137 thoughts on “Weekend open thread

  1. You’re such a tease; must be all the TV experience. “… coming up after the break …”

  2. OK, just to get the conversation started, I got a flyer in the mail this week for the annual Warren Miller movie – those of you who are snow sports enthusiasts, you will know this is an annual fall tradition to get you fired up for the coming winter snow play season. I was annoyed to see that this year one of their “corporate sponsors” is the Climate Reality project (“CRP” from here on). See link here for sponsorship info:

    http://www.skinet.com/warrenmiller/press/press-release-US

    If you don’t already know, the CRP is Al Gore’s AGW political machine. Link for more info if you need it :

    http://climaterealityproject.org/about-us/

    It’s really disappointing to see Warren Miller bring such a blantantly political sponsor into the movie. If you haven’t been to a Warren Miller movie, it is more of an event than a movie & all the “sponsors” are there – but it’s usually ski manufactures, resorts, etc. Having the CRP there will be a complete buzz kill. The movie is supposed to be about having fun & getting away from the reality of the world (and associated political crap) – this is really stepping away from why it is a fun event to go to.

    I am torn between boycotting the movie this year & going and giving Al Gore’s representatives an ear full. If you are a Warren Miller fan, but not a fan of AGW theory, what would you do?

  3. Well, if we’re gonna use teasers. I’ll start (just for fun) -a quiz.

    Who’s seen the movie The Heroes of Telemark and what’s it got to do with global warming?

  4. Unfortanately CRaP like this inundates our lives. The best way is to enjoy the movie, and the fact that CRP is spending money for your enjoyment!

  5. Any truth to the warmunist claim that the Oregon Petition cover letter was intentionally made to look as though it was an official National Academy of Sciences document in order to lend the petition legitimacy?

  6. CRP CEO travels all over the world, like Gore, to promote reducing peoples carbon footprint. Now they sponsor Warren Miller Entertainment which promotes traveling all over the world consuming energy to ski. Don’t get me wong,I love skiing but Jeff L sums up the situation nicely.

  7. Does anyone have a link to a relatively simple timeline of the CAGW? “Who said what when” kind of stuff.
    Thanks in advance.

  8. Mark and two Cats:

    At October 27, 2012 at 12:23 pm you ask

    Any truth to the warmunist claim that the Oregon Petition cover letter was intentionally made to look as though it was an official National Academy of Sciences document in order to lend the petition legitimacy?

    No, there is no truth in it, but so what?

    If it were true then that would not affect the nature of the responses. And it is the responses which count.

    Warmunists have tried to counter the Oregon Petition by obtaining similar polls which support their cause. All such attempts have failed so they try to smear the Oregon Petition. Your question derives from one such pathetic attempt at a smear.

    Richard

  9. Hero’s of Telemark are the Norweigians who blew up the heavy water plant.

    Was a harsh winter that year?

    Not impressed by the film. Read the book, “Skis Agains the Atom”, much more real.

  10. stamper44 says:
    October 27, 2012 at 12:44 pm
    “New Zealand maybe positioning itself to “leave Kyoto” at the upcoming Doha round. Lets hope!”

    Thank the Creator the WUWT community had a major influence in wrecking the Cap and Tax UN carbon credit financing arm of their global governance scheme.

  11. Think I read somewhere that in statistics two standard deviations was at a 95% confidence level.
    Shouldn’t that be 97% for post-normal numerology?

  12. Under the “be careful of what you wish for” and “unintended consequences”
    it appears that the undercurrent of “it is worse than you said, you pay me”
    has now been formalized by the Italians in
        The L’Aquila Earthquake Trial

    Regardless of the details, any scientist/technologist/bureaucrat who makes a public statement of anything will now always
        “actuate the negative.”
    if the alternative is to be sued/tossed in the clink.

    Just look at Irene and Sandy for excellent examples of the bureaucratic CYA version.

  13. http://www.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_606w/WashingtonPost/Content/Blogs/capital-weather-gang/201210/images/model-tracks-berk.jpg?uuid=e4k4Ph6qEeKc1bVcODiJYg

    This is the “models” tracks for Hurricane Sandy offshore of my home here in Charleston. One idiot model has the storm going EAST TONIGHT!

    If the “models” can’t tell me where the damned hurricane is gonna be tomorrow, how in the hell are they gonna tell me what the temperature will be in 2015 or 2020??!! Duhhhh………….

  14. stamper44 says:
    October 27, 2012 at 12:44 pm
    “New Zealand maybe positioning itself to “leave Kyoto” at the upcoming Doha round. Lets hope!”

    Kyoto expires end of 2012 anyway, so what?

  15. stamper44 says:
    October 27, 2012 at 12:44 pm
    New Zealand maybe positioning itself to “leave Kyoto” at the upcoming Doha round. Lets hope!

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/7873305/New-Zealand-may-quit-Kyoto

    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Interesting quote in that article suggesting that 85% of all carbon emissions are not covered by any agreement for one reason or another.

    I think the real question about the next round will be less about who may quit, and more about who is left in at all. Even those who sign, will, in my opinion, be signing mostly for show. They’ll drag their feet on ratification waiting to see if

    a) any of the players that matter like India and China step up (they won’t) and
    b) if 16 years of flat temps turn into 17…18…19…

  16. davidmhoffer says:
    October 27, 2012 at 1:21 pm

    Agreed – the EU are still arguing over their stance at Doha – Poland is being a pain in their side by not buying in to the EU bulls***. Doha will just subside into a promise to meet again at some other nice location; until ultimately no one turns up any more.
    Then it will be – oh – by the way – what was all that talk of CAGW about in the early 21st Century?

  17. The central issue of evidence for projected catastrophic anthropogenic global warming is how that evidence is evaluated. The “consensus” method, led by the UNIPCC, is to evaluate evidence on how well it fits with the hypothesis. If it fits, then the evidence is accepted (and in cases exaggerated). If it contradicts the CAGW hypothesis, then the evidence is anti-science.

    I believe that scientific evidence should be evaluated by more rational and objective criteria. The projected impacts create costs, so assessment criteria needs to be within the realms of economics. For those interested, (and with an understanding of intermediate level economics), I have drafted out how that assessment criteria might look. Please let me know what you think.

    http://manicbeancounter.com/2012/10/26/costs-of-climate-change-in-perspective/

  18. Can a Warmist please tell me what would falsify AGW as explained by IPCC?

    E.g no hotspot, flat temps for 18 years or more, cooling global temps? I just want at least 1 example, that’s all.

  19. D Böehm says:
    October 27, 2012 at 1:55 pm
    “Open Thread goodness from Nigel Farge:”

    I love how he annoys the despicable Schultz.

  20. richardscourtney said:
    October 27, 2012 at 12:41 pm
    >> Mark and two Cats:
    >> At October 27, 2012 at 12:23 pm you ask
    >> Any truth to the warmunist claim that the Oregon Petition cover letter was intentionally
    >> made to look as though it was an official National Academy of Sciences document in
    >> order to lend the petition legitimacy?
    ——————————————————
    > No, there is no truth in it, but so what?

    Thank you for your response Richard. I figured that the claim was bogus, but being a comprehensive skeptic, I want details. I can certainly entertain the notion that an overzealous CAGW skeptic might have acted outside of ethical bounds, as I can equally suspect that the warmunist claims were merely smears. Just looking for the truth.

    I don’t seem to be able to find a copy of the cover letter online; can someone point me to one?

  21. I haven’t seen any sign of Smokey lately and I miss his wit, vigour, and graphics links. I hope he’s o.k.

  22. Fauxbel Prize Winners

    Checking out Michael Mann’s facebook page today, he seems quite miffed that EVERYONE is calling themselves a Nobel Prize winner, but they only attack ME!!!!

    Well, I think it’s about time that the love was shared….

    Henry Pollack

    http://travel.usatoday.com/cruises/post/2012/08/antarctica-cruise-nobel-prize/822879/1

    Richard Conant

    http://www.qut.edu.au/about/news/news?news-id=32089

    Daniel Kammen

    http://www.facebook.com/events/468445386519602/

    Grace Akumu

    http://www2.webster.edu/depts/artsci/Global_Thinking/vol5_issue1/akumu_nobel.htm

    Mohan Munasinghe

    https://www.britsafe.org/news/british-safety-council-shares-platform-nobel-prize-winner

    Rolph Payet

    http://www.londoninternational.ac.uk/global-community

    CU-Boulder Research Faculty

    http://www.colorado.edu/news/series/cu-boulder-nobel-laureates

    Kevin Trenberth
    David Karoly
    Bryson Bates
    Neville Nichols

    http://www.quadrant.org.au/magazine/issue/2012/4/nobel-rot

    John Houghton

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_T._Houghton

    Andrew Weaver

    http://www.uleth.ca/notice/display.html?b=14&s=11052

  23. Mark and two Cats asked in

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/27/weekend-open-thread-3/#comment-1125109

    Any truth to the warmunist claim that the Oregon Petition cover letter was intentionally made to look as though it was an official National Academy of Sciences document in order to lend the petition legitimacy?

    I don’t know what and who “warmunist” supposedly are, but why don’t you check yourself? Here is the cover letter:

    http://www.petitionproject.org/seitz_letter.php

    It is signed, “Frederick Seitz, Past President, National Academy of Science, President Emeritus, Rockefeller University”.

    The Council of the National Academy of Science seemed to think that the presentation of the petition how it was mailed out was sufficiently misleading, to see the need to make clear in an official statement that the NAS didn’t have anything to do with it and did not agree with the content of the petition:

    http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=s04201998

    On the homepage of the Petition Project it is asserted with respect to the Oregon Petition:

    “31,487 American scientists have signed this petition, including 9,029 with PhDs”
    (http://www.petitionproject.org/)

    I consider this statement and the Oregon Petition as gravely fraudulent. It is the deliberate attempt to give the false impression that several 10,000 people who support the petition, were “American scientists”, who allegedly had the scientific qualification and competence to make expert judgements on the validity of scientific theories in the field of climate. This is fraudulent because to be considered as qualified to sign the petition it is sufficient to only have a Bachelor of Science in any field of science. It is not at all required to have worked and published in the specific field of science, i.e, to really have acquired expertise on the theories in the field of climate, it isn’t even required that the signer has worked in any field of science at any point of his/her life. Here I even make the assumption that the minimal required qualification of the signers has been properly verified at least. Whether this assumption is correctly made is only known by the obscure “Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine” where this petition is hosted.

    Just to have got some degree at a college in some scientific field at some point doesn’t make the person with this degree a “scientist”. And even possessing a PhD in a scientific field doesn’t make a person qualified and competent to make expert judgements in all other scientific fields.

    The Oregon Petition does not have any legitimacy with respect to what the expert views really are on global warming and its causes. I see it as nothing else than a politically and ideologically motivated piece of fake skeptic propaganda.

    [Note: Most skeptics consider GISS “gravely fraudulent” -mod]

  24. Mark and two Cats says:
    October 27, 2012 at 12:23 pm

    Any truth to the warmunist claim that the Oregon Petition cover letter was intentionally made to look as though it was an official National Academy of Sciences document in order to lend the petition legitimacy?

    As one of the original signers, I can assure you that there was no way anyone would be confused about its origin. It was circulated by Dr. Arthur Robinson and his son, Noah. There was a letter of support from Frederick Seitz, a past president of NAS, but there was no other reference to the NAS. But why would anyone sign or not sign based on the “legitimacy” of the source? If I didn’t believe the petition statement to be true wouldn’t sign it, no matter what organization circulated it.

    Go to the website at petitionproject.org where everything is explained. While there, you may want to read the Robinson’s paper on the environmental effects of increased CO2.

    Robert S. Simpson
    BA Physics, Rice University 1968

  25. vigilantfish says:

    “I haven’t seen any sign of Smokey lately and I miss his wit, vigour, and graphics links. I hope he’s o.k.”

    I miss him, too.

  26. A chance to go to a real opening of a Warren Miller film? Go! When I was in high school, dad would always rent a Warren Miller film and we’d watch it the night before the first ski trip of the season – to warm up, ya know! Go! (I do like the idea of wearing a WUWT t-shirt.)

  27. Jan Perlwitz says:

    “I consider this statement and the Oregon Petition as gravely fraudulent.”

    And I consider Perlwitz to be an idiot. He is making the preposterous claim that many thousands of PhD’s and professionals like Freeman Dyson, all with degrees in the hard sciences, did not know what they were signing. There are thousands of climatologists, chemists, physicists, engineers, etc. And they could not sign the petition by email — they had to download the petition, print it out, sign a hard copy, and mail it in. It is amazing that more than 31,000 well educated professionals took the time and effort to do that. They clearly felt strongly about the corruption endemic to GISS and similar government agencies. And they know what they are talking about; they went out of their way to take action, by the tens of thousands.

    Perlwitz is just stung by the irrefutable fact that the real scientific consensus is on the side of skeptics who question the “carbon” scare that people like Perlwitz are always flogging — with no empirical evidence. They have all signed the OISM Petition stating that CO2 is harmless, and beneficial to the biosphere. And the ultimate Authority, Planet Earth, supports their view. When Perlwitz claims that they were so gullible as to be taken in by a straightforward cover letter, he denigrates their intelligence, and the intelligence of the average WUWT reader. Only a dope would make such a silly claim.

  28. Jeff L: I loved those Warren Miller movies (and for a time we lived a few doors away from Warren’s son in Boulder CO, and went to the movie with him). I think you should go, and bring your climate game. Don’t pick a fight, just challenge anything PRC people say. And make sure the producers (and other sponsors!) know that you think it is completely inappropriate to inject climate politics into what should be a simpleminded blowout of amazing athletics, adrenaline, sunshine, steep and deep, and the joys of teasing gravity. And, no question, no matter how demurely PRC may position itself as a sponsor, it is stinking up the whole experience. Find out how much they kicked in, and offer to find replacement donors next year. Make it easy for the producers to ease these jerks out before they ruin the whole thing.

  29. Jan P Perlwitz says:
    October 27, 2012 at 3:10 pm

    So it’s ok when the 97% number is emblazoned all over the freakin MSM? Your bias is showing again.

  30. Jan P Perlwitz;
    This is fraudulent because to be considered as qualified to sign the petition it is sufficient to only have a Bachelor of Science in any field of science.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    You and I have had more than one spat in this forum Jan. Putting aside who won or who lost each one, you responsed to the issues I raised, sometimes in considerable detail. Apparently I know enough to bother debating with? You could try arguing that you won all of our exchanges, but I think you know that’s just not true.

    I have no degree at all, despite which I’ve put more than one PhD with supposed credentials in their place on multiple issues. Your arguing from authority. You are attempting to define yourself as a climate scientist whose opinion counts, and to exclude the opinion of anyone you define as “not” being a climate scientist.

    But the thing is Jan, a lot of climate science is pretty basic stuff. Collecting all the temperature data from all over the world is a lot of work, but it certaintly isn’t the stuff a PhD thesis is made of. Calculating a trend from that data? Are skills beyond the use of an Excel spreadsheet required? Combing through the station data and arriving at adjustment criteria for UHI and other factors is a bit more complicated, but again, hardly the stuff PhD thesis are made of. In fact, I submit to you that the average high school student ought to be able to understand the false science of smearing land based temperatures over the ocean, or smearing one station’s data over hundreds of kilometers. Do you really suppose that things such as these require skill specific to climate research?

    Do you suppose one needs a PhD to understand the IPCC prediction of a “hot spot” and to be able to look at the data and see that it isn’t there? How much direct experience in climate research does it take to understand that the IPCC ranks the level of scientific understanding of uncertainties in radiative forcing to be “low” of “very low” in 9 of 14 categories. Does one need a degree of any sort to look at the Total Cyclone Energy over the last few decades and see that it is falling, not rising?

    How much does one need to know about science to look at sea level data and see that sea level rise is decelerating, not accelerating? Does one need a degree in much of anything to jump on Wood For Trees and plot trends of temperature data showing that nothing significant has happened for the last 16 years? How hard is it to hit the Trends in Carbon Dioxide site to compare temperature trends to CO2 trends and see that they aren’t correlated?

    Does one need anything more than high school, nay, GRADE school, to understand that Briffa’s temperature reconstruction was predicated 50% on a single tree in Siberia and cannot possibly be representative of global temperature? How much must one know about science to conclude that Mann’s code produced a hockey stick graph from red noise which is about as scientific as just drawing it by hand and claiming it means something? How much science background is required to examine SST data and see that much of the ocean areas are cooling? Does one need background in climate science in particular to conclude that the “missing heat” is unlikely to have been sequestered in the ocean depths without passing through the Argo buoy’s?

    The fact of the matter is Jan, that collecting much of the data surrounding climate science is hard work. The work that had to be done to make satellites collect the data they do is, obviously, the domain of some highly qualified people. But the fact of the matter is Jan, than once the data has been collected and made available, it can be analyzed with considerable skill by those with nothing more than good math skills. We know this to be true because we’ve seen countless examples of poor quality science being exposed for what it is by people with backgrounds in other fields.

    When your last refuge to support your position Jan is “well, they aren’t climate scientists” you’ve descended into argument from authority that simply doesn’t stand up. The vast bulk of climate science, provided that one has the data, is well within the grasp of anyone who has a degree in the hard sciences, and within the grasp of many who don’t have a degree at all.

    No wonder the likes of Mann and others have worked so hard to keep data from the public eye. Once we get to see it, spotting the complete and totaly bogus analysis that results from it is pretty straight forward.

    You and your ilk have been caught with your hand in the cookie jar so many times that you’ve taken to claiming that only you know how to eat cookies.

  31. Friends:

    In his post at October 27, 2012 at 3:10 pm Jan P Perlw1tz says:

    The Oregon Petition does not have any legitimacy with respect to what the expert views really are on global warming and its causes.

    I defy anybody to read his entire post and to reach any other understanding of his words I quote than the following sentence.

    Only people who – like Perlw1tz – are making a living from the AGW-scare can have a valid opinion on AGW whether or not they have any training in the sciences.

    The taxpayers who put the feed in his trough may not agree with his assertion.

    Richard

  32. I see the ENSO meter has taken a strong reversal toward El Nino. Is it likely this trend will now continue into the northern winter?

  33. Jan P Perlwitz says:
    October 27, 2012 at 3:10 pm

    “31,487 American scientists have signed this petition, including 9,029 with PhDs”
    (http://www.petitionproject.org/)

    I consider this statement and the Oregon Petition as gravely fraudulent.

    Ok, Dr. Perlwitz, for the sake of argument. But since mainstream Climate Science seems to think that “consensus” is the most critical part of the scientific method – when consensus has nothing at all to do with establishing the validity of real scientific hypotheses – and thus instead of employing the real scientific principle of falsifiability, for example, via mainstream Climate Science’s own 100% failed prediction rate: then where can we find what you would consider a valid mainstream Climate Science “consensus”, perhaps at least recorded in the same way the Oregon Petition establishes its consensus but by producing the actual signatures of the “real” mainstream Climate Scientists agreeing with whatever their critical “tenets” or empirical claims are?

    Until mainstream Climate Science actually documents and produces a credibly formed “consensus” – and instead of, say, just using the “97%” survey which winnowed down ex post facto the replies of thousands of Earth Scientists to a mere 75/77 of Climate Scientists and involved only some watered down generalities – your brand of “science” doesn’t even have its alleged “consensus”!

  34. to the moderator: Wondering why I’m still moderated after years of occasional postings.

    [Reply: You are not moderated any differently than other commentators. — mod.]

  35. Here’s a random science question (and perhaps something new to you).

    Have you ever heard of primary cilia? I never, ever heard of them before but they appear to be vital appendages to most cells, and only recently have they come to be appreciated.

    http://www.sciencenews.org/view/feature/id/345831/title/Nouveaux_Antennas says in part:

    Evidence now suggests that primary cilia aren’t just stray whiskers evolution hasn’t gotten around to shaving off. Instead, these structures might be among the most important that a cell possesses. Scientists are coming to see primary cilia as a major means by which a cell communicates with the rest of the body.

    In the last decade, researchers have pegged a host of health issues on malfunctioning primary cilia. Snapped or otherwise inoperative appendages can lead to kidney failure, cancer, cleft palate, extra fingers or toes, water on the brain, hardened arteries, obesity, high blood pressure and heart disease.

    More recently, teams have also started getting a handle on what exactly goes wrong to lead to primary cilia-related diseases, disorders and developmental defects, collectively known as ciliopathies. Primary cilia turn out to be the main receivers for messages sent by a well-studied, prolific protein that guides an embryo’s development and keeps cell growth in check.

    A first inkling that primary cilia other than those in the eyes and nose might have a purpose came from studies of people with polycystic kidney disease. This common genetic disorder strikes about one in a thousand people. It leads to large, fluid-filled cysts in the normally smooth kidneys that can result in organ failure and are a main reason for kidney dialysis.

    Mutations in either of two genes cause a majority of polycystic kidney disease cases. When the genes were discovered in the 1990s, they were named for the disease: PKD1 and PKD2. But no one knew what role their protein products played. In 2002, Yoder and colleagues found the proteins in the primary cilia on kidney cells – strongly suggesting that the cilia play a part in proper kidney function.

    It’s been quite a while since I learned something important from Science News I hadn’t picked up on elsewhere.

  36. Interesting presentation on wind dependent emissivity of sea water, a bit dated perhaps but I had never seen it…

    http://www.klimanotizen.de/2006.06.17_Sea_Water_Emissivity_Volz.pdf

    Sea Water Emissivity – A neglected climate forcing
    Hartwig Volz RWE Dea AG, Wietze E&P Laboratory,
    Wietze, Germany
    Santa Fe Conference, July 17 to 21, 2006

    Summary and Conclusions:
    􀂃 From physical data generated in the context of satellite “remote
    sensing” it can be shown that wind dependant sea water thermal
    emissivity is a dominating climate parameter, also in comparison
    with anthropogenic atmospheric greenhouse gas and aerosol
    concentrations.
    􀂃 The importance of this parameter can be traced and clearly
    identified in paleoclimatological as well as neoclimatological
    records.
    􀂃 Disregard of sea surface emissivity leads to unrealistically high
    climate sensitivities when these are derived from climate history
    matches.
    􀂃 By positive feedback mechanisms sea water emissivity
    characteristically contributes as an amplifier to natural climate
    fluctuations (glacial / interglacial; other cycles, possibly of solar
    origin).
    􀂃 Sea water emissivity amplified the solar influence on climate
    during medieval warm period and little ice age.

  37. clipe says:
    October 27, 2012 at 2:20 pm
    Just finished reading a pdf from Tim Ball – coincidently.

    Coincidentally is the same as coincidently. The former version was first used in 1837, while the latter was first used in 1629. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, they mean “in a coincident manner; concurrently, at the same time.”

    http://statesmancaitlin.blogspot.ca/2009/12/day-i-become-tense-mistress.html

    Just talking to myself folks. Thought I made a mistake but I was wrong which proves I'm not perfect

    /bollocks

  38. Jan P Perlwitz said:
    October 27, 2012 at 3:10 pm

    Mark and two Cats asked in

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/27/weekend-open-thread-3/#comment-1125109

    “Any truth to the warmunist claim that the Oregon Petition cover letter was intentionally made to look as though it was an official National Academy of Sciences document in order to lend the petition legitimacy?”

    I don’t know what and who “warmunist” supposedly are, but why don’t you check yourself? Here is the cover letter:

    http://www.petitionproject.org/seitz_letter.php

    It is signed, “Frederick Seitz, Past President, National Academy of Science, President Emeritus, Rockefeller University”.
    ————————————————
    I did see that but its format looks pretty innocent – don’t see how it could be confused with an official NAS document: No NAS letterhead, etc.

    Perlwitz also said “…that the NAS didn’t have anything to do with it and did not agree with the content of the petition…”

    I do not see where the petition claims to be from NAS. Seitz clearly states that he is a PAST president, but beyond that, I see nothing in the text that gives the impression of it being an official NAS document. That is why I wanted to see the original format of the petition – to see if it had letterhead, etc.

    Perlwitz: [signatories] “…allegedly had the scientific qualification and competence to make expert judgements on the validity of scientific theories in the field of climate… ”

    Scientific qualification and competence like algore has?

    Perlwitz: “I don’t know what and who “warmunist” supposedly are…”

    Warmunists (my coinage) are those on the far left who wrap themselves in vestments of green to push their anti-free enterprise, anti-industrial, anti-Capitalist agenda. If the jackboot fits, wear it.

  39. Jeff L says:

    October 27, 2012 at 11:50 am
    —————–
    I’ve “skied” a few times, but after watching Warren Miller’s video named “Cold Fusion”, I realise I never really did. ( the sound track is good too ).

  40. (2 pages) 28 Oct: The National, UAE: Vesela Todorova: Global warming – the full picture
    The last time the world’s climate scientists produced a major report, it had the effect of ending the scientific debate about whether man-made climate change was a real phenomenon…Due to be published in October 2014, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC’s) Fifth Assessment Report is expected to be the most detailed on climate change ever produced, and for the first time answer important questions about how each region will be affected…
    Comments are allowed if scientific language is difficult to understand or if statements need to be qualified with nuances.
    But changes to the text must be scientifically justified. Government cannot remove sections because they don’t like the science.
    “There are a few limited changes,” Prof van Ypersele said. In past reports, a “few dozens of lines” were changed, but “never … a change affecting a scientific conclusion”.
    ***The summary is approved by consensus, a process that usually takes three to four days and at least a night of talks…

    http://www.thenational.ae/news/uae-news/environment/global-warming-the-full-picture

    “at least a night”?

    Linkedin: Vasela Todorova
    Groups and Associations:
    AMERICAN UNIVERSITY IN BULGARIA
    Middle East Sustainability Group
    United Nations Environment Programme

    http://ae.linkedin.com/pub/vesela-todorova/4b/a86/1a9

  41. how sad:

    28 Oct: Guardian: Robin McKie: David Attenborough: force of natureDavid Attenborough may have lived the perfect life, travelling the world and seeing its wonders before tourism ravaged them. He talks to Robin McKie about his early regrets, battles with climate-change deniers, and his favourite place on Earth
    Coral reefs are now being destroyed at a staggering rate…
    Reefs are dying because ocean waters are being acidified as carbon dioxide levels rise in the atmosphere as a result of human industrial activity…
    It is a simple question of numbers, says Attenborough. “There is no problem on Earth that could not be solved quite easily if you could reduce world population. The reason that oil palms are being planted all over the place is because there are so many mouths, so many people in the west offering to pay for these forests to be cut down and palms planted for margarine, for plastics.”…
    In the past, he was criticised for not making clear his position on global warming, and for not taking on those who deny that climate change is occurring. However, in the past few years, he has been far more explicit in his warnings about the dangers our planet faces as it warms up and the polar regions melt.
    Not surprisingly, these attempts at enlightenment have brought him into conflict with those who reject the idea that the Earth is in peril. For example, in the final episode of his last major series, Frozen Planet, Attenborough highlighted the impact of global warming on the polar regions. He pointed out that summer sea ice cover has declined by more than 30% over the past few decades and is causing major disruptions to the wildlife.
    Nigel Lawson, former chancellor and leading climate-change denier, was unamused…
    So what does Attenborough think about climate change deniers like Lawson? What should be done to counter their highly selective views about global warming?
    “Well, it is difficult to know what to say except that people like him have to be allowed to make these claims so that others can assess them. Any idea of suppressing their views would be disastrous. We need to be able to see just how wrong-headed they are and how selective they are in picking data to support their ideas. They pinpoint examples to say global warming cannot be happening because it got colder in some area of the planet. That is the sort of thing they say. But, of course, that completely misunderstands the global nature of the crisis we are facing. We have to keep pointing that out. Certainly I think that most people would recognise that Lawson is up a gum tree.
    “The truth is: the natural world is changing. And we are totally dependent on that world. It provides our food, water and air. It is the most precious thing we have and we need to defend it.”…

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/tv-and-radio/2012/oct/26/richard-attenborough-climate-global-arctic-environment?newsfeed=true

    “the natural world is changing”…who wouldn’t have thought that?

  42. @Jan P Perlwitz says:
    October 27, 2012 at 3:10 pm
    ——————————————

    Your reasoning is anti-science and pro-authority.

    Scientist of any branch are trained in the scientific method. They would therefore hardly comment on issues they do not understand. Assuming the opposiie is hubristic.

    However, many issues with most influential climate science papers such as the Hockey Stick papers, the Rahmstorf papers, Santer, Gergis and many others are purely mathematical, statistical and/or very basic and well within the range of expertise of the petition signers. The Hockey Stick issues have even been explained by Andrew Montford to a level, that a non scientist may be in a sufficiently competent position to understand those.

    Other issues arose with the climategate emails and backstories, as reported by Steve McIntyre and others and their lack of investigation. This mostly isn’t a scientific issue at all, but a field where anyone with interest, sufficent time and good will, will conclude, that disturbing things have been and continue to be going on in climate science.

  43. Jan P Perlwitz says:
    October 27, 2012 at 3:10 pm

    Just to have got some degree at a college in some scientific field at some point doesn’t make the person with this degree a “scientist”. And even possessing a PhD in a scientific field doesn’t make a person qualified and competent to make expert judgements in all other scientific fields.

    Since when, and who is the authority that deems someone is qualified to be a “scientist”? In some scientific fields, “professional scientists” (those who make a living at doing science) work with and greatly appreciate the work done by “amateur scientists” (those who do science out of a passion for the field). Probably the strongest pairing is that between the AAVSO (American Association of Variable Star Observers) and professional astronomers.

    Probably the weakest linkage is between professional climate scientists (e.g. the group selected in the Doran/Zimmerman survey) and amateurs like many of us. There are so many things that could be improved in a partnership between the two groups, the Station Survey should have been one of those, and it could have been extended to provide ground truth for things like determining rural vs urban sites from satellite imagery.

    Measurements like sky cover and even sky temperature (from IR thermometers) could be collected or verified. They could be mobilized to monitor something like sky cover for certain events that could be run similarly to the Christmas bird count.

    In fact, today is the annual “Southern New England Weather conference,” an event that links interested lay people with TV meteorologists, folks from NWS offices, and others like Joe D’Aleo. I know he was there today, I decided to skip it this year.

    Back when Scientific American was worth reading, “The Amateur Scientist” was many readers’ favorite column (mine was Mathematical Games). The whole staff of the magazine respected the interests and skills of the readers.

    Yet here you are, not just denigrating WUWT readers, but denigrating a huge percentage of the scientific community, from Nobel Laureates to scientists that keep the city sewage system running. I wonder exactly who is qualified in your view to sign the Oregon Petition? It seems to me it may be the 77 people selected in the Doran/Zimmerman survey.

    Dr. Perlwitz, many scientific organizations have found that outreach to interested lay people and even open houses for the general public do great things in term of local support. CRU, GISS, and even the NCDC seem to get out of their way avoid outreach. Things could have been so much different had these organizations worked with folks like John Daly. Instead, you’ve built up walls to keep the rifraff out of your ivory tower, and now you make it clear only a very select few are qualified to join you.

    It sounds like a very isolating existance.

  44. Richdo says:
    October 27, 2012 at 5:25 pm
    Interesting presentation on wind dependent emissivity of sea water, a bit dated perhaps but I had never seen it…

    http://www.klimanotizen.de/2006.06.17_Sea_Water_Emissivity_Volz.pdf

    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Interesting paper! I’m not sure the correlations prove their point as strongly as they do, but the notion that ocean emissivity must change with wind speed and wave action seem awfully darn logical. This is the first time I’ve seen the issue brought up at all. Now that I’m thinking about it, seems like it deserves more scrutiny.

  45. Jan Perlw1tz;

    I grew up in a northern temperate zone known for harsh winters. I know from decades of experience that when there is very little snow over the course of the winter, spring is invariably late.

    I, and most farmers in the area, can explain why.

    Can you?

  46. Richdo says:
    October 27, 2012 at 5:25 pm
    Interesting presentation on wind dependent emissivity of sea water, a bit dated perhaps but I had never seen it…

    http://www.klimanotizen.de/2006.06.17_Sea_Water_Emissivity_Volz.pdf

    Very interesting, but when explained rather obvious.

    Increased wind = increased waves = increased ocean surface = increased emissivity

    No mention of increased evaporation, which would also occur.

    And wind speeds have increased over the last 2 decades.

    http://www.sciencemag.org/content/332/6028/451.abstract

    Which makes atmospheric warming an effect of ocean cooling, and therefore climate cooling.

    It also suggest answers to puzzling issues like how do the rapid climate changes like at the beginning and end of the Younger Dryas occur.

  47. I’ll have more on a Lunar pole shift that may have already occurred later.

    Magnetic North Pole Moving 40 Miles Per Year MSNBC January 7th, 2011

    2011-THE POLE SHIFT IS REALLY HAPPENING NOW! Main Stream Media AGREES

  48. magicbeancounter- sounds like you’ve taken a page from the Drake equation for calculating the liklihood of intelligent extraterrestrial life. String together a bunch of unknown and probably unknowable probability functions, make some guesses at to the values, and you can come up with any value you want. It doesn’t work for climate changes either.

    Ex. CGW= f {Kx} where x>1 (2) what makes you think termperature rise is exponential. The historical record shows that mostly the earth has been ice free after life developed. It’s only in the last few millenia that the climate has fluctuated between ice ages and warmer interglacials. Nobody has shown any evidence that this is going to change.

    You make a basic assumption that at T goes up so do costs. Any evidence? What about when the temperature goes down. I’d consider going into another glacial period would be a climate catastrophe, as far as humanity is concerned.

    Likelihood really only applies to well-researched and understood changes. Trying to assign a likelihood to a rare event and then discount it by that figure doesn’t do a bit of good if the catastrophe happens. Just because we thought it unlikely doesn’t mean the costs are any less. Yelllowstone could blow up tomorrow. There is no way to even begin to guess how likely this is.

    Like the Drake equation, this is a pointless excercise.

  49. Yes, Pat, it is sad. I used to read the Guardian too. And buy it, sometimes. I’d like to say I’ve grown up or become more intelligent since, but I honestly think, like Saint David Attenborough, Guardian editors have simply lost some of their abilities to distinguish facts from wishful-thinking. [A newspaper will always be able to find ‘journalists’ to write what the editor wants written.]

    I think the sign that they had really lost the plot was when they got some of their more stupid readers to try and swing Clark County, Ohio against Bush by writing letters to send across the Atlantic.
    Dimwits.

  50. It seem to me, reversals of the Earth’s magnetic poles occurs, due to viscous flows within the Earth’s molten iron core, similar to the flows we see happening within the iconic Lava Lamp.

    If we add up the measurable surface area of the magnetic changes within the core closest to the surface of the Earth, maybe we could get a better sense of when a major magnetic shift may occur.

    Sometimes when you venture off the beaten path of mainstream media science with an open mind, you may discover so many more valid and fascinating things in a evening such as this like I have.

    This video has a dramatic soundtrack but for a Saturday evening, I think it is well worth viewing, especially for the information it contains.

    Polar shift of the MOON Captured on film

  51. “You are not moderated any differently than other commentators.”

    Thanks, and apologies for not reading site policy. Given the volume of comments and the brief post-to-appearance interval, you folks are obviously doing a fantastic job!

  52. Given the above thread on an almost surreal agitprop song this seems a proper place to post this.

    The excerpt below is from Cabaret, the film, and it caused such outrage, particularly in the UK, that the producers effectually suppressed it for nearly thirty years.

    It is of course a purely cod anthem intended to satirise the Fascist ethos whilst showing its hollow nature. But it resonated because, I suppose, like all the best lampoons it cut too close to the bone for comfort.

    Whatever. But you might notice how close to modern Green Eco Puritanism it is.

    Otherwise please to forgive the slightly wobbly cross cutting by the then assistant [unpaid] to the second editor when it turned out two days before release that neither continuity or colour balance were correct. Which caused a panic.

    Excerpt here
    :

    http://uk.search.yahoo.com/search?ei=UTF-8&fr=ytff1-tyc7&p=tomorrow%20belongs&type=

    Kindest Regards

  53. Sorry Mods link failure, this system is playing up at the moment.

    The correct You tube link is:

    Sorry about that.

    Kindest Regards

  54. Perhaps a better title for the video I previously posted, Polar shift of the MOON Captured on film
    would be;
    Earth Based Polar Shift Influence on the MOON Captured on Film
    I do believe it has a lot of valid information.

    Turning to Geo Engineering, which I think they are doing with Frankenstorm 2.0 and per the documented visual evidence in that video I posted at 12:27PM, I find this smoking gun;

    Aerosol Geoengineering and Hurricane Modification Program Run by Homeland Security

  55. Based on USGS location from link above, EQ would appear to be associated with the Queen Charlotte fault – a right lateral transform fault on the Pacific – North American plate boundary, north of the Cascadia subduction zone. Would be analogous the San Andreas fault , also right lateral transform fault on the Pacific – North American plate boundary, but south of the Cascadia subduction zone.

    Wiki link :

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_Charlotte_Fault

    Wow – just looking at link for first time – looks like someone has already edited the page & added this event to it . Real time updates!

  56. Jeff L says:
    October 27, 2012 at 9:36 pm
    “Totally changing subjects, big earthquake in British Columbia this evening :”

    I saw that on The Weather Channel. There is no way the USA could handle anymore huge natural disasters given the USA’s economic condition. The most greatest threat to National Security of the USA is the state of our economy.

  57. vigilantfish says:

    October 27, 2012 at 3:04 pm

    I haven’t seen any sign of Smokey lately and I miss his wit, vigour, and graphics links. I hope he’s o.k.

    Ditto, but I saw one short Smokey post a few days back. Otherwise nothing since before the last Open Thread Weekend when Louis H???? noted his absence.

  58. Gilbert Mercier: “Frankenstorm: Wakeup Call on Governments’ Criminal Inaction on Climate Change” … “Our lack of foresight, arrogance and the criminal inaction of corrupt governance motivated by greed has opened Pandora’s box releasing Frankenstorm: a monstrous child of our own making.” http://tinyurl.com/9q3ec85
    —————————–
    Sheesh!

  59. Open Thread:

    No one likes us — I don’t know why 
    We may not be perfect, but heaven knows, we try 
    But all around, even our old friends put us down 
    Let’s drop the big one, and see what happens 

    We give them money — but are they grateful? 
    No, they’re spiteful and they’re hateful 
    They don’t respect us — so let’s surprise them! 
    We’ll drop the big one and pulverize them 

    Asia’s crowded and Europe’s too old 
    Africa is far too hot 
    And Canada’s too cold 
    And South America stole our name 
    Let’s drop the big one 
    There’ll be no one left to blame us 

    We’ll save Australia 
    Don’t wanna hurt no kangaroo 
    We’ll build an All American amusement park there 
    They got surfin’, too 

    Oh, how peaceful it will be 
    We’ll set everybody free 
    You’ll wear a Japanese kimono babe 
    And there’ll be Italian shoes for me 

    They all hate us anyhow 
    So let’s drop the big one now 
    Let’s drop the big one now 

    Randy Newman, Political Science

  60. D Böehm says:
    October 28, 2012 at 12:14 am
    “Asia’s crowded and Europe’s too old […]
    Randy Newman, Political Science”

    When I hear people like Randy Newman or Noam Chomsky utter their larmoyant drivel it tells me more about the age and health of the author than about the world.

  61. davidmhoffer:

    At October 27, 2012 at 4:36 pm you write to Jan P Perlw1tz;

    You and I have had more than one spat in this forum Jan. Putting aside who won or who lost each one, you responsed to the issues I raised, sometimes in considerable detail. Apparently I know enough to bother debating with? You could try arguing that you won all of our exchanges, but I think you know that’s just not true.

    I observed those engagements and I hope your boot was not damaged by his rear end.

    Richard

  62. Vigilantfish: ‘I haven’t senn Smokey lately…I hope he’s o.k.’

    Sadly, Smokey was never really OK, but that was part of his charm.

    I’d heard he succumbed to heat exhaustion on one of his philanthropic quests to the third world.

    Whatever the case, we won’t see his like again. Certainly, none of the more frequent posters on the board sound remotely like our late friend.

  63. richardscourtney wrote in

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/27/weekend-open-thread-3/#comment-1125122

    Warmunists have tried to counter the Oregon Petition by obtaining similar polls which support their cause. All such attempts have failed

    What are “warmunists” and who are the “warmunists” who have carried out similar polls to counter the Oregon Petition in support of their “cause” and have failed with those attempts? Please provide proof of source for what you state as alleged fact.

  64. The Oregon Petition establishes one point at a minimum: that opposition to the CACA Cult isn’t necessarily based on an inability to understand science or an unfamiliarity with it. But that is the thesis of Eugenie Scott and her CSICOP-affiliated organization.

  65. manicbeancounter wrote in

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/27/weekend-open-thread-3/#comment-1125180

    The central issue of evidence for projected catastrophic anthropogenic global warming is how that evidence is evaluated. The “consensus” method, led by the UNIPCC, is to evaluate evidence on how well it fits with the hypothesis. If it fits, then the evidence is accepted (and in cases exaggerated). If it contradicts the CAGW hypothesis, then the evidence is anti-science.

    Since you make an explicit statement here about projections led by the IPCC I suppose you talk about official documents published, such as Volume 1, “The Physical Science Basis”, of the IPCC Report 2007 [*]. Please could you point me to the specific pages, paragraphs, lines in the IPCC Report where I can find those statements about this “catastrophic anthropogenic global warming”, for which, according to you, the evidence was cherry-picked, depending on whether it supports or doesn’t support those statements?

    Thanks so much!

    [*] http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/contents.html

  66. richardscourtney wrote in

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/27/weekend-open-thread-3/#comment-1125344

    I defy anybody to read his entire post and to reach any other understanding of his words I quote than the following sentence.

    Only people who – like Perlw1tz – are making a living from the AGW-scare can have a valid opinion on AGW whether or not they have any training in the sciences.

    I see. Mr. Coal-Magazine Editor is in his element again, this time in response to my comment on the fraudulent Oregon Petition: Lying and smearing. Lying about what I said and smearing regarding what I do professionally.

  67. Philip Bradley says: October 27, 2012 at 6:52 pm
    quote
    Richdo says:
    October 27, 2012 at 5:25 pm

    Interesting presentation on wind dependent emissivity of sea water, a bit dated perhaps but I had never seen it…

    Increased wind = increased waves = increased ocean surface = increased emissivity
    No mention of increased evaporation, which would also occur.
    And wind speeds have increased over the last 2 decades.
    unquote

    Up to a point. However, it may be that you have not allowed for other factors.

    In March this year I observed an ocean smooth off Portugal which was hundreds of miles long and at least a hundred miles wide. Most of that area was smoothed (oil probably, but I would not rule out surfactant pollution) with rivers of smoothed surface snaking out into clean, ruffled water. Outside the smooth there were breaking waves, which I’d guess were indicative of about a Force 3/4 Beafort scale wind (call it 7 m/s), while within the smooth the surface remained glassy.

    NASA calculated in 1994 (I can find no later estimates) that enough light oil is spilled onto the oceans each year to coat the surface several times over. The Arctic seas, Barents, Kara, Laptev and East Siberian, have light oil flowing down the major Siberian rivers equivalent to an Exxon Valdez slamming into the coast every five weeks. I have found no published figures for pollution from the North Slope of Alaska.

    Now do the sums. Ignore, for the moment, the reduced evaporation of an oil or surfactant coated water surface, just look at the change in emissivity from a smooth to a clean 7m/s ruffled ocean. Then have a look at where the Arctic ice is melting.

    The referenced paper says:
    quote
    intermediate conclusion: variations of oceanic wind speed have a
    dominating influence on climate system, also in comparison with
    doubling of atmospheric CO2-concentration (3.7 W/m²)
    unquote

    Another conclusion: oil/surfactant polltion is the equivalent of a drop in windspeed of up to 7m/s, reducing emissivity by an amount comparable to calculated CO2 warming. An oil-smoothed Arctic will cool slower as the nights draw in. Each year the problem will increase as the low temperatures discourage bacterial degradation of the pollution.

    Enclosed seas (Andaman, Lake Tanganyika, Gulf of Mexico, Mediterranean) might usefully be checked for signs of this effect. I’ve seen smooths from end to end of the Med, seen a smooth snaking tens of miles to the horizon from Tenerife, seen the effects on the graphs of global temperature from 1939 to ’45 before they were smoothed and adjusted away.

    The Kriegsmarine Effect is real and many-faceted. It should be examined and experiments should be carried out to establish its absolute value.

    JF
    (Who would quite like to see a detailed examination of the home waters of El Nino. What happens to the ocean/atmosphere boundary layer during the cycle?)

  68. Friends:

    At October 28, 2012 at 5:40 am the egregious Jan P Perlwitz says of me

    I see. Mr. Coal-Magazine Editor is in his element again, this time in response to my comment on the fraudulent Oregon Petition: Lying and smearing. Lying about what I said and smearing regarding what I do professionally.

    On the contrary.
    1.
    I am not a “Coal-Magazine Editor” although for a few years until 2002 I was the Contributing Technical Editor of CoalTrans International (i.e. the journal of international coal traders).
    2.
    The Oregon Petition is NOT “fraudulent in any way and Perlw1tz is lying and smearing when he says it is.
    3.
    I did not lie about what Perlw1tz wrote: I quoted him verbatim and I defied anybody to interpret his quoted words other than I did when they were taken in context. Perlw1tz has not disputed my quotation and has not stated any error in my interpretation. Importantly, nobody else has, either.
    4.
    I did not “smear” about what he does professionally. He claims to be an employee of NASA GISS and I said he is making a living from AGW and “his trough” (i.e. NASA GISS) with its “feed” being from taxpayers. Either he lies when he says he is employed by NASA GISS or he lies when he claims I have smeared about what he does professionally.

    In summation, Perlwitz has made what is for him a typical post .

    Richard

  69. Jan P Perlwitz says:
    “This is fraudulent because to be considered as qualified to sign the petition it is sufficient to only have a Bachelor of Science in any field of science. It is not at all required to have worked and published in the specific field of science, i.e, to really have acquired expertise on the theories in the field of climate,”

    So, only Astrologists actively involved in horoscope generation are qualified to determine the legitimacy of horoscopes?

    Or since your ilk tend to like to compare yourselves to the medical field: are only Chiropractors qualified to determine the legitimacy of chiropractic neck alignment therapy?

  70. Jan P Perlwitz says:
    October 28, 2012 at 5:40 am
    “I see. Mr. Coal-Magazine Editor is in his element again, this time in response to my comment on the fraudulent Oregon Petition: Lying and smearing. ”

    That’s a better description that better fits the IPCC reports; with their papering over of uncertainties in the summary for policymakers – and working towards a predetermined conclusion.

    Mr. Perlwitz, how do you justify drawing conclusions from simulations of chaotic systems over 100 years? Where is your proof for the predictive skill of climate models over, say 5 years, just to name a number?

    The fraudulent organisation has always been the IPCC, set up with the express purpose of pretending to draw conclusions about something they knew full well they could make NO assessment about.

  71. Jan P Perlw1tz
    I see. Mr. Coal-Magazine Editor is in his element again, this time in response to my comment on the fraudulent Oregon Petition: Lying and smearing.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    He defied anyone to interpret your own words in any other way, which is hardly a lie or a smear. Your response begins by trying to associate him with the coal industry in what is clearly a smear attempt. Then you proceed to call the Oregon Petition fraudulent, but have presented zero evidence that would support such an assertion, so your assertion is either another smear, or an outright lie. Following which you complain about people lying and smearing! Have you no shame? Or do you simply not understand your own writing?

    Are you going to answer my question about winters with little snow and late spring?

  72. Jan P Perlwitz says:
    October 28, 2012 at 5:40 am

    “What are “warmunists” and who are the “warmunists” who have carried out similar polls to counter the Oregon Petition in support of their “cause” and have failed with those attempts? Please provide proof of source for what you state as alleged fact.”

    Once again the more relevant question to you is: where are the successful analogous “Petitions” on the part of mainstream Climate Scientists which establish what you would consider a valid Climate Science consensus? So far there are no successful mainstream Climate Science predictions and no analogous but “successful” Climate Science consensus in evidence. So far what remains is only a massive “perception is reality” Propaganda Operation on the part of mainstream Climate Science, enc., which merely proclaims “consensus” and CO2 = CAGW “climate change”.

  73. OK — different subject —

    October 15 Chemical & Engineering News has an interesting article on the effects of sequestration, entitled “Billions at Risk in Budget Cuts”. Some of the figures of first-year sequester are cuts of $456,000,000 for the National Science Foundation, $46,000,000 for EPA, and $763,000,000 for NASA. The chart is entitled “Deadlock-Inflicted Pain”.

  74. Every time I see one of those Miller documovies, I swear I will never attach another pair of skies to my feet ever again! A case in point I only did it once and stayed attached to the tow rope. Two times down the barely sloping hill and I was done. I returned to the warmth of the lodge and drink, to watch, for lack of a better descriptor, nutcases screaming down incredible steep and bumpy hills to the bottom, turning just in time to keep from crashing into the stone exterior of the lodge. These people must have hit their heads way to many times on that hard ski-packed snow surface. Face planting a dive into water hurts less than bouncing your head on that surface!

  75. P Walker: ‘I too miss Smokey and hope he’s ok.’

    Perhaps we should send out a search party. He was an interesting fellow — a sort of Boy Scout with charts. Some people found him a little difficult, but he and I had a mostly good relationship, and I was able to help him through some of his difficulties in getting his head around things climate.

    He was not obviously grateful, though; one of his less endearing traits.

    But we should not speak ill of the dead, especially of one taken so young.

    The board just seems empty now. None of the current posters can match him for sheer style and panache.

  76. Gunga Din says:
    October 27, 2012 at 12:33 pm
    Does anyone have a link to a relatively simple timeline of the CAGW? “Who said what when” kind of stuff.
    Thanks in advance.
    ============================================================
    Thanks again to all who have tried to help.
    I’ve been thinking of a parody to “American Pie” but don’t know the timeline and all the names, only that CAGW is a deception. (It’s a bit cold outside today.)
    No promises. This might be the refrain if I ever do the whole thing.

    {Refrain}
    So, bye-bye, Miss, we’re all gonna die!
    Drove my chevy to the levee
    But the battery caught fire.
    And them good old boys try to hide the decline
    Singin’, “CO2’s on the rise!”
    “CO2’s on the rise!”

    PS Anyone who wants to continue with the idea is welcome. (Elmer?)

  77. Brendan H says:
    October 28, 2012 at 11:46 am
    “and I was able to help him through some of his difficulties in getting his head around things climate.”

    Big words. You surely have a link to a comment of yours where you do exactly that.

  78. DirkH,

    I would also like to see a link to a comment where Brendan H didn’t come up short in the exchange.

  79. P Walker says:
    October 28, 2012 at 11:16 am
    I too miss Smokey and hope he’s ok .
    ===================================================
    Same here for Smokey and Gail Combs.
    Hopefully they’ve been busy elsewhere. (This is an election year here in the US.)

  80. What’s for supper?

    Seasoned barbequed trout in a savory tomato base with roasted vegetables, fresh homemade bread drizzled with honey butter, a rich ale to wash it all down, and baked apples with ice cream for dessert.

    Yum yum!

  81. Jan P Perlwitz says: I am a troll.

    Readers respond: go away troll, you have your own site to bash WUWT and post egregious lies on, it is not our fault that you have no traffic…

    Anthony Watts says: lay off the troll.

    Readers wonder: when Jan was born, how many time did the doctor drop him on his head?

  82. Pamela Gray said:
    October 28, 2012 at 2:28 pm
    …baked apples with ice cream for dessert. Yum yum!
    ———————————-
    Lucky! I recently found out I have diabetes :(

  83. My grandparents raised me. Grandma was a brittle diabetic and Grandpa was a diet-controlled diabetic. I learned to cook all kinds of sugar-free stuff. Even made homemade ice cream without sugar. We had baked apples all the time. All prepared without sugar. We stuffed the core with natural dried fruit and butter and poured bannana sweatened cream over the top.

  84. Bake the apples first. The last 10 minutes or so, stuff the core with butter, dried fruit and nuts. When the apples are done, transfer to individual dishes and pour the sweetened cream on them.

  85. In reply to Jan P Perlwitz says:October 28, 2012 at 4:28 am
    My posting is about the criteria for evaluating the evidence for catastrophic global warming. I will provide examples as time permits, starting with the claim in WGII SPM

    In some countries, yields from rain-fed agriculture could be reduced by up to 50% by
    2020

    As somebody, like Tamino who uses the term “Fake Skeptic“, I should point out that I view it as a term of intolerance. Furthermore, I would like to know what dictionary you get the definition of “sceptic” from. My Oxford English Dictionary, compiled by the world’s leading experts, disagrees with you.

  86. Weber grilled chicken (indirect method) w/Rosemary, salt and a chunk of birch on the charcoal. Lettuce wedge with blue cheese, grilled zuchini and brown rice.

  87. If a group of people develop a self reinforcing ideology that they are the heroic fighters to save the planet from the evils of carbon consumption and the “science is settled” on this issue because everyone they respect says so, then they may feel a self-righteous, prejudicial contempt for any who dares to doubt their cause. Somehow we need to find a non-confrontational way to open their minds to the possibility that they may be wrong, that carbon dioxide may not be as exponentially dangerous as they have come to believe.

  88. Richdo says:

    October 27, 2012 at 5:25 pm

    Interesting presentation on wind dependent emissivity of sea water.

    ===================================================
    What exactly is the wind dependent emissivity of seawater? The wind chill effect? The greater surface area evaporation efficiency of whitecaps and even waves themselves? We already know that thermal emissivity from the ocean to the atmosphere is a one way street. Yet the oceans (so far) appear to have continued warming, while the atmosphere clearly has not.

  89. Pamela Gray said:
    October 28, 2012 at 5:23 pm
    My grandparents raised me. Grandma was a brittle diabetic and Grandpa was a diet-controlled diabetic. I learned to cook all kinds of sugar-free stuff. Even made homemade ice cream without sugar. We had baked apples all the time. All prepared without sugar. We stuffed the core with natural dried fruit and butter and poured bannana sweatened cream over the top.
    ——————————
    TY Pamela! I’m still trying to get my mind around this diabetes thing and how to eat accordingly.

    Your recipe sounds d-lish! :)

  90. DirkH: ‘Big words. You surely have a link to a comment of yours where you do exactly that.’

    More a series of exchanges from a few years back, where the poster Smokey accepted that I had put him right on a few matters.

    Starting around 2 May 2009, 7.18:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/05/01/name-3-clear-signs-of-the-coming-thermageddon/#comments

    But this is ancient history, and doesn’t bring us any closer to the whereabouts of our mystery departee. I am, frankly, becoming a bit concerned, and am wondering whether some climate scientists have threatened him with a tipping point and he’s gone to ground.

    But why has Smokey not contacted WUWT from his hiding place? He knows he’s safe among friends here, where few wish him harm, and in fact are more than willing to give him a hand-up.

    So desperately seeking Smokey. Give us a sign that you’re safe and well.

    Your friends in climate, waiting anxiously.

  91. michaelwiseguy says October 27, 2012 at 9:22 pm

    Turning to Geo Engineering, which I think they are doing with Frankenstorm 2.0 and per the documented visual evidence in that video I posted at 12:27PM, I find this smoking gun;

    What’s next? The examination of chicken entrails and bird-droppings as ‘proof’?

    Please, you do yourself and us NO service by continual reference to this ‘made-up’, synthesized created product designed solely for the purpose of stirring up drama for a deluded-mind crowd repeatedly based on absolutely ZERO, NADA, NO hard-evidence proof; Conjecture based on videos is not “proof”, contrary to what the “Alex Jones School-of-Evidence” teaches …

    .

  92. Jan P Perlwitz says October 27, 2012 at 3:10 pm

    Just to have got some degree at a college in some scientific field at some point doesn’t make the person with this degree a “scientist”. And even possessing a PhD in a scientific field doesn’t make a person qualified and competent to make expert judgements in all other scientific fields.

    Ric Werme says October 27, 2012 at 6:17 pm

    Since when, and who is the authority that deems someone is qualified to be a “scientist”? In some scientific fields, “professional scientists” (those who make a living at doing science) work with and greatly appreciate the work done by “amateur scientists” (those who do science out of a passion for the field). Probably the strongest pairing is that between the AAVSO (American Association of Variable Star Observers) and professional astronomers. …

    On the so-called “amateur scientist” side of things, Oliver Heaviside comes to mind on this subject

    Among other things he “reformulated Maxwell’s field equations in terms of electric and magnetic forces and energy flux, and independently co-formulated vector analysis. ”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_Heaviside

    .

  93. Brendan H says:

    “Sadly, Smokey was never really OK…”

    And:

    “I’d heard he succumbed to heat exhaustion on one of his philanthropic quests to the third world.”

    And:

    “Whatever the case, we won’t see his like again. Certainly, none of the more frequent posters on the board sound remotely like our late friend.”

    And:

    “…we should not speak ill of the dead, especially of one taken so young.”

    I note that Brendan H made his comments speaking ill of ‘Smokey’, who is conveniently not here to defend himself from brave Brendan H. So now that Brendan H can comment with impunity, he says:

    “…Smokey accepted that I had put him right on a few matters.”

    Not really. After reading through that entire long debate thread that Brendan H linked to, it is obvious to this observer that Brendan H was bested in his running exchange with Smokey, and also with Frank Lansner, and with jeez, and with TonyB, and with various other commentators.

    Nothing is 100%, of course, but to understand how well Brendan H was put in his place, the whole 344 comment thread must be read for the context. If “Brenda H” really believes he did well in that debate, he is more than a little bit deluded. As Richard Feynman said, the easiest person to fool is yourself. Brendan H is only fooling himself.

  94. Oct 27: Northern Hemisphere snowcover is very high compared to last year.

    Maybe a result of the record minimum sea-ice-extent of a month ago.
    Liquid water evaporates easier than ice. More evaporation = more snow.

  95. Alan Watt, CD (Certified Denialist), Level 7 says:
    October 27, 2012 at 11:25 am

    You’re such a tease; must be all the TV experience. “… coming up after the break …”

    It is now 13:55 PDT — is it soup yet?

  96. Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7 says:
    October 29, 2012 at 1:55 pm

    It is now 13:55 PDT — is it soup yet?

    Never mind … Damned browser cache!

  97. D Boehm: ‘I note that Brendan H made his comments speaking ill of ‘Smokey’, who is conveniently not here to defend himself…’

    I also mentioned his charm, philanthropy and ability to establish a good relationship with another poster with different views.

    So I would say a fair and balanced eulogy, although I don’t know why I keep thinking about him in the past tense. I guess his absence is so keenly felt, and not just by me. Several other posters on this very thread have also expressed their sense of dislocation at Smokey’s abrupt and mysterious departure.

    ‘…it is obvious to this observer that Brendan H was bested in his running exchange with Smokey, and also with Frank Lansner, and with jeez, and with TonyB…’

    Not according to my reading. A sample: ‘Jeez , “Damn! I agree with Brendan”; Tony B, “I have to agree with you as well”; Smokey, “Finally, I also have to thank Brendan H. for his good advice, and “Of course TonyB is right, your score is now 3”.’

    But D Boehm, you don’t need to worry your head about this stuff, since it was before your time. To my knowledge, you never crossed words with Smokey. In fact, your appearance on the boards seemed to almost coincide with his departure. If you had arrived just a few minutes earlier, you might have had the pleasure of an introduction.

  98. Brendan,

    That’s some fine cherry picking out of 344 comments. Of course you left out all the comments where you were bested. But such is human nature. Not much different than Mann claiming to be a Nobel laureate, is it?

Comments are closed.