below are some additional questions (about a dozen) that CAGW believers may be asked to get them thinking:

    – When CO2 was much higher in the past compared to today, why did ice ages occur? Why didn’t the earth have runaway warming with hotter summers and melting polar ice caps with much higher CO2?

    – What caused the ice ages to end, was it increasing CO2? There have been dozens of ice ages with warm periods in between. Precious few humans were around, though.

    – How did the recently-discovered ancient hunter get beneath a glacier in the Alps, especially since he was mortally wounded with an arrow? Did he dig a hole through the glacier to die under there? Or was it so warm in those days (roughly 6,000 years ago) that the Alpine pass was free of ice, so that later snows covered the body and became a glacier? How could our time be the warmest on record, then? (refers to the pre-historic man’s body found in an Alpine pass, as the present glacier continues to recede.)

    – The Roman warm period, and the Medieval warm period were both much warmer than today, so how did Polar bears survive those warm periods? PETA and WWF were not around back then.

    – Why is the sea level decreasing off the coast of California? If CO2 causes oceans to rise, why is the Pacific not rising?

    – Why are sunspots so very critical to earth’s average climate? Why were there so few sunspots during both the recent cold events (Maunder and Dalton)? Why were there so many sunspots during the 1980’s and 1990’s? (in all fairness, it is painfully obvious that no one understands sun spots, as the recent lack of sunspots came as a bit of a surprise, even to the experts.)

    – Why do climate scientists (Mann, Hansen, and others) hide their data for years, and never reveal their calculation methods? What are they hiding?

    – Why is the Main Stream Media so silent on Chiefio’s blog results, the March of the Thermometers? see http://chiefio.wordpress.com

    – Why do thousands of scientists say (signed their names) that man-made global warming is junk science?

    – Why do process control engineers know that increasing CO2 above 350 ppm cannot possibly have any role in changing earth’s climate? (This refers to Dr. Pierre Latour, and his excellent writings in Hydrocarbon Processing, and my summaries on my blog. In short, for CO2 to be the control mechanism for the planet’s temperature would completely violate the laws of process control. However, those laws are inviolable. Nobody can defeat those laws; they are much like the laws of thermodynamics.)

    – If the science is settled, why are governments funding additional research in the billions of dollars per year?

    – And this one just to get them thinking about the entire concept of Environmental Doom: if the oceans are so fragile and vulnerable to oil spills, how did the oceans manage after all the millions of barrels of oil were spilled in World War II attacks on oil tankers? Hundreds of oil tankers were torpedoed and sunk, and many hundreds more of other oil-fueled ships went to the bottom, leaking oil from their fuel tanks. (reference: “The Prize” by Daniel Yergin, pp 350 – 370) For those who doubt this, travel to Pearl Harbor, Oahu, Hawaii and visit the sunken battleship Arizona. One can stand on the memorial just above the Arizona, and personally observe the oil still leaking out. I have done this. It’s still leaking.

  79. Keith Minto says:
    August 13, 2011 at 10:00 pm
    Discussing CO2 as an atmospheric percentage, I throw this out as 4 parts in every 10,000. So if the parts are meters (or metres), select 10 kilometres as a familiar distance between two local landmarks known to you and your audience. Then say less than 4 metres of that distance is the atmospheric CO2 content.
    Substitute yards, feet or miles as needed.
    ————
    I know this is a popular debating point but it is wrong.

    The power of CO2 to absorb IR radiation depends on it’s partial pressure. In other word IR absorption depends on the number of CO2 molecules per cubic meter.

    This means that the number of molecules of any other gas does not affect the absorption except in a very indirect way.

    Therefore claiming the absorption power of CO2 depends on it’s percentage in air is just plain wrong. You might as well express the percentage of CO2 with respect the total mass of the earth and claim that is a convincing debating point.

  80. Do we have any idea about the composition of earth’s atmosphere billions of years ago, before the advent of photosynthesis? There can’t have been much oxygen. Oxygen is very reactive – most of it would be present in water, CO2, and bound to various rocks. There would have been a lot of CO2 – maybe 10%.
    Then along comes 6CO2 + 6H20 = C6H12O6 +6O2 and CO2 gets stripped out of the atmosphere and oxygen gets added.
    The shortage of CO2 is now a limiting factor in plant growth.
    But the warmists keep telling us we need to make less CO2.
    Why?

  81. pokerguy says: (August 13, 2011 at 12:34 pm)
    Of course in poker terms, Al Gore is “all in.” He’ll go down with the ship.

    I’d like to believe that, pokes, but I suspect his ship is a submarine that will keep him warm, comfortable, and safe down there while he plots his next flailing internet to invent or end-of-world-nigh event.

  82. Paul Ehrlich summed it up this way: “You often hear people say scientists should not be advocates. I think that is bull.” ……..”How you judge a good scientist, in part, is by what they choose to be curious about,”

    http://news.stanford.edu/news/2011/august/ehrlich-scientist-advocates-081111.html

    WOW! So, go ahead and fudge data, intimidate critics, bias conclusions, yada, yada, as long as you’re curious about and advocate for the agenda you’re a good scientist. That explains how certain people are still employed.

  83. Roger Sowell says:
    August 13, 2011 at 11:25 am

    I’m presently reading Merchants of Doubt, by Naomi Orestes and Erik Conway. Specifically, Chapter 6 on “The Denial of Global Warming.” Has anyone else read this? If you have, what are your thoughts on that chapter?

    Roger, I read this book last year and was going to review it on my blog. But I could not fine an angle that would make interesting reading without sounding like the denialist she wants me to be. What I found interesting in the line “its the same old fart’s who denied CFC-ozone, acid rain, passive smoking….” is that for me it was my discovery of the corruption climate change science that actually lead me to the peer review articles throwing the CFC-ozone story into doubt, and then passive smoking, and so on.

    A move familiar to sceptics is where someone taking a moderate sceptical position is declare at the extreme. Thus, sceptics are proclaimed as denying the simple science of the CO2 greenhouse effect. Likewise, those who question the evidence that passive smoking causes lung cancer are proclaimed as saying that smoking does not cause cancer. And it goes right down to the heart of the denier slur: In the debate over how many civilians died as a consequence of the American invasion of Iraq, those who questions the higher numbers were not labelled as deniers that the invasion ever harmed anyone; and yet anyone who question the numbers of Jews who died in WWII is labelled a denier of their persecution.

    This is not something I would ever want to question, but the point is that in politics and war the subtilities of a scientific assessment are intolerable. While reading Orestes-Conway it becomes very clear that this is not a discussion of science, for we have identified the enemy, and we must now fight this war.

  84. paulc says (August 13, 2011 at 8:35 pm) [snip]

    Paul and John, I concur; two thumbs up on Paul Johnson’s Modern Times. It was recommended to me some years ago by a stranger who saw one of my letters to the editor in the local paper.

  85. Just think if all the ice melted we could all go and row to the magnetic pole both past and present wouldn’t that be fun! We could take supplies of Whisky with us as well (but we wouldn’t be able to drink it to keep out the cold).

  86. Corey says:
    August 13, 2011 at 7:20 pm
    “Off topic but the sun is spotless for the first time in 198 days.”

    No one seems to care. The SSN for 14/08 is 35! Even SIDC has recorder a SSN greater than zero for the 14/08.
    SS24.com as well as spaceweather.com claim that the earth-facing side is spotless yet they both display SSN 35.
    http://solen.info/solar/ report for 14/08 shows that of the three numbered regions, 2 are plages and one has an area of zero.
    It seems as though observations that are pointing toward a grand minimum will be ignored at all costs.

  87. Watching the classic scf-fi movie “The Blob” (Never seen it before). But, only CO2 fire extinguisher can stop the blob!!

  88. Our intrepid Whisky-and-lots-of-ice polar explorers have updated their log,

    I like this passage:

    “Ultimately, the only thing everyone on the expedition knows is that for the last three summers it was possible to have made this attempt”

    So even if they don’t make it, it would just have been bad luck, no doubt, this year.

  89. he Huffington Post is soliciting people who are looking for work or
    have a low paying job in Texas.

    Quote:
    With Texas’ minimal regulation and low taxes — and Perry’s cheerleading
    — a spike in job growth during the past few years became known as the
    Texas Miracle. The rise in oil and gas prices, as well as a long-time
    state law protecting homeowners, helped stave off the recession for a
    while. And as a result, a miracle myth was created, with little
    exploration as to what impact Perry’s policies actually had on the
    economic picture. The miracle is that anyone would call minimum-wage
    jobs a miracle. Of the all the jobs in Texas created last year, 37
    percent paid at or below minimum wage — and the state leads the nation
    in total minimum wage workers, according to a recent New York Times
    report.

    “The important thing to do is not to just count jobs but to look at what
    kinds of jobs are being created in Texas,” explained Dick Lavine, a
    Senior Fiscal Analyst with the Center for Public Policy Priorities.
    “Texas is tied for last with Mississippi for the highest percentage of
    minimum wage jobs and Texas is by far the leader of residents who don’t
    have health insurance. It’s low wage jobs without any benefits.”

    This resonates with Gibbs at the ARCH, which created a 100-bed unit on
    the third floor for homeless night-shift workers who needed a place to
    sleep during the day. These workers, Gibbs said, included bakers from
    downtown hotels who simply couldn’t afford Austin rents.

    The ARCH may want to think about expanding its homeless worker unit. If
    there is continued job growth in Texas, the trend continues to point
    toward the low-skilled, low-wage variety. According to a just-released
    Georgetown University study, Texas ranks 41 among all 50 states in the
    percentage of jobs requiring post-secondary education.

    HuffPost readers: If you’ve become recently unemployed in Texas or
    struggle with a low-wage job in the Lone Star State, we want to hear
    from you. Tell us your stories by emailing
    jason.cherkis@huffingtonpost.com. Please include your phone number if
    you’re willing to do an interview.

    When it comes to budget gaps, Texas is just like much of the rest of the
    country. This year, the state faced a projected budget shortfall
    totaling as much as $27 billion; the legislature also had to contend
    with a $4.3 billion deficit in its current budget. The state made
    massive across-the-board cuts to state agencies — including $4 billion
    in public school cuts over two years. Perry and the state legislature
    also ended up closing out funding for pre-kindergarten programs for
    roughly 100,000 low-income children. Mass layoffs of public sector
    workers is expected.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/0 … 17460.html

    The articles names some states with lower employment than Texas, but
    just about all those states have a net outbound migration – unlike Texas
    which has a high volume of inbound people. So those states have lower
    unemployment because people gave up on finding a job there. What a
    load!!!

    http://simplydoit.net/tag/usa-migration-patterns/

    HuffPo is just trying to smear Texas and Perry. Why is it that libtards
    keep getting away with this BS. How can we publicize this and expose
    them?

  90. The next president of the United States, Rick Perry, called global warming “all one contrived phony mess that is falling apart under its own weight”.

    http://www.climatedepot.com/

    Sarah Palin appears to be a bit miffed that Perry is running. She must have had some wild fantasies that she could somehow win the nomination (a long shot) and then the general election (an even longer shot).

    I don’t think she understands that she’s radioactive right now. Being on the losing side of a presidential election is bad enough. Resigning as Governor of Alaska after only 18 months in office made it much worse. I like her and all but she just hasn’t got the right stuff for POTUS.

    Neither does Obama have the right stuff but liberals don’t care who they vote for as long as the person says he or she cares about what they care for and don’t give a fig about whether the candidate has what it takes to turn words into laws.

    Perry’s perfect. A poor kid raised on a small farm. Eagle Scout. Respectable grades. Air Force veteran (cargo plane pilot). Texax A&M graduate. 61 years old and married (only one time) to his high school sweetheart. A former Democrat (long ago). Never lost any of 9 elections to public office. Longest serving governor of Texas ever and it should be noted that if Texas was a country it would have the 11th largest national economy in the world. A devout mainstream Methodist. And perhaps most importantly since the 2008 financial crisis began Texas has created more jobs than the rest of the nation combined and while Perry can’t take all the responsibility for that he can sure claim a part of it.

    It’s a shoo-in.

  91. Jim36 says:
    August 13, 2011 at 10:55 pm

    Do we have any idea about the composition of earth’s atmosphere billions of years ago, before the advent of photosynthesis? There can’t have been much oxygen. Oxygen is very reactive – most of it would be present in water, CO2, and bound to various rocks. There would have been a lot of CO2 – maybe 10%.
    Then along comes 6CO2 + 6H20 = C6H12O6 +6O2 and CO2 gets stripped out of the atmosphere and oxygen gets added.
    The shortage of CO2 is now a limiting factor in plant growth.
    But the warmists keep telling us we need to make less CO2.
    Why?

    I have just been watching a TV program showing the greenhouses in Norfolk UK where they are growing Tomatos. They have enriched the air with extra CO2. The tomato plants are growing 32ft tall and crop prolificlally. The tomatos are bigger. and are sweeter than normal as well.

  92. MrX says:
    August 13, 2011 at 9:11 pm

    “Also, his faucet and sink analogy is flawed. The obstacle to the drain works with the sink because the output path is independent from the input path. With the atmosphere, the obstacle would block both incoming and outgoing energy. I know he’s talking about CO2 blocking infrared and not sunlight. But this won’t be true of all greenhouse gases.”

    Actually it is true of all greenhouse gases. It’s the very property that makes them a greenhouse gas.

  93. Gary, paulc, John R T;

    Paul Johnson’s Modern Times did impress me at the time I read it, almost 20 years ago. : )

    I was also impressed with his book ‘Intellectuals’, but to a lesser degree than Modern Times.

    My favorite of all his books was surprisingly his ‘A History of Christianity’. Surprising because society would call me an atheist although I think that word is strictly religious terminology and really biases the dialog. I would call myself just a human who, although liking good fiction and fairy tales, doesn’t attribute supernaturalism and superstition to metaphysics, epistemology and ethics.

    The reason I, a so-called atheist, was and still am very impressed with his ‘A History of Christianity’ is that for me to understand a lot of Western History then I need to know the history of Christianity. Johnson’s approach was refreshingly open, even though in his preface he admits being a profound Christian. For anyone like me who wants a good reference when Christianity is mentioned on a blog . . . I highly recommend it.

    John

  94. “HuffPo is just trying to smear Texas and Perry. Why is it that libtards
    keep getting away with this BS. How can we publicize this and expose
    them?”

    Compare Texas to Illinois. Obama might not have much track record but what he does have is in Chicago, Illinois.

  95. O.K. Let me ask the question in a different way.
    Why is the bottom of the ocean not subject to the same radiative heat trapping, coupled to CO2, that is proposed for the atmosphere?

  96. Smokey, 13/08@11.18:
    Enough of your Oz bashing. You think , down under, we don’t have our feet on the ground? Well many of us certainly do not have our heads in the clouds.EMPIRIC data supporting this claim… July Galaxy Poll, 60% of Australians disapprove a Carbon Tax, only 29% approve. More EMPIRIC data… calibre of OZ posters here, ‘Bulldust coiner of ‘Climategate’ posted this historic term on WUWT.
    I’m warning you, Smokey, you are on my list and I know where you live :-).

  97. John RT 13/08@12.19 re Paul Johnson on modern parliamentary abuses asks do readers perceive similarities between our times and the period between the two world wars? I do. The 20th century has been a period of global struggles between supporters of parliamentary democracy and various brands of centralist fascist movements. No surprise that F. A. Hayek’s ‘ The Road To Serfdom” ran through 10 reprints in 2010. First published in 1944, Hayek notes in his Introduction that ‘students of the currents of ideas can hardly fail to see that there is more than a superficial similarity between the trend of thought in Germany during and after the last war and the present current of ideas in this country.’ (Great Britain.) Do many of us who have read the Climategate emails doubt that politics, not science, is central to The Climate Debate?

  98. Stark Dickflüssig:

    With regards to cycles generally, and there are countless . . .

    A two year variation in a 100 year cycles would be most acceptable in my pea brain modeling.

    For example in my world . . . we have a 24 hr cycle of day/night . . . and moon cycle of, I pretty sure, 29 days (it has wax, full, wane, and new) . . . and a seasonal cycle of 365.25 days . . . which consists of spring, summer, fall and winter! And for my little pea bain model . . . it’s just the start . . . .

    We live in a realm of round and round in circles we go . . . it is a reality that I recognize (and dare I say it) assume!

  99. LazyTeenager says:
    August 13, 2011 at 9:53 pm

    > Feel free to teach me that rocks float on water.

    I have some pumice from Mt. Mazama. (N.B. collected from a roadside outside of Crater Lake Natl Park. You’re not allowed to collect rocks inside Natl. Parks.)

  100. Jim36 commented “But the warmists keep telling us we need to make less CO2.
    Why?”

    They had to pick something . . . and CO2 was the scapegoat . . . .

    Politicians have been banking on the gullible, pollyanna’s since the beginnings . . . .
    “Read my lips . . . no new taxes”!!!

    I for one can say that until the day comes that I witness a cloud floating across the sky crash and burn . . . that will be the day when I will consider AGW as a possiblity . . . . oh and maybe I will start wearing a burka so the earthquakes will cease in Turkey . . . .

  101. Thanks to all who answered my question on sea level rise if all ice melted.

    I’m fully aware that within 100 years, even at the highest rate given for our time, the amount of sea level rise is not that big… This was one of those “what if” questions and I know that to do so would take thousands and thousands of years… By then the next ice age comes and the “what if” never happens.

    Bob Diaz

  102. DocMartyn says:August 14, 2011 at 6:04 am
    O.K. Let me ask the question in a different way.
    Why is the bottom of the ocean not subject to the same radiative heat trapping, coupled to CO2, that is proposed for the atmosphere?
    ——————————————————————
    Because neither infrared (heat) nor visible light get anywhere the bottom of the ocean. IR is absorbed in the top millimeter. Seawater is most transparent to visible light of about 555 nm (blue green) and that is absorbed in about the top 10 meters. Answered a different way, there is no radiation down there.

  103. @ Dan in California, re sunlight penetrating sea water.

    I’ve heard or read that infra-red does not penetrate the surface, but I’m not so sure about that. It that were true, then how does a solar pond accumulate heat at the bottom of the pond? The sunlight / heat penetrates far into the pond, and is concentrated in the lower layer.

    Also, if that were true (IR does not penetrate), then why are in-ground swimming pools hotter when the bottom has dark tiles? They become a passive solar heating system.

  104. Sceptic or Skeptic? I’m with Fowler and can “pocket” my pride.

    [b]Theo Goodwin[/b] says:
    August 12, 2011 at 6:41 pm

    By the way, ‘skeptical’ is the Brit spelling while ‘sceptical’ is the American spelling.

    [b]Roger Longstaff[/b] says:
    August 13, 2011 at 3:12 am

    Theo Goodwin says: August 12, 2011 at 6:41 pm: “By the way, ‘skeptical’ is the Brit spelling while ‘sceptical’ is the American spelling.”

    Wrong way round, old chap.

    [b]Theo Goodwin[/b] says:
    August 13, 2011 at 8:01 am

    Roger Longstaff says:
    August 13, 2011 at 3:12 am
    Theo Goodwin says: August 12, 2011 at 6:41 pm: “By the way, ‘skeptical’ is the Brit spelling while ‘sceptical’ is the American spelling.”

    “Wrong way round, old chap.”

    Maybe I asserted a mere prejudice. Given your response, I am beginning to think that ‘sceptical’ is the accepted spelling and that ‘skeptical’ is archaic. What do you think?

    [b]Roger Longstaff[/b] says:
    August 13, 2011 at 8:48 am

    Dear Theo,

    My comment was based upon almost 60 years of living in England, and trying my best to speak the Queen’s English. The dreaded “wiki” says:

    “DefinitionIn ordinary usage, skepticism (US) or scepticism (UK) (Greek: ‘σκέπτομαι’ skeptomai, to think, to look about, to consider; see also spelling differences) refers to:

    (a) an attitude of doubt or a disposition to incredulity either in general or toward a particular object;
    (b) the doctrine that true knowledge or knowledge in a particular area is uncertain; or
    (c) the method of suspended judgment, systematic doubt, or criticism that is characteristic of skeptics (Merriam–Webster).
    In philosophy, skepticism refers more specifically to any one of several propositions. These include propositions about:

    (a) an inquiry,
    (b) a method of obtaining knowledge through systematic doubt and continual testing,
    (c) the arbitrariness, relativity, or subjectivity of moral values,
    (d) the limitations of knowledge,
    (e) a method of intellectual caution and suspended judgment.

    However (if this is correct) the original Greek uses a “K”, so maybe the US spelling is more accurate.

    But we woz ‘ere first!!

    [b]Roger Knights[/b says:
    August 13, 2011 at 8:57 am

    Theo Goodwin says:
    August 13, 2011 at 8:01 am

    Roger Longstaff says:
    August 13, 2011 at 3:12 am

    Theo Goodwin says: August 12, 2011 at 6:41 pm: “By the way, ‘skeptical’ is the Brit spelling while ‘sceptical’ is the American spelling.”

    “Wrong way round, old chap.”

    Maybe I asserted a mere prejudice. Given your response, I am beginning to think that ‘sceptical’ is the accepted spelling and that ‘skeptical’ is archaic. What do you think?

    Not according to Britisher Fowler’s classic Modern English Usage :

    “The established pronunciation is sk-, whatever the spelling; and with the frequent modern use of septic and sepsis it is well that it should be so for fear of confusion. But to spell sc- and pronounce sk- is to put a needless difficulty in the way of the unlearned, for sce is normally pronounced se even in words where the c represents a Greek k, e.g., scene and its compounds and ascetic. America spells sk-; we might pocket our pride and copy.”

    [b]ZootCadillac[/b] says:
    August 13, 2011 at 9:51 am

    Theo:

    Sceptical is indeed the English spelling, as in English as written in Britain. My understanding of the American spelling is because of the very real and deliberate ‘bastardisation’ ( that’s not an insult to Americans, it’s the proper term for it ) of British English during the pioneer years of American colonisation. I’m going off the top of my head here so don’t take anything as stone cold fact but as far as I am aware most of the settlers travelling west were barely literate and in a bid to make things easier for settlers to communicate with trading posts etcetera the spelling of many words was simplified, often phonetically, just so these people could write the way it sounded. This is why letters deemed superfluous such as the U in rumour, colour etc. were simply dropped. The K in Skeptic probably came about so as not to cause confusion with the soft ‘c’.
    Of course ‘sceptic or skeptic might not have been in use by the frontiersmen but it’s the way that American English ( a phrase I dislike immensely as it’s just English, incorrectly used) has developed and been used.
    Etymology puts it back to the Greek sképtesthai ( consider, examine) which oddly gave rise to the Latin scepticus and had by that time come to mean ‘initial doubt’. The Greek Skep also gave rise to the English word scope.

    just my thoughts.

    [b]Theo Goodwin[/b] says:
    August 13, 2011 at 10:08 am

    ZootCadillac says:
    August 13, 2011 at 9:51 am

    “Of course ‘sceptic or skeptic might not have been in use by the frontiersmen but it’s the way that American English ( a phrase I dislike immensely as it’s just English, incorrectly used) has developed and been used.”

    Thanks much. Actually, it was in use, most likely. They lacked polish not intelligence.

  105. This has to be an all time classic. I just got called a flat earther on twitter for questioning agw theory by a ….Rabbi!

    So a man who has blind faith in something which has zero evidence, questions me for challenging a disputed scientific theory!

  106. Apropos of nothing I cam across this video about the IOM TT this evening which shows clearly why it is one the last great tests of man and machine and I am afraid every year kills the people to prove it.

    Never any shortage of entrants though who make the many professional eiders who refuse to ride in it, preferring those nice safe circuits, look like the wussies they are. The TT is the real thing not some televised confection adapted for the demure tastes of a modern effete risk averse society.

    So enjoy here:

    Kindest Regards

  107. Roger Sowell says:
    August 14, 2011 at 12:00 pm
    “Also, if that were true (IR does not penetrate), then why are in-ground swimming pools hotter when the bottom has dark tiles? They become a passive solar heating system.”

    Good absorbers are good emitters – absorbing light (because they’re black) and emitting their own blackbody radiation. And in this case, as they’re black, they probably approximate theoretical blackbody behaviour rather well.

    IR from the sky only penetrates the skin layer, it’s visible light that warms the tiles.
    IR from the tiles is immediately absorbed by the water and turned into heat.

  108. Roger Sowell says:August 14, 2011 at 12:00 pm
    @ Dan in California, re sunlight penetrating sea water.
    I’ve heard or read that infra-red does not penetrate the surface, but I’m not so sure about that. It that were true, then how does a solar pond accumulate heat at the bottom of the pond?
    —————————————————————–
    This is a perfect example of the greenhouse effect. Most solar power (daytime incoming) is in the visible range that *does* get to the bottom of shallow swimming pools (shallow compared to the oceans). Heats the water and the tiles, which heat the water. IR is a small fraction of total incoming solar flux, and is absorbed in the top millimeter of water. At night, the lower black body radiation temperature from the pool (planet) is mostly IR, which is only from the top surface. Therefore the sun energy is a net heat input to the swimming pool (planet).

    In a related subject, the designers of photovoltaic solar cells try really hard to capture all the visible light, because PV is a poor user of IR. It’s the big thermal solar power farms (e.g. Kramer Junction) that collect incoming radiation of all wavelengths and convert the energy to heat to run a Rankine cycle steam engine to make electricity.

  109. Smokey says:
    August 13, 2011 at 8:58 pm

    Philip Clarke,

    Now that John W has shown Moonbat to be mendacious, you have an opportunity to be a stand-up guy and retract your accusation that Dr Spencer “lied.”

    Or, you can prevaricate.

    ———————————————-

    The question is, did Singer lie? In other words, was there really a paper in Science, 1989 that actually said what he claimed it did, that more glaciers were advancing than retreating?

    It looks to me that Monbiot was saying there were no papers specifically about “glacial advance or retreat”, whereas John W searched for papers with”‘glacier’ in the text”. But the focus of Monbiot’s or John’s search isn’t the issue. The issue is, did Singer lie? Should be easy enough for someone to pull up the actual paper Singer was referring to, if it exists. If it does, fine. If it doesn’t, he was lying.

    So, does the paper exist?

    And Smokey please note, I am not accusing anyone of anything.

  110. UN Climate Report Fails to Capture Arctic Ice Thinning Reality: MIT
    By IBTimes Staff Reporter | August 14, 2011 4:23 AM EDT

    The United Nations’ most recent global climate report “fails to capture trends in Arctic sea-ice thinning and drift, and in some cases substantially underestimates these trends,” says a new research from MIT.

    http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/197495/20110814/mit-research-arctic-sea-ice-thinning-hit-new-low-u-n-arctic-predictions-inaccurate.htm

  111. Dan in California says:
    August 14, 2011 at 3:54 pm
    Roger Sowell says:August 14, 2011 at 12:00 pm
    @ Dan in California, re sunlight penetrating sea water.
    I’ve heard or read that infra-red does not penetrate the surface, but I’m not so sure about that. It that were true, then how does a solar pond accumulate heat at the bottom of the pond?
    —————————————————————–
    This is a perfect example of the greenhouse effect. Most solar power (daytime incoming) is in the visible range that *does* get to the bottom of shallow swimming pools (shallow compared to the oceans). Heats the water and the tiles, which heat the water. IR is a small fraction of total incoming solar flux, and is absorbed in the top millimeter of water. At night, the lower black body radiation temperature from the pool (planet) is mostly IR, which is only from the top surface. Therefore the sun energy is a net heat input to the swimming pool (planet).

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/07/28/spencer-and-braswell-on-slashdot/#comment-711886

  112. Hey, anyone looking up North at the ice cap? Seems like the WUWT entry for minimum extent prediction looks, um, a little high. Reading your posts above, people, I’d say, in fact, you all look a little high.

  113. Timothy Hanes says:
    August 14, 2011 at 9:19 pm

    Better to be a little high than a little low. Much nicer weather!

  114. LazyTeenager,
    Such an apt handle, rocks float, on molten rocks. Think Crust, Mantle.
    Pressure , temperature. Think Diesel engine compression stroke, very hot. Switch off engine, even the compression stroke cools. Venus, Sun drives atmospheric circulation, Gravity is compression stroke, at 100bar, very hot . Switch off Sun, cools down.
    Even NASA admits that atmospheric circulation on Neptune is the probable cause of anomalously high (relatively) temperatures there, not accountable by Solar radiation alone.

  115. Julian Braggins says:
    August 15, 2011 at 2:27 am

    “LazyTeenager,
    Such an apt handle, rocks float, on molten rocks. Think Crust, Mantle.
    Pressure , temperature. Think Diesel engine compression stroke, very hot. Switch off engine, even the compression stroke cools. Venus, Sun drives atmospheric circulation, Gravity is compression stroke, at 100bar, very hot . Switch off Sun, cools down.”

    Compressional heating of a gas only occurs as it is getting squeezed into a small volume. Once the compression stops so does the heating. If you compress a tank of air the tank will get warmer as you fill it. Once you stop adding more air the tank will stop getting warmer and it will begin to cool down to ambient temperature. Maintaining a constant high pressure in the tank will not keep it warm. Atmospheric pressure at the surface of Venus is constant so there is no compressional heating going on and the high surface pressure will not serve to keep it warm.

    The surface of Venus is hot because the dense atmosphere prevents the heat rising from the molten core of the planet from escaping quickly when it reaches the surface. On the earth once that internal heat reaches the surface it has no further roadblocks as it does on Venus.

  116. “Maintaining a constant high pressure in the tank will keep it warm.”

    Typo. Should read:

    Maintaining a constant high pressure in the tank will NOT keep it warm.

  117. From HuffPo:

    “Austin is supposed to be ground zero of the Texas Miracle,” explained Doug Greco, lead organizer with Austin Interfaith, a nonpartisan group of some 30 congregations, schools and unions. “But we have the higher poverty rate and higher child poverty rate–nearly one in three children.” He added that the need for shelter, food and clothing has spiked in the city. “It doesn’t take much to pierce through the rhetoric,” he said.

    Austin isn’t supposed to be ground zero for the Texas Miracle. He just made that up out of thin air. Austin is run by democrats. The largest employer is the government which employs one in five people. It’s a liberal stronghold in a conservative state. Move on up to Round Rock or Cedar Park which are outside of Austin’s jurisdiction but are part of the same sprawling population center. The cost of living there is lower, crime is lower, taxes are lower, public schools are better, and businesses (Dell Computer comes to mind) are bailing out of Austin’s jurisdiction to relocate just outside it. I used to work for Dell when it was still in Austin and in the process of moving 20 miles farther up the interstate highway outside of Austin’s jurisdiction in the late 1990’s.

  118. Kelvin, better to be right. And I can show about a million posts from this place saying 2007 was a fluke, the ice is recovering, it’s recovered, it’s now an Ice Age!
    Like I said, a lotta people over here seem a little high.

  119. Timothy Hanes – Some of us understand that yearly variations in Arctic sea ice are more to do with winds and currents than temperature. The guessing game is just that. This year, there is nothing very unusual about the temperature (http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/plots/meanTarchive/meanT_2011.png), but the winds have shifted in the last week or so, and are now acting to spread the ice rather than compress it.

    If ‘now’ is early enough in the season, we end up with a lot more melted ice and a low number. If late enough, a high number. (The guessing game is on extent, not area or volume).

    If, as expected, the world continues cooling over the next decade or too, then over time the Arctic ice (NB. Arctic) will trend upwards, but in any one year could be up or down. A bit like “weather vs climate”.

    Anyway, enjoy watching the numbers…….

  120. [b]ZootCadillac[/b] says:
    August 13, 2011 at 9:51 am

    Sceptical is indeed the English spelling, as in English as written in Britain. My understanding of the American spelling is because of the very real and deliberate ‘bastardisation’ ( that’s not an insult to Americans, it’s the proper term for it ) of British English during the pioneer years of American colonisation. I’m going off the top of my head here so don’t take anything as stone cold fact but as far as I am aware most of the settlers travelling west were barely literate and in a bid to make things easier for settlers to communicate with trading posts etcetera the spelling of many words was simplified, often phonetically, just so these people could write the way it sounded.

    American spelling was set by Noah Webster’s Dictionary, per what I’ve read on the matter. He was a deliberate spelling rationalizer/simplifier. American spelling doesn’t contain the sort of crude phonetic simplifications that one finds in printed versions of dialect speech.

  121. Mike Jonas,
    I guess ice volume would be somewhat different? So that your point regarding weather would apply to the “recovery” you apes and Bastardi so ignorantly trumpeted in 2008, even while the volume showed a death spiral. Which is what it’s continuing. Because, there are effects of weather and climate, hut pretty soon, maybe even this year, you apes will have to argue that the ice-caps, like a spring snow, are weather, not climate. Good luck with that. Also, Mike, don’t you think at some point in your life, you will have to step back and say to yourself “You know, I has some pretty strong opinions back in 2007 about what those nuts were saying about the North Pole, and yet what they were saying turned out a he’ll of a lot more accurate than what Andrew Watts and Joe Bastardi were saying (if they were right, why am I even talking about global warming anymore?) Maybe I should examine some of my basic motivations and assumptions?”
    But Mike, and the rest of you apes, I have a strong strong strong feeling you haven’t gotten to that point yet. Good luck with that.

  122. @ Timothy Hanes, and what will YOU be saying in about 10 years, after the coming cooling has taken effect? Have you noticed that the Pacific Ocean level is falling? The sea surface temperatures are falling, especially off the coast of California? Have you considered the impact of cooler temperatures on agriculture in California? Are you aware that some coastal California cities have been cooling for several years? Where are the increased hurricanes and tropical cyclones? Where are the sunspots that caused the warming over the past few decades? Why is the snow increasing, instead of disappearing as the warmistas so wrongly predicted? What will you do when the sunspots stay away for decades, and the Earth plunges into a very deep and prolonged cold period? Oh yes, it will be quite interesting to watch the warmistas, shivering in the cold.

  123. Timothy Hanes – Please try relying on evidence instead of insults. I’m very prepared to change my mind if the evidence changes, but thus far there is little or no scientific evidence of AGW and plenty of contra evidence (models are interesting but they are not in themselves scientific evidence). I was trying to make the point that the annual ups and downs of Arctic sea ice don’t tell us much at all about global temperature, and the guessing game is for fun and is not exactly significant in the scheme of things.

    Yes, volume and area are different to extent. Obviously there is a correlation, but each can at times go up while the others go down, and vice versa.

    Tell me, why are people so obsessed with Arctic ice, when there is so much more ice in the Antarctic?

  124. Dave Springer says:
    August 15, 2011 at 4:21 am

    Julian Braggins says:
    August 15, 2011 at 2:27 am

    “LazyTeenager,
    Such an apt handle, rocks float, on molten rocks. Think Crust, Mantle.
    Pressure , temperature. Think Diesel engine compression stroke, very hot. Switch off engine, even the compression stroke cools. Venus, Sun drives atmospheric circulation, Gravity is compression stroke, at 100bar, very hot . Switch off Sun, cools down.”
    ———————————-
    “Compressional heating of a gas only occurs as it is getting squeezed into a small volume.——”
    ————————–
    Spare me the strawman lecture on the air pressure tank. Venus has a strong circulation, therefore pressure is not constant. Volcanic heat augments this. Chinook, Foehn, Mistral etc. winds do not finish in a closed container do they ?

  125. FROM THE NEWS: Evergreen Solar Inc., the Massachusetts clean-energy company that received millions in state subsidies from the Patrick administration for an ill-fated Bay State factory, has filed for bankruptcy, listing $485.6 million in debt.

    Evergreen, which closed its taxpayer-supported Devens factory in March and cut 800 jobs, has been trying to rework its debt for months. The cash-strapped company announced today has sought a reorganization in U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Delaware and reached a deal with certain note holders to restructure its debt and auction off assets.

    http://www.bostonherald.com/business/technology/general/view.bg?articleid=1358998&pos=breaking

    So, if “green energy” is going to create jobs, I’d say that this one is a massive FAIL!!!

  126. Another “Green Failure” and this one only took a year:

    http://www.komonews.com/news/local/127844048.html

    Last year, Seattle Mayor Mike McGinn announced the city had won a coveted $20 million federal grant to invest in weatherization. The unglamorous work of insulating crawl spaces and attics had emerged as a silver bullet in a bleak economy – able to create jobs and shrink carbon footprint – and the announcement came with great fanfare.

    McGinn had joined Vice President Joe Biden in the White House to make it. It came on the eve of Earth Day. It had heady goals: creating 2,000 living-wage jobs in Seattle and retrofitting 2,000 homes in poorer neighborhoods.

    But more than a year later, Seattle’s numbers are lackluster. As of last week, only three homes had been retrofitted and just 14 new jobs have emerged from the program. Many of the jobs are administrative, and not the entry-level pathways once dreamed of for low-income workers. Some people wonder if the original goals are now achievable.

Comments are closed.