248 thoughts on “Weekend Open Thread

  1. A little limerick I penned in response to the goings on this week. It is a parody of a famous one of over fifty years ago which itself was a parody of a late Victorian one. As far as I can trace there were several variants of both and to my surprise they appear to have been by our old friend Anonymous. Anyway:

    I dislike this whole climate scam
    There’s Muller, McKibben and Mann
    Mann’s tree rings are bunk
    Mullers stats are all junk
    And McKibben just weeps all he can.

    A.J.G Jones

    Hope you and the readers enjoy.

    Kindest Regards

  2. Another science writer bites the dust, caught out by fabricating Bob Dylan quotes for his book on creativity:

    “The Fall Of A Hipster Intellectual ”

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damianthompson/100174768/jonah-lehrer-the-fall-of-a-hipster-intellectual/

    Let’s look up his AGW views…yep, just what the doctor (of popular delusions) ordered, via a quick Google search:

    “Lehrer published a comment on his blog, The Frontal Cortex, where he denied that he was implicitly questioning science and scientific methods in any way. In the same blog comment, Lehrer stated that he was not questioning fundamental scientific theories such as the theory of evolution by natural selection and global warming by calling them “two of the most robust and widely tested theories of modern science”.

    And a history of pushing post-normal science:

    “If Lehrer didn’t really mean that belief in a given scientific claim is always a matter of choice, why did he say it?”

  3. This is a revision of a wuwt comment of mine that I just left at jnova, and it seems to be going over pretty well there, and because I think the idea behind it is important, I wanted to make the comment here as well:
    Around 1990 a huge amount of politically driven funds were being funneled into fields supporting the global warming hypothesis. Further, arguably nearly all of the post 1990 climatologists did not get accepted to their programs without agreeing with the “science” of the warmists. In this sense, these post 1990 vintage climatologists by and large lack credibility on the subject of… climate. Seriously. And here’s a good comment from the dailymail:

    - Chrome from San Francisco [said] “It is funny how every story supposedly challenging climate change has an “expert” who isn’t a climatologist. In this case it is a guy with no quoted credentials from a geography department. Why anyone would think an unknown geographer is credible on climate change I have no idea.”
    Yes but you see until recently there wasn’t a science called “climatology”, there were meteorologists, physicists, geographers etc. Then along come a load of activists calling themselves climatologists and bingo – no one else has a right to comment. Argumentum ad verecundiam at its finest.

  4. A little hiatus for the next 2 weeks at notrickszone so I’ll repost a comment of mine, a bit of news from Germany I stumbled across today…

    Desertec, the idea of producing solar electricity for Europe in the Sahara, founded by the Club Of Rome and today accompanied by the industry consortium DII, with members like Siemens, Eon and RWE, is basically dead, writes Der Stern in its print edition.

    E-on reacted defiantly, pledging their unwavering allegiance to desertec.
    (German:)

    http://www.welt.de/newsticker/news3/article108419446/E-on-bekennt-sich-zu-Desertec.html

    Der Stern BTW, are 100% warmist Hamburgers and pro-renewables at any price. They write that Desertec/DII applied for 1.5 bn EUR subsidies to be paid by the German electricity user so they can continue with a 600 MW solar plant in Morocco. (using some statistical tricks to make it appear as if the electricity produced down there does anything good for the German consumer. Of course it would be consumed in Morocco and Spain)

    Looks pretty bad for them.

    They have one interesting number. Even given the high insolation in Morocco, the price for a produced solar-thermal kWh would be 22 Eurocents. End consumer price in Morocco is 4 Eurocents. (“subsidized” writes Der Stern, but they don’t qualify that.)

    In shady Germany, production of one PV kWh is already cheaper than 22 Eurocents… (current FIT for new installations is max. 20.76 Eurocents).

    So it looks like the ever cheaper silicon PV panels have destroyed the economic basis of the Desertec technology.

  5. UAH for July at 0.28.

    2012 in Perspective so far on Five Data Sets

    2012 started off rather cold but has warmed up since then. So the present rank is not the most meaningful number. Therefore I will also give what the ranking would be assuming the latest month’s anomaly will continue for the rest of the year. I will also indicate what is required for the rest of the year in each case to set a new record.

    Note the bolded numbers for each data set where the lower bolded number is the highest anomaly recorded so far in 2012 and the higher one is the all time record so far. There is no comparison.

    With the UAH anomaly for July at 0.28, the average for the first seven months of the year is (-0.089 -0.111 + 0.111 + 0.299 + 0.289 + 0.369 + 0.28)/7 = 0.164. If the average stayed this way for the rest of the year, its ranking would be 9th. This compares with the anomaly in 2011 at 0.153 to rank it 9th for that year. On the other hand, if the rest of the year averaged the July value, which is more likely if the El Nino gets stronger, then 2012 would come in at 0.212 and it would rank 5th. 1998 was the warmest at 0.428. The highest ever monthly anomalies were in February and April of 1998 when it reached 0.66. In order for a new record to be set in 2012, the average for the last 5 months of the year would need to be 0.80. Since this is above the highest monthly anomaly ever recorded, it is virtually impossible for 2012 to set a new record.

    With the GISS anomaly for June at 0.56, the average for the first six months of the year is (0.34 + 0.41 + 0.47 + 0.56 + 0.64 + 0.56)/6 = 0.497. This is about the same as in 2011 when it was 0.514 and ranked 9th for that year. 2010 was the warmest at 0.63. The highest ever monthly anomalies were in March of 2002 and January of 2007 when it reached 0.88. If the June anomaly continued for the rest of the year, 2012 would end up 9th. In order for a new record to be set in 2012, the average for the last 6 months of the year would need to be 0.76. Since this is close to the highest monthly anomaly ever recorded, it is virtually impossible for 2012 to set a new record.

    With the Hadcrut3 anomaly for June at 0.477, the average for the first six months of the year is (0.217 + 0.194 + 0.305 + 0.481 + 0.475 + 0.477)/6 = 0.358. This would rank 11th if it stayed this way. This is slightly above the anomaly in 2011 which was at 0.34 to rank it 12th for that year. 1998 was the warmest at 0.548. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in February of 1998 when it reached 0.756. If the June anomaly continued for the rest of the year, 2012 would end up 9th. In order for a new record to be set in 2012, the average for the last 6 months of the year would need to be 0.738. Since this is close to the highest monthly anomaly ever recorded, it is virtually impossible for 2012 to set a new record. One has to back to the 1940s to find the previous time that a Hadcrut3 record was not beaten in 10 years or less.

    With the sea surface anomaly for June at 0.351, the average for the first six months of the year is (0.203 + 0.230 + 0.242 + 0.292 + 0.339 + 0.351)/6 = 0.276. This is about the same as in 2011 when it was 0.273 and ranked 12th for that year. 1998 was the warmest at 0.451. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in August of 1998 when it reached 0.555. If the June anomaly continued for the rest of the year, 2012 would end up 10th. In order for a new record to be set in 2012, the average for the last 6 months of the year would need to be 0.63. Since this is above the highest monthly anomaly ever recorded, it is virtually impossible for 2012 to set a new record.

    With the RSS anomaly for June at 0.338, the average for the first six months of the year is (-0.058 -0.121 + 0.074 + 0.333 + 0.233 + 0.338)/6 = 0.133. If the average stayed this way for the rest of the year, its ranking would be 13th. This compares with the anomaly in 2011 at 0.147 to rank it 12th for that year. 1998 was the warmest at 0.55. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in April of 1998 when it reached 0.857. If the June anomaly continued for the rest of the year, 2012 would end up 8th. In order for a new record to be set in 2012, the average for the last 6 months of the year would need to be 0.97. Since this is above the highest monthly anomaly ever recorded, it is virtually impossible for 2012 to set a new record.

    So on all five of the above data sets, for their latest anomaly average, the 2012 average so far is close to that of 2011. If present trends continue, 2012 will be warmer than 2011, but a record is out of reach on all sets. My projection for the five sets above is that 2012 will come in from 5th to 10th.

    On all data sets, the different times for a slope that is flat for all practical purposes range from 10 years and 10 months to 15 years and 7 months. Following is the longest period of time (above 10 years) where each of the data sets is more or less flat. (*For any positive slope, the exponent is no larger than 10^-5, except UAH which is 0.0018436 per year or 0.18/century up to June. The July value will not change it much. So while it is not flat, the slope is not statistically significant either.)

    1. UAH: since October 2001 or 10 years, 10 months (goes to July, but note * above)
    2. GISS: since May 2001 or 11 years, 2 months (goes to June)
    3. Combination of the above 4: since October 2000 or 11 years, 6 months (goes to March) (Hadcrut3 is SLOW!!)
    4. HadCrut3: since January 1997 or 15 years, 3 months (goes to March)
    5. Sea surface temperatures: since January 1997 or 15 years, 6 months (goes to June)
    6. RSS: since December 1996 or 15 years, 7 months (goes to June)
    RSS is 187/204 or 91.7% of the way to Santer’s 17 years.
    7. Hadcrut4: since December 2000 or 11 years, 7 months (goes to June using GISS. See below.)

    See the graph below to show it all for #1 to #6.

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1997/trend/plot/gistemp/from:2001.33/trend/plot/rss/from:1996.9/trend/plot/wti/from:2000.75/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1997/trend/plot/uah/from:2001.75/trend

    For #7: Hadcrut4 only goes to December 2010 so what I did was get the slope of GISS from December 2000 to the end of December 2010. Then I got the slope of GISS from December 2000 to the present. The DIFFERENCE in slope was that the slope was 0.0045 lower for the total period. The positive slope for Hadcrut4 was 0.0041 from December 2000. So IF Hadcrut4 were totally up to date, and IF it then were to trend like GISS, I conclude it would show no slope for at least 11 years and 7 months going back to December 2000. (By the way, doing the same thing with Hadcrut3 gives the same end result, but GISS comes out much sooner each month.) See:

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2000/to/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2000.9/trend/plot/gistemp/from:2000/plot/gistemp/from:2000.9/to:2011/trend/plot/gistemp/from:2000.9/trend

  6. I have robustly detected a subharmonic of the terrestrial polar motion signal in southern ocean & southeast pacific SSTs. This finding came about as a side-consequence of running careful diagnostics on a 13.44 year envelope in annual timescale LOD variations that beats with the solar modulation of semi-annual terrestrial hemispheric westerly winds to yield a ~62.5 year wave. Interestingly, this framework lines up perfectly with Jupiter-Earth-Venus tidal cycles, D-O/Bond (~1470 year) Event cycles, and also gives a 205 year wave (de Vries cycle). Everything points to the coupling of evaporation & wind. I can taste the cracking of the code of ENSO itself, which is the final obstacle to decisively defeating mainstream misconception, but revelation comes on its own schedule. I humbly request serious financial assistance from anyone capable. The end of life may clock me out before I can reach revelation if I have to keep operating on such severely constrained free time & resources. It takes a fair amount of courage to ask for help this way. I have no alternatives for circumventing absolute mainstream institutional research funding prejudices.

    http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/thread-1895.html

  7. Smokey says:
    August 4, 2012 at 12:45 pm
    Open Thread! Everything off topic is now on topic!☺
    ==============================================================
    8-) Hard to pick a favorite. 5 or 10 maybe?
    Regarding click18, maybe if we’d only done 26 of those 51 things we wouldn’t be talking about CAGW now? 8-)

  8. DirkH says: “…it looks like the ever cheaper silicon PV panels have destroyed the economic basis of the Desertec technology.”

    Yes, the sun is going down on thermal solar.

  9. Mr Lynn says:

    August 4, 2012 at 12:14 pm

    Hansen is back at it!

    All the ‘extreme weather’ is caused by ‘climate change’.

    He really said, “It’s worse than we thought.”

    Hansen is worse then we thought.

  10. Paul Vaughan says:
    August 4, 2012 at 1:09 pm
    I can taste the cracking of the code of ENSO itself, which is the final obstacle to decisively defeating mainstream misconception, but revelation comes on its own schedule
    As Richard Feynman once said: “the easiest one to fool is oneself”.

  11. There is a good interview with Dr. Richard Muller of BEST fame at

    http://www.bradblog.com/?p=9453.

    My take on it is Muller comes off very sympathetically in spite of his belief that all the warming shown in BEST is anthropogenic and that nonsense about his claim to being a recent convert from skepticism. He decries Al Gore’s gross exaggerations and errors, he doubts that current weather events can be linked to climate change and he still reviles the shenanigans of the hockey team.
    Tucker was pleasant enough during the interview but reveals in his blog that he thinks he knows more about climate science than Muller. The guy sounds like a arrogant dick. He claims to be a recent convert from skepticism but as is often the case, new converts are the most extreme fanatics.
    The co-interviewer, Betsy Rosenberg, came of as a scientific ignoramus with a one track mind occupied with the recent weather in the US. Dr,. Muller said that the US was only a small part of the globe and that elsewhere there was significant cooling, he mentioned the effects of ENSO and oceanic oscillations, but Rosenberg would not listen. A true “ecotard”.

  12. JohnWho says:
    August 4, 2012 at 1:31 pm
    Mr Lynn says:

    August 4, 2012 at 12:14 pm

    Hansen is back at it!

    All the ‘extreme weather’ is caused by ‘climate change’.

    He really said, “It’s worse than we thought.”

    ============================================================
    Now we know the source of the “wierd” in “weather wierding”.

  13. Paul Vaughan

    I’m sure you would stand a lot more chance of support if you could explain what the h*ck your fascinating graphs are about, in common ordinary English. They really do look fascinating but you keep shooting yourself in the foot with cryptic comments.

    I am aware that certain topics here get more or less short-changed, in substantial part because they generate polarized opinions with small and diminishing amounts of factual information. I am also aware that the prime aching heartrending current need is to reclaim the integrity (and the basic science) that has been lost in Climate Science, and that in this sense, although I’ve seen unacceptable prejudice on “both” sides, EU, AO, LENR, etc really does not matter so much right now, although the proper appraisal of such subjects does belong to Science in the future – when integrity is restored.

    I apologize for my own cryptic abbreviations, but those who need to understand will I trust do so. I do not want to fan the flames of topics that are, now, largely OT with regard to what Anthony and mods can cope with.

    Yet I also believe that this currently necessary limit to WUWT is a limit to the breadth of its science, that I sincerely and passionately hope will, in the future, when integrity is restored, be relaxed again, and more supportive relations re-established with such as Tallbloke – which is maybe where your work would fit better for now.

  14. Sungha Jung is a child guitar prodigy and YouTube superstar with 570 videos uploaded so far with over 500 million views. He has toured the world, played with many top finger style guitarists, has written at least 25 of his own pieces, has two CDs, played at a state dinner hosted by the South Korean President, and he’s just 15. He learns these pieces in 2 or 3 days by ear. He can play anything he decides he wants to learn. He also plays ukelele.

  15. I’ve seen a limerick posted so here’s a poem from my wife, Susan, with some of her own musings on CAGW… You’ll love it!

    I’m Confused!

    Now, I know that science says that global warming
    is exacerbated at the hand of man
    burning fossil fuels; such pitfalls cause the rising
    temperature, and this is set to damn
    the planet’s verdant future for poor children
    who will never see a polar bear or snow.
    But before I bend to conscience-pricking preaching,
    there’s a few nit-picking things I need to know.

    Just how is it the forecast for tomorrow
    does not reflect the findings of today?
    Weathermen leave summer picnics drowned in sorrow
    with promises of gold, all swept away
    in a flood of wishy-washy information
    in shades of grey in should-have-been blue skies.
    Could this be why my mind wraps round the notion
    that a hundred year prediction could be lies?

    So, should I spend my cash on pricy panels
    that heat my home with solar energy,
    thus saving our endangered, furry mammals
    when the shine of sun eludes the likes of me?
    And what about those planet-saving turbines
    embracing wind with should-be-spinning blades,
    outdone by the power of singing wind chimes
    with the odd turn killing birds and bats in spades?

    Should I sell my car and favour walking
    without a carbon footprint to digress
    from that trail of ‘Save Our Ailing World From Dying’
    in the name of green, pollutant-free progress?
    Now science says that nature’s out there plotting
    to drop a bovine bomb, to be aware
    that cows’ behinds are capable of killing –
    but what if all these finds are mere hot air?

    And how is it that temperatures at night time
    can drop from thirty-one down to thirteen,
    when in one hundred years a minor rising
    of two degrees will cause the earth to scream?
    Please help me, for I want to understand this
    threat to every species we hold dear –
    I want to know that all extorted taxes
    are going to a cause that’s crystal clear.

  16. Paul Vaughan says:

    August 4, 2012 at 1:09 pm

    I have robustly detected a subharmonic of the terrestrial polar motion signal in southern ocean & southeast pacific SSTs………………
    ================
    I knew someone would.

  17. Don’t blame you Anthony – its a helluva pace you keep, I don’t know how you do it. But most impressive (to me) was how professionally you responded to Zeke and Mosh. You set a great standard – inspirational really. Its impacted me in what I do as well.

  18. Has anyone worked with the BEST and NOAA data?

    I just compared the newest BEST for Alabama with the NOAA monthly data and found a 1960 pivot point. BEST data is warmer than NOAA post 1960 and cooler than NOAA pre-1960.

    http://sunshinehours.wordpress.com/2012/08/04/best-minus-noaa-wow-best-has-cooled-the-pre-1960-data-and-warmed-the-post-1960-data-for-alabama/

    I don’t totally trust my results but it explains why they didn’t find any cooling in the southeast USA.

  19. Amino Acids in Meteorites says:
    August 4, 2012 at 12:54 pm

    Very pleasantly surprised Gene.

    As it’s open thread, can anyone point me to a free replacement for Flash & PDF reader that integrate with Firefox on WinDoze?
    Google doesn’t seem to be a great help. :-(

    DaveE.

  20. Paul Vaughan says:
    August 4, 2012 at 1:09 pm
    “I have robustly detected a subharmonic of the terrestrial polar motion signal …..”

    Paul, you need someone to translate gobbledygook (jargon) if you can’t say it in good expository English. This abstruse manner of speech says more about you than it does about the subject. And, BTW, you haven’t “robustly detected..” (here robustly modifies detected, e.g. you may have robustly detected something insignificant) you have detected an unambiguous signal of something or other. I suspect that you are a bright guy but try to get the stuff across clearly without trying to impress others with yourself. You are, afterall, asking for cash. It should be an advertisement in the manner of selling your product. I hope this criticism is received as a piece of goodwill.

  21. Paul Vaughan

    As you can see few of us can understand your particular field, where you currently are with research, and where you hope funding will take you in future.

    To help us and you, why not write a ten line summary of what you have done to date, what you hope to do in the future and what end purpose that will achieve.

    You have to ‘sell’ your project but none of us have any idea at present what we might be buying should we purchase (fund) it.
    All the best
    Tonyb

  22. Here in OZ we’re forever berated with all sorts of stories by Flannery, CSIRO and pollies etc about future dangerous SLR.
    Here is a graph of how much Antarctica ( 89% of planet’s ice) and Greenland ( 10% of ice) will contribute to SLR until 2300 or next 300 years.

    http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/364/1844/1709/F4.expansion.html

    Antarctica shows all models are negative to SLR and Greenland shows all models are positive to SLR.
    I just wish Willis or someone could write an article showing where this dangerous SLR is to come from. The graph shows all the models for the next 300 years, so where will that dangerous SLR come from I wonder? Can anyone tell me please?

  23. David A. Evans says:
    August 4, 2012 at 3:21 pm

    As it’s open thread, can anyone point me to a free replacement for Flash & PDF reader that integrate with Firefox on WinDoze?
    —————————————————————————
    Hi David,

    Can’t help with Flash but for a PDF Reader try Foxit Reader. There’s another free program I use called PDFill which creates PDF documents by setting itself up as a “Printer”. Both work really well. I’m running them under XP.

    Regards,
    Lodger

  24. Re:David A. Evans says:
    August 4, 2012 at 3:21 pm

    As it’s open thread, can anyone point me to a free replacement for Flash & PDF reader that integrate with Firefox on WinDoze?

    I cannot help you with Flash, but I use Foxit reader as a PDF Reader. I like it alot.

    http://www.foxitsoftware.com/Secure_PDF_Reader/

    It’s free too. I like free.

  25. Lucy Skywalker,

    David A. Evans

    You may like this 1 hour time lapse video of Akiane doing one of her paintings. It’s an hour long but it will not feel like an hour.

    p.s., Dave, I am pleasantly surprised that you remember my name. I remember the days of you, Jan, and I commenting on YouTube. That was back before I ever heard there was a WattsUpWithThat.

  26. I often think that things are potentially worse than people realise. Not slow climate change but the potential for abrupt and non linear change. Changes in temperature of 10’s of degrees in places in as little as a decade. A report was published a decade ago by the US National Academy of Sciences – Abrupt climate change: inevitable surprises – that describes this as the new climate paradigm. But it is a paradigm that is making slow progress despite support in scientific literature, the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute, the Royal Society…

    So where might some of these surprises come from? To quote AR4 section 3.4.4.1. ‘In summary, although there is independent evidence for decadal changes in TOA radiative fluxes over the last two decades, the evidence is equivocal. Changes in the planetary and tropical TOA radiative fluxes are consistent with independent global ocean heat-storage data, and are expected to be dominated by changes in cloud radiative forcing. To the extent that they are real, they may simply reflect natural low-frequency variability of the climate system.’ The earlier satellite data is most reliably ERBS and ISCCP-FD. It shows cooling in the infrared and warming in the short wave – that (if real) must arise as a result of change in cloud cover.

    Here is a relationship from Wong et al (2006) – Reexamination of the Observed Decadal Variability of the Earth Radiation Budget. Using Altitude-Corrected ERBE/ERBS Nonscanner WFOV Data – between ocean heat content from sea level measurements and net ERBS data.

    It is a pretty good fit. But it is all just data and as good as the instruments and modelling.

    We also have CERES – clouds and Earth’s radiant energy system – measuring Earth’s radiant energy out in reflected sw and emitted lw with unprecedented accuracy. It shows that there is some missing energy that should be there in the Earth system when considering the lack of tropospheric warming last decade. Again the big change is in SW. The interannual changes are largely related to ENSO and might provide one clue as to a source of ‘low frequency variability of the climate system.’

    More recent work is identifying abrupt climate changes working through the El Niño Southern Oscillation, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, the North Atlantic Oscillation, the Southern Annular Mode, the Artic Oscillation, the Indian Ocean Dipole and other measures of ocean and atmospheric states. These are measurements of sea surface temperature and atmospheric pressure over more than 100 years which show evidence for abrupt change to new climate conditions that persist for up to a few decades before shifting again. Global rainfall and flood records likewise show evidence for abrupt shifts and regimes that persist for decades. In Australia, less frequent flooding from early last century to the mid 1940’s, more frequent flooding to the late 1970’s and again a low rainfall regime to recent times.

    Anastasios Tsonis, of the Atmospheric Sciences Group at University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, and colleagues used a mathematical network approach to analyse abrupt climate change on decadal timescales. Ocean and atmospheric indices – in this case the El Niño Southern Oscillation, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, the North Atlantic Oscillation and the North Pacific Oscillation – can be thought of as chaotic oscillators that capture the major modes of climate variability. Tsonis and colleagues calculated the ‘distance’ between the indices. It was found that they would synchronise at certain times and then shift into a new state.

    It is no coincidence that shifts in ocean and atmospheric indices occur at the same time as changes in the trajectory of global surface temperature. Our ‘interest is to understand – first the natural variability of climate – and then take it from there. So we were very excited when we realized a lot of changes in the past century from warmer to cooler and then back to warmer were all natural,’ Tsonis said.

    ‘While in the observations such breaks in temperature trend are clearly superimposed upon a century time-scale warming presumably due to anthropogenic forcing, those breaks result in significant departures from that warming over time periods spanning multiple decades. Using a new measure of coupling strength, this update shows that these climate modes have recently synchronized, with synchronization peaking in the year 2001/02. This synchronization has been followed by an increase in coupling. This suggests that the climate system may well have shifted again, with a consequent break in the global mean temperature trend from the post 1976/77 warming to a new period (indeterminate length) of roughly constant global mean temperature.’ (Swanson et al 2009 – Has the climate recently shifted)

    Muller’s simple superposition of CO2 with temperature is too simple. ‘Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler. Albert Einstein

  27. I got into a bit of a debate on the Planet 3.0 website. Some of the debate is still there as I write this. It will likely be deleted though.
    The blogmeister started treating me as a typical moron until I asked how Hansen called the current events as being clearly caused by global warming because it had never happened before. When it did in the 1930s.
    Then he showed me a chart that reflected the anomalies since 1971 – which is of course, fallacious.
    He deleted my subsequent response that pointed this out. So I sent him this message:
    I note you deleted my final comment in which I pointed out that Hansen attributed Global Warming as the cause of the droughts and that data is gamed – only data that fits the scam is ever presented – even a childlike figure like me can see that fallacy. And when the data don’t fit, you omit or worse, fudge..
    You presented a graph that showed the recent weather events as anomalies since 1971 – this is of course ridiculous, as 1971 was a very cold year. If you had gone back to 1901, then the 1930s heat – which was before CO2 growth would have messed up your presentation – would have destroyed his argument. If you had gone back to 1001 you would have reflected the medieval warming period, which would again, have disproved the point you make your living with.
    Like Hansen and Mann, you guys are unwilling to defend your positions, because they are indefensible.
    There is a game afoot and the game is gamed.

  28. Did anyone notice the stuff on the Eocene warming, indicating that the Antarctic was tropical and never fell below 10 degrees C even during the winter? Long time ago of course, but some interesting stuff nevertheless. Not least of which, there appears to have been very little temperature gradient between the Equator and the poles, and despite there being no polar ice, there was still plenty of land about. WUWT?

  29. Bill Tuttle says:August 4, 2012 at 3:06 pm
    … I foresee a PETA market for little, tiny trauma kits…

    It’s already there. Frogs’ Legs with Rice don’t just happen by themselves, you know. Little, tiny, pairs of crutches, how sad.

  30. Smokey:
    I have recommended you for Politically Correct Person of the Year.

    There is a slight chance though that you may not be awarded the title. Thanks for the laughs!

  31. Foxit Reader Caveat lector.

    As with the previous version, the setup process is a bit cumbersome. First, watch out for the two check boxes that make Ask your browser default search provider and Ask.com your home page. Opt out as necessary. Then, toward the end of the installation process, be sure to read carefully and opt out of the Addin for Mozilla FireFox, Opera, Safari and Chrome–unless, of course, you’re into bloated toolbars. Once you make it through the installation gauntlet, the rest should be smooth sailing.

    http://download.cnet.com/Foxit-Reader/3000-10743_4-10313206.html

  32. David A. Evans says:
    August 4, 2012 at 3:21 pm

    As it’s open thread, can anyone point me to a free replacement for Flash & PDF reader that integrate with Firefox on WinDoze?
    Google doesn’t seem to be a great help. :-(

    DaveE.

    Try VLC. I switch off its default status for audio files, etc., but it does a decent job with Flash.

  33. clipe says:
    August 4, 2012 at 2:03 pm

    Time to keep an eye on Ernesto?

    Tracking #Ernesto, 91L off Southeast Florida, and #Florence in the eastern Atlantic.
    Number of days since last Hurricane Landfall in US: 342 (Irene), in Florida: 2476 (Wilma)

  34. Amino Acids in Meteorites says:
    August 4, 2012 at 12:54 pm
    ——————————————–
    Amazing. Thanks.

  35. Re Hansen in the Washington Post today (see my post above at August 4, 2012 at 12:14 pm), I am serious: It is way past time for Climate Realists to respond forcefully to every bit of CAGW nonsense that the likes of James Hansen can get published by just picking up the phone. Everything that Hansen said can be refuted, with chapter and verse, but it has to be someone with credentials (like Lindzen, or Christy) or it will get ignored. Time to stop letting these arrant falsehoods go unanswered.

    /Mr Lynn

  36. Because we waste so much money and energy on climate junk science and the charlatans that profit from our need to feel terrified by weather fakery we’re missing opportunities like this to create miracles that mend lives and fix broken hearts. This is the invention of the year – probably the decade. These people deserve Al Gore’s Nobel money.

    http://io9.com/5931615/this-toddler-and-her-tiny-exoskeleton-will-melt-your-heart?tag=thisisawesome

    Millions for a hocky stick – how much for a little girl’s smile? Priceless.

  37. Thx, Smokey @ 04/08 12.45pm.
    No 7 ‘I said HORSE !! Send in the Trojan HORSE !!!’ Lol.
    No 15 ‘How people in science see each other’ )
    No 16 – Yep.

  38. Smokey

    #9 is really hit something deep. Jesse Owens running in front of Hitler, right in front of his sight, is the most important moment in the history of the Olympics. It was so profound. Today would that not have been seen because the Olympic committee would have been so politically correct they wouldn’t have allowed that location?

  39. Smokey

    I don’t get why 12 is funny. The others are mostly very funny. DDT wallpaper probably did work and it’s very safe for humans and their babies. DDT is not toxic to humans.

    dT

  40. Smokey,
    What a list! Made my day.

    But 18 is the capper. Did anyone else notice that there’s TWO belly laughs on that page. Sure, the prediction of the ice age is hilarious, but….

    In smaller print, top centre, it says….

    “After detente; Why we can’t beat the Soviets”

    ROFLMAO

  41. AAIM

    Thanks for the tune. I clicked on another from the same collection (Adele- Someone like you) for yet another great instrumental. Made my evening.

    Mods; an off the wall idea — Embed instrumental music link to threads for relaxing audio while viewing comments. Serious if plausible idea. WUWT is already a ground breaking experience, audio would be even a greater experience!

    I will now go back to the selections per AAIM for another instrumental experience. Thanks again!

  42. I so totally agree with this…

    http://www.paulnathan.biz/commentaries/132-mid-year-review-2012.html

    Economically the road back to health is clear. The following steps should be taken.

    Tax Reform

    We need a complete overhaul of our tax system. Reduce rates to something like a dual rate of 10 and 25% and eliminate all deductions. If done correctly we could end up with a revenue neutral tax that is simple and understandable for everyone. There would be greater incentives to produce and earn money resulting in increased revenue and growth. The mere act of simplifying the tax code would save billions in unnecessary preparation charges and work hours wasted. The elimination of deductions, loop holes, subsidies, and corporate welfare is estimated to increase collections in excess of a trillion dollars a year! Just this change alone would do wonders to get America back on sound fiscal footing.

    Budget Cuts

    Cutting government waste and duplication is imperative. There are agencies, especially regulatory agencies, which overlap and even conflict with one another. These counter-productive redundancies must be eliminated. In addition, government wages and benefits should be in line with those in the private sector. Many bureaucrats are paid 50 to100% more than what they’d get for doing the same job in the private sector. And many of those jobs can be trimmed or reduced. We don’t have to “fire policemen, teachers, and firefighters.” We simply need to streamline government. Massive budget cuts aren’t even necessary, just reasonable ones.

    The best way to accomplish this is to provide block grants to the states for health, education, welfare, safety concerns, etc. These tasks should not be the province of the federal government. States have proved to be much more efficient at providing such essential services (and balancing their budgets) than the federal government has. Block grants to states would mean a smaller, less expensive federal government, with smaller deficits.

    Reform Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security

    We need to means test social security and raise the retirement age. Healthcare should be returned to the private sector, where competition and individual choice rule rather than special interests and government. Low cost efficiencies have totally disappeared over the years as healthcare has moved out of the free market and into government bureaucracies. We need insurance that is individually based and determined, instead of by employers or government. Today, losing your job means losing your healthcare. That is a national disgrace, and needs to be one of the first things healthcare reform remedies.

    Defense Spending

    We should reduce troops overseas. End our subsidies to the rest of the world by handing them back the responsibility of defending themselves. This includes eliminating subsidies to the IMF, World Bank, and United Nations; which yield the American citizen almost nothing.

    Monetary Policy

    The best thing either Obama or Romney could do after winning the Presidency, is to announce the reappointment of Ben Bernanke to the Fed. This would go a long way in creating certainty and continuity which is badly needed in today’s world. I know of no one better to bring consistency to monetary policy or to employ his exit strategy when the time comes – and it will come. No matter what you think of Mr. Bernanke, the dollar is stable and inflation is low.

    A year ago, when Bernanke was being accused of creating inflation and trashing the dollar, I went on the record as saying he was not inflating; and that if inflation (which was running at 4% rates at that time) came down to 2% in the next year as predicted by the Chairman, then he would be owed an apology from those who accused him of irresponsibly causing massive inflation. Bernanke’s assessment that the inflation would be “transitory” was correct. Those that predicted runaway inflation, higher interest rates, and a falling dollar were dead wrong. Instead of the inflationary inferno he was accused of creating, Bernanke has made the world a safer place. He was instrumental in preventing a depression in this country and possibly even monetary collapse.

    Today the dollar is strong and inflation is under control and it worries me greatly who the next Fed Chairman will be given the poor judgment of conservatives regarding monetary policy. Had we followed their advice of tight money America would look a lot like Europe today. The EU has imposed exactly the kind of rigid monetary policies many conservatives are calling for here in the US. It is the wrong prescription.

    And I want to be considered for Pamela’s VP choice when she runs.

  43. Came across that recently, and it does in fact look fun! Having had recent surgery and big bills to pay, I’m going to have to let this one wait til next year. The $30 fly gun looks extrememly satisfying, but my $.99 flyswatter will have to suffice. It does make me think about some old cartoon, maybe Popeye, where he’s trying to nap, the fly won’t leave him alone, and he winds up so frustrated he uses the shotgun. Doesn’t kill the fly of course, but his house is in shambles. Have felt that frustrated many times myself.

  44. Goldie says:
    August 4, 2012 at 4:40 pm
    =====================
    Check The Reference Frame (blog by Luboš Motl)

  45. I just love youtube! It was in fact a Popeye cartoon.

  46. NFNYC @ 12:30

    You don’t need a Lehrer, Mon, to tell which way the lies blow.
    ===================

  47. @Smokey

    Thanks for the clicks.

    I vote #2 for bricks short of a full load; #5 for creative police reports, & #6 for irony.

  48. I’ve been looking to the RealClimate responses to the Watts et al 2012. In essence they say that the work of amateurs fails to take account of important details in the nature of “raw” data that have been well understood by the professionals, and adjusted appropriately. What the responders fail to understand – and perhaps I am wrong also? – that what the work says is that irrespective of other variables (micro-climate, altitude, level of urbanization etc.) siting quality by itself generates a 2-fold difference in warming trends, with the worst sited stations having the greatest trends. The argument posed by RC et al is that individual corrections fix these things, but if siting is the largest contributor of error, it would be reasonable to say that without a siting error adjustment, the siting error will remain.

    I suggest this analogy: the job is given to only 4 people to collect all the temperature data. Following the submission of their reports, one discovers that he can identify who took the measurements simply by analyzing the trends in the data presented. What, then, to do? Which to trust? You would like to redo the study, but you cannot, so what you could do is determine which is legally blind, for example, and which is anal-retentive with the sight of an eagle. The AD eagle-eye is considered the “normal” and adjustments made to the ones with the while cane.

    Schmidt took his time to criticize the Watts paper – and do so indirectly through a sycophant. That is interesting by itself. But as I see the value of the study it is this: if adjustments are made only for large-scale environmental reasons, for urbanization as noted by satellite observations of nighttime lighting, then local problems as heat vents upwind of the station will never be identified.

    The real crime here is professional, not legal. It comes from both laziness and arrogance, that with computers, satellites and Phd-statistical knowledge, we do not need to walk down the corner and look to see if the thermometer is in a parking lot or by a nuclear plant cooling tower. All our knowledge comes a priori, by the application of math and logic. A posteriori knowledge is for undergrads and blue-collar workers.

    Asimov in his Foundation Trilogy (not the Fourth!) had a society on the ropes when scientists merely studied the results of other scientists, saying there was no need to check for themselves because the previous researchers were diligent and smart. I fear we are at that place already.

  49. 20-Click Smokey. Sweet, pal! Made my Sunday. Jest hope Hansen (see Mr Lynn (August 4, 2012 at 12:14 pm) Hansen is back at it!) does not click on #3. Whole new horizon for him when he realises that extra hour of sunlight per day mandated by governments summer times can explain it all…

  50. You do not have to be a scientist to match a CRU certification from a nearby temperature station to the list Anthony Watts posted and the photographs that prove the mostly inadequate conditions for proper siting. Apparently, however, you do have to be a scientist (of something, not necessarily climatology or meteorology) to “homogenize” or “adjust” raw data into somehow being several degrees higher than it is supposed to be.

    If any warming is going on, it is part of a natural climate cycle we do not yet fully understand. Hansen’s latest crap report calling for a carbon tax obviously is just an effort to continually enrich the AGW “scientists” who have no qualms about changing data to fit their best interests. The most they can do when somebody exposes them is to accuse that person of being a rank amateur, yet some amateurs made the greatest discoveries in science. Recent college flunk-out Albert Einstein came up with the theory of relativity. Sir Isaac Newton discovered gravity because of an apple falling on his head. Also on the subject, a college slacker named Mark Zuckerberg dropped out of college to work on this project named Facebook which now is worth tens of billions of dollars. Bill Gates didn’t graduate college, he was too busy working on this microcomputer operating system named MS-DOS and Windows afterward. The bottom line is that if you are a true innovator and pioneer of your field, you do not need to be given the exact same education as everybody else because you learn faster and process information better. College is actually dull to most geniuses and therefore does little to encourage them to do well, but academics do not understand this. Also their climate models have been found to utilize a one-dimensional Earth rather than a three-dimensional spherical planet which we actually live in that shows the smoking gun: The missing hotspot in the troposphere. Only under a one-dimensional model can such a huge mistake exist! Pretty abysmal, really, that these people are considered trustworthy.

  51. @ smokey – I was there for number five of your off topic photos. The guy definitely fell repeatedly and was lucky he didn’t kill himself falling repeatedly off that curb…that’s my story and I’m sticking to it! (The nice Marines kept trying to help him but they just weren’t too successful at keeping him from falling.)

  52. One of the best documentaries I’ve ever seen: “Touching the Void”. It’s about two mountain climbers that went to Peru to climb a mountain face that had never been climbed before…….. things go just a little wrong.

    full 1 hr. 42 min. movie:

  53. Mr. Watts why don’t you have a thread, and have everyone submit a list, of the things that simply can not be happening in the realtime world around us, and there be CO2/MannMayde Globul Warming?
    For instance just off the top of my head, here’s a few:

    Why hasn’t the entire infrared astronomy field ever trotted out all the photos of the sky, 100, 50, 25, 10 years ago, -and today? Obviously if magic gas is a real force of nature, there must by definition be more infrared in the atmosphere.

    Why hasn’t the optical astronomy field, with their fastidious, patient, once-in-a-lifetime career shot and generally serious, purposeful nerd population,
    simply trotted out the photographs of the sky, with ever rising STAR TWINKLE:: the effect of the stars wavering when heat convects upward, caused by ever warmer air in the blanket around us?

    Why hasn’t one word come from the entire military structure of the free world as temperature gradient averages out to the tropopause and beyond cause slight, nevertheless mathematically recorded bias increase, in the thermally reactive components of high performance flight/instrumentation-only flight craft electronics? Tsk tsk tsk,..

    Thanks

  54. Here is another one: why hasn’t one word come from the optical astronomy fields which use machine-controlled assemblies to flex telescope mirrors to adjust for above noted atmospheric scintillation – that’s what it’s called, the stars twinkling, we all know;
    So, why hasn’t optical astronomy complained incessantly, providing entire field – affected documented literature describing ever climbing turbulence from warmth, destroying viewing?

  55. So is this gonna be the official live thread Sunday Night for …

    Curiosity closes in on Mars for high-stakes descent

    “The $2.5 billion Mars Science Laboratory rover is closing in on the Red Planet for a white-knuckle descent to the surface using an untried “sky crane” technique to ensure a pinpoint landing on the floor of Gale Crater.

    That is the story at Cnet (there are many more all over the place. Continuing …

    “After slowing to around 1,000 mph, the craft will deploy a huge supersonic parachute, the heat shield will be jettisoned, and a sophisticated radar altimeter will begin sounding the surface. After the craft slows to less than 200 mph, the parachute will be jettisoned and Curiosity, bolted to the belly of a rocket-powered descent stage, will fall free for the final drop to the surface.

    Unlike past landers, Curiosity’s jet pack doesn’t have legs. Instead, it will act like a flying crane, lowering the rover directly to the surface on the end of a 25-foot-long bridle as the “sky crane” slowly descends. When the flight computer senses “weight on wheels,” the bridle will be cut and Curiosity will be ready for initial tests and checkout.

    Touchdown is expected at 10:17 p.m. PDT Sunday, but it will take radio signals confirming the event 13.8 minutes to cross the 154-million-mile gulf between Earth and Mars. That translates to 10:31 p.m. “Earth-received time.””

    This is a really risky mission!

  56. Lucy Skywalker says:

    August 4, 2012 at 2:35 pm

    You could have said all that with just two words!

  57. with ever rising STAR TWINKLE:: the effect of the stars wavering when heat convects upward, caused by ever warmer air in the blanket around us?

    I have doubts about heat convection being the cause of stars twinkling. The reason I say this, is that here in Perth Australia, stars don’t twinkle. Yet we have large diurnal temperatures ranges and must more heat driven convection than most places.

    We do have very low levels of particulate/aerosol pollution, and I suspect aerosol scattering is the cause of stars twinkling.

  58. David A. Evans says:
    August 4, 2012 at 3:21 pm
    As it’s open thread, can anyone point me to a free replacement for Flash & PDF reader that integrate with Firefox on WinDoze?
    ============================================================
    Take a look here http://www.techsupportalert.com/
    Gizmo is always my first port of call when I need a free utility. Dip into the ‘Editor’s Choice’ option. You’ll find good reviews and criticisms of each of the selections.

  59. Not new. But why no one should give money to the WWF.

    http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/wwf-helps-industry-more-than-environment-a-835712.html

    “Feri, an environmental activist, calls this form of conservation “racist and neocolonial,” and notes: “There has never been forest without people here.” According to Feri, thousands of small farms were driven out of the Tesso Nilo, and yet the number of wild animals has actually declined since the conservationists arrived. “Tesso Nilo is not an isolated case,” he says.”

    Since 1990 WWF annual revenue has increased by 123% to about US$ 600 million a year. During the same period 194 million hectares of rainforest (three times the size of France) have been cut down.

    http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/bild-835712-356540.html

  60. Keith Pearson, formerly bikermailman, Anonymous no longer says:

    August 4, 2012 at 7:48 pm

    Came across that recently, and it does in fact look fun! Having had recent surgery and big bills to pay, I’m going to have to let this one wait til next year. The $30 fly gun looks extrememly satisfying, but my $.99 flyswatter will have to suffice. It does make me think about some old cartoon, maybe Popeye, where he’s trying to nap, the fly won’t leave him alone, and he winds up so frustrated he uses the shotgun. Doesn’t kill the fly of course, but his house is in shambles. Have felt that frustrated many times myself.

    I had rats in my detached garage (80m²) last year, being in france my neighbour offered to bring his shotgun down and shoot them for me. My imagination just went wild as I saw this guy firing at everything that moved and missing.

  61. I have a cunning plan. If everyone in the world jumps up and down at noon zulu it will move the Earth away from the Sun and cool us down.

  62. Philip Bradley says:
    August 4, 2012 at 9:36 pm

    Mass grave in London reveals how volcano caused global catastrophe

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/aug/05/medieval-volcano-disaster-london-graves

    The following line in TFA caught my attention:

    … a cataclysmic volcano that had erupted a century earlier, thousands of miles away in the tropics, and wrought havoc on medieval Britons. (The emphasis is mine)

    A hundred years earlier. I can think of one or two people who might have a problem with that. ;-)

  63. lrdperfect says:
    August 4, 2012 at 9:41 pm

    The bottom line is that if you are a true innovator and pioneer of your field, you do not need to be given the exact same education as everybody else because you learn faster and process information better. College is actually dull to most geniuses and therefore does little to encourage them to do well, but academics do not understand this.

    “College polishes pebbles and dulls diamonds.”

  64. Kelvin Vaughan on August 5, 2012 at 3:00 am
    I have a cunning plan. If everyone in the world jumps up and down at noon zulu it will move the Earth away from the Sun and cool us down.
    ———–
    I assume you are joking since it neither works in practice or in principle,

  65. Neville says
    The graph shows all the models for the next 300 years, so where will that dangerous SLR come from I wonder? Can anyone tell me please?
    ———
    Sure. The paper you linked to takes into account only 2 factors: melting at the edges of ice sheets and accumulation of snow in the interior. It does not take into account increased rates of glacier outflow.

    As for sea level rise land ice melt is only part of the reason for sea level rise. The most important factor is thermal expansion of water.

  66. We Are on says
    Why hasn’t the entire infrared astronomy field ever trotted out all the photos of the sky, 100, 50, 25, 10 years ago, -and today? Obviously if magic gas is a real force of nature, there must by definition be more infrared in the atmosphere.
    ———–
    I suspect that there is not much IR astronomy done at thermal IR wavelengths, the sky being opaque at these wavelengths.

    The change in temperature has so far been small and therefore had no noticeable effect,

    And maybe they have complained and you are assuming they have not complained.

    Take you pick.

  67. My thanks to all who offered help with media players & PDF readers.
    I already had VLC player but it has problems with YouTube URLs. I opted for Daum PotPlayer which also unfortunately has problems with YouTube but plays the downloaded .flv files smoother than VLC.
    The Foxit PDF reader is excellent so thanks again. If I ever find a player that will cope with YouTube, I’ll find a way to let people know. :-) There is one but only the Linux version copes. :-(

    DaveE.

  68. Mr Lynn says:
    August 4, 2012 at 12:14 pm

    Hansen is back at it!

    “By James E. Hansen, Published: August 4
    When I testified before the Senate in the hot summer of 1988 , I warned of the kind of future that climate change would bring to us and our planet. I painted a grim picture of the consequences of steadily increasing temperatures, driven by mankind’s use of fossil fuels.”

    If global temperatures are increasing over a time interval, it is out of the methods of science to predict global temperatures for the future, without the knowledge of the physical mechanism of increasing or decreasing global temperatures. Each disregard of this limit of physics is not a method of science and/or a fallacious argument, which includes in the case of an authority the fallacy Argumentum ad verecundiam (Appeal to authority). ‘The Appeal to Authority uses admiration of a famous person to try and win support for an assertion.’.

    Independent from this argument it needs not much logic to conclude that with increased global temperatures the processes driven by a higher heat must change in its effects. It seems to be intelligent to take the consequences in the adaptability as humans ever have done.

    A further disregard of the methods of science is to take the old fashion dept phantom, people have controlled by kings, religions, and governments for many millennia, and mix it into a prediction of an authority, without any valid scientific argument.

    In a new analysis of the past six decades of global temperatures, which will be published Monday, my colleagues and I have revealed a stunning increase in the frequency of extremely hot summers, with deeply troubling ramifications for not only our future but also for our present.

    To understand the nature of global temperatures it is necessary and possible to analyse the reconstructed and measured temperatures for the time interval of about 1 million years or for the time interval of about 10 ky to present. This is inalienable because a supposed linear increased temperature of 6 decades can be a phase of a oscillating function of centuries or millennia. From this it is not possible to extrapolate time interval of temperature into the future.

    This is not a climate model or a prediction but actual observations of weather events and temperatures that have happened.

    No Sir. You do say two times a word on prediction and future.

    Our analysis shows that it is no longer enough to say that global warming will increase the likelihood of extreme weather and to repeat the caveat that no individual weather event can be directly linked to climate change.

    No Sir. Your analysis shows simple that you think there is an connection between high global temperatures and effects from that level. But that is not a new recognition. That’s what wrong is, that your analyse shell show that‘global warming will increase’ something, because this suggests a knowledge about the future, but this is not analysed.

    our analysis shows that, for the extreme hot weather of the recent past, there is virtually no explanation other than climate change.

    That is not the point in climate science. The point in climate science is to explain the cause for the analysable global temperature periods from many kiloyears to month. Periods which are well known since Bond have analysed the frequencies after Fourier’s method with an example of about 1 period per 1800 years. But it seems that there are 2 periods in 1800 years, and the temperature reconstruction from Zorita et al. fit with Bonds data. There are 13 increasing temperature phases over 11.000 years but as you can see, there are also phases of decreasing temperatures after high global temperature levels
    :

    This may show that an analysis of your chosen time interval of 6 decades with an increasing phase is not useful to make predictions to the future. You cannot rule out from the scientific point of view that the natural period of 1800 years, or better 900 years, occurs in a new decreasing phase of the global temperature.

    To whom it may concern, analysed solar tides can be simulated from 3000 BC until 3000 CE. The pattern of some solar tide functions indicate, it fits with Bond et al. and Zorita et al. and lower temperatures in the next decades to 2040 CE..

    V.

  69. The Arctic Row group is going to be stuck for several days near Barrow as they have run into some unexpected “weather” as I suggested before they started.

  70. ***
    Blade says:
    August 5, 2012 at 1:05 am
    ***

    For those that can get it, the Science Channel will start coverage @ 10PM EST Monday for the “show”.

  71. An article on Yahoo News states that James Hansen had a study published Saturday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences that statistically analyzed recent global temps and “proved” that the odds of them naturally occurring were beyond plausibility. However, I’ve just searched the PNAS website and can’t find any mention of Hansen in this issue — or any recent issue. Anybody else have better luck?

  72. Chill to the contemporary jazz stylings of the legendary Jackson Jeffery Jackson. Silly but very funny.

  73. LazyTeenager says:

    August 5, 2012 at 5:15 am

    Kelvin Vaughan on August 5, 2012 at 3:00 am
    I have a cunning plan. If everyone in the world jumps up and down at noon zulu it will move the Earth away from the Sun and cool us down.
    ———–
    I assume you are joking since it neither works in practice nor in principle,

    Have you tried then?

  74. @philip bradley

    Lucy Skywalker, an honest headline would be,

    Mass grave in London reveals how volcano caused global climate catastrophe

    How about

    ‘Carbon dioxide nothing to do with medieval climate catastrophe. Volcanoes caused mass deaths from cold’

  75. This fall San Franciscans will vote on a local measure with national implications: It could return to the American people a flooded gorge described as the twin of breathtaking Yosemite Valley.

    Voters will decide whether they want a plan for draining the 117-billion-gallon Hetch Hetchy reservoir in Yosemite National Park, exposing for the first time in 80 years a glacially carved, granite-ringed valley of towering waterfalls 17 miles north of its more famous geologic sibling.

    The November ballot measure asks: Should city officials devise a modern water plan that incorporates recycling and study expansion of other storage reservoirs to make up the loss? …….

    http://www.foxnews.mobi/quickPage.html?page=38321&content=77600379&pageNum=-1

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

    It just keeps getting weirder all the time. In the interest of the continued destruction of CA I hope San Francisco votes to eliminate their own water supply. Too much CO2 or THC?

  76. Richard111 says:
    August 5, 2012 at 8:06 am

    “”The Arctic Row group is going to be stuck for several days near Barrow as they have run into some unexpected “weather” as I suggested before they started.””
    Strange. Barrow webcam shows calm sea. Not even an iceberg in site!

    http://seaice.alaska.edu/gi/observatories/barrow_webcam

    Did you not notice this at the site:
    Please note: we are currently experiencing network problems with the radar and webcam. As a result the picture below may be several days old. We are working on the problem and hope to have it fixed as soon as possible.

    And this:

    …recorded by a web cam overlooking the landfast ice (or coastal ocean during the ice-free period in summer)…

    While the National Weather Service in Fairbanks issued this warning:

    … A STRONG OFFSHORE STORM WILL AFFECT THE AREA INTO EARLY THIS WEEK…

    STRONG LOW PRESSURE 350 MILES NORTH OF WRANGEL ISLAND EARLY THIS MORNING WILL CONTINUE TO STRENGTHEN THROUGH TONIGHT AS IT TRACKS NORTH TO 700 MILES NORTH-NORTHWEST OF BARROW MONDAY MORNING. A WARM FRONT PUSHING EAST ACROSS THE NORTHERN ARCTIC COAST THIS MORNING WILL QUICKLY BE FOLLOWED BY A STRONG COLD FRONT THAT WILL CROSS THE WESTERN ARCTIC COAST EARLY THIS EVENING… REACHING THE BARROW AREA BY AROUND MIDNIGHT TONIGHT. THE FRONT WILL CONTINUE TO MOVE SOUTH AND EAST ON MONDAY ACROSS THE BEAUFORT SEA COAST AND INTO THE BROOKS RANGE.

    GALE FORCE SOUTHWEST WINDS ARE DEVELOPING EARLY THIS MORNING OFFSHORE OF THE THE WESTERN ARCTIC COAST. THE GALE FORCE WINDS WILL SPREAD ABOUT AS FAR EAST AS THE OFFSHORE WATERS NORTH OF BARROW BY MIDDAY. THERE WILL BE APPROXIMATELY AN 18 HOUR PERIOD OF GALE FORCE SOUTHWEST WINDS BEFORE A COLD FRONT PUSHES EAST TONIGHT AND THE WINDS SWITCH INTO THE WEST AND DIMINISH TO AROUND 25 KNOTS. A PROLONGED PERIOD OF WEST WINDS AROUND 25 KNOTS ARE EXPECTED ALONG THE WESTERN AND NORTHERN ARCTIC COAST THROUGH AT LEAST TUESDAY.

    Looks like “weather” indeed.

  77. mfo says:
    August 5, 2012 at 2:29 am
    “Not new. But why no one should give money to the WWF.

    http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/wwf-helps-industry-more-than-environment-a-835712.html

    “Feri, an environmental activist, calls this form of conservation “racist and neocolonial,” and notes: “There has never been forest without people here.” ”

    Oi. Spiegel declares WWF class enemy. That took a while. Slow learners as usual on the left.

    Half of the canned fish in my local supermarket have the dreaded panda logo on them. Obviously the producers pay the panda. So I switched from mackerel and salmon to herring. Won’t ever support Julian Huxley’s nightmare orgs if I can legally avoid it.

  78. RE: Richard111 says:
    August 5, 2012 at 8:06 am

    “”The Arctic Row group is going to be stuck for several days near Barrow as they have run into some unexpected “weather” as I suggested before they started.””
    Strange. Barrow webcam shows calm sea. Not even an iceberg in site!

    http://seaice.alaska.edu/gi/observatories/barrow_webcam

    You missed the part where it says they are having problems with the webcam and the pic may be several days old.
    Also if you check their website, they indicate they have made two miles in the last few days and the forecast has a significant weather system approaching. They also fear the winds will drive ice into them.

  79. James “Chicken Little” Hansen is waving his hands in the air again with more cargo cult science predictions of doom and gloom. What happened to your last prediction Hansen? Still waiting for Manhattan to be under water by over ten years ago. Hansen is not a scientist – he is an activists and he should be fired by NASA.

    He continues to lie with his boldly fallacious claims that every bit of natural climate variable is evidence that man is causing “climate change”. He provides no evidence of this, just nonsensical stories about imaginary dice. Even if we were to trust him on his statistical analysis of current weather data and his conclusions on any short term trends he observed – this information would only be showing that “climate change” happens, it does not follow from this that the change is unusual, extreme, or caused by man. He is truly worthy of a Lysenko reward for his mendacious claims and activist scaremongering.

    It is really getting tiresome to hear clowns like him define “climate change” as man made and ignore the accept fact that climate change is a naturally caused state that has been happening on this planet for over 4/5 billion years. At no point in history has climate ever not been changing.

    There is no ideal steady state for climate. It changes. The question is not does it change but what causes that change. It has been changing for 3.5 billion years without our help – if he wants to float some doomsday theory that the natural causes have suddenly ceased to work and climate now dances according to man’s pitifully small addition of CO2 to the atmosphere, then he had better offer actual evidence.

    Instead he offers us the self evident fact that climate changes and makes the fallacious claim that this proves man is causing it. His claim has no evidence of fact and is no different from other doomsday prophesies from the past. He should open up some temple full of virgins to be sacrificed to the gods – wait that is exactly what he is doing but instead of demanding that us peasants place food at his god’s alter to control weather, he is asking the peasants to not use carbon based fuels and pay some tax on them when we do.

    Bah humbug. Time to fire Hansen and banish him to some street corner with a sign and flyers where he can preach his prophesies with the same status of any other lunatic..

    His half baked activist junk science peers like Mr. Weaver at U Vic can also join him on the street corner.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/climate-change-is-here–and-worse-than-we-thought/2012/08/03/6ae604c2-dd90-11e1-8e43-4a3c4375504a_allComments.html?ctab=all_&&wp_login_redirect=0

    http://www.torontosun.com/2012/08/05/heatwaves-proof-of-global-warming-says-nasa-scientist

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2012/08/04/climate-change-real-scientist.html

  80. eyesonu says:
    August 5, 2012 at 8:35 am

    This fall San Franciscans will vote on a local measure with national implications: It could return to the American people a flooded gorge described as the twin of breathtaking Yosemite Valley.

    Voters will decide whether they want a plan for draining the 117-billion-gallon Hetch Hetchy reservoir in Yosemite National Park, exposing for the first time in 80 years a glacially carved, granite-ringed valley of towering waterfalls 17 miles north of its more famous geologic sibling.

    The November ballot measure asks: Should city officials devise a modern water plan that incorporates recycling and study expansion of other storage reservoirs to make up the loss? …….

    http://www.foxnews.mobi/quickPage.html?page=38321&content=77600379&pageNum=-1

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

    It just keeps getting weirder all the time. In the interest of the continued destruction of CA I hope San Francisco votes to eliminate their own water supply. Too much CO2 or THC?

    I don’t know. This looks like it could be a Republican/conservative plot to hoist SF and its enviro-activists by their own petard. Reading further down the article shows this:


    On one side are Republican lawmakers and environmentalists, including Ronald Reagan’s former interior secretary, who want the dam removed and valley restored. On the other are Democratic San Franciscans, led by Sen. Dianne Feinstein and Rep. Nancy Pelosi, fighting to hold onto the city’s famously pure drinking water in a drought-prone state.

    I mean, how often do you get to see the Sierra Club join forces with Republicans on a subject like this. Reading more of the articles gives us these tasty morsels of “in-your-face,-San-Franscisco!”:

    “Eventually it will be broadly understood what an abomination a reservoir in a valley like Yosemite Valley really is,” Donald Hodel, the former interior chief, told The Associated Press. “I think it will be hard to quell this idea (of restoration). It is like ideas of freedom in a totalitarian regime. Once planted they are impossible to repress forever.”

    “The opposition to removal is akin to the famous expressions many years ago about relinquishing the Panama Canal: `We stole it fair and square and we should keep it!”‘ Hodel said.

    “San Francisco is known as a progressive city in many ways, especially environmentally. But in water, it’s just not the case. We’ve got a very sweet deal,” said Spreck Rosekrans of Restore Hetch Hetchy, who has studied the issue for 20 years. “Restoring the valley would undo the greatest wrong that has ever been done to a national park.”

    …”utilities officials say water rates would increase by up to $2,777 per household a year.”

    You can almost taste the deliciousness Hodel savors as he delivers his remarks. You just know he’s thinking along the lines of “You’ve screwed the country for decades with your so-called progressive ideas and environmentalism. How do you like it when it’s in your back yard?”

    This should be fun to watch.

  81. “”You missed the part where it says they are having problems with the webcam and the pic may be several days old.””
    Nope. Always check the date time at bottom of picture. Problem message has been up and down for some weeks now. I guess the Arctic Row Group are some way out of this picture if they are reporting ice and wind. Time will tell.

  82. It’s so nice how post-Climategate, the most popular non-lefty blog, Instapundit, keeps hammering away at the AGW crowd.

    Today he links to yet another greenie (biofuel) scam: http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2012/08/03/tony-soprano-green-hero/

    “Two months later, Environmental Protection Agency inspectors visited the Absolute factory and discovered the facility didn’t appear to be producing any fuel, the documents said.”

    “The federal program that tried to subsidize this effort seems to have attracted some of the wrong types of people: the Tony Soprano kind of waste management company rather than an idealistic green recycling coop.”

  83. Roger Carr says:
    August 4, 2012 at 9:33 pm
    20-Click Smokey. Sweet, pal! Made my Sunday. Jest hope Hansen (see Mr Lynn (August 4, 2012 at 12:14 pm) Hansen is back at it!) does not click on #3. Whole new horizon for him when he realises that extra hour of sunlight per day mandated by governments summer times can explain it all…
    ========================================================================
    8-)
    Odd thing is that a study was done on energy usage before and after some of its counties adopted Daylight Savings Time. At the start and end of the time, energy use was lower in those counties. But in the middle period so much more energy was used that the end result was that DST actually caused more energy usage. The researchers deduced that it was because when people came home from work an hour earlier in the hotter part of the day, they cranked up their air conditioners. They said most studies touting the energy savings of DST were done before AC became common.
    (Sorry. I read it somewhere and don’t know a link to it. It was done a few years ago. I’m pretty sure it was done before DST was extended. Go figure.)

  84. ME: “Odd thing is that a study was done on energy usage before and after some of its counties adopted Daylight Savings Time.”

    I should add by way of explanation, until a few years ago not all the counties in Indiana were on DST. The study looked at the counties that adopted years after the rest of the state.

  85. The Ten Commandments
    Of The Church Of
    €LIMA$TRO£OG¥
    1. Thou shalt worship no other than the IPCC
    2. Thou shalt not acknowledge the existence of the Laws of Thermodynamics
    3. Thou shalt not take the name of the IPCC in vain
    4. Remember Earth Day and keep it wholly irrelevant
    5. Honour they peers so that thou shalt sail through pal review
    6. Thou shalt not kill the Golden Goose of Government subsidies
    7. Thou shalt adulterate all papers and press releases with any ascientific drivel as may be required to promote Climastrology
    8. Thou shalt shamelessly demand grants, stealing them away from real science projects
    9. Thou shalt always bear false witness, and shout denier, against any who question Climastrology
    10. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wind farm, despite the generous subsidies it attracts. Build your own instead and get rich quick ; )

  86. LazyTeenager says:
    August 5, 2012 at 5:15 am
    Kelvin Vaughan on August 5, 2012 at 3:00 am
    I have a cunning plan. If everyone in the world jumps up and down at noon zulu it will move the Earth away from the Sun and cool us down.
    ———–
    I assume you are joking since it neither works in practice or in principle,
    ====================================================================
    True. It wouldn’t work. We’d all have to be on the same side of the planet for it to work.
    All the CO2 that would be generated by transporting half the population to one side of the planet (almost as much as Al Gore generates and Rio-type meetings combined) would negate any benefits of an orbital shift. …. But if you can show that it would advanve the Agenda 21 gurus, I’m sure they’d give it a whirl.
    (LT, yes, this is a joke. Hope you at least smiled through part of it.)

  87. RE: Richard111 says:
    August 5, 2012 at 9:42 am

    **I guess the Arctic Row Group are some way out of this picture if they are reporting ice and wind. Time will tell.**
    They are not reporting ice and wind – they are expecting it.
    They are anchored two miles from Barrow, but cannot make progress into the head wind.

  88. On a very light note Just a joke Michael Mann apologises to the scientific community through a song

    AW remove if not appropriate.

  89. Latimer Alder says:
    August 5, 2012 at 8:23 am
    @philip bradley

    Lucy Skywalker, an honest headline would be,

    Mass grave in London reveals how volcano caused global climate catastrophe

    How about

    ‘Carbon dioxide nothing to do with medieval climate catastrophe. Volcanoes caused mass deaths from cold’
    =======================================================================
    Or “The sudden release of previously captured subterranean CO2 to escape causing the Earth’s crust to “frack” creating an channel for lava to flow and erupt in volcanoes. This attracted the attention of a passing Vulcan survey vessel from the time before Vulcan’s adopted logic. The resulting barrage of photon torpedoes caused mass death and climate change.”

  90. Just gotta laugh at the alarmists. As BEST shows, it’s warmed 2.5C since 1750. This period of warming has corresponded with a time of rapidly expanding wealth and population. Warming is good, not bad! It is warming, but this is a good thing NOT a bad thing. We’ve warmed 2.5C, yet we’re supposed to fear another 1.5-2C of warming?!? Get real!

  91. DirkH says:
    August 5, 2012 at 8:56 am

    mfo says:
    August 5, 2012 at 2:29 am

    Not new. But why no one should give money to the WWF.

    http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/wwf-helps-industry-more-than-environment-a-835712.html

    “Feri, an environmental activist, calls this form of conservation “racist and neocolonial,” and notes: “There has never been forest without people here.”

    Oi. Spiegel declares WWF class enemy. That took a while. Slow learners as usual on the left.

    Half of the canned fish in my local supermarket have the dreaded panda logo on them. Obviously the producers pay the panda. So I switched from mackerel and salmon to herring. Won’t ever support Julian Huxley’s nightmare orgs if I can legally avoid it.

    In the video mfo linked, Greenpiss & Fiends of the Earth were criticising WWF.
    With the amounts GP are getting from the EU through REDD to protect parts of the Amazon rainforest from logging they were never in danger from logging, they have a damned nerve!
    The Fiends of the Earth are similarly scamming huge sums from the EU.

    DaveE.

  92. Open thread. I did this parody back in May. Enjoy.

    Gunga Din says:
    May 9, 2012 at 5:35 pm

    Chopping Up Wood on a Snowy Evening
    By “The Mann”

    What tree this is, I think I know.
    It grew in Yamal some time ago.
    Yamal 06 I’m placing here
    In hopes a hockey stick will grow.

    But McIntyre did think it queer
    No tree, the stick did disappear!
    Desparate measures I did take
    To make that stick reappear.

    There were some corings from a lake.
    And other data I could bake.
    I’ll tweek my model more until
    Another hockey stick I’ll make!

    I changed a line into a hill!
    I can’t say how I was thrilled!
    Then Climategate. I’m feeling ill.
    Then Climategate. I’m feeling ill.

  93. Check out today’s (Aug. 5, 2012) Sherman’s Lagoon comic strip, by Jim Toomey. Very un-PC but it speaks to those heartstring-tugging appeals to emotion.

    As for the Arctic rowers; some days you get the Arctic and some days the Arctic gets you. Keep rowing and keep both oars in the water.

  94. James Schrumpf (@ShroomKeppie) says:
    August 5, 2012 at 9:10 am

    As quoted from the article:

    “The opposition to removal is akin to the famous expressions many years ago about relinquishing the Panama Canal: `We stole it fair and square and we should keep it!”‘ Hodel said.

    “San Francisco is known as a progressive city in many ways, especially environmentally. But in water, it’s just not the case. We’ve got a very sweet deal,” said Spreck Rosekrans of Restore Hetch Hetchy, who has studied the issue for 20 years. “Restoring the valley would undo the greatest wrong that has ever been done to a national park.”

    …”utilities officials say water rates would increase by up to $2,777 per household a year.”

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

    I just smoked a big “doobie” and now want to save the Yosemite National Park from the ravishes of mankind. I want reparations from the city of San Francisco. It must be done now for our children’s children. Remove the dam and the power lines and pipeline. Scrub the rocks that were under water of algae and mud. Do it now before it’s too late and we reach the tipping point. All that water in one place has likely/probably/could/maybe/possibly caused earthquakes.

    How do I vote on this from the east coast? Where do I get my absentee ballot for the SF election?

  95. Hi Paul
    From monetizing point of view, there are correct discoveries (CO2 changes the climate) and not so correct ones (it is the sun st…d ).
    In a market orientated economy value of discovery is in its practical application as Piers Corbyn or Judith Curry (selling her hurricane predictions to insurance industry) have demonstrated.
    Now, if you can say that the ENSO is going to affect the next crop of Java coffee or Peru coke by 20% up or down, and you can recommend that going short or long on the futures will double (gullible) punter’s money, you wouldn’t be short of takers.
    Good luck.

  96. [Snip. You are not learning. Move on to another subject, and leave out host out of it. ~dbs, mod.]

  97. Re Smokey’s link to the map of coal fired power plants to be closed because of new EPA regulations, IER has updated their map for 2012 to include a total of 34.7 gigawatts of generation capacity to be taken off line.

  98. Smokey says:
    August 4, 2012 at 12:45 pm
    Open Thread! Everything off topic is now on topic!

    Smokey,
    You made my day! It’s been bouncing around 90F for the last few days in the Seattle area. SeaFair is on, with the unlimited hydroplanes shredding the waters of Lake Washington and The Blue Angels shredding the air overhead. Unfortunately (for me), I’ve been ‘holed up’ for 3 days with a nasty bout of flu! Ugh!!! I’m on a slow mend today and your ‘click-o-rama’ was just what the doctor ordered for the recovery phase! My Faves:

    Miss’d Communications: #4
    Sheer Irony: #9
    PolitiFact: #13
    Cry Wolf: #18
    Fidelity In Modeling: #19

    Thanks a bunch!
    MtK

  99. Climate scientists are allowed to be personally attacked, to be defamed, smeared, being called liars and fraudsters on this blog thread after thread.

    But if a climate scientist asks for evidence for assertions made on this blog, including concerning his own person, he is getting snipped from an allegedly “Open Thread” by the moderation.

    [Reply: As explained, you were snipped for attacking our host. Any more comments on this issue will be deleted. ~dbs, mod.]

  100. Blade says:
    August 5, 2012 at 1:05 am

    > So is this gonna be the official live thread Sunday Night for …

    Curiosity closes in on Mars for high-stakes descent

    http://news.cnet.com/8301-11386_3-57486873-76/curiosity-closes-in-on-mars-for-high-stakes-descent/

    “The $2.5 billion Mars Science Laboratory rover is closing in on

    Official live thread? I was planning to watch NASA-TV on the web. Are you referring to CNET or WUWT per NASA, or WUWT per commenters? WUWT has no connection to NASA except to critique its press releases, so I doubt WUWT will be official anything for the landing. The Cnet link is just to a news story.

    NASA-TV coverage starts at 2330 EDT. See Sparks’ links at http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/04/weekend-open-thread-2/#comment-1052026

  101. cms says: August 5, 2012 at 2:33 pm
    I am very interested in a graph I created on WoodForTrees and what others may make of it. Any ideas
    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/isolate:60/mean:12/scale:0.2/plot/hadcrut3vgl/isolate:60/mean:12/from:1958

    Surely does look like CO2 follows temperature, don’t it. But since there’s this 800 year lag, perhaps it’s just belatedly following the Medieval Warm Period temps.

    Which would mean, wait for it, current CO2 is a proxy for MWP temperatures, which means, (and climate scientists all over the world will be glad to hear) that you no longer have to go to Antarctica to get MWP info, you can just go to Hawaii. Life is good.

    Seriously, though, it looks like CO2 lags about 7 to 9 months at mid-transition. Anything we can do with this?

  102. Yeah, Mike I don’t see anyway but to read that in the satellite era that temp proceeds CO2. I don’t know what to do with it but put it out there like this. If you know anyone whose interest this would pique, please pass it on.

  103. cms,

    CO2 lags temperature on all time scales, from months to hundreds of millennia. Thanks for providing additional evidence.

    It appears that the alarmist crowd got everything completely backward. CO2 is a function of temperature, not vice-versa. Effect cannot precede cause. CO2 rises and falls after temperature rises and falls.

  104. Hansen is absurdly vain for a scientist long past his prime who can no longer be taken seriously by anyone. He, like Mann, seems to believe that he is some kind of celebrity, like a pathetic actor desperate to remain in the limelight.

    NASA is about to land a space craft on Mars and Hansen thinks people are going to pay attention to his funny little cardboard toys. People are not interested, they want to see Mars. Good luck to NASA and the Curiosity mission. NASA doing what it does best.

  105. Jan P Perlwitz says:
    August 5, 2012 at 2:21 pm

    Climate scientists are allowed to be personally attacked, to be defamed, smeared, being called liars and fraudsters on this blog thread after thread.

    But if a climate scientist asks for evidence for assertions made on this blog, including concerning his own person, he is getting snipped from an allegedly “Open Thread” by the moderation.

    On the other hand…

    If a climate psientist is asked to provide proof of his assertions via FOI, he just blocks the request?

    Just asking.

    Incidentally. I’ve asked this question before…

    Just which paper published has proved the assertion that CO2 drives temperature?

    (This is assuming that temperature is even a good proxy for energy gain.)

    DaveE.

  106. cms says:
    August 5, 2012 at 2:33 pm

    Very interesting! I had not previously seen evidence that atmospheric CO2 concentrations lagged the annual temperature cycle. Thanks!

    Could I ask you and others posting here to use graphing line colors other than the red/green pair? Or perhaps to use graph lines that are differentiated by dashed vs solid lines? Red/Green color blindness is the most common form, afflicting about 7% of the adult male population and less than 1% of women.

    Nice work – Thanks again!
    MtK

  107. I was driving down I-10 towards Palm Springs last night, tuned to Red Eye Radio to listen to Anthony give an interview. Just as it started I hit a dead spot and missed the whole thing. Does anybody have a link for it? Thanks in advance.

  108. When they have the backwards 100M and the sideways 100M and the 100M crab walk and the 100M backwards crab walk, I will agree that Michael Phelps is the greatest Olympian.
    I think that Edwin Moses, who didn’t lose a race for almost 10 years deserves some credit.

  109. Smokey says:
    August 5, 2012 at 3:35 pm
    cms,

    CO2 lags temperature on all time scales, from months to hundreds of millennia. Thanks for providing additional evidence.

    It appears that the alarmist crowd got everything completely backward. CO2 is a function of temperature, not vice-versa. Effect cannot precede cause. CO2 rises and falls after temperature rises and falls.

    =========================================================================
    Take two bottles of a carbonated beverage. Open both of them. Put one in the refrigerator, one on the kitchen counter. After a few hours, check to see which one has the most “fizz” left.
    More gases, including CO2, will dissolve and remain dissolved in colder water than in warmer water. It takes time to warm or cool the oceans.

  110. John Gormley Live – Anthony Watts, Meteorologist, President of IntelliWeather Inc. and ‘Watts Up With That?’ blog editor – Do you believe the numbers behind global warming?
    Audio File:

    [audio src="http://www.newstalk650.com/sites/default/files/JGL%20GLOBAL.mp3" /]

  111. Smokey says: “cms, CO2 lags temperature on all time scales, from months to hundreds of millennia. Thanks for providing additional evidence.”

    What does “CO2 change from year before moved back 5 months” mean? If this is CO2 from the year before, then it leads temperature, the opposite of what you say. As wiggle-matching goes, this is rather impressive, if we could actually see the chart, and if it didn’t contradict cms.

  112. Mr. Lynn, I could submit a “forceful” rejoinder to Mann, but it probably would not be printed for the sake of the children :^)

  113. Lucy Skywalker says:
    August 4, 2012 at 2:35 pm

    Paul Vaughan

    I’m sure you would stand a lot more chance of support if you could explain what the h*ck your fascinating graphs are about, in common ordinary English. They really do look fascinating but you keep shooting yourself in the foot with cryptic comments.

    I am aware that certain topics here get more or less short-changed,….
    _________________________
    I agree with you Lucy. I wish Paul would put up a thread on his work.

    By all means go into LOD (Length of Day) SST (Sea Surface Temperature) ENSO, D-O (Dansgaard-Oeschger )/Bond (~1470 year) Event cycles, the 205 year de Vries cycle…

    But do stay away from the Jupiter-Earth-Venus tidal cycles at this time. It detracts from the rest of your work.

  114. mfo @ August 5, 2012 at 3:36 pm

    Good luck to NASA and the Curiosity mission. NASA doing what it does best.

    Yes, NASA should concetrate on Aerospace .. leave the Earth thingy to NOAA.

  115. Jan P Perlwitz says:
    August 5, 2012 at 2:21 pm
    Climate scientists are allowed to be personally attacked, to be defamed, smeared, being called liars and fraudsters on this blog thread after thread
    >>>>>>>>>>>>

    What word would you use to describe a scientist that insists that the world is coming to an end, but refuses to disclose to you how he knows while at the same time demanding that you take a great deal of money out of the pockets of people world wide to prevent it?

    What adjectives would leap to mind if you then discovered that his predictions are predicated upon a computer program that searches the data for hockey stick shaped trends and emphasizes it over all other data?

    In what manner would you descrive the behaviour of he and his colleague who, having found that their proxy data shows a decline in temperature rather than an increase, solve the problem by a “trick” to “hide the decline”?

    For another researcher who published a hockey stick graph that turned out to be weighted 50% to a single tree that didn’t even match local weather records, could you suggest some suitable descriptors?

    What is your view on freedom of speech? Are you supportive of a scientist who demands that people who disagree with him be jailed? Who has made prediction after prediction that failed miserably, but still demands that he be believed without question?

    Two commenters were recently banned at WUWT for incessant assertions that the GHE did not exist at all. We’re policing our own here in skepticland.

    How about you do the same on your side? If you did, you might find less invective hurled your way.
    .

  116. David A. Evans, you wrote:

    On the other hand…

    If a climate psientist is asked to provide proof of his assertions via FOI, he just blocks the request?

    I’m not aware that the Freedom of Information Act gives anyone the right to request from any climate scientist to provide proof of his/her assertions. The FOIA give the right to request certain information, which is documented and archived, from a federal agency, if the climate scientist works for this agency:

    http://www.foia.gov/about.html

    What does this have to do with what I said, anyway?

    Incidentally. I’ve asked this question before…

    Just which paper published has proved the assertion that CO2 drives temperature?

    And probably not as incidentally, you, and actually you, have already been answered this:

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming.htm

    There is not just one paper. There is a whole bunch of papers that provide the evidence for different aspects of the causal link between carbon dioxide in atmosphere and temperature as effect.

    What exactly are you saying hasn’t been proven? That CO2 is a radiatively active gas, which absorbs and emits longwave radiation? That it changes the radiation and energy balance in the atmosphere and at the surface, because it is radiatively active? Or that the change in the energy balance due to CO2 causes a change in the temperature distribution in the atmosphere and in the other climate components, e.g., the oceans?

  117. Whowever it was in that Jazz thingy, I used to play trumpet … I blew and I blew and I blew and I still sucked. Really funny.

  118. The only thing that could become tumescent in that overblown story on Not A Hurricane is me, ‘cos she’s cute and talks up a storm.

  119. @davidmhoffer:

    I see in your comment only a list of assertions w/o any evidence or proof of sources. These are certainly some of the talking points that you tell each other in your false skeptic universe to confirm each other, about all the evil climate scientists and their sinister doings.

  120. Jan P Perlwitz says:
    August 5, 2012 at 6:19 pm
    @davidmhoffer:
    I see in your comment only a list of assertions w/o any evidence or proof of sources. These are certainly some of the talking points that you tell each other in your false skeptic universe to confirm each other, about all the evil climate scientists and their sinister doings.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    The in depth analysis to substantiate these assertions is available in the content on this blog, a few simple searches will turn it up for you to read for yourself complete with the details you demand. You can also find corroborating materal at climateaudit. Those of us who are regulars have already read these articles, and the debates that followed them in which the accusations were for the most part defended strenuously. Read them for yourself.

    We’ve read also the climategate emails which no matter how you try and justify them, should make anyone who believes that there should be integrity in science ill just to read them.

    We’ve drawn our conclusions based on the information available, and the issues I alluded to are common knowledge. All you need do to educate yourself is read the available material and corroborate it independantly yourself. You may be surprised at what you find.

    But my expectation is that you won’t be surprised at all, because you just won’t do it.

  121. Really, Perlwitz, you’re such a noob. Spend some time reading the WUWT archives. You will find that your arguments have been repeatedly addressed and dispensed with.

    It gets tedious trying to educate someone with such a closed mind. No doubt that is the result of feeding at the public trough for so many years. You start to believe the runaway global warming nonsense you’re constantly emitting.

  122. Lucy Skywalker – loved the starlings – saw a similar captivating view from the Palatine hill in Rome a few years ago – absolutely marvellous. Thanks too for the other hilarious posts – loved the jazz video. We need to laugh more and not just at the warmists. My contribution below for all those like me who love hydrocarbons, CO2 and water vapour.

  123. Smokey wrote:

    CO2 lags temperature on all time scales, from months to hundreds of millennia. Thanks for providing additional evidence.

    using this link http://img339.imageshack.us/img339/879/co2lagkz2.png for the time scale of months.

    If one looks at the description of the figure, one can see it doesn’t show the time-series of the CO2-level, but the time series of the year-to-year change of the CO2 level. The long-term trend in the CO2 has been removed in the figure due to this method. The figure doesn’t show how CO2 lags the temperature. Instead, it shows that the yearly CO2 change lags the temperature.

    That there was a close correlation between CO2 and temperature, CO2 always lagging temperature is valid for Smokey, unless it isn’t. When it is convenient for Smokey, something else is valid for him, as in this comment:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/29/headlines-over-solar-cycle-25-and-potential-cooling/#comment-879463

    where he uses following figure.

    CO2 goes up, but “no warming since 1997″ according to Smokey. Wasn’t the CO2 supposed to follow the temperature trend in recent decades, as Smokey asserted in this thread here?

    What are people called again who are holding to contradicting views at the same time?

  124. lrdperfect says: @ August 4, 2012 at 9:41 pm

    …..If any warming is going on, it is part of a natural climate cycle we do not yet fully understand. Hansen’s latest crap report calling for a carbon tax obviously is just an effort to continually enrich the AGW “scientists” who have no qualms about changing data to fit their best interests…..
    ===============================
    Did anyone else take note of this bribe in the Ged Davis Climategate e-mail?

    (Sustainable is the code word for Agenda 21)

    4. Sustainable Development (B1)

    The central elements of this scenario family include high levels of environmental and social consciousness, successful governance including major social innovation, and reductions in income and social inequality. Successful forms of governance allow many problems which are currently hard or difficult to resolve to fall within the competency of government and other organisations. ….

    4.1 Key Scenario Drivers and their Relationships

    4.11 Technological Development
    High levels of technological development focused on achieving sustainable development leads to high levels of material and energy saving, innovations in emissions control technology, as well as labour productivity. The latter is essential to support the rapid growth in personal income, given that a major increase in labour force participation is implicit in the equity assumptions. Technologies tend to be implemented in an industrial ecology mode, implying a much more highly integrated form of industrial production than at present. Information technology achieves a global spread, and is fully integrated into production technologies. Advances in international institutions permit the rapid diffusion of new technologies
    – R&D approaches two percent of GDP….

    – R&D approaches two percent of GDP…. In 2011 World GDP was $69.97 Trillion US so that would be 1.4 trillion US dollars aimed at R&D instead of the approximately one trillion dollars spent in 2010. Having about half again as much money available for R&D is going to be very appealing to academics who have to fight tooth and nail for grant money and secretly think Society is too closed fisted when it comes to THEIR pet projects.

    That promise has come through too.

    All Aboard the Climate Gravy Train

    Global-warming alarmists often portray climate scientists as poorly paid academics whose judgment is impervious to the influence of money. This seems strange given the billions of taxpayer dollars that have been invested in climate science over the past few years….

    …university lecturers and professors earn an average of $49.88 an hour over a 1,600-hour work year, for a total salary of about $80,000. In the public sector, “atmospheric, earth, marine, and space sciences teachers, postsecondary” earn considerably more than the average university teacher ($70.61 per hour). They also work much less (1,471 hours each year), and despite their lower workload, they pull down about $104,000 a year….

    So climate scientists are very well compensated, out-earning all other faculty outside of law in hourly-wage terms. What about the rest of the public sector? Astonishingly, only one other public-sector profession — psychiatrist — pays better than climate science, at just over $73 an hour. In other words, climate scientists have the third-highest-paid public-sector job, ranking above judges….
    …if we look at median earnings [private sector] — what the earner right in the middle of the pack gets — we see that climate scientists get $75.29 an hour, compared with private-sector CEOs at $75.48 and physicians at $81.73.

    The story gets even more interesting when we look back at the figures from 2005…Back then, university teachers were paid $43.16 an hour, while climate scientists were paid $54.65 an hour. In other words, climate-science compensation has risen by 30 percent in five years, while pay for other university instructors has increased by only 15 percent.

    That e-mail was from February, 1998

    January 5th, 1998
    GLOBAL FUTURE REPORT: Investing in Innovation

    ….The available data suggests the rest of the world in total spends slightly more than we do. In round numbers, the world (both U.S. and others) will spend a quarter of a trillion dollars this year in searching for new knowledge and in developing ideas through to the prototype stage. This amounts to 1% of the world’s gross output of goods and services….

    So it looks like the Movers & Shakers of the world made good on their promise to the Research Types. Push our agenda (Agenda 21) and we will reward you well.

  125. Perlwitz doesn’t like the chart I linked to, so here is one with a little longer baseline [27 years]. As we see, it does not reflect annual CO2 changes. But it does show conclusively that CO2 lags temperature. No getting around it. And that fact alone debunks the CO2=CAGW fantasy.

    Perlwitz also doesn’t like the Shaw chart [he has to be the unhappiest commenter here]. So to make him happy I’ll post the Hadcrut3 chart. It won’t make him happy. But it further debunks the CO2=CAGW belief system.

    Empirical evidence shows that the planet itself is falsifying the CO2=CAGW conjecture. Who should we believe, someone with both front feet in the public trough? Or Planet Earth?

  126. @davidmhoffer:

    The in depth analysis to substantiate these assertions is available in the content on this blog, a few simple searches will turn it up for you to read for yourself complete with the details you demand. You can also find corroborating materal at climateaudit.

    I do not think so. Just because you say so that this all could be found here? Your assertion with respect to that means nothing to me. I have read in this blog long enough to know how low the standards are here, what is accepted by the crowd as “evidence” for the alleged validity of assertions here, as long as it seems to confirm the views of the crowd. This blog lacks any objectivity with respect to the assertions listed by you. There is no trust whatsoever from my side in anything that is published here. And I’m not going on a wild goose chase. Either you have evidence for your assertions that comes from more objective sources than the mentioned ones, or you don’t have any.

  127. Kelvin Vaughan says:
    August 5, 2012 at 7:16 am

    LazyTeenager says:

    August 5, 2012 at 5:15 am

    Kelvin Vaughan on August 5, 2012 at 3:00 am
    I have a cunning plan. If everyone in the world jumps up and down at noon zulu it will move the Earth away from the Sun and cool us down.
    ———–
    I assume you are joking since it neither works in practice nor in principle,

    Have you tried then?
    _______________________
    We did and got the school bus up on two wheels….

  128. LOL
    I predicted that Perlwitz would choose not to do the reading suggested, and he quickly proved my prediction to be correct. And it is SO hard to find these things…. because the results of a congressional investigation are really hard to look up. The “most powerful tree in the world” comment on CA is SO hard to find. Not to mention that the analysis is done in excutiating detail. As for the “hide the decline” debacle, there are so many instances on the internet that go into microscopic detail that one runs into them when looking for something else. If someone else wants to post links, by all means. I’ve just finished a debate with a sanctimonious pompous arrogant twit on another thread, and he didn’t bother to read a single one of them. Even triumphantly posted arguments that, had he read them, he would have realized were already refuted by the information and links I’d posted already. I’ve not interest in helping those determined to wallow in their own ignorance to do their own homework. When I started my own personal research in the questions regarding climate science, all I got was ignorance and snark to my questions. The tougher the question, the more ignorant and snarky. So I struggled through AR4 WG1 on my own, going nuts trying to verify all the vague assertions by running down the reference papers, a great number of which were behind paywalls at the time.

    I did my homework Dr Perlwitz, and I did it without and help from you and your ilk. When I reached out, you pi$$ed all over me. So now I’ve told you WHAT to look for and I’ve told you WHERE to look for it. If you cannot get off your lazy butt and look into it yourself like I looked into all of the work of those I now accuse, that’s your problem, not mine.

  129. H.R. says:
    August 5, 2012 at 12:11 pm

    As for the Arctic rowers; some days you get the Arctic and some days the Arctic gets you. Keep rowing and keep both oars in the water.
    +++++++++++++++++
    SIGH, Where are those Poley Bears when you rally need them.

    [Moderator's Note: I trust, Gail, that you meant that the Poley Bears would give them a valid incentive to row faster. -REP]

  130. Smokey wrote:

    Perlwitz doesn’t like the chart I linked to, so here is one with a little longer baseline [27 years].

    So what? The trends are still filtered out. The figure still doesn’t show the time series of the absolute values. Smokey claims a) “no global warming since 1997″ and b) CO2 follows the temperature with a lag of a few months. Thus, there shouldn’t have been any CO2 increase for at least a decade now, if the CO2 in the atmosphere was controlled by the temperature. But the CO2 data look like this:

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1985

    They look like this, because the CO2 increase in the atmosphere is primarily due to anthropogenic emissions, but not due to natural sources. It is not coming from the oceans. Nature is a net sink for CO2. Otherwise, the CO2 mixing ratio in the atmosphere would already be above 500 ppm due to anthropogenic emissions.

    Perlwitz also doesn’t like the Shaw chart [he has to be the unhappiest commenter here]. So to make him happy I’ll post the Hadcrut3 chart. It won’t make him happy. But it further debunks the CO2=CAGW belief system.

    Only in Smokey fantasy is anthropogenically caused global warming refuted by a non-robust negative trend over such a short time period of 10 years. I have a picture for Smokey too:

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=47

    Look the first eight of the last ten years can be seen there too.

  131. Jim says:
    August 5, 2012 at 11:34 am

    Jim, Muller lives in the USA; they still use ℉ there.
    What he has shown over 250 years is an rise of 0.057 ℃ per decade, or 0.6 ℃ per century.

    When Prof. Akasofu calculated a rise of 0.6 ℃ for both the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, he was dismissed as a sceptic.

    The only thing is that Muller finds a rapid rise since 1979. This is partly because he used the old trick of starting at a cold period, and partly because he used the official “figures” which have been “adjusted” upwards. This enables him to claim “unprecedented” warming caused by CO2. Had he started the recent trend in 1950 (to allow for a 60 year cycle) the rise would have appeared far less.

    As far as I can see, Muller is trying to position himself as “the white knight” of AGW. He is smart enough to see that Mann, Jones, Hansen etc. are discredited (and to give him credit, probably disgusted with them) and wants to do papers as they should have been done (see that he has released code and data). His problem is his reliance on the corrupted temperatures.

    So it is most unlikely we will see a 1 ℃ rise in the next 100 years, and with the sun “taking a holiday” more likely we will see a drop in temperature. The World would certainly agree with you that warming is good.

  132. Jan P Perlwitz says:
    August 5, 2012 at 7:28 pm

    Try Search “James Hansen debunked” you should have approximately 39.000 articles.

    It is not a fallacy of logic to make a statement of specific truth.

    Indeed, Mr Hansen IS a disgrace to science.

    http://www.soros.org/resources/articles_publications/publications/annual_20070731/a_complete.pdf

    Pages 123 and 143 politicization of science ($720,000)

    http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/09/26/nasa-s-hansen-mentioned-soros-foundations-annual-report

  133. Gunga Din says: @ August 5, 2012 at 4:56 pm

    …..Take two bottles of a carbonated beverage. Open both of them. Put one in the refrigerator, one on the kitchen counter. After a few hours, check to see which one has the most “fizz” left.
    More gases, including CO2, will dissolve and remain dissolved in colder water than in warmer water. It takes time to warm or cool the oceans.
    _________________________
    Another Soda Pop experiment:
    Take a plastic bottle of Soda (one no one in the house likes) and set it aside for two years. Open it and see how much ‘fizz’ is left compared to a brand new bottle. – Proof that Gases can “migrate” through solids.

  134. Gail Combs says:
    August 5, 2012 at 8:10 pm
    H.R. says:
    August 5, 2012 at 12:11 pm

    As for the Arctic rowers; some days you get the Arctic and some days the Arctic gets you. Keep rowing and keep both oars in the water.
    +++++++++++++++++
    SIGH, Where are those Poley Bears when you rally need them.

    [Moderator's Note: I trust, Gail, that you meant that the Poley Bears would give them a valid incentive to row faster. -REP]

    =========================================================================
    Do rowers taste like seal or chicken?

  135. Perlwitz, the more nonsense you emit the less respect I have for all the charlatans on your side of the fence. You talk about trends without any understanding. Here is the long term trend from the LIA. Notice that the trend is not accelerating. That means only one thing: the 40% rise in CO2 has not caused any measurable warming.

    And you need to get up to speed on the BEST shenanigans. Muller is an unethical globaloney shill. Do a search, and you will see.

  136. Smokey says: @ August 5, 2012 at 6:40 pm

    It gets tedious trying to educate someone with such a closed mind. No doubt that is the result of feeding at the public trough for so many years. You start to believe the runaway global warming nonsense you’re constantly emitting.
    ============================
    More like he believes in his pay check. see my comment @ link

    I very much doubt most of these ‘scientists’ actually believe the bafflegab they publish. Given the article stating academics admit that they would discriminate against openly conservative colleagues….In decisions ranging from paper reviews to hiring, I think we are running into the Hegelian Dialectic that is commonly found on left leaning campuses.

    Hegel accepted as real only that which existed in the mind. Objective phenomena and events were of no consequence. This also explains why there is such an emphasis placed on ‘The Consensus of 97% of Climate Scientists.’ To those steeped in the Hegelian Dialectic the conflict of the thesis (CAGW) with its antithesis (natural) has already been resolved the synthesis reached and it is time to move on to the social/economic implementation. This is also why we are “Denialists” in their minds. We are not only “Denying the Science” but worse we are denying their entire philosophy by insisting on the importance of real world data in decision making.

    This is why no amount of real world data penetrates. Reality is only what they want it to be.(Except of course for that all important pay check)

  137. SIGH, Where are those Poley Bears when you rally need them.

    [Moderator's Note: I trust, Gail, that you meant that the Poley Bears would give them a valid incentive to row faster. -REP]
    _________________________
    If you saw a Poley Bear would YOU stick around or row like the devil himself was after you?

  138. Toto says:
    August 5, 2012 at 8:35 pm
    Strange that Greenpeace didn’t mention Koch giving money to Dr. Muller at BEST.

    Are all believers in AGW sea green incorruptibles?

  139. ………….who dare not turn his head for fear some dreadful fiend doth close behind him tread…

    Well I may not run as fast as I did in Mexico 68 but if I met a Poley bear you would be amazed how fast I can still go if push comes to shove.

    Kindest Regards

  140. Smokey says:
    August 5, 2012 at 9:23 pm

    Gale Combs,

    This woman thought polar bears were friendly….
    _________________________
    Yeah, Ye Ole’ Bambi Complex. Parents really need to counter all that Disney brainwashing with something like this.

    I am continually amazed at just how idiotic some people are when it comes to safety and animals. A good friend just about had a heart attack when some idiot stopped by the side of the road and held her one year old up to pet the nice horsie. The horsie was a stallion. Luckily it was the mild-mannered one and not her young stallion who would just as soon take a hand off as look at you.

  141. Heartfelt congratulations to NASA and the US for the successful landing of Curiosity! Amazing technology and technique.

  142. Ditto on the NASA congrats. All engineers, no lawyers.

    They had Dr Holdren on afterwards touting our great future in space. Forgot to mention we can’t put an astronaut in orbit, but maybe that just slipped his mind.

  143. Smokey wrote:

    Here is the long term trend from the LIA. Notice that the trend is not accelerating. That means only one thing: the 40% rise in CO2 has not caused any measurable warming.

    Smokey commits another logical fallacy. He shows the temperature time series at a single location of the globe, the Central England temperatures. This is not a suitable data set to empirically or logically refute statements about the global temperature anomaly trend. Large variability due to weather can mask the warming signal, which is seen in the globally averaged temperature anomaly, in temperature time series at single locations. Also, not just the variability due to weather is a problem at single locations, the trend itself can not be seen as representative for the global temperature anomaly trend. Even if there is a global warming trend, which refers to the global temperature anomaly, there does not need to be a warming signal at each location of the globe. There even could be a cooling at some individual locations, while the globally averaged temperature is increasing. Global warming does not mean globally uniform warming.

  144. Jan perlwitz

    Cet is a highly suitable set to proxy global temperature which in itself is somewhat meaningless. In my article the long slow thaw I referenced the studies of numerous top scientists who see cet as being a useful proxy, although as Hubert lamb observed , ‘it demonstrates the tendency but not the precision.’

    The fact that temperatures have been rising throughout the cet period from 1660 is especially interesting isn’t it?

    Tonyb

  145. Jan

    As you may be aware around one third of global stations show a cooling signal which renders the term ‘global’ warming somewhat meaningless
    Tonyb

  146. kim2ooo, you wrote:

    Try Search “James Hansen debunked” you should have approximately 39.000 articles.

    Are you seriously offering me as evidence for the validity of an assertion the number of links that is provided after entering some keywords in a search engine?

    What about you try “alien abduction” on Google? I get 6,890,000 hits.

    Indeed, Mr Hansen IS a disgrace to science.

    http://www.soros.org/resources/articles_publications/publications/annual_20070731/a_complete.pdf

    Pages 123 and 143 politicization of science ($720,000)

    http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/09/26/nasa-s-hansen-mentioned-soros-foundations-annual-report

    And you try to back up your opinion with what? With an article that smears Hansen based on rumors. The alleged evidence provided is linking a statement on one page in the Soros report about some advice, which was given to Hansen who tried to defend his constitutional rights, with a mentioned amount of money on another page through pure conjecture, although nothing in there says that this money was given to Hansen.

    At least, let’s link to what Hansen himself said about this assertion to have received those $720,000:

    http://grist.files.wordpress.com/2007/10/distro_lawlessness_070927.pdf

    In a previous comment, I mentioned the low standards, which are valid for evidence here, as long as it seems to support some preconceived views of the crowd here. Your comment is a nice example for this.

    I also just have played a little thought experiment, imagining what would have happened here and elswhere in the blogosphere of the false skeptic universe, if it hadn’t been Hansen versus the Bush administration, but if the current administration tried to silence a scientist who claimed that there wasn’t any scientific evidence for global warming due to forcing by greenhouse gases from anthropogenic emissions and who had an equally long list as Hansen of actually peer reviewed scientific publications in the field, or not even that. What screams of bloody murder and censorship would occur here about the cabal who controlled the government and tried to suppress the truth!

  147. In response to Smokey having written:

    Here is the long term trend from the LIA. Notice that the trend is not accelerating. That means only one thing: the 40% rise in CO2 has not caused any measurable warming.

    at August 6, 2012 at 12:10 am Jan P Perlwitz says:
    [snip]

    Smokey commits another logical fallacy. He shows the temperature time series at a single location of the globe, the Central England temperatures. This is not a suitable data set to empirically or logically refute statements about the global temperature anomaly trend. Large variability due to weather can mask the warming signal, which is seen in the globally averaged temperature anomaly, in temperature time series at single locations.

    [snip]

    Hmmm. No! Perlwitz’s point is obscurantism.

    There has been no statically discernible rise in global temperature for 15 years.
    The UK’s Hadley Centre for Climate Research reported that their model does not appropriately deal with natural internal variability (Smith et al, 2007), but speculated that natural internal variability might step aside in 2009, allowing global warming to resume. The discussion of a resumption of warming was an admission that warming had ceased. Subsequently, German modellers moved the date for ‘resumption’ up to 2015 (Keenlyside et al, 2008).

    A cessation of global warming cannot be an “acceleration in the trend” of global warming.

    Furthermore, there were two periods of warming in the global temperature data sets; i.e. 1910 to 1940 and 1970 to 2000. These two periods show the same rate of global temperature rise. So, even if one selects the trends in recent periods of global warming then there is no observed “acceleration” of their warming trends.

    Simply, Smokey is right that “the trend [in global warming] is not accelerating”, and Perlwitz’s claim that Smokey used the wrong data set merely distracts from the fact that Smokey is right.

    Richard

  148. PS. Perhaps I should have mentioned that more than 80% of anthropogenic GHG emissions were after 1940.

  149. @Jan, CET is almost identical to Northern Hemisphere temperature record. At least during the 20th century, the leading mode of temperature variation were changes in North Atlantic and Pacific SST going up and down in 30-year cycle, which overwhelmed rather weaker variations in the Southern hemisphere. So it is a good assumption, that CET represents NH well and fairly well the whole “global” record.
    Second, “it is a single location of the globe” argument is funny. Is not the CO2 and the alleged “greenhouse effect” the same all over the globe, also above Central England?

  150. a jones says:
    August 5, 2012 at 9:34 pm
    ………….who dare not turn his head for fear some dreadful fiend doth close behind him tread…

    Well I may not run as fast as I did in Mexico 68 but if I met a Poley bear you would be amazed how fast I can still go if push comes to shove.

    Kindest Regards
    =============================================================
    It’s not how fast you run; it’s just making sure you run faster than the other guy ;o)

  151. @Gerald Machnee August 5, 2012 at 11:10 am
    “” They are not reporting ice and wind – they are expecting it.
    They are anchored two miles from Barrow, but cannot make progress into the head wind.””

    Accurate weather report. Webcam shows increased wave action on the beach and the odd white horse out to sea. Wind at 14mph from the north would be a tailwind methinks. Visibility is deteriorating.

  152. Perlwitz tries to defend James “Coal Trains Of Death” Hansen by referring to alien abductions. Another fail. Politics and honest science don’t mix. What honest scientist would be doing this?

  153. Jan P Perlwitz says:
    August 5, 2012 at 8:11 pm

    They look like this, because the CO2 increase in the atmosphere is primarily due to anthropogenic emissions, but not due to natural sources. It is not coming from the oceans. Nature is a net sink for CO2.

    Please be precise in your terminology. CO2 levels in the atmosphere change due to a imbalance between the rate of emission (i.e. sources) and the rate of absorption (i.e. sinks). The sources include natural processes such as cellular respiration, fires, out-gassing, demineralization, etc. with a small contribution (est. 4%) from anthropogenic processes. The sinks include natural processes such as photosynthesis, dissolution, mineralization, etc. The equilibrium position will be controlled by Henry’s law, which states that the solubility of CO2 is an exponential function of the inverse absolute temperature.

    http://www.eia.gov/oiaf/1605/ggccebro/chapter1.html

    Jan P Perlwitz says:
    August 6, 2012 at 12:10 am

    Smokey commits another logical fallacy. He shows the temperature time series at a single location of the globe…

    Yet, earlier you pointed to proof of AGW that is based on an ideal water-corrected difference spectrum corresponding to a narrow band of wavelengths collected over a small portion of the Earth. You are committing the same logic error. You must integrate the entire incoming and outgoing radiation spectra (without correction) over the entire geometry of the earth to start to prove your point. After all, reduction in emission intensity from one region could be off-set by an increase in emission intensity from another (e.g. the poles).

  154. Perlwitz says:

    “Smokey commits another logical fallacy. He shows the temperature time series at a single location of the globe…”

    .

    I set a trap for Perlwitz, and now he’s caught. He complained that I produced only a single location, which is true… as far as it goes. But of course, there are many more locations showing the same thing.

    Here are a total of seven locations from around the globe — and all of them show the same long term rising trend from the LIA, with no acceleration.

    Perlwitz isn’t the sharpest knife in the drawer, is he?

  155. Graeme No. 3 says:

    Jim, Muller lives in the USA; they still use ℉ there.
    What he has shown over 250 years is an rise of 0.057 ℃ per decade, or 0.6 ℃ per century.

    When Prof. Akasofu calculated a rise of 0.6 ℃ for both the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, he was dismissed as a sceptic.

    The only thing is that Muller finds a rapid rise since 1979. This is partly because he used the old trick of starting at a cold period, and partly because he used the official “figures” which have been “adjusted” upwards. This enables him to claim “unprecedented” warming caused by CO2. Had he started the recent trend in 1950 (to allow for a 60 year cycle) the rise would have appeared far less.

    As far as I can see, Muller is trying to position himself as “the white knight” of AGW. He is smart enough to see that Mann, Jones, Hansen etc. are discredited (and to give him credit, probably disgusted with them) and wants to do papers as they should have been done (see that he has released code and data). His problem is his reliance on the corrupted temperatures.

    So it is most unlikely we will see a 1 ℃ rise in the next 100 years, and with the sun “taking a holiday” more likely we will see a drop in temperature. The World would certainly agree with you that warming is good.

    Nope. The BEST study used Celsius. It found 2.5C warming since 1750.

  156. Jan P Perlwitz says:
    August 5, 2012 at 2:21 pm
    Climate scientists are allowed to be personally attacked, to be defamed, smeared, being called liars and fraudsters on this blog thread after thread.

    But if a climate scientist asks for evidence for assertions made on this blog, including concerning his own person, he is getting snipped from an allegedly “Open Thread” by the moderation.

    The only scientists who are called liars and fraudsters are the ones that are lying or defrauding the public. I don’t see anyone here attacking Judith Curry, Roy Spencer, John Christy, Roger Pielke, Sr., Pat Michaels, or Richard Lindzen. There are plenty of climate scientists out there that do NOT accept the alarmist view.

  157. Jan P Perlwitz;
    Smokey commits another logical fallacy. He shows the temperature time series at a single location of the globe, the Central England temperatures. This is not a suitable data set to empirically or logically refute statements about the global temperature anomaly trend. Large variability due to weather can mask the warming signal, which is seen in the globally averaged temperature anomaly
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Then can we assume that you will be equally critical of Briffa’s 1000 year temperature reconstruction which turned out to be based on just 12 trees in Siberia with one of those trees weighted to represent 50% of the data?

    I predict that you will instead insist that I prove the assertion while refusing to investigate the matter.

  158. Jan P Perlwitz;
    Are you seriously offering me as evidence for the validity of an assertion the number of links that is provided after entering some keywords in a search engine?
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Having been provided with what to look for and where to look for it, Perlwitz continues to find reasons to not consider the material being offered.

    A generation from now historians will ask how the cagw meme became so entrenched amongst otherwise intelligent scientists. Dr Perlwitz will become a fine example of the pompous arrogant scientist, who, when directed to the very material that proves the point being debated, imposes a cloak of ignorance upon himself.

    CA – the most powerful tree in the world
    CA – what happened to the polar urals?

    You’ll find considerable additional information on this site as well by searching under those same topics.

    Pick one Dr Perlwitz. Self education or self imposed ignorance.

  159. Dr Perlwitz;

    CA and/or this site.

    search for “hide the decline”

    Pick one Dr Perlwitz. Self education or self imposed ignorance.

  160. Dr Perlwitz;

    CA and/or this site

    search for “Mann tree rings”

    Pick one Dr. Perlwitz. Self education or self imposed ignorance.

  161. David

    Thanks for the comments by yourself and Richard regarding my observations. I am not sure that Eric addressed the central theme of my point in his response to me.

    It strikes me this would make a good thread, ‘Does co2 have any noticeable effect on climate at concentrations above 280ppm?’
    tonyb

  162. Jim says:
    August 6, 2012 at 7:12 am (responding to)

    Jan P Perlwitz says:
    August 5, 2012 at 2:21 pm
    Climate scientists are allowed to be personally attacked, to be defamed, smeared, being called liars and fraudsters on this blog thread after thread.

    But if a climate scientist asks for evidence for assertions made on this blog, including concerning his own person, he is getting snipped from an allegedly “Open Thread” by the moderation.

    The only scientists who are called liars and fraudsters are the ones that are lying or defrauding the public…

    I would remind Jan Perlwitz that, like NASA-GISS, he is being explicitly and personally paid and his career is being aided and sponsored for promoting his CAGW theist dogma on the rest of the world BY that same government that is promised 1.3 trillion in new tax dollars when he succeeds in getting innocents to accept HIS CAGW dogma.

    I do admit, that – unlike NASA-GISS’s Jim Hansen – Perlwitz does not appear to be personally paid several hundreds of thousands of dollars and thousands of political interviews for promoting their CAGW theism….. Perlwitz is only rewarded with a salary and continued employment and research opportunities and endless research funds for promoting his religion. That the results of that religion are the death of millions and the continued poverty and illness for billions is meaningless to their “religion”. More to the point perhaps, the death of billions IS the stated goal of their religion.

    And their continued careers.

  163. climatereason says:
    August 6, 2012 at 11:59 am
    David
    Thanks for the comments by yourself and Richard regarding my observations. I am not sure that Eric addressed the central theme of my point in his response to me.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Well he didn’t address ANY of the points put to him by ANY of the commenters. He simply kept repeating his assertions and dismissing the comments of anyone who didn’t have a PhD. Confronted with material from the IPCC itself that contradicted his own, he did the same. Not since Myrhh and Greg House have I seen such dogged determination to assert a point of view while being so completely and obviously wrong. The only difference between them is that Eric gets to be both totaly and completely wrong and obviously so in his self imposed ignorance (hey Jan P Perlwitz, check out the Inhof thread and see if you can spot an example of your own behaviour in imposing a wall of ignorance upon yourself) is that he gets to put PhD after his name and they don’t.

    climatereason;
    It strikes me this would make a good thread, ‘Does co2 have any noticeable effect on climate at concentrations above 280ppm?’
    tonyb
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    I think it would. As I said in that thread, CO2’s logarithmic properties are the stake in the heart of the cagw meme, yet we spend little time on it. It is fundamental physics, so fundamental that the IPCC actually agrees with it, they simply write some obscure language around the matter to avoid having to deal with it. Bring it up with smart alecs like Eric and they simply ignore it because they’ll get their butt’s handed to them in short order and they know it. richardscourtney posted a rather fascinating quote from Richard Lindzen that drives it home even harder, and as you saw, Eric with the vaunted PhD simply ignored it. If he engaged in any meaningful discourse on the topic he’d look like an even bigger fool, so he simply ignores it.

    Yes, I think it would make an excellent thread. I’d write it myself, but I know in advance that my lack of “credentials” would bring the arrogance of eric and his ilk to the table.

  164. I thought I saw some statements on increases in nocturnal temperatures. If there’s been an increase, there’s been an equal day time increase.
    I’ve analyzed NCDC’s Global summary of days data, calculating a daily temperature increase, followed by the night time drop in temp. I’ve subtracted the 2 getting a difference, and it is remarkably stable, and there is no trend, some years it goes up a little, some down.

    http://www.science20.com/virtual_worlds/blog/updated_temperature_charts-86742

    In this image Diff(D*365) is multiplied by 365 giving an annual difference in Avg(rise – fall).

  165. davidmhoffer:

    At August 6, 2012 at 12:37 pm you say of Eric Grimsrud on the Inhofe thread at

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/02/inhofe-exposes-another-epic-fail-by-global-warming-alarmists-thursday/

    As I said in that thread, CO2′s logarithmic properties are the stake in the heart of the cagw meme, yet we spend little time on it. It is fundamental physics, so fundamental that the IPCC actually agrees with it, they simply write some obscure language around the matter to avoid having to deal with it. Bring it up with smart alecs like Eric and they simply ignore it because they’ll get their butt’s handed to them in short order and they know it. richardscourtney posted a rather fascinating quote from Richard Lindzen that drives it home even harder, and as you saw, Eric with the vaunted PhD simply ignored it.

    Grimsrud is a self-proclaimed sock-puppet for the Union of Concerned Scientists. He continues his behaviour on that thread where he has claimed to know more about the subject than Lindzen, and he is now arguing that water vapour is not a GHG.

    I seconded your suggestion that he get the same treatment as Myrrh and Greg House (for the same reason as them), but this was rejected.

    As you say, Perlwitz is in good company. Evidence and logic roll off ‘warmers’ like water off a duck’s back, so they run from the obvious point concerning the logarithmic effect of CO2 IR absorbtion with concentration.

    Richard

  166. Climatefellas III – the writing on the wall.

    Scene – The basement at Big Jim’s

    Jim

    I’ve called youse all here today ‘cos our climate protection business is facing the biggest threat since the punters saw those friggin’ emails.

    This Muller guy ‘n his BEST crew ‘r crawling all over us – muscling in on the racket and making us look like maroons.

    We gotta do something.

    Eric

    It’s really tough times out there boss, Muller & his team are putting it about that they’re the new boys in town and the punters are lapping it up.

    Jim

    OK – so we gotta do what we always do – blow ‘em away. What’s da big problem.

    Raypierre

    It’s not that easy Jim – people are listening’ to their story and it’s kind’ve of new & fresh and they like what they hear also they seem to have the meeja on their side.

    Jim

    Meeja fer Chrissake! – just fix them like we always do – speak to Revkin, Borenstein, Black at the BBC and that other limey dimwit at the pantywaist green rag…….

    Eric

    It’s called The Guardian Jim – but Muller’s not just talking to our guys – he’s going over their heads and talking straight to the broadsheet editors & national networks.

    Anyway it may not be such a problem – he tells everybody he’s on our side.

    Jim

    On our side, on our side! They say he’s letting the punters look at his DATA!

    When you guys got made up in da racket – waddid we do?

    We mingled our blood and made a promise – only team members get to see THE DATA!

    Raypierre

    Calm down Jim. It’s under control – all our media guys are explaining Muller’s joined our racket and he pretty well well agrees with everything we’re doin’………….. except mebbee Katrina…….

    Jim

    Whaddaya mean “except mebbee Katrina”………

    Raypierre

    Well he says it was only a cat 3 and probably nothing to do with the climate racket……..

    Jim

    NUTTIN TO DO WITH CLIMATE! Hurricanes are our best fear factor – they terrify the punters how can we keep ‘em scared without hurricanes?

    Eric

    Well, the punters don’t scare as easily as they used to Jim – but don’t worry, Muller backs us on pretty well everything else.

    ‘Cept mebbee those emails.

    Jim

    Whaddabout the emails?

    Eric

    Weeeellll – he says they were probably an inside job by the CRU crew.

    Jim

    An inside job! Whaddaya mean an inside job – we told the punters they were a criminal heist by the Big Oil mob – that’s our pitch and he’s screwing it.

    OK – I’ve heard enough – Muller’s gotta be terminated. I’ll send Mad Mike & his bagman Scotty the Strangler down there ‘n they’ll waste him.

    Raypierre

    Errr – we already tried that boss – there was a …kind of a … malfunction. Something happened as they were getting their hardware out’ve the trunk and they both got shot in the foot.

    Came back in wheelchairs.

    But I don’t think you should upset yourself as long as Muller’s basically on our side.

    ‘Cept maybe on weather extremes………..

    Jim

    WHAT…..ABOUT……WEATHER….EXTREMES!

    Eric

    Well, calm down boss, don’t let it eat you up – but Muller says this years weather is cooler over 98% of the globe and the extreme weather here’s just normal variation.

    Jim

    NORMAL VARIATION fer Chrissake! Who’s gonna give us $7BN a year to study NORMAL FRIGGIN’ VARIATION!

    That’s it Muller’s gotta go – Gav & I will fly down to Berkeley tonite and fix him.

    Gav’s the only one of you eejits I still trust.

    Gavin

    Yeeess – Jim. Of course you know I’m your strongest and most loyal supporter here and couldn’t agree more with your assessment of the situation – but, bearing in mind that my key role here has always been on the more strategic and advisory side I think…………

    Jim

    You’re a chicken hearted, meally mouthed limey pussy, Gav!

    The rest of you are just as bad – there isn’t a soldier among you bunch of lilly livered girl scouts! – book me a ticket ‘n I’ll fly down there & do the job myself.

    Wahhduwe know about this guy Muller……… does he have a favourite horse……. dog………gerbil……………..?

    Jim leaves for the airport and the others look at each other nervously for a while – before Gavin breaks the silence.

    Gavin

    Well, as I said before and I’m sure you all agree, I’ve always been Big Jim’s main adviser and strongest supporter during the long years when he’s been building up the business.Years which have no doubt put an enormous strain on Jim as he went out there on his own, way ahead of the field and stuck his neck out pioneering the more controversial aspects of our enterprise. While Jim’s away doing the business in his..err..traditional, old fashioned way, I wonder if we shouldn’t take this opportunity to review some of our long term strategic objectives.

    The other guys look at each other, hesitantly at first, and then nod – knowingly.

  167. richardscourtney;

    I heard it characterized once as follows:

    We start out as infants, who know Nothing about Everything. As time goes on, we arrive at some general knowledge that allows us to operate on a day to day basis by the time we are teenagers. We know a Little about Most Things. As we progress to university, we choose an area of study in order to learn a Lot about a Few Things. To gain a PhD which requires even more focused study. We end up knowing Almost Everything about Almost Nothing.

    Some people who know Almost Everything about Almost Nothing recognize that the narrowness of their knowledge base makes them ill equipped to understand an issue like climate which requires one to know a Lot about Many Things. They presume that their specialized knowledge can be extrapolated to a system that is of unknown complexity and crosses the boundaries of the hard scienses as well as math and statistics. As the saying goes, They Don’t Know What They Don’t Know.

    What is intensely aggravating however, is their dogged determination to continue to Not Know What They Don’t Know in order to maintain the superiority of their world view in their own minds. When even the official literature from the IPCC disputes their point of view, and they choose to ignore it, one cannot but stand in awe of the human intellect which can at one time can have the capacity to earn a PhD and at the same time impose on itself a cloak of ignorance that would serve well in the Dark Ages.

  168. richardscourtney wrote at August 6, 2012 at 3:11 am:

    There has been no statically discernible rise in global temperature for 15 years.

    This is the x-th repetition of the same talking point to which I have already replied y times, and my again repeated answer won’t be any different from my previous one. The purpose of the talking point is that it allegedly proved some assertion that goes like “global warming has stopped” or so. As such it is scientifically meaningless and w/o any scientific validity. About as meaningless as claims like “global warming has stopped”, because there hasn’t been detected any statistically significant warming trend since last year, or since last week. On these time scales, as it is also true for a time scale of a decade or 15 years, the global temperature record is still dominated by natural variability, like the 11-year solar cycle as external forcing, or ENSO recurring every multiple years as the major mode of internal variability in the system on this time scale. Just because a statistically significant warming signal can’t be detected in the temperature record from one week to the next week, it doesn’t follow that there wasn’t any long-term global warming trend. The same is valid for 10 years, or 15 years.

    In 50, 100 or 200 years, even if the globally temperature anomaly is significantly higher than today and further increasing, there still will be 15-year periods where the warming trend is not statistically significant. And Mr. Courtney will still assert that “global warming has ceased”, drawing flawed conclusions from non-robust results from statistical analysis.

    The UK’s Hadley Centre for Climate Research reported that their model does not appropriately deal with natural internal variability (Smith et al, 2007), but speculated that natural internal variability might step aside in 2009, allowing global warming to resume.

    Since Mr. Courtney omits to provide the information about the scientific reference, and only he exactly knows why, I only can guess he means this study [1].

    Mr. Courtney’s assertion what the study allegedly says is a falsehood.

    This is what is really said in the paper:

    Our system predicts that internal variability will partially offset the anthropogenic global warming signal for the next few years. However, climate will continue to warm, with at least half of the years after 2009 predicted to exceed the warmest year currently on record.

    It is clear from this quote that the authors say there was an anthropogenic warming signal also in the present, which is “partially offset” by natural variability. They also say, warming is going to continue after 2009. The warming that is also presently happening. This isn’t speculated in the paper, it is part of the prediction by the authors. There isn’t a single phrase to be found in the paper that says anything about “resumption of warming”.

    The discussion of a resumption of warming was an admission that warming had ceased.

    There isn’t any discussion of a “resumption of warming” in the paper, and there isn’t any “admission” of any “ceased” warming in there. This is totally made up by Mr. Courtney. I wonder whether Mr. Courtney even knows the paper, and where he gets his desinformation. Or does he know the paper and disseminate the falsehoods anyhow?

    Subsequently, German modellers moved the date for ‘resumption’ up to 2015 (Keenlyside et al, 2008).

    I suppose the paper to which Mr. Courtney refers here is this one [2].

    Also this paper doesn’t say anything about global warming “ceased”, and that it was going to “resume” after 2015. Instead the authors state:

    Our results suggest that global surface temperature may not increase over the next decade, as natural climate variations in the North Atlantic and tropical Pacific temporarily offset the projected anthropogenic warming.

    Again, also these authors talk about natural variability offsetting anthropogenic warming on a scale of a decade, but nowhere in the paper it is stated there wasn’t any global warming signal at present. One can only offset something that is there.

    A cessation of global warming cannot be an “acceleration in the trend” of global warming.

    Again, the alleged statements about the “cessation of global warming” in the papers referenced by Mr. Courtney is a free invention by him.

    My statements, based on my knowledge of the current state of climate science, are following:

    1. There is a global warming process ongoing, which is a long-term trend over many decades and over centuries, caused by greenhouse gases in the atmosphere from anthropogenic emissions.
    2. Since about the second half of the 20th century, carbon dioxide in the atmosphere from anthropogenic emissions has become more and more the dominant climate driver, compared to other climate drivers like solar variability, volcanic aerosols, tropospheric aerosols, land use etc. That is, CO2 hasn’t been the only climate driver since the Little Ice Age, or in the past before that, it only has become the most important one in recent decades, with increasing importance due to continuing CO2 increase in the atmosphere from anthropogenic emissions.
    3. None of the other climate drivers have changed in the second half of the 20th century until today in such a direction or magnitude that they could have caused the statistically significant warming trend since the about mid of the 70ies.
    4. With the given natural variability and the current slope of the warming trend due to greenhouse gases, it takes somewhere in between 15 and 20 years for the signal to become statistically significant with 95% probability. On time scales shorter than that, variability due to the 11-years solar cycle and due to internal variability like ENSO masks the warming trend.

    The state of climate science was summarized and synthesized, based on many scientific studies published in peer reviewed specialist journals of the field, in the volume “The Physical Science Basis” of the IPCC Report 2007.[3] I’m almost absolutely sure that the new report that is going to be published in 2013 won’t contain anything that refutes or essentially changes my statements above. I don’t see any studies since the previous IPCC report, which brought revelations in contradiction to what is generally accepted in climate science as paradigm.

    Also, neither of the two studies referenced by Mr. Courtney contains anything that was in any contradiction to my statements above.

    Simply, Smokey is right that “the trend [in global warming] is not accelerating”, and Perlwitz’s claim that Smokey used the wrong data set merely distracts from the fact that Smokey is right.

    And Mr. Courtney writes at August 6, 2012 at 3:16 am:

    PS. Perhaps I should have mentioned that more than 80% of anthropogenic GHG emissions were after 1940.

    Now, I’m glad that Mr. Courtney emphasizes this point, since it makes clear what Smokey and he believe what the alleged contradiction between empirical data and theory was. They believe, if CO2 accelerated after 1940, the global temperature should have accelerated too, if the CO2 increase caused global warming. Only, this argument is logically flawed, since it rests on the assumption that I claimed CO2 was the only climate driver, which changed global temperature since the Little Ice Age, and, hence, there was a linear relationship between CO2 and global temperature. However, I do not claim such a thing. I do not know any climate scientist who would claim such a thing, for the matter of fact.

    And whether Mr. Courtney recognizes it and he only is silent about it to not embarrass Smokey I don’t know. But Smokey apparently isn’t able to see that he holds each other contradicting views at the same time about the relationship between CO2 and temperature. One one hand, he claims a close correlation between CO2 and global temperature, with global temperature supposedly leading and causing the CO2 changes in the atmosphere. On the other hand, he uses the apparent divergence between CO2 curve and temperature curve in recent years as argument for the claim that CO2 didn’t cause global warming. I may not be the sharpest knife in the drawer, but Smokey doesn’t even have a blade.

    [1] http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1139540
    [2] http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature06921
    [3] http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/contents.html

  169. Perlwitz speculates:

    “2. Since about the second half of the 20th century, carbon dioxide in the atmosphere from anthropogenic emissions has become more and more the dominant climate driver”

    Horse manure. Prove it. Per the scientific method: testably and falsifiably.

    It is nonsense like Perlwitz’ baseless opinions that cause problems where there are none.

  170. Jan P Perlwitz;

    EXCUSE ME?

    When it WAS warming up, and skeptics pointed out that this warming was well within natural variability, you and your ilk trotted out all sorts of reasons to explain that it was NOT natural variability and that the CO2 signals was clearly overcoming natural variability.

    Now that it is NOT warming, you want to claim that it IS natural variability and that the CO2 signal does NOT overcome natural variability.

    Further, when the current warming hiatus first appeared, the claim was made that it would have to be in place for more than 11 years before it could be attributed to something other than natural variability. Then, with 11 years approaching, it was changed to 15 years. Then, with 15 years approaching, it was changed to 17 years.

    Your hypocrisy is astounding.

    Read and of the material I suggested to you yet? Or are you intent on remaining ignorant as well as being a hypocrite?

  171. I notice also Jan P Perlwitz that you have not appeared in the thread discussing your colleague Hansen’s latest paper. You complain in this thread about the guy being denigrated for his behaviour, but you offer not one word in defense of him in the current thread discussing his work. Perhaps that’s because you don’t have an answer for the clear case of cherry picking and alarmist clap trap that this paper represents? Perhaps throwing out decades of data, giant chunks of geography, to come to a conclusion based on probability, is OK with you? You complain about the scorn heaped upon your colleague, and then when confronted with the easily found evidence that the scorn is well deserved, you contrive to find reasons not to read it.

    Well there is a brand new paper out by your beloved colleague. It is being discussed in real time, I’ve even taken the trouble to post the link since we already know you are too lazy to look anything up yourself and then use it as an excuse to “not know”:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/06/nasas-james-hansens-big-cherry-pick/

    The obfuscation, misdirection, and clearly blatant cherry picking of data combined with clear exclusion of contrary data is on full display Jan P Perlwitz. So how about jumping into that thread, seeing the language that is being used, and WHY it is being used.

    You can then choose to defend it, heap the scorn upon it that it so richly deserves, or slink quietly away in silence.

    My prediction is that you will choose the coward’s path and slink away in silence. You’d look like a fool defending the paper, and you’d be putting your job at risk to say what should be said about it, so you’ll just slink away.

    There’s a new batch of trolls in town folks, and these ones gots themselves PhD’s. But they’re just trolls at the end of the day.

  172. Jan P Perlwitz says:
    August 6, 2012 at 5:06 pm
    there still will be 15-year periods where the warming trend is not statistically significant

    The July anomaly for RSS just came out and it dropped from 0.339 to 0.292. So as of this date, RSS shows a totally flat slope for 15 years and 8 months going back to December, 1996. (To be exact, slope = -4.54789e-05 per year) The point that I want to make though is that 15 years and 8 months is 92.2% of the way to Santer’s 17 years. What happens then? See

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1995/plot/rss/from:1996.9/trend

  173. davidmhoffer says:
    August 6, 2012 at 5:43 pm

    Jan P Perlwitz;

    EXCUSE ME?…..

    Your hypocrisy is astounding.

    Read and of the material I suggested to you yet? Or are you intent on remaining ignorant as well as being a hypocrite?
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    David, he is not a hypocrite, he is a propagandist who stays bought. Although if I were paying him I would not be giving him a raise because he is a tad bit too obvious.

  174. Leif Svalgaard (August 4, 2012 at 1:36 pm)
    “As Richard Feynman once said: “the easiest one to fool is oneself”.”

    Is that what you told Jean Dickey (NASA JPL leading expert on earth rotation) when she published the pattern in 1997?


    Gail Combs (August 5, 2012 at 5:32 pm)
    “But do stay away from the Jupiter-Earth-Venus tidal cycles at this time. It detracts from the rest of your work.”

    Some things are black & white.

    If you would suggest otherwise: You might as well tell me 1+1 does not equal 2 and tyrannically demand that I accept that. As you can see, that level of social intractability is dangerous territory.

    Other things are grey.
    Am I prepared to make a final ruling on JEV? Absolutely not. Certainly WUWT is not the place to discuss JEV.

  175. Mr Perlwitz:

    Your diatribe aimed at me (at August 6, 2012 at 5:06 pm) has been adequately rebutted by subsequent posters.

    However, I write to ask a clarification.

    Your diatribe is an attempted rebuttal of my accurate statement that
    there has been no statistically significant global warming for the last 15 years.

    Your diatribe omitted to state the magnitude of the global warming over the last 15 years which you assert, and it failed to provide the r^2 which demonstrates that warming is statistically significant.

    I assume your failure to provide these values was an oversight induced by the immense verbiage of your diatribe. Otherwise,
    your failure to provide these values among your immense verbiage would indicate that you know there has been no statistically significant global warming for the last 15 years
    and your entire diatribe was an attempt to pretend you don’t know,.

    So, I eagerly anticipate your correcting your oversight.

    Richard

  176. Friends:

    Mr Perlwitz begins his diatribe at at August 6, 2012 at 5:06 pm by saying;

    richardscourtney wrote at August 6, 2012 at 3:11 am:

    There has been no statically discernible rise in global temperature for 15 years.

    This is the x-th repetition of the same talking point to which I have already replied y times, and my again repeated answer won’t be any different from my previous one. The purpose of the talking point is that it allegedly proved some assertion that goes like “global warming has stopped” or so. As such it is scientifically meaningless and w/o any scientific validity. About as meaningless as claims like “global warming has stopped”, because there hasn’t been detected any statistically significant warming trend since last year, or since last week.

    In case there are any who do not know
    1. warming consists of a rise in temperature
    and
    2. cooling consists of a fall in temperature.

    So, if the globe has not risen in temperature then there has not been global warming.
    and
    (a) if there was rising global temperature prior to 15 years ago
    but
    (b) global temperature has not risen for the last 15 years
    then
    (c) global warming stopped 15 years ago.

    (a) to (b) is not a “talking point”: it is reality.

    Consideration of whether global warming will – or will not – resume is another matter.

    Richard

  177. @richardscourtney August 6, 2012 at 11:24 pm:

    Your diatribe is an attempted rebuttal of my accurate statement that
    there has been no statistically significant global warming for the last 15 years.

    Your diatribe omitted to state the magnitude of the global warming over the last 15 years which you assert, and it failed to provide the r^2 which demonstrates that warming is statistically significant.

    Either you haven’t understoond what you read, or you deliberately disseminate falsehoods, Mr. Courtney. First you misrepresent what the studies say you used as reference to back up your previous assertions, now you assert that I said something what I didn’t. I don’t know, which one it is.

    I did not assert that the global temperature trend over the last 15 years has been statistically significant. Like I did not state that the global temperature trend since the other day has been statistically significant. If you simply haven’t understood what I was saying in my previous comment, I recommend to go back and you try to read it again.

  178. richardscourtney wrote:

    In case there are any who do not know
    1. warming consists of a rise in temperature
    and
    2. cooling consists of a fall in temperature.

    So, if the globe has not risen in temperature then there has not been global warming.

    According to Mr. Courtney, if the global temperature anomaly is higher today than it was yesterday, there is global warming. If the anomaly is lower tomorrow than today, global warming is off then, then maybe it’s on again the following day, one day off, one day on, maybe a few days on, then off again. What an utter rubbish.

  179. Mr Perlwitz:

    I am replying to your posts at August 7, 2012 at 12:38 am and August 7, 2012 at 12:46 am. Clearly, you are compounding obscurantism with more obscurantism. Obviously, you know you are wrong or you would not be adopting such behaviour.

    I remind that my first post in this thread was at August 6, 2012 at 3:11 am. I then pointed out that you had used obscurantism to deny the correct statement of Smokey that said;

    Here is the long term trend from the LIA. Notice that the trend is not accelerating. That means only one thing: the 40% rise in CO2 has not caused any measurable warming.

    I said your obscurantism was an assertion that Smokey had used the wrong data set.

    And I pointed out that Smokey is right because
    (a) there has been no statistically significant rise in global temperature for the last 15 years
    and
    (b) the recent periods of global warming (viz. 1910 to 1940 and 1970 to 2000) show the same rate of rise.

    And I said of point (a):

    A cessation of global warming cannot be an “acceleration in the trend” of global warming.

    That is true.

    You replied with your ridiculous diatribe at August 6, 2012 at 5:06 pm which attempts to say there has not been a cessation of global warming and my correct statement that there has is merely a “talking point”.

    At August 6, 2012 at 11:24 pm I pointed out:

    Your diatribe omitted to state the magnitude of the global warming over the last 15 years which you assert, and it failed to provide the r^2 which demonstrates that warming is statistically significant.

    And I asked you to correct that “oversight”.

    You have not corrected your omission but, instead, you have tried to obscure the facts that you know there has been no statistically significant global warming over the last 15 years and that a cessation of global warming cannot be an acceleration of the rate of global warming.

    You compound that obscurantism by saying of me:

    According to Mr. Courtney, if the global temperature anomaly is higher today than it was yesterday, there is global warming. If the anomaly is lower tomorrow than today, global warming is off then, then maybe it’s on again the following day, one day off, one day on, maybe a few days on, then off again. What an utter rubbish.

    I acknowledge that you are an expert on “utter rubbish” because you post so much of it on this blog. However, in this case you are mistaken in your claim that I have done the same.

    I stated the period of “no statistically significant global warming” is “the last 15 years”. This is correct because whenever an assertion of global warming or global cooling is made then the considered time period needs to be stated. Indeed, if the globe warmed over a time period of a day then that day did exhibit global warming. However, the fact of that global warming says nothing about the significance of that global warming on that day.

    In this discussion I stated the time period of no global warming (i.e. the most recent 15 years) and I stated its significance; viz.

    A cessation of global warming [over the last 15 years] cannot be an “acceleration in the trend” of global warming.

    You have not posted anything which provides any doubt to that correct statement.

    Assuming you are not being disingenuous in your claim of ignorance concerning the fact that “global warming” or “global cooling” depends on the considered time period, I refer you to the statements of Bob Carter on the matter. As an introduction I draw your attention to his presentation on the matter in this video.

    I suggest that others may benefit from viewing it, too.

    Richard

  180. Mr. Courtney,

    It is obvious to me that there is something you do not understand. I think it can be laid out what you don’t understand. There are two statements, A and B. These statements are as follows:

    A) “No statistically significant increase” with a probability of 95%, of the global temperature can be detected in the temperature record of the last 15 years.

    B) Global warming has “stopped” or “ceased”.

    You do not understand that statement A and statement B are not the same,

    or

    you do not understand that statement B does not logically follow from statement A.

    I do not dispute statement A, like I do not dispute the statements that no statistically significant increase of the global temperature can be detected in the global temperature record with the data starting yesterday, last week, last months, last year, 5 years ago, 10 years ago.

    I dispute something else.

    I dispute your assertion that statement B was true, because statement A was true. To conclude that statement B was true, because statement A was true is logically a non sequitur. It is a non-seqitur, because the statistical analysis of a time series does not allow such a conclusion. When it is tested whether a trend in the data of a time series is statistically significant compared to the background variability, the null-hypothesis is that there is no trend in the data. Then, after the test has been performed the null-hypothesis can be rejected or it can’t, depending on what the results are, with an error probability as significance threshold, 1%, 5%, 10%, or whatever, as long it is a meaningful number. Thus, if the null-hypothesis is being successfully rejected, it can be said that there is a trend in the data set with an error probability of x%, or a probability of significance of y=100-x%. However, the failure to reject the null-hypothesis does not allow the alternative conclusion a) that there was no trend in the data set, coming as a factual statement. It only allows the statement b) that a trend can’t be detected with statistical significance at the chosen significance threshold with the given data set. Do you understand the difference between statement a) and statement b)? Statement b) means that we can’t draw a scientifically valid conclusion from the statistical analysis about the presence or absence of a trend in the data, when the significance test fails.

    Therefore, your assertion, based on a trend analysis of the temperature data of the last 15 years, that there was “no warming trend” in the global temperature data, as a positive factual statement, is without scientific validity. Your assertion that “global warming ceased” 15 years ago or so is without scientific validity. The assertions of Bob Carter in the video clip (the statements of mainstream climate science are based on research published in peer reviewed journals, what you have to offer are video clips on youtube that don’t fulfill any scientific standards. LOL) with respect to that are without scientific validity.

    If you still don’t understand my argument I won’t be able to help you any further.

  181. Mr Perlwitz:

    You continue to be an obscurantist in your post at August 7, 2012 at 8:51 am. None of what you say and assert refutes the accuracy of what I said in any way, and I am certain that you know that.

    However, I am pleased you now admit

    “No statistically significant increase” with a probability of 95%, of the global temperature can be detected in the temperature record of the last 15 years.

    Perhaps you will now also admit that there was such a “statistically significant increase” for the previous 15 years?

    If you do admit that fact, then you are accepting that the global warming of the previous 15 years ceased for the last 15 years.

    Importantly, if you admit that additional fact then you are agreeing my true statement that this cessation cannot be an “acceleration in the trend” of global warming.

    And your failed attempts at logic become irrelevant.

    Richard

  182. Mr. Courtney,

    Your new reply does not contain anything to which I haven’t already replied before.

    You don’t understand my argument, and you don’t understand the logic of statistical analysis and what conclusions can be drawn from it. I’m not able to help you any further.

    [Moderator's Note: Congratulations on your new blog: you finally have a venue where you can freely label people as "deniers", denigrate the people who comment here, complain about moderation policy, and misrepresent what goes on here. May you get the traffic you deserve. -REP]

  183. Mr Perlwitz:

    I understand your reply to me at August 7, 2012 at 9:41 am to be an admission that you know you are plain wrong.

    You have shown you cannot dispute what I wrote at August 7, 2012 at 9:18 am which shows your “argument” is nonsense.

    Onlookers will recognise there could not be a more clear demonstration of your inability to refute the facts of the matter than your having refused to answer what I wrote at August 7, 2012 at 9:18 am and, instead, your saying I don’t understand your “argument”.

    Richard

  184. @Moderator REP:

    Thank you. BTW: I had sent a reply to the comment by davidmhoffer at August 7, 2012 at 8:27 am, just before my last reply to Mr. Courtney. Latter got already posted, former mysteriously vanished, and it doesn’t say anything about awaiting moderation. I’m just asking whether it’s accidentally hanging in the filters somewhere and you are going to free it, before I post it on my blog as one of the comments that got snipped here.

    [Reply: As you can see, your comment here is posted. However, when you violate site Policy, which you often do, your comment is snipped or deleted. That is your own doing; read the Policy to see why. And since you are using your blog to publicly attack WUWT, Anthony, and others by posting commentary that would violate site Policy here, you will understand if your free advertising is limited. ~dbs, mod.]

  185. richardscourtney, you wrote:

    Onlookers will recognise there could not be a more clear demonstration of your inability to refute the facts of the matter than your having refused to answer what I wrote

    Oh, I see you need to publicly reassure yourself now that you were right and I was wrong by appealing to unknown “onlookers” who were to confirm your side and assertions. Well, whatever you need to make yourself feel good.

  186. It is the middle of the work day. Mr Perlwitz apparently uses his taxpayer-funded work time to post on blogs. Just like climate charlatans Michael Mann and Gavin Schmidt. It seems that none of them have an honest bone in their bodies. Goes with the territory of climate alarmism, I suppose. They are dishonest about science, so they’re dishonest when it comes to their misusing the public purse.

  187. Mr Perlwitz:

    Even by your childish standards your post at August 7, 2012 at 10:39 am is poor.

    I don’t need to “confirm” anything: you lost the discussion because you were wrong and your arm-waving did not conceal that.

    I tried to get you to ‘do the honest thing’ by offering you another chance to overtly admit you were wrong when you had demonstrated that you know you were wrong. You failed to do that but threw a childish insult instead. Sad, so very sad.

    Richard

  188. Smokey:

    re. your comment at August 7, 2012 at 10:49 am.

    I could live with these people posting to blogs in work time if they were conducting a public service by their blogging. But, as can be seen by those who blog at RC and e.g. Perlwitz in this thread, they are merely playing games.

    Perhaps it is some consolation that while blogging they are not conducting the shenanigans of ‘the Team’. Indeed, it may be a benefit that they spend their work time blogging if it reduces the time they spend on ‘Team’ activity.

    Richard

  189. Smokey wrote:

    It is the middle of the work day. Mr Perlwitz apparently uses his taxpayer-funded work time to post on blogs.

    Smokey is always good for doing some little denunciation, although it was predictable.

    No, Smokey, my work time is not funded by taxpayers. My work time comes from me. Instead, my grant money and my salary coming from it is funded by taxpayers. Are you a taxpayer in US? Is my salary also funded from your taxes? And no, I don’t use my work time to post on blogs. Since my work time is per definition the time during which I do something for my work, it can’t be my work time when I post on blogs, since this is not part of my work. I post on blogs during my blog-post time. Your are utterly clueless, aren’t you? Also, you are not entitled to tell me when I must have work time, and when I’m allowed to have blog-post time. Who do you believe you are?

  190. Moderator, you write:

    Reply: As you can see, your comment here is posted.

    I see that my comment where I asked for the vanished comment is posted here. But where is my comment for which I asked, that I sent in reply to the comment “davidmhoffer at August 7, 2012 at 8:27 am”, where he asked why I hadn’t said anything in the other thread? I don’t see it. I don’t see that it has been snipped either. It just has vanished after sending. Perhaps, it has vanished for some unknown reason, thus I’m going to post it again. If you don’t want to post it due to “violation of side policy” I kindly ask you to say so.

    (Reply: You have the right to go on the internet and complain. –mod)

  191. [SNIP: OK, this is getting too personal and whole sale denigration of this blog and its commenters is out of bounds. I would also ask all commenters to refrain from baiting Dr. Perlwitz and to engage him substantively. Please. -REP]

  192. Perlwitz says:

    “…my work time is not funded by taxpayers.”

    But earlier today Perlwitz said:

    “My salary comes from government money.”

    Question: was Perlwitz lying before, or is he lying now?

    I know an Elmer Gantry-type double-talking charlatan when I see one.

  193. Smokey wrote:

    Perlwitz says:

    “…my work time is not funded by taxpayers.”

    But earlier today Perlwitz said:

    “My salary comes from government money.”

    Is Smokey forging quotes now to assert a contradiction where there is none and to display me as a liar? But wouldn’t this be too obvious for everyone who checks what I actually said in http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/04/weekend-open-thread-2/ ?

    Here, I said:

    No, Smokey, my work time is not funded by taxpayers. My work time comes from me. Instead, my grant money and my salary coming from it is funded by taxpayers….

    There isn’t any contradiction in this statement to what I said earlier.

  194. I never forge quotes. Perlwitz wrote, verbatim:

    “My salary comes from government money.”

    No surprise there.

    Since Perlwitz clearly spends lots of time posting on blogs, both his own and others, that doesn’t seem to leave much time to do actual, like, work.

    But a lot of these gravy train riders just cut ‘n’ paste from the circular argument file, rewrite, and TA-DA!, another pal-reviewed piece of nonsense appears that is contradicted by the real world. What a racket, eh?

    Unfortunately, we unwilling taxpayers are paying for that science fiction.

  195. REP

    Agree with your comments. We have too few people of substance putting forward the other side of the climate story to want to drive them away. We can disagree with Dr Perlwitz without being rude to him
    tonyb

  196. Jan P Perlwitz;
    No, Smokey, my work time is not funded by taxpayers. My work time comes from me.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    If you are not a salaried 9 to 5 employee, then just say so. I think I know what you are trying to say, but the manner in which you are trying to say it seems contrived and circular, so it gets the response it does.

  197. Jan P Perlwitz

    There’s a new thread on Hansen you could jump into Jan.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/07/editorial-hansen-is-simply-wrong-and-a-complete-and-abject-failure/

    You could jump into that thread and defend him there too. Of course, you might tick off a rather senior someone from NOAA who has the guts to call Hansen out for publishing something that cannot be described as science. I asked you before what words you would use to describe people guilty of certain actions. You asked for proof of those actions. Well, here we have a fine example of those actions playing out before us. Do you have the temerity to challenge Hansen as Dr Hoerling of NOAA does?

    “This isn’t a serious science paper,” Dr. Hoerling said. “It’s mainly about perception, as indicated by the paper’s title. Perception is not a science.”

Comments are closed.