Bill Nye is the anti-science guy when it comes to global warming and hurricanes

Post by Dr. Ryan Maue (cross posted at my Policlimate)

“Must watch TV: Nye expounds on theory of racism”

Much “debate” has erupted in the liberal mainstream media concerning the effects of global warming on Hurricane Irene. With a few notable exceptions (Henry Fountain awesome), many of the journalists butchered the science and generally constructed disjointed narratives that quoted a variety of favorite experts which left me wondering why they even bother (Politico). Rush Limbaugh provided a compelling alternative explanation for the hurricane hype: “Politics is part of everything. The weather’s been politicized; the climate’s been politicized…Both Obama and the media were hoping for a disaster to revive his presidency and help prove climate change theory…The New York Times is trying to say that this violent hurricane is indeed indicative of global warming. It was a tropical storm when it left New York.”

But Bill Nye takes the “anti-science” crusade to a new level by showing up on Fox Business with my KFI 640 Saturday friend Charles Payne and embarrassing the hell out of himself. Once you watch the video and read the transcript, you will be left in amazement at his utter lack of comprehension of the topic at hand on national television! But, alas, Media Matters thinks Nye owned Payne (h/t to Andrew Revkin to Tweeted this). And CBS News headlines it as a story! Unbelievable!

The left actually thinks Bill Nye is a brilliant ambassador for their brand of global warming alarmism — a legitimate guy that understands the science and can articulate an explanation. However, Nye has no credentials or expertise with respect to global warming and hurricanes, at all. Not one iota.

Video is embedded or to go to CBS News and watch the Fox Business embedded video there. “Heady stuff, but Nye receives my respect for retaining his patience in outlining a life’s worth of work in a six-minute segment.” says Andrew Nusca. He has no idea that what Bill Nye is saying is disjointed and amateurish. Intricacies? Nye got almost everything wrong.

I transcribed my own transcript from the first 3 minutes of this (all I could take). Emphasis — bold and italics are my comments.

Charles Payne: While hurricane Irene brought more than just wind damage and flooding to the east coast, it’s revived a national debate as to whether global warming might be causing an increase in hurricanes and other extreme weather. In fact a recent cover story in Newsweek declared that this kind of wild weather may be quote “the new normal”. Here with insights on this is Bill Nye, otherwise known as the science guy.

Ok Bill, I’m going to come right at you. Um…Hurricane Irene – proof of global warming?

Bill Nye: Oh, I don’t think the word proof is what you are looking for – evidence of, a result of, yeah, yeah. Now here’s what the people will tell you that run these climate models. Now everybody, the word model in this usage is a computer program. A very sophisticated computer program. So you take data from satellites about the thickness of clouds and the extent of cloud-cover over the sea. You take data about the temperature of the sea surface. You take data about the existing weather say in North America or the Gulf of Mexico as this storm moves into it. Then you compute how much rain fell out of it, how much energy must have been put into it to create that much rain. It takes many months to analyze an event like Irene. Now the climate colleagues that I have will not tell you today that Irene was evidence or a result of climate change but check in with them about March next year after they have a few months to collect all of these millions and millions of data from weather services and satellites and compile them and run a climate model and show that Irene was a result of the world having more energy in the Earth’s atmosphere.

(Ryan: First of all, charitably, I think Nye is confusing a real-time operational weather forecast with a climate model. Climate models do not assimilate satellite observations of a given event — and it wouldn’t take months and months to compile the data. I have everything sitting on my server which generates my old FSU weather map page. Check back with them in March — that’s when they’ll have their climate model results back proving Irene was the result of more energy? This is a pretty unconventional way of doing climate or extreme event attribution. Bill Nye follows the “anti-scientific” method: I’ll give you the answer now, and then in 6-months, check back when I have the proof. )

CP: But here’s the thing here bill, ever since Katrina, right, we’ve heard that every year the hurricane season is going to be more devastating and apocalyptic, and the reality is we haven’t seen that. So how can Newsweek say “hey, this is a new normal”? is that irresponsible – is there any science behind that?

(Ryan: this is a great question by Payne. Since global hurricane activity — the number of storms, hurricanes, and Accumulated Cyclone Energy (ACE) is at historical lows — collapsing since Katrina — as I showed in my recent GRL peer-reviewed paper, how on earth can you attribute one hurricane (Irene) to climate change.?)

BN: well there’s a lot more science behind that than just saying it’s not. But, uh, that aside. That’s only 6-years – in geologic time in terms of climate events, is not very long. Furthermore there is a lot of debate about this cool thing or remarkable thing is that the Sea-surface in the Pacific gets warmer, in the Pacific Ocean! Okay, tens of thousands of nautical miles away. As that gets warmer, it will strangely serve to decapitate certain hurricane or cyclonic storms off the coast of Africa – and actually get a few fewer hurricanes.

(Ryan: no kidding Nye, however, you haven’t come up with any science. Nye then launches into a tortured explanation of the El Nino Southern Oscillation warm phase — El Nino where the waters in the tropical Pacific cyclically become anomalously warm. But, it’s not “tens-of-thousands nautical miles away” — that’s more like the distance to the moon. There is actually little consensus in the climate community about the future of El Nino as the planet slowly warms. The CMIP3 models used for the IPCC AR4 report fail to reproduce historical ENSO events or variability, and therefore are useless prediction devices for the future. We already have a pretty good handle on the “teleconnection” effects of El Nino and La Nina on Atlantic hurricane development with research pioneered by Dr. Bill Gray and furthered by Dr. Phil Klotzbach who produces Colorado State’s seasonal hurricane forecasts. 2011 is a neutral-to-building La Nina year, so we should expect weaker vertical shear in the Main Development Region of the tropical Atlantic. It’s bizarre that Nye brought up El Nino which contradicts his original assertion that Irene was evidence of global warming.)

CP: But Bill, that’s not…

BN: This is another thing that’s very hard to show.

CP: But the Pacific Ocean, getting warmer, but that’s not from man.

(Ryan: excellent point again Charles. The tropical Pacific does not have a strong global warming signal over the past 30-years, which is due to the cyclical nature of ENSO on 2-7 year time scales. Our sea-surface temperature (SST) records get worse as you go backwards from the beginning of the satellite era in 1979. Nye has no answer.)

BN: (waving hands): you’re acting that you are dismissing those things like they they are not relevant.

(Ryan: Nye is defeated, and he knows it. After wagging his finger like Judge Judy, he pretty much has spent his arsenal of facts on this issue.)

CP: I’m not dismissing it, but you have so much information, I want to get to all of it. Are you saying though that it’s manmade, though?

BN: Well the world is getting warmer, uh, everybody, the world is getting warmer. I believe the debate is whether humans are causing it…Do we not agree that the world is getting warmer?

(Ryan: The world is getting warmer — so Irene has to be influenced by global warming. Maybe Irene did NOT reach its maximum potential because of global warming — has anyone considered that. Why must ALL of the climate change effects be a certain sign? Why didn’t Irene reach Category 5? Why did it weaken so fast if the SSTs were so warm? This is where the real tropical cyclone researchers will take over from the media hacks, and, yes, they will come with an answer in March. But, they will follow the “scientific” method and not the “I’ll get the proof later” Bill Nye “anti-science” method.)

CP: I have no idea. Someone told me that it’s warmed 1-degree over the past 100-years. I’ll take their word for it.

(Ryan: Charles is right.)

Show continues to talk about racism and shows the Al Gore “racism” clip – but Nye then really goes off into a different realm discussing that. I’m convinced that Fox News booked Nye knowing that he would butcher the science, and force me to write this post.

About these ads

237 thoughts on “Bill Nye is the anti-science guy when it comes to global warming and hurricanes

  1. This post is the first in a line of many — that will have more political connotations than WUWT’s readers are typically accustomed to. Anthony typically avoids political issues, and I do not want to scare away those that don’t care about politics. Thus, my blog http://policlimate.com is operational, and will be under massive construction during Labor Day weekend. My FSU tropical storm page has moved here as well.

  2. What I did learn from Bill Nye the Science Comic is that when you breed one species with another species, you can insult everyone.

    So it holds with dogs, does it hold equally with say, mating a tornado with a hurricane and getting a …. storm?

    I was dumbfounded by how utterly ridiculous Nye’s response was. It had all the makings of a veiled racist analogy to make a point of something totally unrelated and totally inappropriate. Perhaps he’s missing his true calling…..dog procreation. He seemed to know much more about that than the climate topic he was being asked about.

  3. If all “the science guy” has is “look at the models”, then he’s completely beclowning himself. As complex and as intricate as they are, they’re hopelessly simplistic compared to the multitude of variables that go into day to day weather patterns, much less the larger-scale, long term, global climate. Many of them are simply torturing the data to make it line up with what data we’ve already recorded, and then saying “this predicts the future”. Except it doesn’t, and many of the attempts to show catastrophic AGW effects have been demonstrated to have next to no predictive power. If the models aren’t trustworthy enough to predict the next year, the next hundred seems to be nothing short of hubris.

  4. I’ve heard Nye before (on YouTube clips) and he never sounds remotely plausible. One wonders how stupid he must be to keep putting himself in these situations that only serve to reveal how brainless he is. The bigger wonder is: what utter moron actually thought it would be a good idea to make this witless plonker the face of science reporting? It beggars belief.

  5. Media Matters is as clueless about climate as they are about politics–so their expose` should come as no surprise whatsoever! And Bill Nye? Ah, what a sad sorry climsci person he’s turned out to be.

  6. Obama was hoping for a disaster? Is there any evidence that this is true — anything at all — or is this just another manifestation of the evil genius of our age — the baseless rootless opinion that haunts the radio and television, the op-ed pages, and now the Internet? Our public figures and the media were right to urge people to take Irene seriously — it was a powerful storm — and if they had not, we might well have had more fatalities than we did. Your accusations are puerile.

  7. As a progressive committed to sustainability, but an avowed skeptic on AGW, I must ask: Don’t you realize that your scientific opinions would be much more useful to the larger debate if you separated them from the political jabs? I find you scientific contributions quite engaging, but your political comments make me queasy.

    [RyanM: see my first comment]

  8. Didn’t Nye and Algore(Praise be to the Profit) demonstrating why AGW would cause the Sea Levels to rise
    by melting ice in a glass of water-and neither one understood that ice volume is virtually the same as
    liquid-they had to add ice to make it sort of work don’t have time to search for the clip….

  9. Philip N. says:
    August 30, 2011 at 2:49 pm
    Obama was hoping for a disaster? Is there any evidence that this is true — anything at all — or is this just another manifestation of the evil genius of our age — the baseless rootless opinion that haunts the radio and television, the op-ed pages, and now the Internet? Our public figures and the media were right to urge people to take Irene seriously — it was a powerful storm — and if they had not, we might well have had more fatalities than we did. Your accusations are puerile.

    In my opinion, Obama wanted a “reverse Katrina” moment where he heroically takes charge of a natural disaster relief/response effort and shows thee public how much he cares. His administration is in that much trouble.

    “Puerile” is a great adjective to describe the Obama administration, btw.

  10. Ryan, I agree…
    It’s no coincidence he was booked right after Gore………

    I say we need to see much more of them both.

  11. Ok… This is stupid. How a category 1 or 2 Hurricane is a sign of GW is beyond me. I remember when they actually hyped up storms that were worth it. Such as Andrew. I was only about 11 then, but I remember that one.

  12. Unfortunately , I saw the segment with Bill Nye . The man is clueless . Even worse than the Nye thing was Christian Parenti spouting off about climate driven warfare on Book TV Sunday afternoon . I was watching Fox anyway , but the Book TV show was self -inflicted torture ( I watched despite my knowing better) . BTW , Ryan , Charles Payne is one of my favorite commentators – he seems like the real deal .

    [RyanM: charles will make you a lot of money]

  13. I am not renewing my 25 year subscription to The Planetary Society/The Planetary Report, that is for sure.

  14. Oh man, you left out the best part at the end of the clip. He starts going off the deep end. The host was laughing because it was so absurd. Bill Nye makes the Trailer Park Boys look like rocket scientists.

    [RyanM: major props for a Trailer Park Boys reference.]

  15. Philip N. says: August 30, 2011 at 2:49 pm

    Philip, I just gotta ask, how do you define a “Powerful Storm”? From my vantage point, it was pretty impressive, but it also was NOT a hurricane. So, what are your metrics, what are you comparing it to?

  16. Nye has abused the public good-will he built up with his pop-science program.
    Science itself is politically neutral, unless you consider political science.
    When not muzzled by leftism, however, true political science is very un-PC.
    It reveals the total failure of every liberal policy of the past,
    and every prospective one, including ‘greenhouse’ controls.

  17. I would like to know why no weather station recorded sustained hurricane force winds throughout the entire event!

  18. How does one separate CAGW from politics? As I understand it, billions of dollars a year flow into the pockets of the alarmists from various governments; and it is hard to believe that those billions don’t buy a lot of bad-science.

    My fox tailed palm trees in my central Florida yard are telling me that the winters are getting colder and not warmer. The lack of hurricane activity over the last 2 – 3 tells me something is colder rather than warmer.

  19. So if someone from New England has sex with someone from Papua New Guinea … then … Climate Change is true?

    Gee … Thanks, Science Guy! I never would have figured that out on my own. Your power of logic is truly unique.

  20. Not CO2 , not Climate Change , not the Sun nor de Moon, not El Niño or La Niña . It’s God.

    Bachmann: D.C. Quake, Hurricane Message From God

    It’s not Man made it’s God made.

  21. The thing was BARELY a hurricane when it made landfall in NC. Virtually nowhere in NC saw hurricane force winds. Lots of rain/flodding, yes. But as far as strength goes, NC has been hit MUCH harder in the not-so-distant past….

  22. Nye should have stuck to elementary level science education. Going beyond that it AGW advocacy leaves him way out of his depth, even by warmer standards. The old “Science Guy” show was entertaining for kids and taught them some basic science. Now evidently Nye wants to educate adults about more complex science, about which he has barely cursory knowledge at that. Not surprisingly, he makes a fool of himself.

  23. “I would like to know why no weather station recorded sustained hurricane force winds throughout the entire event!”

    So would I. It would be nice to see a post on that topic, as It may well be that some of us just don’t understand some things and need to be enlightened. But for now, it looks real odd.

  24. I’m convinced that Fox News booked Nye knowing that he would butcher the science, and force me to write this post. – Dr. Ryan Maue

    LOL

    Audience participation is good for ratings.

  25. Bill Nye points at other people’s work and takes it all as fact. He has taken a big fat swallow of the AGW Kool-Aide. His whole arguement is based in his faith in AGW. He doesn’t even have a grasp of the magnitude of things. This is typical, if your estimates are off by several orders of magnitude ala the earths core being hundresd of thousands of degrees, tens of thousands of miles between the pacific and atlantic, etc…, you haven’t done your homework.

  26. “I would like to know why no weather station recorded sustained hurricane force winds throughout the entire event!”

    Obviously paid off by Big Oil!

  27. Earth’s Circumference at the Equator: 24901.55 miles
    the 2 most distant points are separated by half the circumference.
    therefore, there is no place on earth that is tens of thousands of miles away.

  28. Do Joe Romm or the gatekeepers over at Realclimate, realize that Bill Nye only has a BS in Mechanical Engineering, and is therefore, by their standards, completely unqualified to discuss anything about climate science?

    Absolutely stunning.

  29. Newflash to skeptics: Hurricane Irene, and every other hurricane that comes along between now and the end of time will be caused by greenhouse gas induced global warming. Guess what: no greenhouse warming, no hurricanes…oceans freeze solid…party over.

    Now, to the issue: Since having zero level of greenhouse gases on earth would result in zero level of hurricanes, and some level of greenhouse gases give us the climate that allow some level of hurricane activity, is it possible that increased greenhouse gases beyond what we’ve seen in 800,000 years might cause some change in hurricane behavior? Hmmm…seems plausible, especially with the increases in ocean heat content and water vapor levels we’ve seen over the past few decades.

  30. John from CA says:
    August 30, 2011 at 4:15 pm
    I wish I could find a clip of Joe Bastardi on O’Reilly last night. He spoke about Irene and Climate Change just after Bill Nye spoke on Fox Business News

    ____
    Did good old Joe happen to mention how horribly wrong he was on his predictions for Arctic sea ice extent this year? Or how about how the floor is dropping out on global sea ice as well? Hope, along with his other prognostications, he’s mentioning, “oh, by the way, I’ve been horribly wrong about my predictions for Arctic and Global sea ice extent…I’ve been predicting it will go up, but it’s been going down down down.”

  31. Well done Ryan.

    For those concerned about the political bent of the post, most of us here wish to heaven that it wasn’t so, but the CAGW issue is political. It may not have started that way, it may have. But, it is now. And it won’t go away by not mentioning the political overtones of the issue. Just look to Australia to know. I would note though, that this is often seen as a left/right issue. I’m not sure that’s properly descriptive. The advocates for the CAGW hypothesis are totalitarian globalists.(among other things) There are many on the perceived “right” that embrace this nonsense. Their constituency just doesn’t allow for such vocal advocacy. But, they are right there for the power grab just the same.

    I sure miss the days when politics was simply about ideas of social and economic issues. :-)
    CAGW is impossible to extract from politics.

  32. Referencing the video of Nye versus Lindzen (or should I say Lindzen versus et al.), pretty soon we will run out of people like Lindzen. Then, we enter another Dark Age.

  33. I don’t care who’s qualified or degreed. Truth is truth regardless of your degrees.

    In this case it always comes down to one basic fact:

    Correlation isn’t all you need to imply causation. You need correlation plus a firm mechanism.

    But without correlation you can’t even pretend to discuss a theory of causation.

    That’s why the Carbon Cultists fail at the first step. There is no correlation at all between hurricanes and CO2. Any attempt to discuss a theory that connects the two can be discarded immediately. No degrees needed, just a half-second with a good graph.

  34. “I’m convinced that Fox News booked Nye knowing that he would butcher the science, and force me to write this post.”

    Great comments Ryan, I loved this one:
    “But, it’s not “tens-of-thousands nautical miles away” — that’s more like the distance to the moon.”

  35. O/T – it’s been two weeks since we had a post on Arctic sea ice, and we’re in the last few weeks of the melt. And the last post was about predictions, not much about the state of the ice as such. Normally there are a bunch of posts at this time tracking the ice melt in great detail – what’s different this year?

  36. “American actress Daryl Hannah has been arrested in front of the White House along with other environmental protesters who oppose a planned oil pipeline from Canada to the US Gulf Coast.”

    Should we be consulting her for our science education?

    I wonder where she and her motley gang would score on an IQ test?

  37. Mr. Nye should stick to elementary science fair volcanoes and be done with it. I could have presented a better defense of AGW despite the fact I know it’s a sham.

  38. an insurance perspective…not reflected in today’s MSM:

    30 Aug: AFP: Insurers escape the worst of Hurricane Irene
    S&P put the insurance losses at around $5 billion (3.46 billion euros), in line with French bank Societe Generale’s estimate.
    The figure is very significantly lower than the $72.3 billion in damages caused by Hurricane Katrina in 2005 which ripped through New Orleans and left 1,500 people dead…
    “Major losses are likely to come from New York, for business interruption given the hundreds of flights that were cancelled, reduced hotel occupancy rates and disruption to utility companies,” it said…

    http://au.finance.yahoo.com/news/Insurers-escape-worst-afp-2921774296.html?x=0

    30 Aug: Reuters: NY, NJ need faster federal aid after Hurricane Irene
    New Jersey’s Republican Governor Chris Christie: “Hurricane Irene was a catastrophe of enormous severity and magnitude, Christie said, adding: “Torrential rains have caused significant flooding in areas across the state, impacting residences, major and local roads, and necessitating highway closures and a suspension of rail services.”…

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/30/us-irene-newyork-disaster-idUSTRE77T6BS20110830

  39. He kept saying the world IS warming.

    Actually, that is wrong because it WAS warming but it isn’t now.

    It warmed from 1976 to 1998, and from 1917 to 1944, from 1816 to 1878, from 900 AD to 1150 AD, from 200 BC to 200 AD, from 18,000 to 13,700 years ago, from 11,500 to 8,000 years ago and so on. Otherwise it WAS/IS cooling.

    The climate models are built on an assumption about warming due to CO2/GHGs.

    If you believe the assumption, you consider the climate model results to be “science”. If you would like the assumption checked out a little more thoroughly first, like using actual empirical evidence to test it first, you are a “racist”.

  40. Let’s go easy on Billy . . he doesn’t advertise himself as a knowledgeable science guy so we can be comfortable knowing he’s really “Bill Nye The Kindergarten Level Science Guy” . . . because at that age, you can just make stuff up as required to answers questions and people think it is cute to have a vivid imagination.

  41. Bill Nye is progressively looking more sinister. He used to be so much fun in his show, “Bill Nye, the Science Guy”. I wonder if he is in an internal battle with what he knows to be true in science and what his political advocacy tells him to say about global warming, and that battle mixed with the doom and gloom cynicism of global warming is affecting his face?

  42. Scott Covert ,
    Bill Nye is a TV “scientist” . AFAIK , he relies on the work of other scientists and regurgitates it . Kind of like teachers who depend on the teacher’s version of their textbooks for the answers to test questions . I would be surprised if he has looked into climate science at all . Mr. Wizard he ain’t .

  43. Interstellar Bill says: “…political science…reveals the total failure of every liberal policy of the past,”

    Ah, but those failures were the result of not going far enough. The answer to failed liberalism is always more liberalism. Just ask Obama. He’ll tell you.

    /snarkoff

  44. R. Gates says:
    August 30, 2011 at 4:26 pm
    Newflash to skeptics: Hurricane Irene, and every other hurricane that comes along between now and the end of time will be caused by greenhouse gas induced global warming. Guess what: no greenhouse warming, no hurricanes…oceans freeze solid…party over.

    Now, to the issue: Since having zero level of greenhouse gases on earth would result in zero level of hurricanes, and some level of greenhouse gases give us the climate that allow some level of hurricane activity, is it possible that increased greenhouse gases beyond what we’ve seen in 800,000 years might cause some change in hurricane behavior? Hmmm…seems plausible, especially with the increases in ocean heat content and water vapor levels we’ve seen over the past few decades.

    Newsflash: No sun, party over; no oxygen, party over; no CO2, party over; still not revelant to CAGW being a failed hypothesis.

    “Hmmm…seems plausible” and yet not backed up by actual scientific analysis, how odd.

    Source:
    Geophysical Research Letters, doi:10.1029/2011GL047711, 2011

    http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2011GL047711

    Title: Recent historically low global tropical cyclone activity
    Author: Ryan N. Maue: Center for Ocean and Atmosphere Studies, Department of Earth, Ocean and Atmospheric Science, Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida, USA;

  45. As much as some people hate Fox news, they are the only members of the MSM who actually bother to show both sides of the debate.
    On a side note, it’s disheartening to see Biil Nye, who’s show I used to love as a kid, turn into someone who’s become nothing more then a PR man for AGW. Makes me want to watch old episodes of his show and see what he got wrong then, as well as now.

  46. Katabasis says:
    August 30, 2011 at 4:26 pm
    What a thoroughly embarrassing car crash that was!

    Which – Nye, or the R. Gates post just above yours?

  47. Bill Nye on his appearance in the Stargate Atlantis episode was much better. He had his lines. LOL!

  48. R. Gates says:
    August 30, 2011 at 4:26 pm

    Newflash to skeptics:…………….
    increased greenhouse gases beyond what we’ve seen in 800,000 years might cause some change in hurricane behavior? Hmmm…seems plausible, especially with the increases in ocean heat content and water vapor levels we’ve seen over the past few decades.
    ================================================================

    lol, no, but the discussion never was about GHGs or hurricanes from 800,000 years ago. As far as being plausible, perhaps one could have thought of it in that manner, but reality and observations say otherwise. But Gates, you know that already…….. why posit things you know aren’t true?

  49. R. Gates wrote;

    “Guess what: no greenhouse warming, no hurricanes…oceans freeze solid…party over.”

    Ah yes, the old ”the greenhouse effect keeps the oceans from freezing” yarn/lie/myth/hoax/dogma.

    Do you really expect us to believe that the miniscule thermal capacity of the “greenhouse gases” are pulling the oceans (with their massive thermal capacities) into thermal equilibrium with the gases ???

    This is about the same as 1 tiny little ice cube forcing a great big room temperature cast iron pot down to freezing temperatures. Or, in the opposite direction a small little candle pulling the temperature of a cast iron pot up to the temperature of the candle flame.

    Not to mention the massive energy that has to be removed from the oceans to make them freeze.

    The “greenhouse effect” only changes the response time of the gases in the atmosphere to changes in the energy input to the system (i.e. sunrise and sunset). This effect is so small we cannot afford to measure it.

    Cheers, Kevin.

  50. Charles Payne, who I appear with most Thursdays on FBN ( this week Friday) is a great guy and I feed him alot of behind the scenes info. But I would love round 2 with Bill “bring up Venus” Nye and test the guy on his knowledge of how bad hurricanes were in the last warm cycle of the AMO. Would love to hear the explanation of 130 G 156 at Cape Henry in 1944, or 121 for 5 minutes gust to 186 at Blue HIll in 1938. He obviously has no clue as to what went on with the hurricanes of the 30s, 40s and 50s, and by the way, bring up 38,44, or the sisters of 54 and you can really get a deer in the headlight look. I notice his media page never put my debate with him on O’Reilly up. I wonder why? I also wonder why he is doing this,, he must be so overboard leftist he simply lets ideology take over. What else could it be? Lining himself up with a guy that wants to play the race card in the climate debate, which boggles the mind that the son of a Senator that voted against the civil rights act multiple time could actually say that ( Al Gore) The whole thing is surreal to me
    BTW, Ryan, we gotta get you out there.. First thing is defend the honor of U of M, and take on
    Dr. Jeff Masters. I will sit in the front row, chugging protein shakes, watching that one.
    JB

    [ryanm: Masters' is from a different generation. The choice for his website name was not as tongue in cheek as it should have been.]

  51. R. Gates says:
    August 30, 2011 at 4:26 pm

    “is it possible that increased greenhouse gases beyond what we’ve seen in 800,000 years might cause some change in hurricane behavior?”

    Unfortunately for the alarmists, the most reasonable scenario for climate warming is a reduction in cyclonic energy. The greenhouse warming hypothesis is that the poles will warm more than the tropics. The temperature gradient from poles to tropics will be less. It is not absolute atmospheric energy content that drives weather, it is energy gradients. While you did not come right out and say it, your extrapolation of a snowball earth situation with hypothetically minimal cyclonic energy through present weather/climate conditions to implies ever more cyclonic energy with increased warming, a hypothesis of dubious scientific merit.

  52. For the many people who had their houses and towns flooded and their power lost for a week, Irene was a disaster; many rural communities suffered greatly. The flooding is most always the largest problem. That being said, the desire for Irene to be a hurricane that blasted the East Coast had a lot of politics behind it. I don’t think any decent person wants to see a disaster no matter what their political affiliation, but it seems obvious that many wanted Irene to provide an emotional boost to the global warming propaganda. Bill Nye is one of these. And some could envision how, with the right PR, the president could show he could take a stand on something and be seen as an effective leader. But alas, Nature did not cooperate with a mega storm that could provide the proper optics nor sustain the disaster loving headlines. And you end up with quasi scientists like Bill Nye giving embarrasingly tortured arguments to support global warming alarmism.

  53. R. Gates says:
    August 30, 2011 at 4:31 pm

    Did good old Joe happen to mention how horribly wrong he was on his predictions for Arctic sea ice extent this year? Or how about how the floor is dropping out on global sea ice as well? Hope, along with his other prognostications, he’s mentioning, “oh, by the way, I’ve been horribly wrong about my predictions for Arctic and Global sea ice extent…I’ve been predicting it will go up, but it’s been going down down down.”
    ———-
    Sea ice looks fine R. Gates, what’s the problem?

  54. “Hurricane Irene was a catastrophe of enormous severity and magnitude, Christie said, adding: “Torrential rains have caused significant flooding in areas across the state, impacting residences, major and local roads, and necessitating highway closures and a suspension of rail services.”…

    … Actually it was an unfortunate double whammy. Trenton, New Jersey’s highest single day rainfall total for the month of August occurred two weeks before Irene. August 14, saw 4.67 inches of rain. The second highest daily rainfall total occurred on August 27, with 3.91 inches. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania had their wettest August on record, ‘before’ Irene even made landfall in North Carolina.

  55. By the way, to R Gates.. I admitted many times the ice was not as high this year as I thought. I do a video almost every Monday on this and like all good catholic boys confess my sins, But guess what, your side with their ice free nonsense, or this is the lowest ever, is much more out of touch as objective satellite data shows, data that started at the end of the last cold PDO and with the amo cold at the same time. Lets see where it goes over the next 30 years with those things turning around

    You made your point, but horribly wrong? Let me get this straight.. your ilk says no ice, I say it will be back where it was before 2007. Who is horribly wrong? We are in no death spiral, but like all the people that twist what I say, you fail to bring up my multiple admissions of being in error when I am. . But that is how you guys survive, for in your world, NO ANSWER IS WRONG AND ANYTHING THAT HAPPENS VERIFIES YOUR IDEA. Too much snow, you are right. Too little snow, you are right. Coldest ever in some place.. See right again. So knock it off, I have admitted many times I am wrong, you just choose not to admit it or see it.. in the end, the cold pdo and the cooling amo in the coming years will prove my point. The hurricane frenzy will fade and you will have to move on and find some other metric that your sides longer term forecasts are horribly busting on ( temps leveling off while co2 continues to rise for instance) to use.

    You are correct sir, there is more ice melt this summer than I forecasted. But anyone that follows me knows I have admitted that. But there is a heck of alot more than your death spiral allies said there would be . I admitted my mistake ( multiple times) but we never hear anything like that from the close minded sheep that march lock stock and barrel to the drumbeat of bologna this issue really is.

    As far as the hurricane issue with Irene. East coast hurricanes are notorious for bands of strong winds, well away from the center and high variability of the wind on the eastern side of the of the storm, heavy rains on the western side. The turbulent mixing needed to bring the wind down to the surface becomes very erratic, The 38 hurricane had wind gusts to only 86 mph at Providence, yet Blue Hill had a gust to 186 with a 5 minute wind speed of 121. But the damage was of a 120 mph hurricane across Rhode Island, though no weather station caught that. . I would suggest you look at what the real storm surge was the pics of houses taken out on the beaches, , the amount of major tree damage that occurred and understand that 40-60 mph tropical storms do not produce that, nor do nor easters ( even with the wet ground). Instead bands of strong winds came through, as they have in the other hurricanes when transitioning and are not like what you see in the pure tropical cyclone. But east of the center, in southern New England, this was as bad as Gloria ( another storm accused of being hyped) and apparently as bad as Isabel on the NC outer banks and tide water.
    As for the flooding.. the west side of recurving east coast hurricanes all do that. Diane 1955 and Agnes 1972 are disasters for their flooding yet without the heat and energy from the hurricane, there is no flood. The list is endless with that.. rain the to west winds to the east. Its why I have that power scale, that incorporates pressure, that
    is meant to inform people how the total package of the storm looks.

  56. This will probably be snipped but I’ll try anyway:

    “But he must know what he’s talking about! He wears a bow tie!”

    [snip - correcto mundo you are]

  57. I almost posted it Joe but figured it had been posted a lot on previous threads. By the way, you were great on O’Reily last night!

    Fox News:
    Global Warming – Bill Nye Versus Joe Bastardi

  58. I saw this Fox News item in it’s entirety and I was utterly dumb-struck that they would get this colossal idiot to comment on these things. I also double-took when he said the Pacific Ocean is “tens of thousands of nautical miles away”. Considering the Earth has a circumference of approx 22,000 miles, the Pacific can never be more than a few thousand miles away from any spot on the planet. How can someone who doesn’t know this ever be called The Science Guy?! What a complete shower.

  59. Questions on TV shows like this are designed to generate controversy, not help elucidate understanding. It’s just fine for infotainment, but a useless format to increase understanding on issues.

    The problem with that interview is the same as any other pop media TV interview. The science is complicated and you need time to explain it. Bill kept trying to put the questions into the larger context, but there just wasn’t time, so his comments wind up coming off half-cocked. The problem isn’t with the show, the presenter or Bill Nye, it’s just that the form precludes any decent content.

    The author of this article states:

    The left actually thinks Bill Nye is a brilliant ambassador for their brand of global warming alarmism — a legitimate guy that understands the science and can articulate an explanation. However, Nye has no credentials or expertise with respect to global warming and hurricanes, at all. Not one iota.

    But that is Fox’s M.O. right there. Why, indeed, did they choose Bill Nye? Because of his face value, not because of his credentials. This is infotainment, folks, and you’re going to get dumbed-down questions, two-dimensional journalism, and the reportage on it will reflect the circus, not the science. Interviewees who *succeed* in this format have their talking points all nicely lined up, stay on message, and practise their skills so they look and sound good. People lap them up because they exude confidence, even when what they say is rubbish.

  60. Charles Payne is amazing. He can beat most people to a bloody pulp with his brilliance, but he has too much class to ever do it.

  61. Bill Nye explaining AGW is real because different breeds of dogs can successfully mate…

    Well, it really isn’t the dumest AGW argument I have heard – its about average.

    It also made my head explode, but that too is becomming normal…sigh.

  62. This is great!! Please, we NEED MORE BILL NYE ON TV. PLAYING A SCIENTIST! There is no better person (aside from Al Gore) to be the face of the modern day climate science cult. Maybe someone in congress will get a clue and invite him to testify on global warming (complete with Jim Hansen-approved sweaty bow tie) – what a great show that would be!! [LOL]

  63. R. Gates says:
    August 30, 2011 at 4:31 pm

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

    You bring entertainment (wedgy-style).

    Truly, some bitter paid activist sitting behind the protection of his computer in Denver…somebody who would never survive the light of day in real debate. Not at all.

    I would pay though, to see you eaten alive by the real scientists on here.

    Let’s put you, Al Gore, and Bill Nye in the same room with the likes of JB, Ryan Maue, and yes, the author of this very site itself, an watch you trip over your ***** so much you strangle yourself in the process.

    Wedgy time!

    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  64. Philip N. says:
    “Obama was hoping for a disaster? ”

    Yes he was. So that he could show that FEMA works with a Democrat in the White House. Obama claimed that “this will be a historic event.” It was but not in the way he was hoping. I think Irene will be another nail in the global warming coffin. If the media ever reports the facts.

  65. Re: R. Gates.
    How proven is the Greenhouse Hypothesis anyway? The simple description is exactly how a real greenhouse does not work and although Svante Arrhenius did the calculation twice (the second time getting half the first result) is there any cause to believe the answer wasn’t coincidence? Logically, CO2 molecules absorbing IR radiation and then reradiating the energy will be completely neutral so far as that molecule is concerned (except for the fraction of energy that must be lost in the conversion, which will presumably heat it slightly) and if the energy is not reradiated it will result in the heating of that molecule, which will rapidly heat the rest of the nitrogen and other molecules around it. Since heated gas expands, it becomes less dense and so rises. When it gets high enough a proportion of the heat energy on being reradiated will not encounter other molecules and will escape to space.
    It strikes me that a blanket of any gas round a planet will be heated in contact with a dry surface and will then take more time to dissipate the heat than bare rock, but a water world, using the very high latent heat of vaporisation of water, will automatically regulate its own heat to the average balance point. I see no significant role for CO2 at all.

  66. R. Gates-
    “Newflash to skeptics: Hurricane Irene, and every other hurricane that comes along between now and the end of time will be caused by greenhouse gas induced global warming. Guess what: no greenhouse warming, no hurricanes…oceans freeze solid…party over.”

    Actually, by this same logic, all Hurricanes-indeed, all weather, in this case- is due completely to SOLAR induced Global Warming. An equally meaningless hypothetical: Shut off the sun. The Oceans and ATMOSPHERE eventually freeze over and there is no weather whatsoever. So maybe you should stop making stupid comparisons that tell us nothing about the “real issue” that you “address” next?

    “Since having zero level of greenhouse gases on earth would result in zero level of hurricanes, and some level of greenhouse gases give us the climate that allow some level of hurricane activity, is it possible that increased greenhouse gases beyond what we’ve seen in 800,000 years might cause some change in hurricane behavior? Hmmm…seems plausible, especially with the increases in ocean heat content and water vapor levels we’ve seen over the past few decades.”

    One needs to deal with actual numbers and not naive comparisons that involve assuming a relationship between variables that is the same for raising temperatures by dozens of degrees to the point of having a phase transition thrown in there, will be the same as raising the temperatures a degree or so further. Consider the case where we boil the oceans: Also no hurricanes then! So you are naively assuming a very simple, linear relationship between the overall global climate and hurricanes, which is ridiculous.

    What do scientists that actually advocate there being some connection between AGW and hurricanes say? Well they say that when they feed climate model projections of sea surface temperature fields into their hurricane simulation models, the modeled hurricanes get slightly stronger. And guess what? You can translate the slight change they project, in a sort of hypothetical “all else equal” scenario, and look at what this relationship implies for how much change would have been predicted for recent hurricanes. For a warming of a few degrees they predict a small change. For a warming of a half a degree or less (say, the last few decades) their models would predict such a small change in intensity that it wouldn’t even be measurable. So no, AGW can’t have had any significant impact on Irene. When the climate is already sufficiently capable of producing hurricanes, the marginal sensitivity of hurricanes to the climate is, even according to the modelers who believe such an effect will be important, vanishingly small. Which means that the hypothesis that AGW has any effect cannot be shown to be correct: the expected signal is just too small, it isn’t expected to emerge for several more decades if it exists at all. So we have a scenario where no effect can be reasonably claimed to be demonstrated, and the effect that was predicted is sufficiently small that we cannot even tell if the prediction has been falsified, and we won’t know for decades if the predictions are at all reasonable. My guess is they will turn out to have been overestimating the effect of AGW on hurricanes: it won’t ever be large enough to be measurable. Prove me wrong.

  67. R. Gates says:
    August 30, 2011 at 4:26 pm
    “Newflash to skeptics: Hurricane Irene, and every other hurricane that comes along between now and the end of time will be caused by greenhouse gas induced global warming. Guess what: no greenhouse warming, no hurricanes…oceans freeze solid…party over.”

    You do not understand the concept of causality. Greenhouse gases might contribute to global warming but greenhouse gases do not cause hurricanes.

    “Now, to the issue: Since having zero level of greenhouse gases on earth would result in zero level of hurricanes, and some level of greenhouse gases give us the climate that allow some level of hurricane activity, is it possible that increased greenhouse gases beyond what we’ve seen in 800,000 years might cause some change in hurricane behavior? Hmmm…seems plausible, especially with the increases in ocean heat content and water vapor levels we’ve seen over the past few decades.”

    Are you counting water vapor? I guess if there were no water vapor on Earth then there would be no water on Earth? Or maybe you mean there would be only ice and no liquid water or water vapor? So, are you saying that liquid water is necessary for hurricanes? I do not think you know what you are saying.

    Did you know that when you allow yourself to think and write as you do here, you lower your own IQ?

  68. BarryW says:

    August 30, 2011 at 6:01 pm

    But he must know what he’s talking about! He wears a bow tie!

    Are we now talking about Pee Wye Herman?

    Didn’t he have a TV show – “Pee Wye’s Playhouse?”

    C’mon, you know you’ve all thought they were related.

    :)

  69. OH, I wouldn’t say that Payne was particularly brilliant, just that Nye was particularly bad, ie. he didn’t know what he was talking about.

    AFAIK, the current “consensus” on the effects of AGW on hurricanes in the North Atlantic is “we don’t know”. Emmanuel did some interesting work in 2008(?) using seeding and downscaling in an RCM and came up with inconclusive results. It would seem that the jury is still out on this question. They hype about “The New Normal” or whatever seems to be a function of the popular press, sort of like the “we’re heading into a new ice age” stuff in the 70;s. In both cases the press ignored what was actually happening in scientific literature in favor of flashy headlines.

    As far as Irene goes? Irene was a fairly minimal hurricane, but moved slowly. In some quadrants of the storm, rainfall was quite heavy and has resulted in substantial flooding, but this seems to be what happens when you have a slow moving tropical storm in the Northeast or anywhere else which is mountainous.

  70. Richard says:
    August 30, 2011 at 4:44 pm
    “American actress Daryl Hannah has been arrested in front of the White House along with other environmental protesters who oppose a planned oil pipeline from Canada to the US Gulf Coast.”

    Was she wearing the mermaid costume?

  71. savethesharks says:
    August 30, 2011 at 7:19 pm

    R. Gates says:
    August 30, 2011 at 4:31 pm

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

    You bring entertainment (wedgy-style).
    ………………..
    I would pay though, to see you eaten alive by the real scientists on here.
    ——————————————————————————————-

    I don’t know why you’d pay for that. He gets eaten alive by the average commentator here for free!
    :-) I actually enjoy his presence.

  72. So if Bill Nye and or Al Gore have sex with a dog, then no offspring results. And if Bill Nye and Al Gore have sex with each other, then no offspring result.Therefore, there is no difference between Bill Nye and Al Gore.

  73. Hi Dr. Maue,

    I just visited WUWT this evening and found your post. Much earlier today I happened on a CBS news article:

    Bill Nye: Hurricane Irene evidence of climate change
    PBS’s The Science Guy” sees link between hurricane’s destruction and changing global weather patterns

    @ http://www.cbsnews.com/8601-205_162-20099349-0.html?assetTypeId=30&blogId=&tag=contentBody;commentWrapper#ixzz1WZR83USE

    I was the 6th comment on the article, asking how if Irene was a result of global warming, would Nye explain the fact that cyclone levels were at a historic low according to peer reviewed published research – and I linked to your page – and that there had been much worse hurricanes along the east coast in the past, many before the most recent increase in global temps… I even gave a listing including either wind speed at landfall or category, going back as far as one (two?) in the 1800’s.

    Presto, this evening my post is gone along with a couple of replies that were supportive. Main stream media politics at work.

    Thank you for taking us where the research results take you!! It is very much appreciated, as is your post here.

  74. Charles Payne tweeted back to me:

    @cvpayne who books ur guests? you let Nye just talk himself into circles — but you are too polite –
    @RyanMaue I was between rock, hard place & hard break w Nye he tried so hard to justify Gore …we get great guest occasional bad answers

  75. Joe B.,

    You have admitted you were wrong about sea ice, and I admire that tremendously, and I sir, couldn’t begin to match your knowledge of weather. You are successful at what you do because you are good at it. I also admire the fact that you have stated quite plainly what the conditions are for you to change your perceptions about anthropogenic climate change. And for me, if 2010 to 2019 is not warmer as a decade than 2000-2009, I shall begin to question my perceptions, and if 2020-2029 is not warmer still, then even more so will I doubt that humans are significantly altering the climate. But, I would suggest you check your rationale for why you think Arctic sea would be increasing in year-to-year extent over the next few decades, and then, if it fails to do so, consider that there might be something to the notion that a 40% increase in CO2, and large increases in methane and nitrous oxide over the highest levels they’ve been at in at least 800,000 years might indeed be having an impact on the global climate, as every single global climate model tells us they will.

  76. O .. M .. G !!!!

    I watched the entire video of Charles and Bill … I can’t remember when I have watched something so incredibly stupid. Charles is a brilliant financial guy, probably knows little about climate science, but I bet he could mop the floor with the “science guy”, one hand tied behind his back … unbelievable …!!! … I guess I never really realized Bill Nye was such an incredible idiot.

  77. Theo Goodwin says:
    August 30, 2011 at 7:28 pm
    R. Gates says:
    August 30, 2011 at 4:26 pm
    “Newflash to skeptics: Hurricane Irene, and every other hurricane that comes along between now and the end of time will be caused by greenhouse gas induced global warming. Guess what: no greenhouse warming, no hurricanes…oceans freeze solid…party over.”

    You do not understand the concept of causality. Greenhouse gases might contribute to global warming but greenhouse gases do not cause hurricanes.
    ————
    And you do not understand complexity or chaos or the basic “three body problem”. Hurricanes are part of the climate system, meaning multiple interrelated causes and effects, and you could no more separate greenhouse gases from the existence of hurricanes on earth then you could, separate the whales from the existence of oceans…they all infer each other. Again, no greenhouse gases on earth, no hurricanes.

  78. Rattus Norvegicus-That’s a pretty reasonable response. The current “consensus” on Hurricanes seems to me to be embodied by:

    Knutson, T. R. et al (2010), Tropical cyclones and climate change, Nature Geoscience 3, 157 – 163, doi:10.1038/ngeo779

    Which said:

    “it remains uncertain whether past changes in tropical cyclone activity have exceeded the variability expected from natural causes.”

    The reason being that even if there were and anthropogenic effect due to warming, it is expected by modeling (such as the study Emmanuel did that you mentioned) to be sufficiently small as to not emerge from the noise/variability as a measurable signal for several more decades at least.

    This is exactly the point I made in my reply to R Gates above. Indeed, in terms of individual events, attribution to AGW is and always has been universally regarded by actual scientists (as opposed to activists) to be impossible.

  79. When someone like Bill Nye says the earth is getting warmer, “it’s measurable and irrefutable”, what exactly does that mean? Relative to what temperature (MWP)? What time period constitutes a trend? (For Bill Nye six years is too few to show lack of hurricane activity, but one storm is enough to prove AGW)

    That’s a serious question, what does it mean to say that the earth is warming?

    Thanks in advance for any serious answers or links to explanations.

    Matt

  80. With guys like Nye fronting for the AGW crowd….it’s beginning to look more and more like the AGW crowd is a Super Bowl Halftime wardrobe malfunction. Entertaining, but completely without merit.

  81. Funny. Another ideal AGW spokesman.

    I particularly liked the part about tribalism ‘millions, or at least tens of thousands of years ago.’

  82. When the bloke in the bow tie started talking sex all I could think of was the phrase from lost in space, danger Will Robinson. I wasn’t disappointed as he totally lost the analogy plot.

  83. R. Gates says:
    August 30, 2011 at 8:16 pm

    It is entirely possible to melt out the Arctic with a massive pipeline of water direct from the Tropics.
    And Sea Ice would temporarily suffer, as it has.
    But then the bottom would fall out, same as your AGW.
    The Tropics would not be building up oceanic heat, because it is sent North/South in this particular example. The heat sent North/South would not build up the Arctic/Antarctic heat either, as it will escape to space as soon as Polar Winter arrives.
    The bottom falling out is the loss of Tropical Heat to space, for the now lowered oceanic heat would result in continental cooling to put the finishing touches on the canvas.
    Worrying about a trace gas won’t bring back the missing heat, it’s gone with the Solar wind.
    The recent Arctic melt is not a sign nor proof of AGW, it’s the sign of a leak.

  84. I’ve been trying to hold back, but I’ve just got to say it: I’m really disappointed that any TV ‘science guy’ or commentator turns out to be closely affiliated with the Union of Concerned Scientists – and that the media still uses them. Unfortunately I’m not surprised – but I am sorely disappointed even so.

  85. R.Gates,
    I wonder if this article shows an analogous situation with respect to a proposal that having no GHG’s equals having no hurricanes, thusly making the relationship clear .

    http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2007/08/genetic-vs-heritable-trait/

    It seems the same type of logical problem; that is, one could say that no matter that height is , say 80 % heritable in USA, that if there is no environmental ( food) input, there is no bone growth at all. thus the relationship is made clear It’s food.

    I think what we have to remember is that we’d have to nail down the variables to see about DIFFERENCES..,e.g. what differences in height occur when “getting enough food” is not the issue – rather than to say “if the genes did not exist” , or “if food, water, did not exist”.

  86. rbateman says:
    August 30, 2011 at 9:36 pm
    R. Gates says:
    August 30, 2011 at 8:16 pm

    It is entirely possible to melt out the Arctic with a massive pipeline of water direct from the Tropics.
    And Sea Ice would temporarily suffer, as it has.
    But then the bottom would fall out, same as your AGW.
    The Tropics would not be building up oceanic heat, because it is sent North/South in this particular example. The heat sent North/South would not build up the Arctic/Antarctic heat either, as it will escape to space as soon as Polar Winter arrives.
    The bottom falling out is the loss of Tropical Heat to space, for the now lowered oceanic heat would result in continental cooling to put the finishing touches on the canvas.
    Worrying about a trace gas won’t bring back the missing heat, it’s gone with the Solar wind.
    The recent Arctic melt is not a sign nor proof of AGW, it’s the sign of a leak.
    ——-
    Hmmm…that’s a new twist on an explanation as to why arctic sea ice continues to decline. Because there’s a leak of heat to space? You’ll surely get a Nobel Prize in physics for that bit of brilliance Professor Bateman.

  87. Rational Debate says:
    August 30, 2011 at 9:40 pm

    He’s a paid actor, not an expert. He’s paid to sell a viewpoint, which is why I refer to “Used Climate Salesman”. It doesn’t matter if he believes the stuff he’s selling or not, he has only to act the role.
    Now, the quality of the acting is key.

  88. Matt says:
    August 30, 2011 at 9:11 pm

    When someone like Bill Nye says the earth is getting warmer, “it’s measurable and irrefutable”, what exactly does that mean? Relative to what temperature (MWP)? What time period constitutes a trend? (For Bill Nye six years is too few to show lack of hurricane activity, but one storm is enough to prove AGW)

    That’s a serious question, what does it mean to say that the earth is warming?

    Thanks in advance for any serious answers or links to explanations.

    Matt
    =======================================================

    Matt, there is no serious answer. All time to temp considerations are arbitrary. There is no valid argument of an appropriate time period to determining warming vs cooling. Yes, we saw some warming a while back. It hasn’t warmed in over a decade, but if you include this decade with the last two you see warming if you want to see warming. Yes, its likely we’re cooling from the MWP but we’re warming from the LIA. Then some even want to go back 800,000 years or so, but draw the line at a few 100 million……’cause things were different then….. truly funny, but there are some that truly believe that. The warmistas usually say 30 years, but that’s only because if fits their agenda with the current events. If it had cooled for about 30 years they’d sing a different tune…….oh wait….never mind that it was the same tune, just a different verse. All the while demonstrating their cherry picked time period is meaningless.

    So, pick your poison.

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1981/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2001/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1981/trend

    But what really makes the discussion absurd, is that no one has determined what the optimal temp of the earth should be. Oh sure, we have geological periods known as this optimum or that optimum, but we don’t know that they were optimal. Me, I definitely vote against something in the temp range of the LIA, which seems to be the target temp of the warmistas, and I think it would be optimal if Greenland actually had some farm land and maybe some other places in Canada, but that’s just me thinking about feeding people. Oh sure, the Russians pretty much have the shipping lanes in the arctic tied up, now, but we can float boats there too, so I think we’d benefit also from an ice free arctic. But then, people would start flapping their arms wildly trying to convince people that we’d drown…….ignoring the fact that the overwhelming majority of land ice is in the Antarctic and it isn’t going anywhere. And the fact that Greenland is shaped like a bowl…….the rock underneath all that ice is 900 ft below sea level, so most of the water from melt wouldn’t go anywhere there either.

    And all of that is pretending we could do something about it at any rate. Its nonsensical to believe we could. But, what the hell? It isn’t as if our generations were doing anything anyway. If we weren’t arguing over the weather, we’d be doing something really important like developing better I-phones and crap like that. Kind of a wild ride…….. going from watching man first step on the moon to having NASA charged with some bizarre outreach program, but we vote for those moonbats. And people lend credence to demonstrably mentally deficient psuedo-intellects such as Bill Nye and Al Gore. If we don’t kill future generations from sheer stupidity, we’ll certainly kill them with laughter and shame of their heritage. They will spend lifetimes looking for that ever elusive missing-link’s DNA just so they can reintroduce it in hopes to reverse the process.

    Sorry….. that was about as serious of a response I could muster.

  89. R. gates says:
    August 30, 2011 at 10:00 pm

    You read it right Professor R.gates: A leak.

    Try this at home:
    This winter, run your heat with upstairs windows closed, setting the Thermostat so that the heat runs 50% of the time. Take your temp. readings throughout the house.
    Next, open 2 upstairs windows and repeat, leaving the Thermostat alone.
    The resulting phenomena of heat drafting up and out, along with cold air sinking in should come as no surprise to you.
    Neither should the Polar Night shedding heat energy out the Atmosphere.
    If the Atmosphere was truly leakproof enough for trace gas AGW, the Earth would now be in an Intervolcanic Pizza Oven instead of an Interglacial.
    Kinda like Venus, ya know?

  90. As it happens, I was born in September of 1944 (suburb of Boston). I know from “family stories” that we had a hurricane at the time my mom was bringing me home – the elevator was out, and my mom had to walk down stairs. A nurse lugged me for her (I don’t know why my dad didn’t do it – bringing the car around, I suppose). During my lifetime, there has been an increase in atmospheric CO2 – observed at Mauna Loa, and observed human emissions. R. Gates says it is “plausible” that increased CO2 causes increased hurricanes. I agree, it’s “plausible”. Where’s the observation?

    R.Gates cites Arctic sea ice. It’s a little too soon to be sure, but it looks like the Arctic sea ice minimum will be pretty close to 2007 – maybe a little more, maybe a little less. CO2 has increased since 2007. How much ice melt has this caused? Looks to me like “not much” (if any).

    R.Gates (compared to other unnamed commenters) is pretty rational in his disagreements with (most of) us, and unfailingly polite (even when some of us are a little “rough” on him). A pleasure to have a discussion with! Wanna talk about sea level? Recent observations seem to indicate a little “blip” in the general increase. WUWT?

    Best,
    Frank

  91. “…and run a climate model and show that Irene was a result of the world having more energy in the Earth’s atmosphere.”
    “Furthermore there is a lot of debate about this cool thing or remarkable thing is that the Sea-surface in the Pacific gets warmer, in the Pacific Ocean! Okay, tens of thousands of nautical miles away. As that gets warmer, it will strangely serve to decapitate certain hurricane or cyclonic storms off the coast of Africa – and actually get a few fewer hurricanes.”
    ————-
    So did Bill in these two statements say that heating the Earth causes more hurricanes, but heating the Earth causes fewer hurricanes? I am fairly certain every philosophy professor in the country would fail him from a logic course for making that statement.

    Now I am having deep regrets of watching his show when I was a little paleo-nut, though e did do some things that pushed me towards chemistry.

  92. Scott Covert says:
    August 30, 2011 at 4:17 pm

    Bill Nye points at other people’s work and takes it all as fact. He has taken a big fat swallow of the AGW Kool-Aide. His whole argument is based in his faith in AGW.
    ……..
    Amino Acids in Meteorites says:
    August 30, 2011 at 5:05 pm

    I wonder if he is in an internal battle with what he knows to be true in science and what his political advocacy tells him to say about global warming,
    ……………
    Joe Bastardi says:
    August 30, 2011 at 5:49 pm

    I also wonder why he is doing this,, he must be so overboard leftist he simply lets ideology take over. What else could it be?

    Nye is a big wheel in CSICOP (now CSI), publishers of Skeptical Inquirer, a group that has an emotional need for an essentially infallible process to replace religion and keep the superstitious, irrational rubes in their place. It’s found it in “scientific method,” peer review, and the scientific consensus. The idea that their emperor might be naked or that a rude rube could rightfully call him out, as implied by us scorcher-scam scoffers, would turn their experts-on-top world-view upside down. That’s what’s bugging him.

    It may also be what’s behind the knee-jerk tendency of establishment science societies and gatekeepers to close ranks with their CAWGist colleagues.

  93. Hurricanes are caused by global warming.
    Irene was a hurricane.
    Therefore, Irene was caused by global warming.

    The Hurricane of 1938 was much stronger than Irene while covering much the same area.
    Therefore global warming was much stronger in 1938.

  94. The BBC must be really jealous when they hear about the likes of Nye, who would fit into their “science” “coverage” so you’d never see the join. They do often have the services of the very popular and similar-sounding actor, Bill Nighy, but I haven’t (yet?) heard them using him for propaganda brainwashing broadcasting. Your Nye and his ilk would be really entertaining if it weren’t for the uncomfortable knowledge that so many people accept this BS because it’s all over the media.

  95. The guy who professed to knowing very little, clearly had a much better idea of the subject than the idiot who had only one thing to say: “it’s getting warmer” … when over the last decade it has not got warmer.

  96. barry says: August 30, 2011 at 4:39 pm

    O/T – it’s been two weeks since we had a post on Arctic sea ice, … Normally there are a bunch of posts at this time tracking the ice melt in great detail – what’s different this year?

    Let me see if I can explain? First we got the real final nail in the coffin of global warming in the CERN/CLOUD & final confirmation of Svensmark. Then the single biggest story in science in the last decade: the end of manmade global warming, gets kicked off top slop by an even more pressing story: the all devouring Irene which is supposed to eat up spew out New York, but turns out to be a rather sulky girl who kicks down the odd tree. Then every stops to have a good laugh at the idiots who said “yet more proof of manmade global warming”.

    … and then you ask “why aren’t you reported if the ice has melted during the summer?”

    REPLY: And right now there’s a story as top post on sea ice, so barry should quit his whining and look at the front page…sheesh – Anthony

  97. Joe Bastardi says: He obviously has no clue as to what went on with the hurricanes of the 30s, 40s and 50s, and by the way, bring up 38,44, or the sisters of 54 and you can really get a deer in the headlight look. I notice his media page never put my debate with him on O’Reilly up. I wonder why? I also wonder why he is doing this,, he must be so overboard leftist he simply lets ideology take over. What else could it be?

    That he needs the job. I’m not saying he’d be a skeptic if he didn’t need it; he very likely has a warmist bias aside from any question of a job, but he needs the job, and it’s a lot easier to get a job, or keep a job, on the warmist side. I know almost nothing about him, except that several times I’ve seen him demonstrating his ignorance about global warming, but my Italian-American intuition :-) tells me that he’s a guy who needs the job.

    Joe, you strike me as a regular guy who must know very well that jobs don’t grow on trees for someone who wants to be at all picky, and is not young. I’m not talking about your own recent change, and I’m not talking about the depression that we’re having right now. I’m talking about the way life is.

  98. It is sad to see a childhood scientific icon make such a fool of himself.

    In the UK when I was a child several decades ago, we had two great TV science presenters. Professor David Bellamy, who was a real scientist. A botanist of global note and serious conservationist. His career tanked when he refused to drink the man-made catastrophic warming kool-aid. As a scientist, he wanted to see absolute evidence that mankind’s CO2 was warming the planet to dangerous levels. He still has not seen any indisputable evidence. Everything the alarmists put forward can be disputed rationally based upon empirical evidence.

    The other great was Johnny Ball, and his “think of a number” show which really enthused me about mathematics, engineering and science generally. He was a marvellous presenter whose enthusiasm and presentation opened up the magic within science and mathematics. He is another person who has not drunk the cAGW kool-aid. I would be very saddened to see Johnny Ball come out on the side of the alarmists.

  99. James Sexton:

    At August 30, 2011 at 4:34 pm you say;
    “Ryan.
    For those concerned about the political bent of the post, most of us here wish to heaven that it wasn’t so, but the CAGW issue is political. It may not have started that way, it may have. But, it is now.”

    The AGW-scare was a political – not a scientific – issue from the very start. Margaret thatcher, then UK Prime Minister, started the scare for purely political reasons. I explain this at

    http://www.john-daly.com/history.htm

    Please note the feedback loops in Figure 2 of the article at the URL. Delete all reference to science (i.e. the feedbacks colour-coded green) and the issue continues; simply, the science was an adjunct funded by politicians as a method to ‘justify’ their promotion of the AGW-scare..

    The AGW-scare is still political and not scientific.

    The ‘science’ in support of the AGW-scare continues to be funded by politicians for political reasons, but a scientific hypothesis would be rejected if it had no empirical support and was denied by much empirical evidence: there is no empirical evidence that supports the AGW-hypothesis and much which refutes it; e.g.
    missing ‘hot spot’,
    ‘missing heat’,
    missing ‘committed warming’,
    missing correlation between atmospheric CO2 concentration and global temperature,
    lack of warming over the last decade while both anthropogenic CO2 emissions and atmospheric CO2 concentration continue to rise,
    lack of correlation between anthropogenic CO2 emissions and atmospheric CO2 concentration,
    etc.

    The AGW-scare is and always was a political scare and not a serious scientific consideration.

    Richard

  100. “we all like doggies. we’re all the same species. the hurricane will be evaluated by models in a few months to fit into the conjecture.”

    Well done. Thats the most compelling argument for AGW

  101. R Gates has really outdone himself on this thread. Even more inane nonsense than usual. I suspect a 14 year old kid behind the keyboard. WUWT’s very own clown and jester.

  102. On Nye’s comment that the Pacific Ocean is “several thousands of nautical miles” from the Atlantic here is a link on Gore’s ideas about the temperature of the lower crust of the Earth.

    Hyperlink here

  103. R. Gates,
    You say no green houses gasses on earth no hurricanes.

    I say no oceans and 99.9% of green house gases are gone. Water is the refrigerant in control of our moderated temperature. The tropics are our heat imput that has a built in thermostat .

    The poles are radiators to release heat. The temperate zones suffer the weather of an un plumbed chaotic heat pump. The temperate zones are another thermostat that varies heat input or output by cloud cover, these mechanisms are slowly being uncovered by real scientific endeavour. CO2 has no influence in the patterns or frequency or indeed strength of weather.

    The mechanics of our solar system and the cyclic sun coupled to were we are at any given time in the galaxy give us all the climate change we need. CO2 is is totally irrelevant and a political construct to to tell us how to behave. BS

  104. R Gates:

    You seem to have made a typographical error in your post at August 30, 2011 at 8:07 pm where you say,

    “a 40% increase in CO2, and large increases in methane and nitrous oxide over the highest levels they’ve been at in at least 800,000 years might indeed be having an impact on the global climate, as every single global climate model tells us they will.”

    A computer does what it is programmed to do so any rational person would have intended to write,

    “a 40% increase in CO2, and large increases in methane and nitrous oxide over the highest levels they’ve been at in at least 800,000 years might indeed be having an impact on the global climate, as every single PROGRAMMER of a global climate model tells us they will.”

    Surely, that is what you intended to write?

    Richard

  105. Neo-AGW Progress Report.

    Outbreak of Gorebullimia blasts Britain.

    …-

    “UK summer the coolest for 18 years”

    “Met Office says average temperature was 13.6C, the lowest since 1993, with forecasts for a wetter and colder September than usual”

    “Hopes of a sunny summer to offset the UK’s economic misery have been dashed by confirmation that the holiday season has been the country’s coolest for 18 years.

    Chill and damp on a scale not seen since 1993 may also break further doleful records if Met Office forecasts are right in predicting a wetter and colder September than usual.”

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/aug/31/uk-summer-coolest-18-years

  106. R. Gates says:
    August 30, 2011 at 4:26 pm
    Newflash to skeptics: Hurricane Irene, and every other hurricane that comes along between now and the end of time will be caused by greenhouse gas induced global warming. Guess what: no greenhouse warming, no hurricanes…oceans freeze solid…party over.

    Now, to the issue: Since having zero level of greenhouse gases on earth would result in zero level of hurricanes, and some level of greenhouse gases give us the climate that allow some level of hurricane activity, is it possible that increased greenhouse gases beyond what we’ve seen in 800,000 years might cause some change in hurricane behavior? Hmmm…seems plausible, especially with the increases in ocean heat content and water vapor levels we’ve seen over the past few decades.

    Newsflash: Wrong again!

    The debate over global warming is over changes in the climate, hence the re-branding to climate change. In case you’re not familiar with the theory, the idea is man-made (anthropogenic) emissions of greenhouse gases is causing the climate to warm, or change in other ways. In accordance to this theory, no increases in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere would mean no increases in hurricane frequency or intensity.

    I don’t know of any skeptics who wish to remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere. Many believe increases in CO2 is beneficial as it spurs plant growth. A warmer climate is usually better than a cold climate as well.

    Your entire post is a complete straw man argument.

  107. Robert in Calgary says:
    August 30, 2011 at 8:46 pm
    “Isn’t time to set up a separate website – WUWG – What’s Up With Gates?”

    Yes, he has earned it. There might be need of a Bot to post criticisms of CAGW. Might not.

  108. James Sexton says:
    August 30, 2011 at 10:26 pm

    (For Bill Nye six years is too few to show lack of hurricane activity, but one storm is enough to prove AGW)

    Nice!

  109. R. Gates says:
    August 30, 2011 at 8:16 pm
    ” Again, no greenhouse gases on earth, no hurricanes.”

    R. Gates, we can agree on that. Water vapor is a greenhouse gas, so no greenhouse gases on Earth implies an Earth devoid of water and oceans; as a hurricane is powered by the hydrological cycle, a hurricane would then be impossible.

    But that’s not what you wanted to imply; you wanted to somehow connect CO2 and hurricanes. And that is of course unnecessary, as 95% of the greenhouse effect is caused by water vapor, this completely suffices; CO2 is, as usual, a bit player.

  110. barry says: August 30, 2011 at 4:39 pm

    O/T – it’s been two weeks since we had a post on Arctic sea ice, … Normally there are a bunch of posts at this time tracking the ice melt in great detail – what’s different this year?

    Because people are getting bored with “global warming” since it’s become clear it is not happening. So what is going on with Arctic ice has lost its luster.

  111. cotwome says:
    August 30, 2011 at 6:19 pm

    “Hurricane Irene was a catastrophe of enormous severity and magnitude, Christie said, adding: “Torrential rains have caused significant flooding in areas across the state, impacting residences, major and local roads, and necessitating highway closures and a suspension of rail services.”…

    … Actually it was an unfortunate double whammy. Trenton, New Jersey’s highest single day rainfall total for the month of August occurred two weeks before Irene. August 14, saw 4.67 inches of rain. The second highest daily rainfall total occurred on August 27, with 3.91 inches. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania had their wettest August on record, ‘before’ Irene even made landfall in North Carolina.

    Thanks! I wasn’t aware of these other heavy rains. Now I see why flooding happened.

  112. Robert in Calgary says:
    August 30, 2011 at 8:46 pm
    “Isn’t time to set up a separate website – WUWG – What’s Up With Gates?”

    You must include this section:

    Gatesisms
    A Gatesism is a statement by R. Gates, an AGW proponent, who posts on WUWT. He uses catch phrases without regard to magnitude, relevance or context and creates straw man arguments with hopes of hijacking threads.

    The response to all Gatesisms should be: “So what”

    Classic Gatesisms:

    “40 % increase in CO2 over the last 100 years”
    “CO2 levels have exploded”
    “The earth of 2011 far different in atmospheric composition than the earth of the 1600′s”
    “especially with the increases in ocean heat content and water vapor levels we’ve seen over the past few decades. ” (new)

  113. REPLY: And right now there’s a story as top post on sea ice, so barry should quit his whining and look at the front page…sheesh – Anthony

    Whining? I made a three-line post asking WUWT after a very unusual 2 week hiatuson reports at the end of the melt season. This is a problem?

    If you want to teach me manners, may I suggest you lead by example. An inline reply to me advising me of the imminent post would have been far better form that waiting for someone to notice my post so you could snipe about me after the fact.

    I keep it polite here as you know. Fortunately, I do not learn from my entertainment. You surprise me.

    I don’t care if you permit this, Anthony. It’s FYI.

    REPLY: I didn’t approve your initial comment, another moderator did. So the reply to you was the first I’d seen, and yes I was more than a little ticked off at the time, so you may have unfairly gotten some of my frustration over the train wreck going at that time from Mr. Biscan in the current poll thread http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/08/31/final-arctic-sea-ice-forecast-poll/ . Inline replies are standard here, because when sloppy people accuse me of outrageous things, such as Mr. Biscan as done, I want people to see immediately the response or correction. Otherwise they’ll just run off willy nilly and slander me without bothering to scroll through the thread to see the answer. As I said though, and you and Mr. Biscan demonstrated, I’m damned if I do, damned if I don’t. But it would be nice to see you make a positive contribution once in awhile instead of the constant knocking down you do. – Anthony

  114. Dreadnought says:
    August 30, 2011 at 6:44 pm

    I saw this Fox News item in it’s entirety and I was utterly dumb-struck that they would get this colossal idiot to comment on these things.

    True, but they obviously couldn’t get Gore (besides, he’d have used a bunch of expletives on air and called them all racists), and Mann and Jones aren’t willing to stick their necks out anymore than they have to. I can’t think of a viable CAGW rep, really I can’t.

    Looks like Bill Nye the ________ Guy (you fill in the blank) is all they could come up with.

    Does that say a lot about their CAGW schtick or what?

    (Maybe R. Gates would be willing to go before the Friendly Folks at Fox?–then we wouldn’t need a WUWG–he’d be given his day in the limelight and we’d have just another outstanding thread to discuss.)

  115. Excellent post Ryan. Haven’t read all the comments but tens of thousands of nautical miles versus distance to the moon (funny analogy – and just as wrong as Nye’s analogy).
    A nautical mile is one minute of arc around the earth’s equator or 360 x 60 = 21,600 nautical miles. The Pacific Ocean extends almost half-way around the world – let’s say about 9,000 nautical miles. The moon is about 385,000 kilometers away from the earth or about 215,000 nautical miles. A draw between the two analogies occurs at 44,000 nautical miles, which IMO is tens of thousands of nautical miles. That number is way too big to explain earth weather patterns and way too small to reach the moon. I know, back to work…
    I like the political angle you bring and look forward to more of these.

  116. Scottish Skeptic,

    Let me see if I can explain? First we got the real final nail in the coffin of global warming in the CERN/CLOUD & final confirmation of Svensmark. Then the single biggest story in science in the last decade…

    Reporting on sea ice was only ever about disproving AGW, and as long as there is other ammo, you’re just not interested? Sorry, but that is hardly news to me. There may be a few people left around here who have a whiff of actual curiosity left, or are careful to construct their worldview with adherence to intellectual integrity, but for the most part, people come here to cheer the dragons being slain on a daily basis. Enjoy the circus!

  117. You can tell Joe B was a wrestler, he just performed a “takedown” on Mr. Gates. In all seriousness, science is about developing a hypothesis, testing it and then have others verify or debunk it. My point is that this site provides a forum for all sides to make their viewpoints known and that allows pretty much unlimited debate over the issues, so I welcome those like Mr. Gates who have a differing opinion and are allowed to express it within the confines of reasonable discourse. At other sites (hint: UnReal Climate), those with differing views have their posts eliminated, snipped, or subject to attempted ridicule without any semblance of impartiality. Personally I prefer the model that is WUWT over the Romm’s and Schmidt’s censored blogs of the world

  118. Below is the composition of Jupiter’s atmosphere. From Wiki.

    89.8±2.0% hydrogen (H2)
    10.2±2.0% helium
    ~0.3% methane
    ~0.026% ammonia
    ~0.003% hydrogen deuteride (HD)
    0.0006% ethane
    0.0004% water

    No CO2. Water almost nonexistant. Ninety-nine per cent plus is non GHG. So RGates what should we call the large storm on Jupiter if not a hurrincane. If it is a hurricane how did it get there without GHG’s?

  119. James – thank you for the reply, enjoyed reading. I’ve heard pundits from both sides acknowledge that the earth is warming, but have never understood the generally accepted point of reference. The 30 year standard used for much trend analysis is clearly too short, but just how far back should we go.

    James Sexton says:
    August 30, 2011 at 10:26 pm
    Matt says:
    August 30, 2011 at 9:11 pm

    When someone like Bill Nye says the earth is getting warmer, “it’s measurable and irrefutable”, what exactly does that mean? Relative to what temperature (MWP)? What time period constitutes a trend? (For Bill Nye six years is too few to show lack of hurricane activity, but one storm is enough to prove AGW)

    That’s a serious question, what does it mean to say that the earth is warming?

    Thanks in advance for any serious answers or links to explanations.

    Matt
    =======================================================

    Matt, there is no serious answer. All time to temp considerations are arbitrary. There is no valid argument of an appropriate time period to determining warming vs cooling. Yes, we saw some warming a while back. It hasn’t warmed in over a decade, but if you include this decade with the last two you see warming if you want to see warming. Yes, its likely we’re cooling from the MWP but we’re warming from the LIA. Then some even want to go back 800,000 years or so, but draw the line at a few 100 million……’cause things were different then….. truly funny, but there are some that truly believe that. The warmistas usually say 30 years, but that’s only because if fits their agenda with the current events. If it had cooled for about 30 years they’d sing a different tune…….oh wait….never mind that it was the same tune, just a different verse. All the while demonstrating their cherry picked time period is meaningless.

    So, pick your poison.

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1981/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2001/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1981/trend

    But what really makes the discussion absurd, is that no one has determined what the optimal temp of the earth should be. Oh sure, we have geological periods known as this optimum or that optimum, but we don’t know that they were optimal. Me, I definitely vote against something in the temp range of the LIA, which seems to be the target temp of the warmistas, and I think it would be optimal if Greenland actually had some farm land and maybe some other places in Canada, but that’s just me thinking about feeding people. Oh sure, the Russians pretty much have the shipping lanes in the arctic tied up, now, but we can float boats there too, so I think we’d benefit also from an ice free arctic. But then, people would start flapping their arms wildly trying to convince people that we’d drown…….ignoring the fact that the overwhelming majority of land ice is in the Antarctic and it isn’t going anywhere. And the fact that Greenland is shaped like a bowl…….the rock underneath all that ice is 900 ft below sea level, so most of the water from melt wouldn’t go anywhere there either.

    And all of that is pretending we could do something about it at any rate. Its nonsensical to believe we could. But, what the hell? It isn’t as if our generations were doing anything anyway. If we weren’t arguing over the weather, we’d be doing something really important like developing better I-phones and crap like that. Kind of a wild ride…….. going from watching man first step on the moon to having NASA charged with some bizarre outreach program, but we vote for those moonbats. And people lend credence to demonstrably mentally deficient psuedo-intellects such as Bill Nye and Al Gore. If we don’t kill future generations from sheer stupidity, we’ll certainly kill them with laughter and shame of their heritage. They will spend lifetimes looking for that ever elusive missing-link’s DNA just so they can reintroduce it in hopes to reverse the process.

    Sorry….. that was about as serious of a response I could muster.

  120. @R. Gates,

    I like how you sidestepped the actual, real world data on hurricanes. Take a step back and get your wits about you again, because you are losing your rational senses in this matter.

  121. BarryW says:
    August 30, 2011 at 6:01 pm
    But he must know what he’s talking about! He wears a bow tie!

    More importantly, are his pants properly creased?

  122. R. Gates;
    Hurricanes are part of the climate system, meaning multiple interrelated causes and effects, and you could no more separate greenhouse gases from the existence of hurricanes on earth then you could, separate the whales from the existence of oceans…they all infer each other. Again, no greenhouse gases on earth, no hurricanes.>>>

    So…you’re saying that whales cause the oceans? Or that the oceans cause whales? Or that it would be impossible to take all the whales out of the oceans to see what happens as a result? You babble on about chaos theory and three body problems and then introduce an example so ridiculously inapropriate to either those concepts or the topic at hand that it ony shows how little you understand any of what you pretend to.

    The real question is this: Do you know how silly you look and just don’t care, or are you so drunk on AGW nonsense that you don’t even know that you look silly?

  123. R. Gates, you really liven the discussions. Keep posting! No sarc here at all.
    It’s really nice to argue without all the emotions and you force us to double check our references.

    We would be back patting sicophants if we didn’t have any outspoken opposition. We have enough back patting as is. It’s better to come here with an open mind that is changeable than simply bask in the confirmation and groupthink at other sites. Bill Nye has obviously been doing too much of that and not learning anything usefull with his time.

  124. savethesharks says:
    August 30, 2011 at 7:19 pm
    “…so much you strangle yourself in the process.”

    Interesting turn of phrase. I’d like to borrow that; “So much you strangle yourself in the process.” Sorta like a Yoda-ism or an “All your base are belong to us.”
    BTW: If it was long enough to strangle yourself with it, he’d be very popular with the ladies.

  125. polistra August 30, 2011 at 4:36 pm: Correlation isn’t all you need to imply causation. You need correlation plus a firm mechanism.

    Not true. It’s possible to establish causation without knowing the how and why of the mechanism. Years ago people noticed the sun warms the environment without knowing how it could do so. In fact, I’d venture to say that knowledge of cause/effect more likely than not precedes research into the mechanism.

  126. barry:

    At August 31, 2011 at 7:08 am you say to Scottish Skeptic,

    “There may be a few people left around here who have a whiff of actual curiosity left, or are careful to construct their worldview with adherence to intellectual integrity, but for the most part, people come here to cheer the dragons being slain on a daily basis. Enjoy the circus!”

    Dragons? What “dragons”?

    I see comments from R Gates being pulled apart and from you being ignored because they are not deemed worthy of any response. But I don’t see any dragons, only whimps.

    I would like to see St George doing his stuff and I am missing the show. But I fail to see any “dragons” being slain. Surely, you cannot be making stuff up while complaining at lack of “intellectual integrity”, can you?

    Richard

  127. ACK!!!!

    Amino Acids in Meteorites says:
    August 31, 2011 at 6:17 am

    James Sexton says:
    August 30, 2011 at 10:26 pm

    (For Bill Nye six years is too few to show lack of hurricane activity, but one storm is enough to prove AGW)

    Nice!
    =========================================================
    Thanks AAM, and it was nice, but, I can’t take credit. That was our friend Matt that I was quoting.

  128. DAV:

    With respect, I think you missed the point polistra made at August 30, 2011 at 4:36 pm when he wrote:

    “Correlation isn’t all you need to imply causation. You need correlation plus a firm mechanism.”

    Your reply at August 31, 2011 at 10:53 am says;

    “Not true. It’s possible to establish causation without knowing the how and why of the mechanism. Years ago people noticed the sun warms the environment without knowing how it could do so. In fact, I’d venture to say that knowledge of cause/effect more likely than not precedes research into the mechanism.”

    The issue was whether or not correlation indicates causation. It was not whether a mechanistic explanation is needed to establish causation.

    In your illustration, direct exposure to the Sun provides warmth and that warmth is reduced when a cloud passes in front of the Sun. Indeed, any shade from the Sun’s rays reduces warming. This effect of shade is the direct evidence that “the sun warms the environment” and not any correlation.

    On its own correlation says nothing about causation. But observation of a correlation may suggest a causal relationship is worthy of investigation if a plausible causal effect can be postulated. Proof of a causal mechanism that creates the correlation would be definitive proof of the causal relationship.

    Importantly, absence of correlation proves a causal relationship does not exist.

    Richard

  129. So, essentially, he is either an evil bastard communist-like who knows he’s wrong but spews the CAGW propaganda anyway, or he is the oblivious ignorant bastard choosing to act like an evil communist, believing he’s a good guy spewing the CAGW propaganda anyway.

    He appears to have a screw loose either way, and I base my conclusions on observations of his apparent bottle lunacy. :p

  130. davidmhoffer says:
    August 31, 2011 at 9:57 am
    R. Gates;
    Hurricanes are part of the climate system, meaning multiple interrelated causes and effects, and you could no more separate greenhouse gases from the existence of hurricanes on earth then you could, separate the whales from the existence of oceans…they all infer each other. Again, no greenhouse gases on earth, no hurricanes.>>>

    So…you’re saying that whales cause the oceans? Or that the oceans cause whales? Or that it would be impossible to take all the whales out of the oceans to see what happens as a result? You babble on about chaos theory and three body problems and then introduce an example so ridiculously inapropriate to either those concepts or the topic at hand that it ony shows how little you understand any of what you pretend to.

    The real question is this: Do you know how silly you look and just don’t care, or are you so drunk on AGW nonsense that you don’t even know that you look silly.
    _____
    If you can’t understand how whales are related to oceans, and that in fact, even if you’d never seen a whale, you could infer the existence of whales by studying the oceans in detail, then its not surprising to me that other issues related to chaos and complexity are beyond you as well.
    So too, the existence of hurricanes can be inferred from the totality of the climate system, such that, even if you’d never seen a hurricane, you’d understand that there would need to be some mechanism that removes heat from the equator to the poles and from the oceans to the atmosphere, and all the other dynamics that hurricanes are involved in, and so, you could infer the existence of hurricanes by studying the climate system. Obviously, (but perhaps not obvious to you), if there were no greenhouse gases, there’d be not much heat to move from the oceans, as they’d be frozen pretty solidly.

  131. mkelly says:
    August 31, 2011 at 8:11 am
    Below is the composition of Jupiter’s atmosphere. From Wiki.

    89.8±2.0% hydrogen (H2)
    10.2±2.0% helium
    ~0.3% methane
    ~0.026% ammonia
    ~0.003% hydrogen deuteride (HD)
    0.0006% ethane
    0.0004% water

    No CO2. Water almost nonexistant. Ninety-nine per cent plus is non GHG. So RGates what should we call the large storm on Jupiter if not a hurrincane. If it is a hurricane how did it get there without GHG’s?.
    ______
    Would be doubtful in the large storm on Jupiter was created by the same dynamics as hurricanes on earth. As far as I know, there’s no liquid ocean and no ocean-atmosphere boundary in which heat is dissipated. Take away earth’s greenhouse gases, and hurricanes would go away as well, and probably the only life forms would be living deep under the frozen layers of the ocean where liquid water might still exist, or perhaps deep underground caves, but the surface of the earth, without greenhouse gases, would be pretty devoid of life…perhaps much like Jupiter’s Europa.

  132. R. Gates says:
    August 30, 2011 at 4:26 pm

    Newflash to skeptics: Hurricane Irene, and every other hurricane that comes along between now and the end of time will be caused by greenhouse gas induced global warming. Guess what: no greenhouse warming, no hurricanes…oceans freeze solid…party over.

    What is the primary greenhouse gas on Earth? This gas also covers 2/3rds of the earth as a liquid. The oceans are the very greenhouse “gas” you are talking about. They don’t warm themselves, the sun beats down on them and water evaporates to form the only greenhouse gas that matters, water vapor. Your example is meaningless because humans contribute virtually nothing to the overall cycle of water vapor into the atmosphere, and water vapor was not made out to be a gigantic political boogeyman. This was a strawman you just threw out there.

    But of course, now, you get to “the issue”…

    Now, to the issue: Since having zero level of greenhouse gases on earth would result in zero level of hurricanes, and some level of greenhouse gases give us the climate that allow some level of hurricane activity, is it possible that increased greenhouse gases beyond what we’ve seen in 800,000 years might cause some change in hurricane behavior? Hmmm…seems plausible, especially with the increases in ocean heat content and water vapor levels we’ve seen over the past few decades.

    You cannot have zero level of greenhouse gasses on earth until the oceans freeze solid or boil away, it is not possible. It’s not possible because water is the primary greenhouse gas. The reason for this is that water has much more energy modes than CO2, and can thus hold more energy in the form of heat than CO2, to say nothing of it’s absorption spectrum difference. Now you’re supposing that increasing a minor greenhouse gas somehow has a primary effect on increasing water vapor creation in the atmosphere which is a primary driver of the creation of hurricanes (when the sun does most of that anyway)… and then supposing that the amount of increase of this minor greenhouse gas from humans (which is itself a subset of the overall increase of this gas concentration in the atmosphere) can be directly responsible for changes in hurricane behavior.

    Do you not see how insane that sounds?

    You see, everything you said relates fine if you’re talking about water. If humans were dumping hot water vapor into the air at a rate faster than the oceans already do, I might believe you. But you’re relating the effects of a subset of a subset of a minor player in the greenhouse gas spectrum, and then giving credence to the idea that altered behavior of storms the size of continents can be attributed to the human part of that equation. That is insane.

  133. DirkH says:
    August 31, 2011 at 6:18 am
    R. Gates says:
    August 30, 2011 at 8:16 pm
    ” Again, no greenhouse gases on earth, no hurricanes.”

    R. Gates, we can agree on that. Water vapor is a greenhouse gas, so no greenhouse gases on Earth implies an Earth devoid of water and oceans; as a hurricane is powered by the hydrological cycle, a hurricane would then be impossible.

    But that’s not what you wanted to imply; you wanted to somehow connect CO2 and hurricanes. And that is of course unnecessary, as 95% of the greenhouse effect is caused by water vapor, this completely suffices; CO2 is, as usual, a bit player.
    ____
    CO2 is hardly a “bit player” in the dynamics of the atmosphere. To believe such, in any manner, is to completely not understand what is going on with the planet earth. Take away CO2, and the earth becomes, quickly, an snowball earth, frozen from pole to equator. Seriously, those of you in doubt of this really need to understand the difference between a Condensing and Non-condensing greenhouse gas. As the earth cools, more water vapor is condensed, and then it gets cooler, and more water vapor is condensed, until all, or nearly all the water vapor is wrung out of the atmosphere. For a quick article on this, read:

    http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/lacis_01/

    This is not propaganda, but science. Pull yourself away from Fox News long enough to read a bit.

  134. Jeremy says:
    August 31, 2011 at 12:56 pm
    “The oceans are the very greenhouse “gas” you are talking about.”
    ____
    Take away all those little “bit player” CO2 molecules from the atmosphere, and we get a snow-ball earth, pretty quickly. CO2 is GAS the keeps this from happening. Water Vapor would quickly condense out of the atmosphere, and we’d get colder and colder and then pretty much all life on the surface would cease to exist. There’d probably be some life under the frozen ocean surface or deep underground in caves, etc. But without CO2 as a GAS in the atmosphere, earth turns to a snowball.

  135. R. Gates;
    “Again, no greenhouse gases on earth, no hurricanes.>>>”

    Oh horse puckey. I earlier posted the atmosphere of Jupiter. No CO2. Water virtually non-existent. 99%+ of the atmosphere non-GHG’s. Yet the largest storm in the solar system that sure looks like a hurricane resides on Jupiter.

  136. DAV says:
    August 31, 2011 at 10:53 am
    polistra August 30, 2011 at 4:36 pm: Correlation isn’t all you need to imply causation. You need correlation plus a firm mechanism.

    Not true. It’s possible to establish causation without knowing the how and why of the mechanism. Years ago people noticed the sun warms the environment without knowing how it could do so. In fact, I’d venture to say that knowledge of cause/effect more likely than not precedes research into the mechanism.

    Nobody knows exactly how gravity works, either.

    But the point about correlation and causation not being the same thing stands.

  137. R Gates,

    “And you do not understand complexity or chaos or the basic “three body problem”. Hurricanes are part of the climate system, meaning multiple interrelated causes and effects, and you could no more separate greenhouse gases from the existence of hurricanes on earth then you could, separate the whales from the existence of oceans…they all infer each other. Again, no greenhouse gases on earth, no hurricanes.”

    So, greenhouse gases affect hurricanes because the climate system is ‘complex’ and ‘chaotic’? Well, if ghg’s are part of the complexity, then why must you conclude that they will increase hurricane intensity?

    Actually, the opposite should be the case. Hurricanes are not driven by average temperature but by temperature gradients, which is why Mars and Jupiter have strong – super hurricane strength – winds, despite having lower average temperatures. Do you think that hurricanes would stop on a snowball Earth? With no greenhouse gas, heat would rapidly radiate away leading to frigidly cold night time temperatures compared to day time, and a very high temperature gradient. Strong winds would result, although there would be no rainfall, obviously.

  138. R Gates:

    If CO2 was removed from the atmosphere – all plant life dies (no food) – ocean heat sink maintains equatorial temps – bacteria rapidly eat rotting dead vegetation (equatorial zone) – and rapidly replace CO2 with methane – a much stronger GHG – temperatures normalize, methane decays to CO2… and we are back to where we started. See! Anyone can tell a fairy tale.

    My question is: What is your motivation or agenda in spouting such blatant dogma? GK

  139. GK says to Gates:

    “What is your motivation or agenda in spouting such blatant dogma?”

    It’s probably the dime a post he’s getting paid.☺

  140. R. Gates says:
    August 31, 2011 at 1:09 pm

    Jeremy says:
    August 31, 2011 at 12:56 pm
    “The oceans are the very greenhouse “gas” you are talking about.”
    ____
    Take away all those little “bit player” CO2 molecules from the atmosphere, and we get a snow-ball earth, pretty quickly. CO2 is GAS the keeps this from happening. Water Vapor would quickly condense out of the atmosphere, and we’d get colder and colder and then pretty much all life on the surface would cease to exist. There’d probably be some life under the frozen ocean surface or deep underground in caves, etc. But without CO2 as a GAS in the atmosphere, earth turns to a snowball.

    That’s a very interesting and completely unfalsifiable claim. That means it is worthless. Enjoy your continued wading into philosophy outside of the realm of science.

  141. Vince Causey is right, temperature gradients power hurricanes. And the gradients are steeper during glaciations. Prof Richard Lindzen notes:

    “There is ample evidence that the Earth’s temperature as measured at the equator has remained within +/- 1°C for more than the past billion years. Those temperatures have not changed over the past century.”

  142. Robert E. Phelan wants to know what are my “metrics” for calling Irene a “powerful storm”. The term seems justified to me by the facst that it killed 18 people, caused severe flooding in the Katskills and southern Vermont (places not usually bothered by tropical storms) and caused billions of dollars in property damage overall. And it was a hurricane for most of its career — a very big and powerful one. It can’t be dismissed even though it wasn’t Katrina.

  143. Questions for Prof. Lindzen — what is the “ample evidence” that the Earth’s temperature at the equator has been stable for the past billion years? It would have to be proxy data, and not even the staunchest defenders of the hockey stick are wiling to trust proxy data that far back in time. And there is plainly visible evidence that the Earth’s temperature at the equator has risen sharply in the past few decades– witness the rapid disappearance of tropical glaciers in the Andes. Peru, which has had 70% of the world’s tropical glaciers in the past, has experienced such a loss that a number of its hydroelectric plants are running at 20% of capacity; and the moss that Alpacas live on is dying, which will eventually force the Quechua Indians to leave the mountains — where they have lived for centuries. And the glaciers have not “sublimated” — they have melted.

  144. Philip N. says:

    “And it was a hurricane for most of its career — a very big and powerful one.”

    “Most of its career” was over the ocean. And yes, it was very big in extent. But not all that powerful over land, despite the endless hype.

    I was onboard a ship near Kauai in Hawaii a few months after Iniki passed through. We could see literally hundreds of concrete building pads up the side of the island. They all had houses on them, but Iniki blew the houses away. Irene was big geographically, but it wasn’t all that powerful.

    Also, September 10th is the peak of the hurrican season. Hurricanes happen every year. The difference now is that the MSM narative says that they are the result of AGW. Scientifically knowledgeable people know that a warmer planet will produce less intense hurricanes because of the lower temperature gradient. Unfortunately, most of the public, including the believers in CAGW are scientific illiterates who unquestioningly believe the TV talking heads, and other propaganda outlets like Scientific American.

  145. R. Gates;
    If you can’t understand how whales are related to oceans, and that in fact, even if you’d never seen a whale, you could infer the existence of whales by studying the oceans in detail, then its not surprising to me that other issues related to chaos and complexity are beyond you as well>>>

    You just don’t quit, do you? Both feet shoved in your mouth and just open wider! Go for the knees! Go for the knees! I can tell by studying the oceans that whales exist, so I must conclude that by studying the climate that hurricanes exist? CO2 exists? You exist? What?

    OK Mr. “I understand chaos and complexity and you don’t”, how about an explanation?

    Your original inference was that whales relate to the ocean in the same way that CO2 relates to hurricanes. So…Let’s accept for a moment that changes in CO2 affect hurricane strength. Can you please explain how that is analogous to whales and the ocean? No twisted up references to vague theories of this that or the other thing that you pontificate about your expertise in but never produce a shred of evidence for. No appeals to authority, no links to irrelevant articles, not excuses about what I or anyone else is too stupid to understand.

    Just an actual explanation, presented logically, in as many words as you need. Start with explaiing calculus if you have to , or the laws of motion, but stop with the sneering from atop the mountain upon the poor peasants unable to understand the Truth that your Intellect reveals. Put up or shut up.

  146. Philip N.,

    Ask Prof Lindzen yourself, I just saved his quote. If you think he was winging it, I’d check out his CV first. And you’re mistakenly conflating Peru with the equator, which crosses Ecuador.

    And your preposterous claim saying that “plainly visible evidence that the Earth’s temperature at the equator has risen sharply in the past few decades” isn’t based on satellites or thermometers, is it? By “risen sharply,” I presume you mean more than the natural 0.7°C rise over the past century and a half. Provide verifiable global temperature data if you want your claim to be taken seriously. This isn’t real climate or skeptical pseudo-science, you know. You get called on baseless claims here.

    Glaciers come and go, and CO2 has nothing to do with it: click As you can see, for millennia there were no glaciers at all, at a time when CO2 was only around 280 ppmv.

    Also, nice scare story about the poor alpacas being run out because their favorite moss is declining. I’ll add that one to my globaloney file.☺

  147. Smokey,
    Prof. Lindzen’s CV is impressive, but that’s not what I wanted to see. I wanted to see the “abundant evidence” about temperatures at the equator over the past billion years.

    I think I already knew that Peru is not Ecuador, or at the equator. I mention Peru only because I am from Columbus, and have had the opportunity to talk to people at the Byrd Polar Research Center at Ohio State University, who have been studying Andean glaciers in Peru for almost thirty years now.

    The glaciers in the Andes are melting at a rapid clip — photographs of the glaciers taken a 20 or 30 years ago show how dramatic and rapid the ice loss has been. The researchers at the BPRC are taking as many ice cores from the glaciers as they can, as quickly as they can, because there won’t be much left of the glaciers before long. They are analyzing some of the ice cores to determine the levels of CO2 trapped in them, but storing at least half of them for the next generation of glaciologists to look at; otherwise, the next generation would have nothing to work with.

    As for the Alpacas — they cannot survive without moss and water, both of which are disappearing rapidly; and the Quechua Indians cannot survive without the Alpacas. Eventually, there will be no more Alpacas and the Quechua will have to move off the mountains, ending up no doubt in the slums of Lima, or in some of the desperately poor villages along the coast, such as San Bartolo.

    These changes have taken place within the time that the BPRC has been studying the glaciers of Peru. Of course, it may have nothing to do with CO2. It must have something to do with warming, though; the glacial ice is melting into water, not sublimating into water vapor.

  148. Philip N.:

    At August 31, 2011 at 2:28 pm you say;

    “Questions for Prof. Lindzen — what is the “ample evidence” that the Earth’s temperature at the equator has been stable for the past billion years? It would have to be proxy data, and not even the staunchest defenders of the hockey stick are wiling to trust proxy data that far back in time.”

    I cannot answer for what Richard Lindzen would say, but I point out that proxy data are not needed.

    A negative feedback prevents tropical ocean surface temperatures rising above 305K (i.e. present maximum ocean surface temperature). This was first discovered as long ago as 1991
    (ref. Ramanathan & Collins, Nature, v351, 27-32 (1991) )
    and has been confirmed by several studies since then.

    More heat input induces more evapouration (that removes heat from the ocean surface) and causes clouds (that shield the ocean surface from the Sun’s rays). So, the sea surface temperature at the equator is ‘fixed’ for situations of both much more and much less thermal input.

    Simply, the temperature at the tropics is bumping against an upper limit, and it would be very surprising if the Earth’s temperature at the equator had not been stable over the past billion years.

    Richard

  149. Richard S Courtney says: August 31, 2011 at 11:29 am On its own correlation says nothing about causation. But observation of a correlation may suggest a causal relationship is worthy of investigation if a plausible causal effect can be postulated.

    True if only two variables are involved. An experiment is a deliberate insertion or alteration of variables. This is only expedience as any additional information lying about might be useful (your tree shade for instance). It is the inter-correlation of all of the information that is the proof and not the additional information itself or the means of gathering it. Semantics perhaps. You may or may not discover the mechanism of cause along the way. There are algorithms that can discover/determine causation and I assure you those algorithms have no idea what the mechanism is.

    For more information I refer you to Judea Pearl’s excellent book: “Causality: Models, Reasoning and Inference” available at Amazon (I see there is an earlier edition available as well).

    Proof of a causal mechanism that creates the correlation would be definitive proof of the causal relationship. Importantly, absence of correlation proves a causal relationship does not exist.

    Both very true.

  150. DAV:

    Thankyou for your reply at August 31, 2011 at 4:16 pm to my post at August 31, 2011 at 11:29 am.

    You seem to be agreeing with me except that you commend a book I feel no need to read. Am I missing something?

    Richard

  151. Funny how R. Gates’ hypotheticals tend to stir folks up. He’s really good at it.

    Hypotheticals are imagined. Why argue over someone’s fantasy? Might as well argue over religion.

  152. Richard S Courtney August 31, 2011 at 4:43 pm Am I missing something?

    Probably so. My point is: it’s the correlation of the variables itself that’s important. Nothing else is required. Judea’s book explains the why and how of that. IOW, your On its own correlation says nothing about causation is not true. The current causality algorithms use only correlation when identifying cause. Understanding of the underlying mechanism is nice but not important to the task.

  153. Davidmhoffer,

    First, I don’t sneer. Secondly, if you can’t understand how a frozen planet, which earth would be without CO2, would not have hurricanes, then I seriously doubt anything I write would make any difference to your perspective or understanding of how the basic systems of the earth are all interrelated nor the greater truth that in reality no man, or woman, or whale, or even cloud exists without the interactions and existence of the whole.

  154. Dave Worley says:
    August 31, 2011 at 4:56 pm
    Funny how R. Gates’ hypotheticals tend to stir folks up. He’s really good at it.

    Hypotheticals are imagined. Why argue over someone’s fantasy? Might as well argue over religion.
    ————————————————————–

    I think that some of the more “animated”, shall we say, threads on here have been about religion actually.

    Don’t worry about the R Gates thing though. Several of us are contacted by a Project Manager at the Central Planning Dept. of Big Oil, Inc., as to who responds and when. It doesn’t take long for each individual and we get paid handsomely. Of course, we all suspect that he’s on their payroll too – this time running pretend, lousy straw man cover for Bill “the end is” Nye.

    PS I was promised a bonus if I could get those last five words in my post.

  155. Richard,

    If the temperature at the tropics is fixed, why are the glaciers disappearing? Maybe, you argue, because temperatures are now reaching their “upper limit”, at which it is warm enough to melt glaciers. But what is driving temperatures to the upper limit just now?

    For centuries, the Chechua Indians have been following a way of life dependent on cool temperatures and run off water from glaciers. This has changed within the last 20 – 30 years — to the extent that their traditional habitat and way of life are being destroyed. The change has occurred at the same time that atmospheric CO2 has risen noticeably.

    And, the rise in atmospheric temperature along with the rise in atmospheric CO2 is more than just fortuitous. It’s according to the laws of physics. CO2 absorbs infrared radiation coming from the Earth’s surface, warms as it does so, and then becomes a transmitter of infrared itself — in all directions, one of these directions being back down to Earth.

  156. I finally listened to Al Gore’s “racism” spiel and I’m appalled. It is much more insidious and evil than I could have imagined it to be. It is preaching the doctrine of “Group Think”. It advocates the unenlightened use of peer pressure to suppress free thought and ideas. You can ~start~ with something you “know” is right. But will it end there? It never has in the past. I am so glad this vermin was never made President. I shudder to think what the results might have been.

  157. Philip N. says:
    August 31, 2011 at 6:53 pm

    Richard,

    If the temperature at the tropics is fixed, why are the glaciers disappearing?
    ……….. It’s according to the laws of physics. CO2 absorbs infrared radiation……..
    ==============================================================

    Phillip, I hate to interrupt, but I’m a bit bored.
    You talk as if those glaciers had always been there and that they are suppose to be there. They weren’t nor should they be there. They are remnants of the last ice age.
    But then you go on to talk about physics…….. ok, Phillip, other than a general increase in temps of the tropics, is there any other physical reason why ice could disappear from the tropics? (Hint, it is well documented in regards to Kilimanjaro.) Why are we losing glaciers? Indeed.

  158. R. Gates says:
    August 31, 2011 at 5:12 pm
    Davidmhoffer,
    First, I don’t sneer. Secondly, if you can’t understand how a frozen planet, which earth would be without CO2, would not have hurricanes, then I seriously doubt anything I write would make any difference to your perspective or understanding of how the basic systems of the earth are all interrelated nor the greater truth that in reality no man, or woman, or whale, or even cloud exists without the interactions and existence of the whole.>>>>

    1. Your comment that you don’t sneer is followed by a sneer.
    2. You side stepped the question. Again.
    3. You resorted to an answer that is predicated on me being too stupid to understand the answer.

    Sneering as charged. Sidestepped the issue as charged. No answer of any sort predicated upon facts, logic, or reasonable explanation. As charged.

  159. R. Gates says:
    August 31, 2011 at 5:12 pm

    Davidmhoffer,

    First, I don’t sneer. Secondly, if you can’t understand how a frozen planet, which earth would be without CO2,
    ========================================================
    Sorry Gates, but as I said, I’m bored…….

    ahahahahahahah!!! If a frog had a glass……. atmospheric CO2 is of little or no consequence….. but our little plants need the stuff……then the cycle…..etc…. what sort of sophistry are you peddling?
    Sure everything interacts, but, not everything is necessary for the flora and fauna.
    Butterflies make waves…….

  160. Is R. Gates Amusing?

    No he is not. He is the epitomy of everything that is wrong with this debate. Don’t believe me? Engage a 17 year old in a discusssion of global warming and what causes it. You’ll get drivel for the most part, assumptions of fact without any thought toward the underlying facts and logic. And a lot of it will sound just like R. Gates. On this forum he gets exposed regularly for his complete lack of knowledge and repeated bluffing on science. He throws comments around as if he has some basis in fact, science, and authority, but when challenged he’s all smoke and mirrors. Ask him to justify any of his claims, and he retreats immediately into “well you don’t understand chaos theory so there’s no point trying to explain to you” or something similar. He’s got nothing but claims that sound like good stories, and that is all they are: stories.

    On this forum he gets debunked. I don’t know if he posts in other forums, but many like him do, and they represent the majority of commenters out there, that’s why the average 17 year old thinks he makes sense.

    Debunk his bull every chance you get. Because every so often one of those 17 year olds googles something and just might get the chance to read an honest explanation to his totaly bogus claims.

  161. R. Gates;
    Secondly, if you can’t understand how a frozen planet, which earth would be without CO2, would not have hurricanes, then I seriously doubt anything I write would make any difference >>>

    BS #1. Well over 90% of the “greenhouse effect” is from water vapour and other gases. Even with ZERO CO2 the planet would not freeze over, so your initial premise is bull.

    BS #2. Hurricanes and any other weather for that matter are driven by temperature gradient. Since the tropics would cool the least, and the poles the most, in a cooling scenario, along with most cooling at night time lows and the least at day time highs, and the most in the depths of winter and the least at the height of summer, a cooler planet would have INCREASED temperature gradients and hence INCREASED storm frequency and intensity.

    BS #3. The reverse of the above is also true. In a warming planet, the tropics would warm the least and the poles the most, and so on. Hence, the temperature gradients would DECREASE and the result would be REDUCED storm frequency and intensity.

    Fact: NASA GissTemp and Hadcrut both show that there has been a warming trend over the last 150 years, it has been least at the tropics and the most at the poles.

    Fact: The warming trend of the last 150 years shows no significant difference between those years before CO2 increases became significant, and those years afterward. Further, global temperatures have been FLAT for the last 15 to 20 years, and CO2 is the highest on record, yet the catastrophic accelerated warming predicted as a consequence is no where to be found, only the continued rise that was in place before fossil fuel consumption became significant, and is clearly decelerating to zero.

    Fact: Commensurate with my explanation of the basic physics above, not only is what I said about the tropics verying in temperature the least and the poles the most, summers the least and winters the most, day time highs the least and night time lows the most born out by the temperature records themselves, my comments regarding reduced temperature gradients resulting in reduced storm frequency and intensity are also born out by the record, as Ryan Maue and others have shown with actual data.

    Now Mr. Gates, will you please explain how CO2 and hurricanes is a parallel with whales and the oceans? Or will you neatly side step, sneer, and pontificate about chaos theory or sand piles or three body equations or some other meaningless drivel?

  162. stevo says:
    August 31, 2011 at 7:53 pm
    [Snip. Don't post like an insulting idiot. You are commenting on our host's site. ~dbs, mod.]
    _____________________________________________________

    I caught that post, as I was watching Daryl Hannah on the O’Reilly Factor.

    She had more credibility than Bill Nye !!!!

  163. davidmhoffer says:
    August 31, 2011 at 8:11 pm
    R. Gates;
    Secondly, if you can’t understand how a frozen planet, which earth would be without CO2, would not have hurricanes, then I seriously doubt anything I write would make any difference >>>

    BS #1. Well over 90% of the “greenhouse effect” is from water vapour and other gases. Even with ZERO CO2 the planet would not freeze over, so your initial premise is bull.
    ————-
    Mr. Hoffer,
    Your inability to understand even the most basic of physics, such as the difference between condensing and non-condensing greenhouse gases, leads me to my previous conclusion that discussion of even more advanced concepts is pointless. If you honestly believe that the earth would not become an ice planet without CO2, then whatever odd laws of physics you believe in do not match this reality and we have little common ground.

  164. James Sexton says:
    August 31, 2011 at 7:31 pm

    “Sure everything interacts, but, not everything is necessary for the flora and fauna.”
    ____
    Alright, let’s break this down a bit, despite the rather gross generalization, (i.e. “everything” is pretty general, don’t you agree?)I think I can sort of get what you’re trying to insinuate.

    First of all, do you agree that we need liquid flowing water? If you answered yes, then of course, behind that statement is a whole host of other things that brought about liquid flowing water in this part of the universe, such as the explosion of a supernova long before our sun existed that created that wonderful oxygen atom that of course, along with hydrogen, makes up water…so those wonderful flora and fauna needed supernova to have existed…and perhaps that’s part of “everything” that you never even thought about, but I digress.

    Let’s go back to flowing liquid water on earth. Do you agree that flora and fauna need that? Of course the answer is yes. Now, the odd thing about water as a vapor is that it does make a wonderful greenhouse gas that, along with the other greenhouse gases, helps to keep our planet warm enough to have liquid water on the surface, but, it is a condensing greenhouse gas, and is quickly removed from the atmosphere when temperatures cool. So much so, that, in the absence of the major non-condensing greenhouse gas, CO2, the water would continue to condense and the earth’s surface would continue to cool, and the atmosphere would get more and more dry, (not unlike the center of Antarctica by the way) until the earth was locked into a snowball state. Hence the reason we should all respect that little “trace” gas called CO2.

    But back to your flora and fauna statement. The entire biosphere can be considered as a system of interrelated pieces, but some pieces are a bit more important than others, such that we have key species that support entire ecosystems. These species need not be the largest, but they are key in terms of the exchange of energy. One such key species would be plankton, which support entire ocean ecosystems. Take away plankton, and the ocean’s ecosystem would be in peril as the flow of energy (as food) would collapse.

    So, is “everything” necessary for flora and fauna? Like any house of cards, you might successfully remove a few here and there, but take away a few of the key cards, or enough other ones, and down it comes. From supernova to water and CO2, these little pieces of “everything” are critical to flora and fauna existing on earth,

  165. G. Karst says:
    August 31, 2011 at 1:47 pm

    My question (to R. Gates) is: What is your motivation or agenda in spouting such blatant dogma?
    _____
    How is the fact that CO2 is a non-condensing greenhouse gas, and water vapor is not, dogma? It is not dogma to state that CO2 is critical to maintaining the wonderful greenhouse world we enjoy, and without it, not only would we all never have existed, the world would be quite cold.

  166. Mr. Hoffer,
    Your inability to understand even the most basic of physics, such as the difference between condensing and non-condensing greenhouse gases>>>>

    And once again.

    1. Sneer.
    2. Side step the question.
    3. Posit yet another new claim with no explanation, no backup material, nothing.

    So explain Mr Gates. You can’t seem to step up to your own BS about whales and oceans being somehow an analogy for Co2 and hurricanes, I just destroued your ridiculous claims about CO2 and snowball earth with theh ACTUAL physics, backed it up with the ACTUAL facts from the ACTUAL temperature record and the ACTUAL cyclone energy trends and guess what? MY PHYSICS AND ACTUAL REALWORD MEASUREMENTS MATCH!

    And what is your stinging retort? Having neatly and totaly sidestepped the “well whales and oceans are like Co2 and hurricanes” challenge to explain yourself, you posited instead the ridiculous “well, if you don’t even understand thata planet with no CO2 turns into a snowball” which I also tore to shreds with facts and data that you don’t even TRY to refute, now you coming back with…

    “well, your inability to understand the most basic of physics, such as the difference between condensing and non-condensing greenhouse gases”

    Ohmigod! Sneer! Side step! Posit a new claim equally ridiculous, equally full of it, and pntificate from on high how stupid I am.

    SIR
    The only stupid person is the one who would read your constant sneers, constant side stepping of the question, and constant introduction of yet another new, off topic, sneeering remark that has nothing at all to do with the previous discussion, and come away believeing that your eyes are blue. Because the only way your eyes are blue is if you are 1 quart bull sh*t low.

    You haven’t answered my first point, my second, or my third. When you’ve grown the balls to actually answer any of those directly, with even a modicum of facts and logic, we can then get to your totaly offensive and comepletely without foundation comment about what I do or no not understand about condensing and non condensing gases. And no, you don’t get to suggest I go first, because you’ve had THREE opportunities to substanitate a SINGLE one of your claims and all you’ve done is change the subject, sneer, and claim superior intellect that makes engaging further not worth your time.

    Tell me Sir Gates. If it isn’t worth your time, if I am so stupid that it isn’t worth it to you to even try and explain it to me, then why do you keep changing the subject? If I’m that dumb, you’d think you could provide an explanation that makes me look as dumb as you claim I am.

    Countdown to yet another change in subject….three…two…

  167. davidmhoffer says:
    August 31, 2011 at 8:11 pm

    “Even with ZERO CO2 the planet would not freeze over.”
    _____
    Flatly, clearly, unequivocally wrong. Why would I waste my time with further discussion when you spout such nonsense as this? I will even tolerate your constant ad hominems toward me, but when you can’t even get the basic science right, why bother going on with any more?

  168. “Like any house of cards, you might successfully remove a few here and there, but take away a few of the key cards, or enough other ones, and down it comes.”

    One of the advantages of the human mind is its ability to view (and rotate) objects solely within our imaginations in three dimensions. That advantage may also be used by manipulative individuals to conjure images such as a “house of cards” climate system, with “tipping points” looming on the horizon.

    Too bad the house of cards is a poor metaphor for our planet. It assumes that the climate and the ecosystem that adapts with it are inherently unstable. The many peaks and valleys in the climate record (and the fossil record) indicate that it just is not so.

    Notice also that Gates’ statement quoted above includes sublime imagery of humans “taking away” things from the planet. The imagery skillfully implies that we are a destructive lot.

    One simple example that I like to bring forward when confronted by folks attempting to portray humans in that manner is the wonderful gardens that most folks tend at their homes. They range from simple decorative shrubbery to some of the most extrordinary works of living art. Regardless of their level of complexity, all are an attempt to improve and beautify, not destroy, our world. There are too many similar examples in art, architecture, music, etc to name, and they are real, not imagined. That is our real nature, so don’t let any cynic get away with using hypothetical imagery of a destructive mankind to convince you otherwise. It’s simply not so.

  169. R. Gates says:
    August 31, 2011 at 9:23 pm

    James Sexton says:
    August 31, 2011 at 7:31 pm

    “Sure everything interacts, but, not everything is necessary for the flora and fauna.”
    ____
    Alright, let’s break this down a bit, despite the rather gross generalization, (i.e. “everything” is pretty general, don’t you agree?)I think I can sort of get what you’re trying to insinuate.

    First of all, do you agree that we need liquid flowing water? If you answered yes, then of course, behind that statement is a whole host of other things that brought about liquid flowing water in this part of the universe, such as the explosion of a supernova long before our sun existed that created that wonderful oxygen atom that of course, along with hydrogen, makes up water…so those wonderful flora and fauna needed supernova to have existed…and perhaps that’s part of “everything” that you never even thought about, but I digress…….
    =============================================================
    Uhmm…… Gates, ……explosion of a supernova…….. sure prove that. You’re living a belief system based on superstition, it is a plausible explanation, but not a provable one. But, I appreciate that you have faith. I have a similar one.
    Yes, life on this planet needs flowing water, but as I insinuated earlier, flowing water isn’t dependent upon a butterfly.

    “….and is quickly removed from the atmosphere when temperatures cool. ….”……yes! So the mechanism for such cooling is??? Please present a winter time scenario where there’s no snow…… More, you don’t explain how the CO2 got here. It is fairly well accepted that the earth was a snowball, in the past on a few occasions. So, if CO2 is the cause for us not slipping back into being a snowball, from whence did the CO2 come?

    In your “flora and fauna” paragraph, plankton is a great example! You are correct, the ocean would devoid of life with out plankton…… oddly that stuff seems to have survived the most extremes the history of this earth could provide!?!?! But, how can this be? If such cold kills everything, and if such CO2 acidifies so much that it kills even plankton……why is it still with us? The earth has been much warmer and colder, atmospheric CO2 levels, so we are told, have been much lower and higher. Yet, life persists!

    Gates, when you put it all together, you’ll be scary! You’re a sharp guy but you’re not considering things in their totality. It isn’t a house of cards! It is a house built on solid ground! The Spark that ignited your super nova ensured it would be this way. This earth is durable. It sustains life throughout all of the extremes. It cannot be any other way and still explain current given knowledge, nor the current condition. Evidence shows that the earth and its flora and fauna isn’t nearly as fragile as you make it to be. Nor, are we as significant as many believe we are.

    Best wishes,

    James

  170. James Sexton,

    According to one theory the snows of Kilimanjaro are disappearing owing to a combination of a) direct sublimation of glacial ice, bypassing the melting stage, and b) a snow drought. The authors of the chief study advancing this thesis say that the weather in the region of Kilimanjaro appears to be dependent on wind patterns over the Indian Ocean, which they say may well have been disrupted by global warming.

    The authors of this study — a scientifically rigorous one, to take nothing from it — had not been to the summit of Kilimanjaro when they wrote their study. Members of the Byrd Polar Research Center at Ohio State University have been there, within the last four years, and they found small ponds of melt water everywhere. Melting is very strong evidence of warming, in my book.

    This is something new since Hemingway published his famous story in 1936; Hemingway could use the whiteness of the snow cap as a symbol of death, because, like death, it was an eternal feature of existence.

    Of courser glaciers haven’t always been there — they’ve only been around for tens of thousands of years. Of course, they would disappear in the natural course of things. But why so quickly, all of a sudden, and now?

  171. R. Gates says:
    August 31, 2011 at 10:13 pm
    davidmhoffer says:
    August 31, 2011 at 8:11 pm
    “Even with ZERO CO2 the planet would not freeze over.”
    _____
    Flatly, clearly, unequivocally wrong.>>>

    1. A statement presented as fact without a single shred of evidence. No theoretical explanations of the physics, no calculations based on theory, and no observational evidence presented in support. In other words, BS.

    Why would I waste my time with further discussion when you spout such nonsense as this?>>>

    2. Sneer. Unable to respond with any facts, physics, calculations, or observational evidence to support a single one of his claims, R. Gates resorts to a condescneding sneer, and expects his devoid of facts opinion to be a waste of his time to defend.

    I will even tolerate your constant ad hominems toward me, but when you can’t even get the basic science right, why bother going on with any more?>>>>

    3. Change of subject. Unable to defend a single point he made, unable to defend even his claim that he doesn’t sneer, unable to answer cogently a single question asked of him, R. Gates changes the subject to claim that he isn’t answering because of my constant “ad hominems”. If he would answer even ONE SINGLE QUESTION, DEFEND EVEN ONE SINGLE CLAIM with anything but sneers, condescending remarks about the stupidity of others being his excuse for not needing to answer, changing from one subject to another as if each was an answer to the one previous, and in each one implying that he needn’t answer the question because I’m too stupid to understand it anyway.

    And then he claims that I’m given to ad hominem remarks?

    Tell me R. Gates, what would be the right word for someone who makes claims they cannot substantiate, responds to questions about them by changing the subject, and/or claiming that the person asking the question isn’t smart enough to understand the answer, and then when exposed for spouting nothing but BS, complains they’ve been the victim of an ad hominem attack? I can think of several.

    All you have to do R. Gates, to get some respect, is to respectfully answer the questions asked of you. Just defend your claims with the actual laws of physics, calculations, and observational evidence asked of you. No sneering, no condescending remarks about the inability of others to understand the science, no changing the subject, no “why should I even bother”, no excuses.

    Just answer the questions. Just one.

    Change of subject coming in three….two….

  172. Philip N:

    At August 31, 2011 at 3:58 pm I pointed out to you;

    A negative feedback prevents tropical ocean surface temperatures rising above 305K (i.e. present maximum ocean surface temperature). This was first discovered as long ago as 1991
    (ref. Ramanathan & Collins, Nature, v351, 27-32 (1991) )
    and has been confirmed by several studies since then.

    And I explained the matter.

    You have responded at August 31, 2011 at 6:53 pm by changing the subject and asking me;
    “If the temperature at the tropics is fixed, why are the glaciers disappearing?”
    and by making irrelevant comments concerning radiative physics.

    James Sexton answered both those responses at August 31, 2011 at 7:09 pm and I thank him for that.

    Now, at September 1, 2011 at 1:20 am, you have completely changed the subject and attempt to dispute the excellent post by James Sexton. We have a fine troll by the name of R Gates who behaves like that, and we do not need another.

    If you have a point you wish to present then present it. When your point is shown to be wrong then be grateful for the new knowledge you have been given.

    Richard

  173. Dave Worley:

    At August 31, 2011 at 10:22 pm you say to R Gates;
    “Notice also that Gates’ statement quoted above includes sublime imagery of humans “taking away” things from the planet. The imagery skillfully implies that we are a destructive lot.
    One simple example that I like to bring forward when confronted by folks attempting to portray humans in that manner is the wonderful gardens that most folks tend at their homes.”

    I think you may be amused by the following sermon illustration I have often used.

    A Cotswold village had a new vicar. The Sun was shining on the vicar’s first morning in his new parish, so he decided to stroll through the village with a view to meeting his parishoners.

    Very soon he came across a wall surrounding a garden with a Cotswold cottage at its center. The garden was beautiful. It was a riot of colourful flower beds among mown green grass. Among the flowers was a gentle stream that fell over a waterfall and made a pleasant sound as it sparkled in the sunlight. And a gravel path connected the front door of the cottage to a gate in the wall.

    A man stood on the path and was using a hoe to do mysterious things to a flower bed. So, the vicar leant on the fence with a view to starting a conversation. The gardener noticed the vicar and his collar but said nothing and continued working with the hoe.

    After a minute or two, the vicar decided to start a conversation, and he said;
    “You know, when I see a the beauty of a garden like this I am in awe of God’s Creation.”

    And the gardener replied;
    “Aye, Vicar, but you should have seen the garden when God had it to himself.”

    Richard

  174. @ Philip N.

    Phillip, it is the local land use that effect the glaciers more than anything else. As you know, ice, especially glacial ice, is in constant motion. As such, there will always be sublimation and melt. But, something needs to replace the loss of ice, and that is the cause of the loss. Nothing is replacing the ice. Local land use changes and normal as well as abnormal variations in the weather patterns cause this.

    Coincidentally, specific to Kilimanjaro, it seems the weather patterns have oscillated back to replacing the snow and ice.

    Here’s a couple of articles you may find interesting.

    “Vertical wall retreat that governs the retreat of plateau glaciers is irreversible, and changes in 20th century climate have not altered their continuous demise. Rapid retreat of slope glaciers at the beginning of the 20th century implies a strong departure from steady state conditions during this time. This strong imbalance can only be explained by a sudden shift in climate, which is not observed in the early 20th century. Results suggest glaciers on Kilimanjaro are merely remnants of a past climate rather than sensitive indicators of 20th century climate change.”

    http://europa.agu.org/?view=article&uri=/journals/gl/gl0616/2006GL027084/2006GL027084.xml

    http://europa.agu.org/?view=article&uri=/journals/jd/jd1103/2010JD014712/2010JD014712.xml

  175. R. Gates says:
    August 31, 2011 at 9:35 pm

    How is the fact that CO2 is a non-condensing greenhouse gas, and water vapor is not, dogma? It is not dogma to state that CO2 is critical to maintaining the wonderful greenhouse world we enjoy, and without it, not only would we all never have existed, the world would be quite cold.

    Since the CO2 IR window is overlapped by the H2O IR absorption spectrum, I doubt the removal of CO2 would have much effect on climate by itself. H2O would capture CO2’s missed IR, and backscatter additional GHE However, the death of all plant and animal life would have a dramatic effect on the climate. It is because H2O, is a condensing gas that it is the great stabilizer of climate. If temperature begins to cool, H2O begins to condense, releasing huge quantities of latent heat into atmosphere, providing a strong stabilizing negative feedback.

    As I said, any fairy tale will do, as they are non falsifiable statements. We cannot remove all CO2 from the atmosphere, and so any fiction will fly.

    Of course you are an intelligent, motivated, ideologically directed individual who already knows all of this. So therefore, the question: What ideology is motivating your disinformation, and what do you hope to achieve at this skeptical gathering?

    You have already stated:

    If you honestly believe that the earth would not become an ice planet without CO2, then whatever odd laws of physics you believe in do not match this reality and we have little common ground.

    So I repeat, since you admit no common ground, with this group, why do you insist on hanging out with us. It must be on powerful ideological and political purposes, or you would be over at RC, where everyone will suck up your ejaculated nonsense, with a great slurping delight.

    There is plenty of room here for dissenting opinion and contrary evidence, however everyone has had quite enough dogma, to last multiple lifetimes. Stick around, if you feel you must, but give us a break, with the gaia religious prattle and propaganda.

    I certainly hope you are retired, as you are rapidly making yourself unemployable as a researcher or any scientific methodology dependent career. GK

  176. DAV:

    At August 31, 2011 at 5:02 pm you say to me:

    “ My point is: it’s the correlation of the variables itself that’s important. Nothing else is required. Judea’s book explains the why and how of that. IOW, your On its own correlation says nothing about causation is not true. “

    Oh dear, NO!
    It is simply a fact that on its own correlation says nothing about causation.

    It is the logical fallacy known as ‘false cause’ to assume that correlation implies causation. This fallacy is also known by the Latin name of ‘cum hoc ergo propter hoc’ (i.e. “with this, therefore because of this”).

    If you and/or Judea dispute that then the two of you need to read some standard texts in both logic and statistics. In the interim, this may interest you

    http://seanbonner.com/blog/archives/001857.php

    Richard

  177. DAV;
    My point is: it’s the correlation of the variables itself that’s important. Nothing else is required. Judea’s book explains the why and how of that. IOW, your On its own correlation says nothing about causation is not true.>>>

    At a large family reunion I noticed two picnic tables lined with large aunties, all well over weight, and each and every one drinking diet soda.

    Correlation being 100%, I concluded that diet soda causes obesity.

  178. August 31, 2011 at 8:11 pm
    R. Gates;
    “… which earth would be without CO2, would not have hurricanes, then I seriously doubt anything I write would make any difference >>>”

    R. Gates I asked you about Jupiter but you have avoided that so what about Venus? It has lots of CO2 but as far as I know not one storm similar to a hurricane.

    Hurricanes are caused by among other things a warm rotating orb transferring heat convectivly into a viscous fluid perturbed by variable friction points on the orb under gravitation.

  179. davidmhoffer:

    In further promotion of a logical fallacy you write at September 1, 2011 at 7:57 am;

    “At a large family reunion I noticed two picnic tables lined with large aunties, all well over weight, and each and every one drinking diet soda.
    Correlation being 100%, I concluded that diet soda causes obesity.”

    Correlation being 100%, with equal validity you could conclude that the sisters have a common genetic disposition that causes obesity.

    Correlation indicates NOTHING about causality. Live with it.

    Richard

  180. Richard S Courtney says:
    September 1, 2011 at 6:07 am

    The vicar and the gardener…..
    Thanks for that bit of amusing (and artful) imagery!
    Grins…..

  181. davidmhoffer says: September 1, 2011 at 7:57 am …Correlation being 100%, I concluded that diet soda causes obesity.

    Ooops, when I said “nothing else required” I forgot about “reasoning”.

    It’s HOW they are correlated and WHEN (that is, in relationship with OTHER variables) that’s important. The old adage “Correlation does necessarily not imply causation” is only true for TWO variables (note the “necessarily” part). You always need at least three variables to reach a conclusion and sometimes more.

    A simple example: if you have three variables: A, B and C of which all are mutually correlated but A and B are independent (i.e., no longer correlated) when given C then C is at least one of the causes of A and B. C itself may have its own cause(s) (and probably does) but knowing C is sufficient for determining A and B provided it is the lone cause.

    Richard S Courtney September 1, 2011 at 9:44 am Correlation indicates NOTHING about causality. Live with it.

    Your dead wrong about that. Correlation is EVERYTHING (with proper reasoning, of course).

  182. I almost quit reading when the hypocritical fascist blowhard was mentioned, but I’ve learned to take strides – often immense – in putting aside certain fallacies, paradigms, or conflicts in hopes of finding genius within, so long as the errors aren’t too dizzying, massive, or dishonest. And this time, though certainly not always so, I was pleasantly surprised to find a reasonable rundown.

    Though it is like you said, Ryan – Fox knew quite well what they were doing in broadcasting this as bait. Generally I detest their psychomanipulative techniques (and yes, other networks use them also), but I certainly see a glaring positive in this use of that technique in that is exposed those who latched on to this incredibly poor argument of Bill Nye’s as having their rears superglued to their bandwagon, even if John Wayne Gacy hopped in the driver’s seat.

  183. I really have to chuckle at R. Gates, yet again. He reads a paper by an avowed warmist and then repeats it conclusions as if they were gospel. Well, they probably are gospel to his belief in the church of AGW but they are not gospel to those who have an open mind.

    Gates ignores the fact that as the planet cooled and water vapor was reduced that clouds would also be reduced. So, according to Gates the effect of fewer clouds is much less than the effect of CO2. Don’t know about anyone else, but I think that is pure BS.

    In addition, Gates continues to ignore the “cooling effect” of CO2. Not surprising since it is heretical to the beliefs of the church of AGW.

  184. Dave Worley says:
    August 31, 2011 at 10:22 pm
    “Like any house of cards, you might successfully remove a few here and there, but take away a few of the key cards, or enough other ones, and down it comes.”

    One of the advantages of the human mind is its ability to view (and rotate) objects solely within our imaginations in three dimensions. That advantage may also be used by manipulative individuals to conjure images such as a “house of cards” climate system, with “tipping points” looming on the horizon.

    Too bad the house of cards is a poor metaphor for our planet. It assumes that the climate and the ecosystem that adapts with it are inherently unstable. The many peaks and valleys in the climate record (and the fossil record) indicate that it just is not so.

    Notice also that Gates’ statement quoted above includes sublime imagery of humans “taking away” things from the planet. The imagery skillfully implies that we are a destructive lot.

    One simple example that I like to bring forward when confronted by folks attempting to portray humans in that manner is the wonderful gardens that most folks tend at their homes. They range from simple decorative shrubbery to some of the most extrordinary works of living art. Regardless of their level of complexity, all are an attempt to improve and beautify, not destroy, our world. There are too many similar examples in art, architecture, music, etc to name, and they are real, not imagined. That is our real nature, so don’t let any cynic get away with using hypothetical imagery of a destructive mankind to convince you otherwise. It’s simply not so.

    ______
    You’ve extended my post into your “ass-sumptions” of what my feelings were about human destructiveness, etc. when I said nothing of the sort. Human are capable of great destruction and great creation as well (as you aptly point out with your illustration of gardening).

  185. I went to school with bill nye at Cornell. He was an oddball then and nothing about him seems to have changed. Having him advocate for cagw is really good for those who are on the other side of the policy debate. He is way way out of his depth

  186. R. Gates;

    My apologies, it seems my list of R. Gates tactics was incomplete, I need to add a fourth category:

    1. BS. Present statements as if factual, but without supporting evidence.
    2. When challenged on 1. (above) reply with sneering condescension regarding the inability of the critic to understand the basics of a variety of vague references.
    3. Change the subject.
    ….and, when completely exposed for having not answered a single claim with a single supporting fact….
    4. Silence.

    I never thought he’d get to 4. since he repeated his position that responding (integrated with sneering condescending remarks) was not worth his time. If only he’d get to #4 with alacrity in the future!

  187. davidmhoffer:

    I apologise. I did fail to see the sarcasm.

    Please accept my apology for my error and my thanks for your pointing out the error.

    Richard

  188. R. Gates says:
    August 30, 2011 at 8:07 pm

    But, I would suggest you check your rationale for why you think Arctic sea would be increasing in year-to-year extent over the next few decades, and then, if it fails to do so, consider that there might be something to the notion that a 40% increase in CO2, and large increases in methane and nitrous oxide over the highest levels they’ve been at in at least 800,000 years might indeed be having an impact on the global climate, as every single global climate model tells us they will.

    If I had the time.., have you got this from a script sheet? (The non sequitur). Go on, tell us, who is actually involved in producing these?

    [For 800,000 thousand years of massive changes every 100,000 years from ice age to interglacials with accompanying hundreds of feet sea level rises, etc. etc., and then massive changes back into our Ice Age, these gases were irrelevant.]

  189. Richard S Courtney;

    No need to apologise, lol.

    I’m still trying to work on turning the diet soda and over weight aunties into a three variable model. Since many of them were there due to marriage, they come from different gene pools. However, they were all at picnic tables. I’m pretty certain that if I had removed the picnic tables, both the aunties and the diet sodas would have gone away too. On the other hand, if I had removed the aunties, the picnic tables and sodas would have remained unchanged. Now then there is the case of removing the sodas… on this I have evidence. Upon emptying a soda, the aunties choose a nearby niece or nephew, and in a very sweet voice, ask them to get another soda for them. However, this phenomenon occurs wherever the aunties are, a picnic table does not appear necessary. From this I conclude that:

    1. Aunties cause diet sodas to be delivered to themselves, with or without picnic tables.
    2. Picnic tables attract aunties, and the absence of picnic tables causes them to disperse.
    3. More information is required, as the nieces and nephews seem to be a variable in the equation. They may be fetching cabbage rolls and perogies as well. This may be a challenge to varify as removal of cabbage rolls and perogies seemed to result in auntie dispersal as well, followed by frantic cookiing to replenish supplies.

    I conclude that either the diet sodas or the frantic cooking cause obesity.

  190. R. Gates says:
    August 31, 2011 at 9:35 pm

    How is the fact that CO2 is a non-condensing greenhouse gas, and water vapor is not, dogma? It is not dogma to state that CO2 is critical to maintaining the wonderful greenhouse world we enjoy, and without it, not only would we all never have existed, the world would be quite cold.

    The “non-condensing greenhouse gas”, another scripted meme hiding non sequitur, has a crush on water in the atmosphere and oceans and on land, and water’s penchant for the non-condensing gas grabs every opportunity to hold its gassy darling really, really close, and when in that clinch a loving heat appears between the two getting ever stronger the hot and frenzied rapture raises them up into the skies where as they climax they fall apart, exhausted, but content, releasing all their heat they cool down and as they cool they look again to hold each other tight, to find the way to renew those wondrous feelings now but a vaporous memory, but what sorrow, the lovers are so far apart they can’t rejoin, but as their plaintive cries of separation echo louder and louder through the atmospheric realms an arm appears holding the book of instructions turned to page 8885bCSection453 which clearly states in no ambiguous terms, should water vapour desire to hold its beloved again in an embrace of mingled passion the solution is to do the housework first, clean up the dust and dirt around and the object of desire will be swept up too, and colder but wiser now the vaporous water condenses into tears of relief in sweeping up the debris in the skies and becoming again irresistably attractive to its lover scoops the non-condensing gassy darling into its very being and in their acid high fall to earth again as rain, content once more to be together, until a memory stirs..

    The Earth would be 67°C without the water cycle taking away the heat delivered by the Sun’s thermal infrared energy warming the land and oceans.

  191. Silicon Jon says

    “Though it is like you said, Ryan – Fox knew quite well what they were doing in broadcasting this as bait. Generally I detest their psychomanipulative techniques (and yes, other networks use them also), but I certainly see a glaring positive in this use of that technique in that is exposed those who latched on to this incredibly poor argument of Bill Nye’s as having their rears superglued to their bandwagon, even if John Wayne Gacy hopped in the driver’s seat.”

    Well said Ryan and Jon.

    Fox certainly knew what they were getting into, and Mr. Payne certainly knows his science, and it was obvious that Mr. Nye was caught completley off-guard by it. He probably thought he was dealing with some reporter who would swallow it all, hook line, and sinker.
    Watching Nye backpedal had me laughing off my seat. He really doesn’t know what he’s taking about.

  192. davidmhoffer September 1, 2011 at 5:21 pm I’m still trying to work on turning the diet soda and over weight aunties into a three variable model. … I conclude that either the diet sodas or the frantic cooking cause obesity.

    I’m guessing you missed the “sometimes more” part.
    You seem to have overlooked the possibility that obesity causes diet sodas. (Not as far-fetched as it sounds).

    Determining correlation is one of the tricky parts, BTW. An attempt at determining it without a complete sample is likely pointless. For instance, you also need to know if the diet sodas were present before the obesity. If you don’t know then you probably don’t have a complete sample. And if it wasn’t present at the on-set, the best you could say, given your information, is that it INCREASES obesity.

    Good luck on trying to find a counter example to what I’ve said (if that’s what you’re doing). If it weren’t true then no experiment could show causality as an experiment is just one of the means of collecting the necessary information. It does so by changing variable states (if possible) and/or altering the variable set. It’s still the way the variables are correlated given that information which is used to establish causality (or disprove it).

    But do go on. It looks like fun especially when there’s nothing better to do.

  193. DAV;

    I don’t need luck, all I need is real world experience. I was clowning around of course, but still making a point. Things are not always as they appear, and your 3 variable model while sound from a strictly mathematical perspective, is a really good way to get into deep deep trouble in the real world. This is the stuff that the “law of unintended consequences” is made of.

    The problem with your theoretical explanation of A, B, and C being correlated as a group, but A&B not being correlated when C is removed is pretty simple. In the real world however, we have to define A, B, and C, which is not so simple. Sometimes C is comprised of D, E, and F, but we don’t realise it. Sometimes A, B, and C are correlated, but only in the range we examined, not the complete range. Sometimes C causes X, or better still, some portion of X, and it is X that is root cause, not C. Removing C may result in A&B becoming uncorrelated because X went away, but when H, I or J increase to some level, causing X to be restored to the same level as C previously caused, suddenly A&B become correlated again.

    As an example appropriate to this forum, the average global temperature has risen over the last 150 years, with what seems like “acceleration” from about 1980 to 2000. Loosely, but not well, correlated with CO2 increases. We can easily make the “acceleration” go away by realising that “average global temperature” is comprised of (for this example) North and South Hemisphere averages. Let’s call “average global temperature” A, which is comprised of the average of NH and SH.

    If we look at NASA/GISS or HadCrut, and break NH and SH apart, we find that NH has about a 60 to 75 year warm/cool cycle. But SH has more like a 90 105 year cycle. Hard to tell with only 150 years of data of course, but the point is that for much of the global temperature record, NH was rising while SH was falling, and vice versa. But around 1980 or so (I’m going from memory here) both SH and NH entered warming phases. So….

    If we make the assumption that “A” is a single factor, we see accelerated warming for the latter part of the 20th century. But when we understand that A is actually comprised of the average of NH and SH, and that for most of the record they tend to cancel each other out for the most part, but for that last little bit they happen to be additive instead, we get a different perspective.

    And that is just scratching the surface of the difference between theoretical math, and the real world.

    Regards,
    dmh

  194. davidmhoffer September 1, 2011 at 10:17 pm … your 3 variable model while sound from a strictly mathematical perspective, is a really good way to get into deep deep trouble in the real world.

    You keep referring to it as a 3-variable model. I still guessing you missed the “at least 3″ and “sometimes more” parts. It is also possible to poke your eye out with a screwdriver when used improperly. So what? Does that mean a screwdriver doesn’t work or shouldn’t be used when appropriate?

    The problem with your theoretical explanation of A, B, and C being correlated as a group, but A&B not being correlated when C is removed is pretty simple. … Sometimes C is comprised of D, E, and F, but we don’t realise it.

    C is still a cause of A&B if it renders them independent when present. I did NOT say it was the ONLY cause. In fact, I was careful to avoid that. It is irrelevant that C has its own causes.

    Sometimes C causes X, or better still, some portion of X, and it is X that is root cause, not C. Removing C may result in A&B … but when H, I or J increase to some level, causing X to be restored ..

    if C ==> X ==> A&B then C is still a cause of A&B. It really doesn’t matter that X may have other causes unless you need to know ALL of the causes of A&B. That in itself is irrelevant to determining if C is a cause A&B. (please do note the “a cause” part — it’s NOT the same as “the only cause”). Pulling the trigger causes the gun to fire if all else is working properly. It is still true regardless of whether the gun might fire when dropped.

    Indeed, determining correlation, and subsequently, independence is the tricky part. I did not say it was easy. My whole point is that correlation is the ONLY factor used in determining cause. It is tiresome to keep hearing that it is irrelevant to the task.

  195. DAV:

    At September 2, 2011 at 11:22 am you say;

    “My whole point is that correlation is the ONLY factor used in determining cause. It is tiresome to keep hearing that it is irrelevant to the task.”

    The facts are:
    1. Absence of correlation disproves causation.
    but
    2. Presence of correlation does NOT imply causation.

    You say you find it “tiresome” to keep hearing the truth, but your weariness does not stop the truth being true.

    Accept the facts and your weariness will assuage.

    Richard

  196. Richard,

    Think about what you are saying.

    If “Absence of correlation disproves causation” then the opposite (i.e., its presence) must imply the possibility of causation. IOW: correlation is a requirement for causation. You can’t have it both ways.

    It also wouldn’t hurt to think about what I’ve been saying — at least a little more carefully.

    If it’s any consolation you are not alone. Conversations like this crop up everywhere. It lead me to write this review:

    http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=2915

    I still recommend that book.

  197. No one said it was irrelevant to the task. But consider your position and how it has changed through this thread. You began with how simple it was, and correlation was the only important factor. Swiftly debunked by the diet soda causes obesity example. Then your explanation became, welll, you need some reasoning, and three variables not two, good luck debunking that. Your logic above gets even more complex while you try to maintain that it isn’t easy, but that correlation remains the only factor. At each step you keep adding more steps and requirements to make your oiriginal position true. You’ve now arrived at a point where neither your theory nor your example are true.

    Your theory (and I quote)
    if C ==> X ==> A&B then C is still a cause of A&B. It really doesn’t matter that X may have other causes unless you need to know ALL of the causes of A&B. That in itself is irrelevant to determining if C is a cause A&B.>>>

    WRONG! In your own example, C is NOT a cause of A&B. C is an INDIRECT cause of A&B. ANYTHING that causes X is an INDIRECT cause of A&B. Since C is NOT the cause of A&B in your own example, the balance of your argument similarly falls apart. It isn’t “unless” you need to know “all” the causes, it is that you DO need to know ALL the causes in order to eliminate false positives…which your reasoning above provides an example regarding the importance of. Your last sentence is completely false as a result as well.

    Your real world example (and I quote)
    Pulling the trigger causes the gun to fire if all else is working properly. It is still true regardless of whether the gun might fire when dropped. >>>

    The gun fires when the firing pin strikes the bullet’s primer jacket with sufficient force to ignite the primer. This could be accomplished by:

    pulling the trigger
    dropping it (assuming it is a cheap piece of poorly designed crap)
    hitting the gun’s hammer (assuming it has an exposed hammer) with a rock

    If a gun has been fired, was it because the trigger was pulled? It was dropped? Someone hit it with a rock? Answer: You do not know. In fact, you do not even know that the gun was fired at all. Old ammunition becomes unstable. The gun might have been exposed to heat. And so on.

    In other words, “unless” you need to know “all” the possible causes is a complete break down in logic. You MUST know all the possible causes in order to design an experiment that produces data of any value at all for quantifying ANY given cause.

    Correlation alone is sadly, and completely, ineffective.

  198. davidmhoffer September 2, 2011 at 4:41 pm Correlation alone is sadly, and completely, ineffective.

    I’m afraid your diet coke problem only showed how to abuse concepts with inappropriate application. It did nothing to negate what I’ve said. I made a correctio though stating the need for “reason” as well. Perhaps, I should have added “common sense”.

    Please show me where I have substantially changed what I’ve been saying.

    Other than that, correlation alone is what is used everywhere (in science vs. philosophy or math). Show me a case where cause has been shown through the use of actual data and not done so through correlation. I bet I can show you that wasn’t the case.

    Just for a quick example (which I hope you won’t abuse): Suppose one intends to determine if A cause B or vice versa through experiment. One of the ways would be to take control of the states of A and or B. This actually introduces two variables A-controlled and B-controlled and maybe others such as A-controlled-how, etc. The results are evaluated using relationships of those and the original variables. It is their correlations which is used. All the experiment did was supply the information. If pertinent data were lying about then those could have been used instead — a practice quite common in astronomy or epidemiology.

    Another example: if you are testing a model, you are looking for correlation with your predictions.

    No matter how you look at it, correlation is the final arbiter.
    Shall I go on?

    The problem with your theoretical explanation of A, B, and C being correlated as a group, but A&B not being correlated when C is removed is pretty simple.

    Just incidentally (and this may have been a typo in your case) but I think you misunderstood my simple example. For one, I said C is a cause if A&B become uncorrelated given C and NOT when C is removed. It also is a requirement that all three are mutually correlated. It only applies in the case of three variables. It is a rule like x+0=x. Your objections really amount to: “Oh Yeah? What about x+12?” Secondly, I never addressed the absence of C. If A&B become uncorrelated in the absence of C it’s likely that A&C==>B or B&C==>A. More testing needed, of course. Send more money!

    WRONG! In your own example, C is NOT a cause of A&B. C is an INDIRECT cause of A&B.

    My! Such certainty. In my world there is Cause and there is Effect. They don’t come in different flavors and colors. An indirect cause is still a cause. Red cars don’t stop being cars because they are red. In fact, one (cause) is the tail of an arrow and the other (effect) is the head in a directed acyclic graph. The arrow can be replaced with a chain when appropriate. Likewise, a chain can be replaced with an arrow. Insisting on such distinctions is pointless. You will never find “The” cause as there are is always one more thing in the chain. Answering Why is an infinitely recursive process. Where would you draw the line?

    In the gun example, it’s not the finger pulling the trigger that fires the gun but is instead the activation of the the firing mechanism. In turn, it’s the firing mechanism hitting the primer. And even, then it’s really the reaction of the primer when it is stuck. Care to bet if I can find more reasons along the way to determining the “Ultimate Cause” of the gun firing? Why distinguish between them? Maybe it depends on what you are trying to do? Until I know, they are all causes to me

    If a gun has been fired, was it because the trigger was pulled? It was dropped? Someone hit it with a rock? Answer: You do not know.

    You are right. I don’t. I have been talking about cause in the sense of how the flow of causation would be diagrammed. It is a first and necessary step in determining past events if knowledge of those is desired. It is what is being done when examining possible causes of X. The question in climatology today is not so much “DID CO2 cause warming?” but is instead “DOES CO2 cause warming?”. The latter is the form I am addressing but what I’ve said doesn’t change the ways I would go about determining the DID answer as it would still be necessary to know if DOES is true.

    I suspect I’ve studied this and thought about it much longer and in more detail than you have. If that is your only true objection, you have entirely missed the point.

    This conversation is quickly reaching a dead-end. Don’t you agree?
    It’s been fun. Read Judea’s book if you get the chance.

  199. Yup, it is a dead end.
    You don’t understand what a false positive is, nor do you understand that drawing conclusions from indirect causes without differentiating them from the direct causes is a complete breakdown in scientific process. I suggest from your answers which are rooted strictly in mathematical constructs, and your appeal to authority (read Judea’s book) that you have done little or no work with actual real world systems.

    I suggest you do if you get the chance.

  200. Oh, I know what false positives are.

    Logic is a strictly non-“real world” construct. It should be used more.

    The graphing of cause is applying logic to causality and even answers some of the questions you have raised but you have to understand what is being said first. One of my fields of study is ontology (in the computer science sense). But then knowing how we know things is not exactly “real world” is it? Cause is one of its subjects of discourse.

    Objecting to use because it is a “mathematical construct” is like objecting to using statistics because it, too, is a “mathematical construct” (unless you are a REAL mathematician, that is :) ). The same with calculus. What exactly is the problem with using logic and math to get solutions?

    I do use this stuff for real world applications. Every day, too. Even to the point of placing my money with it. Haven’t gone broke yet. Maybe those evil chickens will come back to roost someday, eh? Many of the same concepts are used in some of my robotics works, also. But of course, I’m not all that knowledgeable about the real world as some so what do I know?

    your appeal to authority (read Judea’s book)

    Tsk! Is being insulting really necessary? I suggested Judea’s book because his explanations might be better for you (and Richard) and he supplies far more detail. Plus I feel I owe him a book push ;) He also covers things like experimental design which I believe you tizzied about or at least had only questions without answers (I could have answered some them but fear you think you know best). The book is one of the clearest on the subject (i.e., most easily read). But there’s little point in reading it if you already know everything there is to know. Horse to water and all that. Where did you get your ideas BTW? It doesn’t sound like you’ve ever really thought about this stuff in any detail or for very long. Your objections sound like rote responses instilled during some far-off training. It might not hurt to take a step back and ask how you know what you think you know. Then adjust accordingly. I do that every day. Try it, you might like it.

    Ciao

  201. DAV:

    At September 2, 2011 at 3:25 pm you say to me;

    “Think about what you are saying.
    If “Absence of correlation disproves causation” then the opposite (i.e., its presence) must imply the possibility of causation.”

    No!
    And your assertion of what you think “must” be demonstrates your error.
    I explain the matter for the last time as follows, and I shall ignore any further posts from you about this issue.

    If one effect causes another then the two effects correlate.
    Therefore, if two effects do not correlate then one does not cause the other.

    But two effects may correlate for any of several reasons; e.g.
    chance,
    both are affected by something else,
    both are caused by something else,
    etc.

    Therefore, if two effects correlate it implies that e.g.
    they have varied with syncronicity by chance,
    or
    both are affected by something else,
    or
    both are caused by something else,
    or
    etc.

    Something which implies almost everything really implies nothing.

    Correlation implies nothing about causality.
    Absence of correlation disproves causality.

    You need to think about what I am saying.

    Richard

  202. Richard,

    The only way its absence could disprove anything is when its presence is otherwise required. Think about it.

  203. DAV;
    The “insult” stands, it is an excellent ripost to your pontification from a position of self appointed superior authority. You’ve implied that I said things that I didn’t, and nothing pisses me off more than that. You imply you have answers to questions I raised, but won’t bother to answer them. Almost as bad.

    The final retreat of anyone who’s argument is hollow is to a barrage of verbal complexity that establishes nothing but a broad vocabulary. G’day sir. I’m dropping this thread. Richard S Courtney got it right, and you would do well to think about his words as well.

  204. The “insult” stands, it is an excellent ripost[sic]

    Sorry to hear insult was intended although I’m surprised you overlooked the tie-in to Hitler. Ah, Well. The shame is yours. When an insult becomes an “excellent ripost[sic]” it says much about how you perceive the strength your argument. You would do well to avoid such ripostes in the future.

    As for Richard, if presence implies SOMETHING it is not obviously implying NOTHING. I said it allowed the possibility and he claims that was in total error but so be it.

  205. DAV wrote:

    ” I said it allowed the possibility and he [i.e. me] claims that was in total error but so be it.”

    He is in total error. I summarise the matter for any who have become confused by this discussion.

    The fact that nobody has sampled the center of the Moon means it is possible that the center of the Moon is made of green cheese, but this fact does NOT imply the center of the Moon is made of green cheese.
    Similarly,
    The fact that two parameters correlate means it is possible that they have a causal relationship, but this fact does NOT imply they do have a causal relationship.

    However, correlation is a prerequisite of a causal relationship and, therefore, absence of correlation between two parameters proves they do not have a causal relationship.

    A similar point of logic which confuses some people is as follows.
    Absence of evidence (for something) is not evidence of absence (of the something).
    And, no, I am not going to explain or elaborate on that.

    Richard

  206. The fact that two parameters correlate means it is possible that they have a causal relationship, but this fact does NOT imply they do have a causal relationship.

    Indeed, that is what I have been saying all along. Go back and read my original post You even quoted me saying If “Absence of correlation disproves causation” then the opposite (i.e., its presence) must imply the possibility of causation.” and the very first word in your response was “No!”

    See here:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/08/30/bill-nye-is-the-anti-science-guy-when-it-comes-to-global-warming-and-hurricanes/#comment-735435

    “Implying the possibility” is implying SOMETHING (i.e., the possibility). You have repeatedly said the implication is NOTHING. It’s not just word play. Jumping from SOMETHING to NOTHING is muddled reasoning. You have spent quite a bit of bandwidth promoting it. That kind of reasoning gets in the way of understanding.

    What I have been saying is that eventually it is correlation (or its absence) that used to make the ultimate determination. I invite you to find a case where that is not so.

  207. To Nye: 2 “tens of thousands of nautical miles” would have you about where you started, having circumnavigated the globe. Duh.

    Skaggs: the queasier you “sustainable” double-talkers are made to feel, the better. Your mantra is political code for reversion to imaginary past “balance points” which never existed. Anyone using the word is wholesaling BS.

  208. I have to laugh when I hear people say, “Our computer models prove global warming!” What do they think a computer model is? I’m a software engineer by profession, so I can tell you: It’s a set of rules and formulas, that describe how you THINK the thing you are modeling behaves. It’s a game. If the rules of the game are close enough to the real world, then the game will be “realistic”. But anyone who’s played a computer game can tell you that sometimes the rules are wildly unrealistic, whether to make the game more playable or because real life is just too hard. Like, in many computer games, when you get killed, you promptly come back to life to play some more. Would anyone in his right mind claim that this is PROOF of life after death?

    If you can feed data for, say, 1900 to 1950 into your computer model, give it no data after that date, and it successfully predicts 1951 to 1960, then you might have some evidence that your rules are accurate. If you can then take exactly the same set of rules, feed in data for another set of years and successfully predict the years following, and you can do this for any given set of years, then you’ve got something very convincing. But this is exactly what the global warming folks computer models DON’T do. They can’t even successfully predict the past, but we’re supposed to believe they can predict the future.

Comments are closed.