Weekend open thread

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?

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?

[sound of buzzer]
Did the director have the same name as a famous Nobel prize faker.

@ Jeff L –
Get a WUWT t-shirt and go have fun. It will dirve the gorebots crazy.
http://www.cafepress.com/wattsupwiththat?utm_medium=affiliate&utm_source=buyat&utm_term=78888&utm_content=0

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.

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.

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.

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………….

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…

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/

Open Thread goodness from Nigel Farge:

We could use this guy over here!

D Boehm @ 1:55 pm Oct the 27th:
Nigel FARAGE?

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.
Just finished reading a pdf from Tim Ball – coincidently.
http://drtimball.com/2012/it-occurred-to-me-global-warming-is-another-undelivered-government-promise-polar-bear-propaganda-in-context-a-useful-tool-for-the-promotion-of-environmental-hysteria-and-politicized-science/

Annie,
Right you are. Thanks.

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

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

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.

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.

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”!

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.

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.

Weekend Viewing
Solid Scientific Evidence we are Headed for a Pole Shift! (FULL LENGTH)

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?

Mercury Radio Arts?

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?

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.

Apparently, our back & forth threatens the very fabric of democracy itself!
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=antiscience-beliefs-jeopardize-us-democracy&WT.mc_id=SA_WR_20121024
…ummm, excuse me, SA, I thought that healthy & vigorous discourse over topics such as climate change was the FOUNDATION of democracy, not the threat to it?

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.

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

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

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

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.

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

Open Thread Weeekend… Yocktoseconds!
http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2012/10/15/what-happened-before-the-big-bang

Open Thread!:
http://moonbattery.com/rich-poor.jpg

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.

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?)