Climate sensitivity low, alarmist sensitivity high

Reactions are coming in worldwide worldwide to figure 1.4 of the IPCC AR4 draft report. and the revelation that climate sensitivity is lower by aerosol analysis than the IPCC officially projects. Hotheads are blowing gaskets because the hot air just went out of their cause. William Connolley (with an e) gets the “blown head gasket award” for this round, see below.

First some op-eds:

Washington Times:  EDITORIAL: Chilling climate-change news

New leak shows predictions of planetary warming have been overstated.

Forbes: Climatologist Dr. Pat Michaels: The UN’s Global Warming Forecasts Are Performing Very, Very Badly

Investors Business Daily: Climate Change Draft Undermines U.N.’s Claims

PowerLine: Climate Alarmism: The Beginning of the End?

Climate scientist Richard Betts thanks Nic Lewis for “constructive contribution” to climate sensitivity debate. http://t.co/TU02i5rf

http://twitter.com/mattwridley/status/281706335320555521

Media Matters: WSJ’s Climate “Dynamite” Is A Dud (citing the duds dudes at “Skeptical Science”)

The Telegraph, Delingpole: Global Warming? Not a snowball’s chance in hell

Tom Nelson points out this fun exchange between Matt Ridley and William Connolley (with an e) via James Delingpole:

Twitter / JamesDelingpole: Climate troll and banned …

Climate troll and banned Wikipedia tinkerer William Connolley bursts a sphincter at Worstall’s place http://timworstall.com/2012/12/19/is-climate-change-really-a-damp-squib/ …

One of my favorite parts in Connolley’s string of angry, generally stupid comments is this one, where he trashes the IPCC

[Connolley comment] Anyone saying “trust me, I’m an IPCC expert reviewer” is a cretin. *Anyone* can be an “expert reviewer” just by asking to see the draft. It doesn’t mean the IPCC have vetted you in any way.

Is climate change really a damp squib?

[Matt Ridley's sane, measured response] …I have since gradually come to the view that the extra feedback necessary to make CO2 warming dangerous is increasingly implausible, though still possible, and that the measures we are taking to cut carbon emissions are doing and will do more harm especially to poor people than warming itself. I may be wrong in this, but it’s not unreasonable to debate this possibility — and nor is it outside the scientific consensus, by the way.

I bring to the subject the same technique that I bring to all the topics I cover as a journalist. (Only on climate (and religion) am I told that my credentials disallow me from even having a view.) I read both sides of the question, I challenge assumptions and I listen to arguments. In this case reputable climate scientists like Judith Curry and Richard Betts agree that Nic Lewis has made a good case and deserves to be considered and debated. Would that Dr Connolley would show the same open-mindedness.

Over at Tamino’s place, Tamino is his usual self, calling other people and their conclusions “fake” while oblivious to his own use of a fake name.

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2012/12/20/fake-skeptic-draws-fake-picture-of-global-temperature/#more-6082

Next, Tamino will call Nature itself “fake” for not cooperating at the correct pace. He seems to conveniently forget all the adjustments (all upwards) that been applied to the surface temperature record this past decade. No matter, as long as the adjustments fit his conclusion. /sarc

About these ads
This entry was posted in IPCC AR5 leak and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

184 Responses to Climate sensitivity low, alarmist sensitivity high

  1. Brad R says:

    “[Connolley comment] Anyone saying “trust me, I’m an IPCC expert reviewer” is a cretin.”

    But, doesn’t the IPCC keep saying, “trust us, we have 2500 expert reviewers”?

  2. pdtillman says:

    Heh. Thanks for the updates, Anthony. The Connolley fulminations are particularly choice — as is Matt Ridley’s response.

    Good to see Nic Lewis’s work getting some well-deserved recognition!

    Peter D. Tillman
    Professional geologist, amateur climatologist

  3. A splendid exchange and Connolley really does himself no credit at all. He should have quit when he wasn’t so far behind!

  4. Phyllograptus says:

    There is evidence based decision making & decision based evidence making. Guess which none the IPCC has been using

  5. andrew says:

    Nature isn’t co-operating. Gaia is a denaia!

  6. Justthinkin says:

    Well.When the wheels start coming off the bus,somebody has to scream louder and harder(note….doesn’t mean they are actually sane in what they are shouting)

  7. Crispin in Yogyakarta says:

    I can hear the buttons loudly popping off the vestures that cloak the scientists of climate all the way to Central Java.

    If anyone wanted to know what the end of climatism sounds like, this is it: a steamy stream of bile poured on those who point out that most inconvenient of truths, the jig is up.

  8. pokerguy says:

    This has been a wonderful few days to be a skeptic. This thing is beginning to crumble, and quicker than I’d expected. Hats off to all the climate warriors, including Anthony Watts.

    It’s not over by any means, but as it becomes ever more obvious that the IPCC has been exaggerating more and more scientists will be jumping ship to protect themselves. Once the rush for the exit starts in earnest, watch out below.

  9. RMB says:

    Its dead simple, surface tension blocks heat. The atmosphere can’t heat the ocean.

  10. Kev-in-Uk says:

    pokerguy says:
    December 20, 2012 at 7:57 am
    ..It’s not over by any means, but as it becomes ever more obvious that the IPCC has been exaggerating more and more scientists will be jumping ship to protect themselves. Once the rush for the exit starts in earnest, watch out below…

    Totally agree – but those jumping ship will have a long swim – they have distanced themselves from the ‘ship of science’ by a long way as the vast majority of their many peer reviewed publictions will verify!! As I see it, they not only have to jump ship and swim like buggery to catch up, they will have to expunge their science ‘records’ too! Something I don’t think many will find it easy to do.

  11. Scarface says:

    I’m beginning to understand why the IPCC was not invited at the last climate change conference in Doha. They start to undermine the alarmists!

  12. DirkH says:

    Hoping for the end of some careers of people who should never have been given any academic title at all.

    But then again, that’s like hoping certain EU governments would reduce their spending once their nation is broke.

  13. Mike Bryant says:

    I just read Mr. Connolley’s bloviating. I find it amusing that this man, who claims to hold a doctorate, does not understand the difference between “its” and “it’s”. It wouldn’t be an issue to me, but for his ugly arrogance and corrections of the spelling and grammar of others.
    Connolley is sorely lacking in attention to detail, a hallmark of science.

  14. dr says:

    Well said, pokerguy. I wonder whether what will eventually kill this, is a growing realisation amongst scientists that are not climatologists, that CAGW has been overstated, and therefore that funding has been diverted from other scientific disciplines, arguably more worthy of the funding than climate science. This isn’t just a fraud against citizens, it impacts other government science too. I can imagine that many national science bodies could have huge swathes of their membership enraged at the climate fraud. I don’t know when this will happen, but I think most scientists must have realised by now that climatology is unusually controversial and unusually polarised. Surely this must get them curious to learn the facts? I believe that the overwhelming majority of scientifically literate people will realise that CAGW is overstated / a fraud if they take a few hours or maybe a day or two to examine the data. I think that when the end comes it will be an accelerating collapse. The reason I say this, is that it is hard for me to imagine that the perpertrators will be able to say “oh sorry, we made a mistake” and just walk away. Politicians are going to want someone to blame, and scientists will want to have got out before the politicians realise what is going on. Also, what happens when high profile scientists who today usually support CAGW want either to switch sides, or refuse to comment on CAGW claiming that its not their discipline. People will see scientists they trust either changing their views or being cagey and this will upset the masses, putting more pressure on the politicians. Some people and businesses have done very well out of this, and I think that the citizenry will expect that they face some sort of punishment.

  15. Carter says:

    FAO RMB

    ‘The atmosphere can’t heat the ocean’ so why is the Arctic ocean colder than most other oceans?

  16. jim2 says:

    So William Connolley (with an e) does not have a degree in climate science either. Few “climate scientists do, but they howl if a skeptic doesn’t have that degree.

    REPLY: They howl no matter what, look how much abuse the children at SkS have heaped upon Dr. Richard Lindzen and Dr. Roy Spencer. No, credentials don’t matter to them if you don’t agree. – Anthony

  17. Neil Jordan says:

    The bus still has some wheels. Ex-California Governor Schwarzenegger just received an award from the UN:
    http://blog.sfgate.com/nov05election/2012/12/19/busy-year-for-schwarzenegger-capped-with-big-environmental-award/

    “Former California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has had a busy 2012 — a movie, a book, the launch of his USC think tank.

    “Now comes the latest — a plum award for his advocacy work on climate change.

    “Schwarzenegger will receive the award Wednesday from U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon in New York for his work on the issue with his non-profit organization, R20: Regions of Climate Action.
    [...]
    “The California governor put the state in the environmental forefront when he signed the 2006 landmark bill, AB-32, which mandated that the state curb greenhouse gas emissions. And he has continued to pound the issue – even with a packed schedule that included this year the launch of a new USC think tank and the launch of his book, “Total Recall.””

  18. eyesonu says:

    It looks like the “Believer’s” brain corks are popping as if it’s the end of the world as they know it. I believe they are correct on that account. Perhaps there will be psychiatric help available for them, that is, if the world doesn’t end tomorrow!

    I’ll wait until New Years day before I pop a cork! Champagne, of course.

  19. beesaman says:

    Putting models and proxies on a higher footing than actual observations was never going to be a winner in the long run…

  20. margaret berger says:

    Those young earnest believers who are saving the planet will allow the parasites to milk this farce longer as they will be lost without a noble cause.

  21. Baa Humbug says:

    The GHE hypothesis says the atmosphere isn’t heated by direct insolation (shortwave), only upwelling longwave from the surface heats the atmosphere which in turn heats the surface some more.

    I must try filling my swimming pool with buckets of water. Where do I get water for my bucket? Why from the swimming pool of course.

  22. Mike Lewis says:

    Meanwhile, in the midst of all the “global warming”, dozens of people have died in Russia due to extreme AGW (anti-global warming). Billions of dollars wasted on pseudo-science that could have been used to actually save people. Heaven help us..

  23. jorgekafkazar says:

    RMB says: “Its dead simple, surface tension blocks heat. The atmosphere can’t heat the ocean.”

    Do you have any proof of this premise, other than your frequent assertions? Calculations? References? Experiments? Anything?

  24. Peter Miller says:

    WWII equivalent, it is probably now around November 1942 – “The End of the Beginning.”.

    The bad guys won most of the first easy battles, now it is the turn of the good guys to win.

    It’s not going to be easy, but the bad guys will fight tooth and nail against being made honest. They will fight with distorted data, cherry picking, fallacious facts, fantasy models, and sneering derision.

    The bad guys’ rsources are a huge multiple of those of the good guys, but the latter fight with real facts and actual observations, their opponents’ inconvenient Achilles Heel.

  25. RockyRoad says:

    Maybe the Mayan calendar was predicting the end of this anthropogenic global warming claptrap. That’s one catastrophy I will certainly enjoy!

  26. theduke says:

    You gotta love Matt Ridley’s tweet:

    “Connolley must be a sceptic double agent, paid by Monckton and Big Koch surely? ”

    The thread at Tim Worstall’s is a hoot. Connolley has succumbed completely to hysteria and definitively proven he should never again be taken seriously in matters concerning climate.

  27. Juan Slayton says:

    Conclusion from reading the Post comments: David Appell is on ChristmasWinter break and has nothing to occupy his time.
    : > )

  28. R2D2 says:

    @Carter says:

    December 20, 2012 at 8:21 am

    FAO RMB

    ‘The atmosphere can’t heat the ocean’ so why is the Arctic ocean colder than most other oceans?

    Because of the sun?

  29. RockyRoad says:

    Carter says:
    December 20, 2012 at 8:21 am

    FAO RMB

    ‘The atmosphere can’t heat the ocean’ so why is the Arctic ocean colder than most other oceans?

    Um, last time I looked, Carter, being “colder” means less heat, not more. It just might have something to do with its location on this planet with respect to the sun.

  30. mpainter says:

    See what Alec Rawls has done, with an able assist from Anthony Watts.

  31. Theo Goodwin says:

    Maybe the Mayan Calendar actually refers to the IPCC and the CAGW narrative.

  32. jim2 says:

    It’s good to see the warmists squirm.

  33. Carter says:

    FAO RBM

    I’m with jorgekafkazar on this

    ‘Do you have any proof of this premise, other than your frequent assertions? Calculations? References? Experiments? Anything?’

  34. alexwade says:

    It is not over until there are no more studies that say “it is worse than we thought”, there are no more studies that attempt to blame our way of life on something, and there is no longer any political advocacy in science. You already see the transition beginning from “global warming” to “ocean acidification”. The reason may change, but the goal stays the same. It is not over until the goal is removed.

  35. Carter says:

    FAO RockyRoad

    ‘Um, last time I looked, Carter, being “colder” means less heat, not more. It just might have something to do with its location on this planet with RESPECT TO THE SUN’ Hmm, well is that not the same? Does the warm atmosphere not transfer some heat over to the sea?

  36. Peter C says:

    Kev-in-Uk says:
    December 20, 2012 at 8:07 am

    pokerguy says:
    December 20, 2012 at 7:57 am
    ..It’s not over by any means, but as it becomes ever more obvious that the IPCC has been exaggerating more and more scientists will be jumping ship to protect themselves. Once the rush for the exit starts in earnest, watch out below…

    Totally agree – but those jumping ship will have a long swim – they have distanced themselves from the ‘ship of science’ by a long way as the vast majority of their many peer reviewed publications will verify!! As I see it, they not only have to jump ship and swim like buggery to catch up, they will have to expunge their science ‘records’ too! Something I don’t think many will find it easy to do.

    Not easy to do at all. The true believers will never admit they were wrong, whatever the evidence, or in this case the lack of, and will go to their deathbed arguing that it is all just around the corner still. Those not quite at the heart of the madness will delay as long as possible but will eventually heap blame on ‘other’ people who provided them with wrong information, undermining their own work in the process as well as loudly keening that they never said it was all catastrophic, they only said it MIGHT be and they have have changed their view in the light of the evidence which they had never said was incontrovertible or overwhelming (even if they did).

    It is also well to remember that the majority of ‘climate science’ is of the type, given CAGW is certain what will be the effect on ….. etc.

  37. mpaul says:

    Wow, the Media Matters piece is just down right dishonest. Its full of straw man arguments. For example, Nick says aerosols have much less of a cooling effect than previously thought. Media Matters then runs out to one of their pet scientists, gives him a biscuit and has him say, “it is very clear [they] have a cooling impact,” adding, “I don’t know of any reputable scientist that would dispute that”. Well, no one ever said they didn’t have a cooling effect. Nick’s point was that their observed cooling effect is much lower than their modeled cooling effect.

  38. slow to follow says:

    Theo Goodwin – that’s made me chuckle!! :-)

  39. Man Bearpig says:

    If Mann is an expert reviewer hasn’t Connelley just called him ‘cretin’? Doesn’t Mann sue people that call him names? Or is he selective about who he sues?

  40. Mike Smith says:

    Most religious debates are interminable; you just can’t prove or disprove the existence of God (or whatever deity).

    But the theory that man-made CO2 is destroying the planet is going to truly be a matter of “settled science” and quite soon.

    The warmists are getting desperate and I fear things are going to get very ugly indeed.

  41. vukcevic says:

    Temperatures go up and down on whatever scale one looks, it is down to nature and driven by the solar and Earth’s properties as shown here
    See NASA-JPL link within.

  42. highflight56433 says:

    Must be the Mayan calendar is intended for the IPCC et. al.

  43. RockyRoad says:

    Connolley comment:
    “Anyone saying “trust me, I’m an IPCC expert reviewer” is a cretin.”

    Cretin? Well, let’s look at the definition of “cretin”:

    French crétin, from French dialectal, deformed and mentally retarded person found in certain Alpine valleys…

    Wasn’t it up in those Alpine valleys where the Hockey Stick was born? I do wish Connolley would quit denigrating the most notable example of someone who continually says “trust me” but fails in all else, especially when it comes to being open and transparent regarding his “science”.

  44. john robertson says:

    FOA? Freaking All Over? Some one never escaped the language of bureaucratese.
    Christmas comes early this year. The dam burst in 2009, the dirt has all eroded and now the flood begins to move.
    Academia imitating nature?
    Fooling lots of people once or twice is a sweet short term victory, unfortunately there is always fallout.
    The politicians when put to the question will respond
    .”I trusted my policy advisors from the bureaucracy” The bureaucrat, “I trusted the best scientists”
    The scientists,”I,….I.. IEEEE.” The super computer tricked us?
    Guess who gets thrown to the wolves first? And the wolves gather, poverty, destruction, distrust and decay bring them out.
    Its our nature to have scapegoats for our group insanity and I am fully in support of my nature on this fraud.
    Scams this vile and pernicious demand retribution.
    Bad time to be wrapped in the trappings of climatology.

  45. mpainter says:

    Carter says: December 20, 2012 at 9:24 am
    =======================================
    Water is opaque to infrared i.e., greenhouse gas radiation. See the absorbency spectrum of water. SST is totally unaffected by the greenhouse effect. Sea surface temperature is determined by insolation in the short wave spectrum i.e., visible light. This is one of the earth-sized holes in AGW theory.

  46. Louis says:

    I got a kick out of reading the comments on Media Matters. Every time an argument against global warming is made, someone using the name vhw2867 replies with a simple “no” or “not” in reply. I couldn’t help thinking of the Monty Python skit “Argument Clinic.” (See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTl9zYS3_dc)

  47. TomRude says:

    In Canada, our usual Environment Canada AGW propagandist David Phillips keeps selecting his 2012 weather news of the year with some dubious statistics…
    http://ec.gc.ca/meteo-weather/default.asp?lang=En&n=0B8D6A90-1

    By the time one finishes reading his report, one can wonder why we even are heating our homes in balmy Canada… LOL

  48. John West says:

    mpaul says:
    ”observed cooling effect is much lower than their modeled cooling effect.”

    Let’s not forget that WHY they needed a large cooling effect from aerosols was to explain the lack of warming without including solar variation since they’ve repeated asserted only TSI matters and its variance is too small to account for the lack of warming.

    It all goes back to only considering TSI variation of solar output in their models (both computer and mental).

    News flash to climate scientists: The area under the curve of the solar output spectrum (TSI) is not the only variation in solar output that influences Earth’s climate. Variations in the position and shape of the curve (i.e.: more or less UV) matters as well.

  49. Ah but remember, in politics and religion the end always justifies the means.

  50. pokerguy says:

    Peter C,
    Good points, Nor will the hardcore alarmist public likely ever admit to being wrong. You’d think they’d be happy things clearly look to be far from catastrophic. I swear to God, many of them woul drather we all fry just so they can say they were right…

  51. RockyRoad says:

    Carter says:
    December 20, 2012 at 9:34 am

    FAO RockyRoad

    ‘Um, last time I looked, Carter, being “colder” means less heat, not more. It just might have something to do with its location on this planet with RESPECT TO THE SUN’ Hmm, well is that not the same? Does the warm atmosphere not transfer some heat over to the sea?

    Interesting question, Carter, but I’ll let you consider two experiements:

    Take a large metal bucket of water and place it in your kitchen overnight to equilibrate temperature with the kitchen. Take a thermometer and submerse it in the bucket of water.

    Borrow your wife’s hair dryer and, using the high temperature, blow it on the surface of the water in the bucket (avoid hitting the sides of the bucket, of course). Do this for 5-10 minutes.

    Check out the temperature of the thermometer in the bucket and see if you detect any increase in temperature of the water. (As a corrollary, heat the sides of the bucket with the hair dryer and see what happens).

    (So in this “sea” as you call it: Is the water warming because of the hot air above it, or does the water warm because of the solar energy it absorbs in the top layer (usually called the “photic zone”, with thickness dependent on the depth to which the sun’s rays penetrate)? )

    In experiment 2, spend some time in the desert on a hot, sunny, summer day–determine which is warmer, the surface material of the desert, or the air above it.

    (Wouldn’t you agree if the rock is hotter than the air, it warms the air; if the air is warmer than the rock, it warms the rock. )

    Then return and report on these two experiements.

  52. pokerguy says:

    Hey, here’s a happy thought. Desperation leads to desperate measures. Maybe one or two alarmists will even agree to a debate. Wouldn’t that be tasty….:-)

  53. andrew says:

    I’ll tell you what scientists should be worrying about right now, and not just climate scientists. A lot of politicians and media figures have endorsed CAGW and they will look very foolish if it turns out to be a crock. They will do whatever it takes to save face, and that means finding a scapegoat. They will blame client scientists, and science in general, to save themselves.

  54. DCA says:

    Has anyone read what Tamino says?

    He says: “What should be done is to offset the observations so that the hotter-than-average 1990 really is hotter than average. When I offset the observations by 0.1 deg.C, we get more realistic comparison of observations to projections:”

    then says: “It turns out that observed global temperature has gone “right down the middle” of the IPCC projections. But, fake skeptics want you to believe otherwise”

    http://tamino.wordpress.com/2012/12/20/fake-skeptic-draws-fake-picture-of-global-temperature/#more-6082

    I don’t quite follow his logic.

  55. TRM says:

    While it would have been proven a fallacy eventually a big round of applause for Mr Watts, M & M and all the others who have been speeding up the process. The scientific method will triumph eventually but it is nice to see it happen in my lifetime (on this issue I had my doubts). Although we are far from over this is a huge blow to the anti-scientific method crowd.

    Cheers and keep up the great work.

  56. cui bono says:

    Mr. Ridley: “Only on climate (and religion) am I told that my credentials disallow me from even having a view.”

    Doesn’t he realize they are now one and the same?

  57. Coke says:

    “ANYONE can be an expert reviewer just by asking to see the draft. It doesn’t mean the IPCC have vetted you in any way.”

    =======

    Am I supposed to be surprised about this?!

  58. Gail Combs says:

    margaret berger says:
    December 20, 2012 at 8:41 am

    Those young earnest believers who are saving the planet will allow the parasites to milk this farce longer as they will be lost without a noble cause.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    The big problem/question is what is the next Cause De Jour in the pipeline. (Ocean Acidification?)

    The professional astroturf establishment is not just going to go away, it will find another Chicken Little Scare to use to milk the masses. This has been going on since the first elder figured out he could use his knowledge/experience as a lever to extract tribute/wealth from the rest of the tribe and avoid being sacrificed when the food got scarce. Thus was the first shaman born.

    This also goes for the scientists/universities who have been living high on the hog thanks to CAGW and all the little students with their hot new degrees in various green technofuzzy studies.

    I can not find anything on the number of students graduating with green degrees such as ‘Sustainable Energy Management’, ‘Environmental Earth Science’, ‘Sustainable Energy’, ‘Windmill Technology’ ‘Environmental Management & Policy’ ‘Environmental Management’, Sustainable MBA Degree, and what ever else colleges and universities have dream up to entice students infected with the Bambi Syndrome and Climatitisis.

    However as this news story shows those degrees are popular. All the students we used to see go into English, Biology, and history degree programs and even those in chemistry, physics or engineering are going to flock to the new green degrees with their high school counselors egging them on.

    College students are flocking to sustainability degrees, careers
    Students interested in pursuing a job in sustainability now can choose from a variety of “green” degree programs.

    With an increased interest in the environment and growth in the “green collar” job sector, colleges and universities are beginning to incorporate sustainability into their programs. From MBAs in sustainable-business practices to programs that give students the technical training necessary to operate wind turbines, students have an increasing array of options to choose from….
    A growing number of schools, including community colleges, are training students to operate green technology.

    However just like those useless degree like ‘Women’s Studies’ are the graduates going to find jobs out there now or a few decades or more from now? Without tax payer support I would say no and with a financial cliff facing many countries what support there is will be going away soon.

    Students pursue green degrees, but jobs lag
    …The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics only recently started tracking the sector, figuring the nation had around 2.2 million green jobs. The bureau has not yet offered forecasts on expected growth from the sector….

    The $25 billion set aside by the Obama administration two years ago has, so far, produced little in terms of job growth.

    “It’s happening. But it’s happening at a very slow and methodical pace,”…. “Right now, the effect of the stimulus package is negligible.”

    NASA 2008 Competitive Grant Programs
    More U.S. college students studying clean energy
    (Reuters) – Concern over global warming has more U.S. college students looking into careers in alternative energy, leading U.S. universities to add new courses on clean energy technologies and the environment.

    “Students see an opportunity for challenging jobs and a way to do some good for the planet,” Dan Kammen, an energy professor at the University of California at Berkeley , said.

    The number of Berkeley undergraduates enrolled in introductory energy courses has almost tripled and a new graduate class in solar photovoltaics signed up 70 students, the largest course in recent memory at UC’s College of Engineering .

    “Over the last two years, demand for energy courses is off the charts here,” Kammen said….

  59. Jimbo says:

    As long as the IPCC’s projections continue to diverge from observations then the end has to come sooner or later. It may come in the form of more and more scientists gaining in confidence and speaking out openly.

    Anthony, why don’t you consider getting together with other AGW sceptical scientists to put out a press release at the same time as the IPCC publishes the official report in 2013? At least you have something to work on now.

  60. Mycroft says:

    Connolley with an (e) the climate science luddites,luddite…still missing the gravy train no doubt LOL
    Never mind Wil wait long enough and another scare will be along soon, this time remember to be at the right station and to get on the train earlier LOL LOL LOL!

  61. James at 48 says:

    The house of cards is falling down. Now let us hope that awareness of the very real threat posed by killer cold can be addressed. The current interglacial is a gift and the current warm period within it is icing on the cake. What goes up, must come down.

  62. Scarface says:

    jorgekafkazar says: December 20, 2012 at 8:57 am

    ” RMB says: “Its dead simple, surface tension blocks heat. The atmosphere can’t heat the ocean.”
    Do you have any proof of this premise, other than your frequent assertions? Calculations? References? Experiments? Anything? ”

    @jorgekafkazar
    Try heating the water in your bathtub by turning on the heater in your bathroom. Keep me posted!

  63. Bob Tatz says:

    I am puzzled by allegations of fake by Tamino (Grant Foster)
    Tamino is the prince (and hero) in the opera The Magic Flute
    His paypal button sends a donation to
    “Peaseblossom’s Closet” …. Peaseblossom is the fairy servant to Titania in Midsummer’s Night Dream.
    http://www.etsy.com/shop/mistletoesquest

    He posts as Tamino and Grant Foster here as a member of a Celtic duo “Bedlam Boys”
    https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups=#!topic/alt.fairs.renaissance/ioWyR6xiZFQ
    Bedlam Boys … http://www.allmusic.com/artist/bedlam-boys-mn0001861724
    They play at Renaissance festivals (no artist picture).

    OK, so I know this may sound like an ad hominem. Of course, the first thing thrown at serious posters at WUWT is they don’t have “climate expertise” (i.e. a degree).

    But I am curious. It’s one thing that there is no “About” on his website so no way to determine his background. But the first article he publishes is on red variable stars:
    http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1997ESASP.402..269M
    but he’s only listed as a member of American Association of Variable Star Observers (http://www.aavso.org/) … a professional AND amateur association.

    His affiliation is listed as Tempo Analytics, 303 Campbell Road, Garland, ME 04939, USA
    [Mistletoe Hook - A Division of Peaseblossom's Closet is in Portland, ME]

    So does anyone know what kind of degree Grant Foster has and from where?

    Personally, I have no problem with a “Renaissance Man” who has an Open Mind about “Science, Politics, Life, the Universe, and Everything”. You think he might have an Open Mind enough to mention who he is, and what his background is.

    Regards,
    Bob

    P.S. I’m not a regular poster… so feel free to dump this or edit it. I teach chemistry at OSU and am always impressed by the level of scientific expertise that you attract.
    P.P.S. I think Connolley must be mad because he didn’t get his Noble Prize Certificate like Mann.

  64. DavidG says:

    “Phyllograptus says:
    December 20, 2012 at 7:40 am
    There is evidence based decision making & decision based evidence making. Guess which none the IPCC has been using”

    Very Clever and to the point!

  65. MarkW says:

    A warmer atmosphere may or may not be able to warm the oceans, however a warmer atmosphere does make it harder for the oceans to transfer the heat the sun is putting into it up to the atmosphere.
    So in the end, the result is the same.

  66. Gail Combs says:

    James at 48 says:
    December 20, 2012 at 12:08 pm

    The house of cards is falling down. Now let us hope that awareness of the very real threat posed by killer cold can be addressed. The current interglacial is a gift and the current warm period within it is icing on the cake…..
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Unfortunately the very real threat posed by killer cold is treated openly as a ‘conspiracy theory’ even here on WUWT.

    Is the Climate going to cool? Eventually since we are towards the end of this interglacial. Are we going to see cooling in the next few decades? I think so but there are plenty of people who would call me nuts. Unfortunately while warming and an increase of CO2 are not a threat cooling is and because the Climastrologists have been dicking with the temperature record we really have no idea whether or not it is actually cooling. Dr Spencer’s data is the closest we come to un-mucked up data.

    For what it is worth this is what I am watching
    graph

    graph

    What frightens the dickens out of me is the way the Ag Cartel ably aided by politicians is messing with the food supply but that is 11 pages just to hit the highlights. (The USA grows ~ 25% of the world’s grain and no longer has strategic grain reserves and my state just made it illegal for me to give neighbors my homegrown veggies.)

  67. MarkW says:

    Many in the global warming community have crawled so far out on that limb that there is no way they can crawl back and keep their reputations intact at the same time. There only hope is to tough it out and hope that they can keep the scam going until it’s time for them to retire.

  68. MarkW says:

    Water is opaque to infrared i.e., greenhouse gas radiation. See the absorbency spectrum of water. SST is totally unaffected by the greenhouse effect. Sea surface temperature is determined by insolation in the short wave spectrum i.e., visible light. This is one of the earth-sized holes in AGW theory.

    Half right.
    Water temperature is determined by energy in vs energy out. Solar insulation counts for most of the energy in, however the temperature of the atmosphere directly affects the rate at which energy can leave the oceans. So a warmer atmosphere will result in a warmer ocean, because less energy is escaping rather than more energy entering.

  69. timothy sorenson says:

    How many errors can you find in his ranting about the temp for the last 3 years using HadCruT GISS and NCDC:

    “Although all three trend lines slope upward, their slopes aren’t statistically significant. But that doesn’t mean they’re not upward. It just means that there’s not enough data in 16 years to tell for sure, statistically speaking, which way they’re going. That always happens — always — when the time span is short.”

    And he is suppose to be an educated man?

  70. timothy sorenson says:

    Opps 16 years.

  71. Carter says:

    mpainter says:
    December 20, 2012 at 10:11 am

    Carter says: December 20, 2012 at 9:24 am
    =======================================
    Water is opaque to infrared i.e., greenhouse gas radiation. See the absorbency spectrum of water. SST is totally unaffected by the greenhouse effect. Sea surface temperature is determined by insolation in the short wave spectrum i.e., visible light. This is one of the earth-sized holes in AGW theory.

    NO I DIDN’T! What are doing, making up statements in a most obvious way, it seems!!! Well what can you expect from people like you?

    Carter says:
    December 20, 2012 at 9:24 am

    FAO RBM

    I’m with jorgekafkazar on this

    ‘Do you have any proof of this premise, other than your frequent assertions? Calculations? References? Experiments? Anything?’

    Take a look and check!

  72. MarkW says:

    It’s not over by any means, but as it becomes ever more obvious that the IPCC has been exaggerating more and more scientists will be jumping ship to protect themselves. Once the rush for the exit starts in earnest, watch out below.
    —-
    The problem is that there are a number of prestigious “scientists” and “scientific organizations” that have bet there entire career on pushing this scam. They can’t back out now without completely losing their credibility and quite possibly, jobs. These people and groups will continue to fight a rear guard action for as long as they can. They have to milk enough out of thise before it collapses to ensure they can live comfortably in retirement.

  73. Carter says:

    FAO RockyRoad

    ‘Borrow your wife’s hair dryer and, using the high temperature, blow it on the surface of the water in the bucket (avoid hitting the sides of the bucket, of course). ‘Do this for 5-10 minutes’ seems like a flawed experiment to me! Where what is the control? How does a hair dryer equate to the Sun and a bucket of water to an Ocean?

  74. mpainter says:

    Carter, @ where he comes unglued above.
    ==============================================
    Golly, how excitable you are. What you see on my comment is a standard convention. All below the hatched line is my response to your comment at the time given above it.
    Please pardon my attempt to enlighten you.It won’t happen again, I promise.

  75. Geoff C says:

    Worstalls site seems to have disappeared. Can’t handle the traffic?

  76. DirkH says:

    Gail Combs says:
    December 20, 2012 at 11:28 am
    “The professional astroturf establishment is not just going to go away, it will find another Chicken Little Scare to use to milk the masses.”

    Steven Crowder tries a job at CALPIRG:

  77. EternalOptimist says:

    I hope I dont frighten anybody. I dont mean to

    but just imagine if the planet had warmed naturally by 2c in the last 15 years

    not only would we be fighting a lost cause, we would probably be in jail or some other institution, and the likes of mann, lew and connolley would be crowing over our demise.

    and that is why we have to take science out of the hands of these awful people

  78. ntesdorf says:

    “The atmosphere can’t heat the ocean’ so why is the Arctic ocean colder than most other oceans?”
    Could it be because the sun doesn’t shine much there?…Just like in the Antarctic.

  79. Gail Combs says:

    MarkW says:
    December 20, 2012 at 12:43 pm
    ….. So a warmer atmosphere will result in a warmer ocean, because less energy is escaping rather than more energy entering.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    SWAG –
    First you are talking a degree or two or three according to the IPCC.
    Second energy leaves the ocean as water vapor that has been evaporated by the sun. Do not forget that snow will sublime even in the Arctic or the Antarctic do to the energy from the sun.

    Clouds make the big difference not the atmospheric temperature.
    From Willis’s guest thread a graph or two.
    typical cloud induced variations in shortwave solar radiation. This is the radiation that is going to penetrate the ocean and warm it.

    Short wave Clear sky vs all sky (cloud, rain, clear)
    Willis says “As expected, the clouds cut down the amount of solar radiation by a large amount. On a 24-hour basis, the reduction in solar radiation is about 210 watts per square metre.” This is all from actual observations not some GIGO model BTW

    long wave (IR) clear sky vs all skys

  80. Ian W says:

    MarkW says:
    December 20, 2012 at 12:38 pm
    A warmer atmosphere may or may not be able to warm the oceans, however a warmer atmosphere does make it harder for the oceans to transfer the heat the sun is putting into it up to the atmosphere.
    So in the end, the result is the same.

    and
    MarkW says:
    December 20, 2012 at 12:43 pm
    Water is opaque to infrared i.e., greenhouse gas radiation. See the absorbency spectrum of water. SST is totally unaffected by the greenhouse effect. Sea surface temperature is determined by insolation in the short wave spectrum i.e., visible light. This is one of the earth-sized holes in AGW theory.

    Half right.
    Water temperature is determined by energy in vs energy out. Solar insulation counts for most of the energy in, however the temperature of the atmosphere directly affects the rate at which energy can leave the oceans. So a warmer atmosphere will result in a warmer ocean, because less energy is escaping rather than more energy entering.

    1. A warmer atmosphere makes it easier for water to evaporate as warmer air can hold more water vapor. Therefore, warmer air is likely to cool the water surface as water evaporates from it. The amount of cooling can be significant as the latent heat of evaporation is 540 calories/gram (i,e, 540 grams of water reduced in temperature by 1C).
    2. Humid air is lighter than dry air at the same temperature so will rise convectively and draw in more dry air underneath where the process will repeat – cooling the water and humidifying the air but not warming it as the water vapor is carrying latent heat..
    3. The rising water vapor will eventually form clouds and give up the latent heat of condensation. The clouds will raise the albedo and reduce the short wave radiation from the sun that penetrates the photic layer reducing the heating effect of the sun.
    4. Water is opaque to infrared so the first few molecules of the surface will be excited by the infrared and this will assist them to evaporate taking some more heat from the surface. It will not heat the body of water below the first few molecules – it will cool it. The small amount of infrared that is purported to be downwelling due to CO2 scattering, is unlikely to have any measurable effect.

    From the above you will see that a warmer atmosphere will result in a cooler ocean as more water evaporates taking the latent heat from the surface. This is how hurricanes form after all and they are getting all their energy from the sea below despite the winds being very warm. Only the short wave radiation from the Sun will heat the water and in the tropics with the Sun overhead the photic layer is deep and the oceans warm rapidly during the day. However at the poles are the ocean surface layers are cold as they can lose heat readily into the dry cold air above but there is very little solar heating due to the insolation of what sun there is being at an angle at which water is effectively reflective.

  81. John West says:

    Bob Tatz

    “P.S. I’m not a regular poster…”

    Too bad, we could always use another chemist on board when the “acidification” issue arises.

  82. Theo Goodwin says:

    Gail Combs says:
    December 20, 2012 at 11:28 am

    Excellent post. I understand your concern with “the next big scare.” However, worthless studies tied to causes are highly fungible within the academic empire. Biology Departments have all kinds of specialties that are soft science at best but that have been growing steadily since Earth Day 1970. I know a college that has an “at large” Professor of Green, as if he were teaching a lifestyle or something. I believe he is employed through the office of Diversity Dean.

    I doubt that what I have said is a surprise. After all, most of the people associated with the CAGW narrative are not what we once called “hard scientists.”

  83. james griffin says:

    CO2’s ability to create heat diminishes as you stack it up and for a doubling I have understood for a long time that we would get about 1.2C of warming….in line with some of the conservative comments above. Another way of looking at it is to go back 500 million years when the planet started to green….the CO2 was estimated at 15 times todays levels. Or put another way over 7 times the level the warmers claimed would cause a catastrophy. They were wrong.

  84. mpainter says:

    MarkW says: December 20, 2012 at 12:43 pm

    Half right.
    Water temperature is determined by energy in vs energy out. Solar insulation counts for most of the energy in, however the temperature of the atmosphere directly affects the rate at which energy can leave the oceans. So a warmer atmosphere will result in a warmer ocean, because less energy is escaping rather than more energy entering.
    ========================================

    Yes, just as I gave, insolation determines SST, which determines atmospheric temperature, not the other way around. The greenhouse effect on SST is inconsequential. See Bob Tisdales posts on WUWT that very thoroughly address this topic.

  85. Carter says:
    Does the warm atmosphere not transfer some heat over to the sea?

    Not to any significant degree (pun intended). A warmer atmosphere impedes heat loss from the oceans. Thus causing the oceans to be warmer than they would otherwise be. BTW, I’m talking net energy/heat transfers.

    Which incidentally, is why the Arctic Ocean is cold. The atmosphere above the Arctic is much colder on average than any other ocean.

  86. MarkW says:

    Yes, warmer air would result in a lower RH which would result in increased evaporation, but only til the RH returned to equilibrium. Once that point is reached there is no enhanced evaporation and we reach the point where the only difference is less energy leaving the ocean via conduction to the air.

  87. clipe says:

    mpaul says:
    December 20, 2012 at 9:35 am

    …. Media Matters then runs out to one of their pet scientists, gives him a biscuit and has him say,…

    Thanks for that. Made me chuckle, chortle and snort, all at the same time.

  88. mpainter says:

    MarkW says: December 20, 2012 at 2:19 pm
    Yes, warmer air would result in a lower RH which would result in increased evaporation, but only til the RH returned to equilibrium. Once that point is reached there is no enhanced evaporation and we reach the point where the only difference is less energy leaving the ocean via conduction to the air.
    ==============================
    The warmer the SST, the warmer the air. RH returns to equilibrium only at RC.

  89. Matt G says:

    MarkW says:
    December 20, 2012 at 12:43 pm

    “Half right.
    Water temperature is determined by energy in vs energy out. Solar insulation counts for most of the energy in, however the temperature of the atmosphere directly affects the rate at which energy can leave the oceans. So a warmer atmosphere will result in a warmer ocean, because less energy is escaping rather than more energy entering.”

    The ocean losing energy warms the atmosphere not the other way round, as can been seen during ENSO. A warmer ocean results in a warmer atmosphere, this is shown by the temperature gradient between the surface and the higher troposphere. In winter any cold places with sudden source from the warmer ocean is warmed significantly. With increasing height intervals the temperature decreases showing the energy is decreasing further away from the surface. The atmosphere restricts the energy loss from becoming faster than the solar input, to maintain the similar equilibrium currently shown. When more solar radiation reaches the ocean surface, less percentage of this solar energy escapes. The ocean heat content contains energy that would had been lost to space if it had not been there.

    This retained energy in the ocean IMO is most of the 33c greenhouse effect claim, without it the planet would be much cooler, especially away from the tropics. This is because the high energy retained in the tropical oceans would be loss to space and be prevented from warming other parts of the planet that are much colder.

  90. Gail Combs says:

    Theo Goodwin says:
    December 20, 2012 at 1:46 pm

    Gail Combs says:
    December 20, 2012 at 11:28 am

    Excellent post. I understand your concern with “the next big scare.” However, worthless studies tied to causes are highly fungible within the academic empire. Biology Departments have all kinds of specialties that are soft science at best but that have been growing steadily since Earth Day 1970….
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Tell me about it. I was a chemistry major and as a senior topics course in 1971 in chemistry (like a masters paper only assigned) I got stuck with research in ‘Chemical Oxygen demand in polluted waters’ In other words I was the lab tech grunt for my profs next paper.

  91. Chuck Nolan says:

    “Reactions are coming in worldwide worldwide”
    oops
    cn

  92. mpainter says:
    December 20, 2012 at 1:02 pm

    Carter, @ where he comes unglued above.

    ==============================================
    Golly, how excitable you are. What you see on my comment is a standard convention. All below the hatched line is my response to your comment at the time given above it.
    Please pardon my attempt to enlighten you.It won’t happen again, I promise.

    Funny!

    BTW, a year ago, after posting here for three years, I adopted the use of the blockquote and /blockquote tags (inside angle brackets) to indent and italicize quoted material to any nesting depth. They are helpful in avoiding misunderstandings (because they’re virtually foolproof to the reader) and in enabling me to provide full context locally in complex disputes.

    My fingers can now type the first tag without conscious thought. After I’ve typed the first one, I copy and paste it into lines lower down, then insert slashes in the tags that represent out-dents. (It took about six months before I consistently inserted them, though.) When I compose offline in Word, I let Autocorrect convert “bq” to “blockquote” and “bqs” to “/blockquote” (both with angle brackets around them).

  93. noaaprogrammer says:

    Hopefully the Dems will take heed and apply the savings from pursuing pointless green endeavors toward paying off the national debt – oh, sorry – I temporarily nodded off and was dreaming.

  94. RobertInAz says:

    latent heat of evaporation is 540 calories/gram (i,e, 540 grams of water reduced in temperature by 1C

    540 calories (2260 joules) is absorbed (released) by 1 gram of water evaporating (condensing).
    the specific heat of water is 4.2 joules/gram which is the energy required to raise its temperature by 1 degree C.

    both of these numbers vary slightly with temperature and pressure.

  95. DirkH says:

    EternalOptimist says:
    December 20, 2012 at 1:22 pm

    “I hope I dont frighten anybody. I dont mean to
    but just imagine if the planet had warmed naturally by 2c in the last 15 years
    not only would we be fighting a lost cause, we would probably be in jail or some other institution, and the likes of mann, lew and connolley would be crowing over our demise.”

    Interesting speculation. Some remarks:
    We would have attributed such a quick warming to CO2 and agreed with the alarmists that they’re right, I guess. Because it would have been an extraordinarily quick warming never observed in the instrumental record that dates back 300 years or so with the records of CET and Potsdam.
    At least I would. I never cared much about climate catastrophism, I enjoyed warm winters here in Germany in the 90ies. Back in those days of gradual warming there were no big energy subsidies to pay so it wasn’t a big economic problem either, and the landscape wasn’t yet enhanced by 100 m high wind turbines everywhere.

    Only after I grabbed a copy of Lomborg’s Skeptical Environmentalist did I really notice what Mann had done and what the climate models did and it became apparent that it’s a pseudoscience, I must have recognized this about 2003.

    Again, for a long time I didn’t care. Then I got a job in the renewables sector and found a bunch of real malthusian warmists there. I confronted them with the truth and, looking for data online – I didn’t have the book with me – I found WUWT, that was right before climategate so I had the pleasure of following the comedy as it unfolded, and the screaming greenshirts at Copenhagen. I had much more fun at that company, pointing out to them that they were living on borrowed time with the subsidies. They really didn’t like to have it rubbed in…

    As it stands, I’m a skeptic of CO2AGW because it doesn’t work. Had it worked, I wouldn’t be a skeptic of it.

  96. DirkH says:

    Roger Knights says:
    December 20, 2012 at 2:51 pm
    “My fingers can now type the first tag without conscious thought. ”

    Download Firefox, the Greasemonkey plugin and the CA assistant from Climate Audit. It gives you formatting buttons in the edit box.

  97. Peter Plail says:

    I made the mistake of following the link to Connolley and within seconds was treated to him abusing commenters with “ignorant tosser” and “cretin” . Classy!

  98. A.D. Everard says:

    The whole CAGW crowd must be feeling pretty sick with fear at the moment. They are definitely between a rock and a hard place. The most honourable of them – and big apologies to those who just spluttered coffee at my use of the term – will confess all. It will hurt, and hurt quite a bit, but they will then feel a lot better for coming clean. It really is their only way out of the mess they’ve made. All their conniving has only ever gotten them deeper into trouble, so conniving some more will not help them any. Basically they should come out with their hands up or suffer the consequences. I won’t hold my breath on their surrender. After all, that takes courage.

    Here in Australia, it is the 21st Dec today. The end of the world? Oh yes, for some, by the looks of it, but then, that’s what the CAGW community wanted, right? Maybe it’s just for them. Maybe they should have been careful what they wished for.

  99. mpainter says:

    Philip Bradley says: December 20, 2012 at 2:12 pm
    Carter says:
    Does the warm atmosphere not transfer some heat over to the sea?

    Not to any significant degree (pun intended). A warmer atmosphere impedes heat loss from the oceans. Thus causing the oceans to be warmer than they would otherwise be. BTW, I’m talking net energy/heat transfers.

    Which incidentally, is why the Arctic Ocean is cold. The atmosphere above the Arctic is much colder on average than any other ocean.
    ========================================================================
    You couldn’t be more wrong, Phillip. The arctic is cold because of lack of insolation. Kindergarten stuff. Air does not determine SST. That is backwards.

  100. Jimmy Haigh says:

    Connolley (with the ‘e’) clearly has issues. If he has anyone who cares about him he/she should get him some therapy.

  101. george e. smith says:

    “””””…..Gail Combs says:

    December 20, 2012 at 11:28 am

    margaret berger says:
    December 20, 2012 at 8:41 am

    Those young earnest believers who are saving the planet will allow the parasites to milk this farce longer as they will be lost without a noble cause.
    ………………………………………..
    The $25 billion set aside by the Obama administration two years ago has, so far, produced little in terms of job growth……”””””

    Obama doesn’t have $25 billion; he’s in the hole to the tune of $16 trillion or more.

    So the only way for him to get $25B to create jobs, is to take it from people who have non- government jobs.

    People in government jobs are paid more than those in private jobs doing the same work.

    Ergo, Government can only make fewer jobs, than could have been made by that $25B if left in the private sector, with those who earned it.

  102. D Böehm says:

    george e. smith,

    Correctomundo. And the proposed tax increase will go for more spending, as if the Administration is not already spending like drunken sailors. There will be a few token cuts, but they will be smoke and mirrors. By the end of Obama’s second term, I expect a deficit of around $25 Trillion. And they will have their hand out for more tax increases.

    “I can make a firm pledge. Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes.”

–Candidate Barack Obama, Sept. 12, 2008

    “If your family earns less than $250,000 a year, you will not see your taxes increased a single dime. I repeat: not one single dime.”

–President Barack Obama, Feb. 24, 2009

    “The statement didn’t come with caveats.”
    –Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs, April 15, 2009, when asked if the pledge applies to healthcare 

    They lie through their teeth.

  103. george e. smith says:

    “””””…..RobertInAz says:

    December 20, 2012 at 3:18 pm

    latent heat of evaporation is 540 calories/gram (i,e, 540 grams of water reduced in temperature by 1C

    540 calories (2260 joules) is absorbed (released) by 1 gram of water evaporating (condensing).
    the specific heat of water is 4.2 joules/gram which is the energy required to raise its temperature by 1 degree C…….”””””

    Well your numbers are correct; BUT your story is not qite correct.

    True, water must absorb 50 cal/gm in order to evaporate; BUT it is water VAPOR which must have 540 cal/gm removed before it can condense.

    Some people mistakenly believe that when water vapor condenses to make clouds, that somehow the temperature goes up from all that latent heat. Instead, a colder surrounding atmosphere must suck out that latent heat from a warmer water vapor. The Temperature of the atmosphere and vapor must be falling, for condensation to occur.

    Also the 540 or 539 cal/gm, is the latent heat of boiling at 100 deg C at standard pressure.
    Evaporation at lower temperatures, generally requres more latent heat.

  104. Baa Humbug says:
    December 20, 2012 at 8:48 am

    The GHE hypothesis says the atmosphere isn’t heated by direct insolation (shortwave), only upwelling longwave from the surface heats the atmosphere which in turn heats the surface some more.

    The GHE hypothesis doesn’t say that the atmosphere isn’t heated by direct insolation – water vapour absorbs a good proportion of shortwave IR, ozone absorbs UV. You’ve also omitted conduction/convection. Even Wikipedia gets that right.

  105. John West says:

    DCA says:
    “I don’t quite follow his logic.”

    That’s because there is no logic, just lies like displaying observed warming from 1990 as about 0.015 °C per year when it’s really about half that (see table below), but even then the observations don’t come close to the middle of observed so he had to fiddle with the projections too (mostly truncating off the high side).

    FAR: 0.02 to 0.05°C per year
    SAR: 0.01 to 0.035°C per year
    TAR: 0.016 to 0.062°C per year

    http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/monitoring/climate/surface-temperature

    Table            1990      2011      21yrs        Rate       period
    GISS             0.29       0.44       0.15       0.0071    per year
    NCDC          0.27         0.4        0.13      0.0061    per year
    HadCrut4  0.29         0.4        0.11        0.0052  per year
    Crut4LE:   0.37       0.31      -0.06     -0.0028  per year
    Crut4HE:  0.21        0.5        0.29        0.0138   per year
    

    LE = Low error (Taking highest possible 1990 and Lowest possible 2011)
    HE = High error (Taking lowest possible 1990 and highest possible 2011)

    FAR: page xxii Policymakers Summary
    “If emissions follow a Business-as-U sual pattern Under the IPCC Business-as-Usual (Scenario A) emissions of greenhouse gases, the average rate of increase of global mean temperature during the next century is estimated to be about 0.3°C per decade (with an uncertainty range of 0.2°C to 0.5°C)”

    SAR: (page 23) Policymakers Summary
    “For the mid-range IPCC emission scenario, IS92a, assuming the
    “best estimate” value of climate sensitivity4 and including the effects of future increases in aerosol, models project an increase in global mean surface air temperature relative to 1990 of about 2°C
    by 2100.”
    “Combining the lowest IPCC emission scenario (IS92c) with a “low” value of climate sensitivity and
    including the effects of future changes in aerosol concentrations leads to a projected increase of about 1°C by 2100. The corresponding projection for the highest IPCC scenario (IS92e) combined with a “high” value of climate sensitivity gives a warming of about 3.5°C.”

    TAR from figure 9.13
    1.6 to 6.2 C by 2100

  106. AndyG55 says:

    One must be careful with evaporation of sea water. It is not driven just by temperature, but also by the current humidity of the air above the water, relative to its temperature. Is more to do with diffusion or solubility, and moisture holding capacity of the adjacent air.
    If the air immediately above the water is already holding 100% of its vapour capacity at its particular temperature, then evaporation is very difficult.

  107. The scientific method wins the day says:

    Skeptics should declare, 21st Dec 2012, the day the global warming hoax died.

  108. mpainter says:
    December 20, 2012 at 3:49 pm

    You couldn’t be more wrong, Phillip. The arctic is cold because of lack of insolation. Kindergarten stuff. Air does not determine SST. That is backwards.

    Were the oceans static, you’d have a point, but they are not. Water currently in the Arctic Ocean was at some point in the Tropics. As that water moved from the Tropics to the Arctic it got colder because the air above it got colder.

    I guess ice forming on water surfaces when the air temperature drops below zero is just my imagination at work. ;-)

  109. Bill H says:

    R2D2 says:
    December 20, 2012 at 9:06 am

    @Carter says:

    December 20, 2012 at 8:21 am

    FAO RMB

    ‘The atmosphere can’t heat the ocean’ so why is the Arctic ocean colder than most other oceans?

    Because of the sun?

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

    Probably the lack of UV radiation at a level that will penetrate the surface tension. so its lack of warming from the sun… and black body radiation into space.. :)

  110. Legatus says:

    1) We are told that the temperature has not gone up for 16 years, this is according to the “official” temperature record.

    2) This “official” temperature record has been artificially “adjusted” upwards several times in the last decade.

    3) Conclusion, it is NOT true that the temperature has not gone up in the last 16 years.

    Actually, the temperature is dropping, and only the “adjustments” conceal this fact from us.

    The math is simple, zero change in temperature minus ajustments equels negative change in temperature.

    Soooo, what is making it colder?

    And why am I the only one who can see that zero minus something equels a negative?

  111. mpainter says:

    Philip Bradley:
    You are recorded here as arguing that polar cold is not due to lack of insolation. I will leave it at that. Insofar as your imagination is concerned, I don’t believe that it does work.

  112. Gail Combs says:

    george e. smith says:
    December 20, 2012 at 4:00 pm
    ….People in government jobs are paid more than those in private jobs doing the same work.

    Ergo, Government can only make fewer jobs, than could have been made by that $25B if left in the private sector, with those who earned it.
    ______________________________________
    I agree completely.

    Also if you are talking bureaucrats, esp. those making/enforcing regulations they do nothing but eat up wealth coming and going because we pay thrice over. Once for the bureaucrats salary, again for the persons in the private sector who must read and deal with those new regulations, and a third time for the installation/maintenance of the compliance mandated equipment and the record keeping The hidden cost of taxes and regulation is incredible. It is the main reason the USA/EU can not compete with China, India and ‘third world’ countries. Somewhere between 80-90% of our salaries/wages are eaten up by taxes/regulatory compliance.

    If people actually had to pay the entire cost of government including regulatory compliance on April 15 their would be a mass revolt on April 16th.

  113. Gail Combs says:

    Legatus says:
    December 20, 2012 at 5:45 pm

    ….And why am I the only one who can see that zero minus something equals a negative?
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    You are not.
    That is why I post:
    graph – N. H. Oct Snow Cover
    graph – Length of Arctic Melt Season
    graph -Movement of Koppen Climate Classification Boundaries by decade for 20th C.
    winter weather news

    I consider most global temperature records hopelessly mangled.

  114. davidmhoffer says:

    Philip Bradley;
    Water currently in the Arctic Ocean was at some point in the Tropics. As that water moved from the Tropics to the Arctic it got colder because the air above it got colder.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    No…. it got colder because it was radiating more energy to space than it was receiving from all sources combined. The air above it also got colder for the exact same reason.

    Philip Bradley;
    I guess ice forming on water surfaces when the air temperature drops below zero is just my imagination at work. ;-)
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Itz a bit more complicated than that. Look up heat of transition.

  115. John West says:

    Legatus says:
    “Soooo, what is making it colder?”

    Hmmm. The satellite record doesn’t show cooling yet and I don’t think its been fiddled with, but IMO it’s solar activity that’s driving the lack of warming and probably be the driving force behind any cooling we might see in the near future. If the AGW crowd is right and CO2 dominates over solar activity variations then it will have to get back to warming soon. If the AGW crowd is half right then we’ll probably see this sideways movement for a while. If the AGW crowd is mostly wrong and I’m right that the CO2 effect is “barely discernible” and solar variation other than TSI dominates then we should see cooling in the near (relative) future, however, there’s still a lot of energy that has built up in the ocean over decades of high solar activity and this energy ain’t going anywhere quick and it certainly effects global average temperatures.

    “And why am I the only one who can see that zero minus something equels a negative?”

    Zero minus something negative equals a positive. /snarc

  116. Ian L. McQueen says:

    I wish it were true that the warmists’ world is collapsing around them, but at present they are still battling on. Our friend Bill McKibben has begun a bus crusade to get university students to demand that administrators divest themselves of any stocks related to fossil fuels.
    He was featured today (Dec 20) on the CBC radio program The Current; you can hear the broadcast at: http://www.cbc.ca/thecurrent/episode/2012/12/20/university-students-calling-for-a-divestment-from-fossil-fuel-industry/ Needless to say, given that it was the CBC, all his assertions were accepted at face value and he got only soft questions pitched at him.
    IanM

  117. William says:

    In reply to Tamino’s scam.

    “Over at Tamino’s place, Tamino is his usual self, calling other people and their conclusions “fake” while oblivious to his own use of a fake name.

    http://tamino.wordpress.com/2012/12/20/fake-skeptic-draws-fake-picture-of-global-temperature/#more-6082
    Next, Tamino will call Nature itself “fake” for not cooperating at the correct pace. He seems to conveniently forget all the adjustments (all upwards) that been applied to the surface temperature record this past decade. No matter, as long as the adjustments fit his conclusion. /sarc”

    I see Tamino (Grant Foster) appears to be unaware that the GISS temperature data set does not agree with the UAH or HADCRUT temperature data sets. There is a statistical difference from the GISS planetary data set and the UAH and HADCRUT temperature data set which does not make sense as they are all measuring the temperature of the same planet. The GISS is an algorithm adjusted temperature data set. The GISS temperature data set appears to be deliberately adjusted to indicate that there is significantly more global warming than measured.
    I see the extreme AGW paradigm pushers also appear to be not aware that the GISS temperature data set is manipulated.

    The discussion of the science behind the extreme AGW paradigm is over because observations and analysis obviously does not support the positive feedback extreme warming paradigm. The planet’s response to a change in forcing is to resist the change by increasing or decreasing the amount of planetary cloud in the tropics thereby reflecting more or less sunlight off into space. If the earth’s response to a change in forcing is negative (resists rather than amplifies the forcing change) then a doubling of atmospheric CO2 will result in less than 1C warming with most of the warming occurring at high latitudes.

    GISS vs UAH (UAH is a satellite measurement of planetary surface temperature. GISS is the NASA James Hansen’s departments manipulated global temperature algorithm. The Hansen algorithm adjusts temperature measurements in warm city locations to “measure” high latitude arctic and Antarctic regions. The GISS adjusted planetary temperature is always higher than the satellite measurement and the British hadcrut temperature measurement.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/17/divergence-between-giss-and-uah-since-1980/
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/18/gistemp-vs-hadcrut/

    http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.ca/2012/12/massive-data-manipulation-at-nasa-warms.html

    Massive data manipulation at NASA GISS warms most weather stations
    In a talk given at the recent EIKE Climate Conference in Germany, Professor Friedrich-Karl Ewert compared the 2010 and 2012 data from 119 randomly selected stations from the NASA GISS temperature records. Prof. Ewert found “All appeared to have been tampered with. His conclusions: changes were made in most stations, probably in all. Two thirds of the changes resulted in stronger warming. A third of the stations showed enhanced cooling to simulate a homogenization.” According to Dr. Ewert, the data manipulation methods include: decreasing data of beginning sections, decreasing data between 1920 and 1950, increasing data of final sections, and deleting data of disturbing sections.

  118. mpainter says:
    December 20, 2012 at 5:46 pm
    Air does not determine SST.

    Then explain to me why water surfaces freeze when the air temperature falls below zero?

  119. AndyG55 says:

    Legatus says:
    “And why am I the only one who can see that zero minus something equels a negative?”

    Actually , I have often stated that one of the reason for the levelling off in the “calculated global average urban land temperture” is that they have basically run out of “adjustments” that they can get away with easily. :-)

    But , I agree, there is a good chance that there has actually been a disguised COOLING trend over that period.

  120. Gail Combs says:

    John West says:
    December 20, 2012 at 6:26 pm

    Legatus says:
    “Soooo, what is making it colder?”

    Hmmm. The satellite record doesn’t show cooling yet and I don’t think its been fiddled with….
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    I will agree with that. Dr Roy Spencer I think is honest.

    However what I have noticed, at least in my neck of the woods, is a change in the jets from zonal to meridional flow. This gives you blocking highs, droughts like we saw in the mid west this summer and in Russia. It also pulls arctic air down in to the mid latitudes (The polar express) so we are now seeing a swing in temps and record breaking cold.

    The current record breaking cold in Russia is one example and there are a lot more here for the last couple of months.

    Humans tend not to notice the nice days and focus on the extremes so we notice the record breaking cold in the winter and not the unseasonably warm days, however both are a result of meridional jets.

    That is why I look at the length of the Arctic melt season and the Northern Hemisphere October snow record as indicators of change. They are likely to be the most sensitive to an actual change in climate.

  121. taxed says:

    Legatus
    So what’s making it colder

    Well as far as the cold winter in northern asia goes, it was been set in motion back in the summer when the Polar jet become very weak over Russia. Because the jet was so weak it allowed the cold and snow cover to bed in early over northern asia as the season turned

  122. Go Home says:

    “And why am I the only one who can see that zero minus something equals a negative?”

    Are you positive?

  123. taxed says:

    This cold winter in Russia was set in motion back in the summer when a very weak jet stream allowed early seasonal cooling to set in.

  124. TomRude says:

    Ian McQueen, CBC is a mouthpiece for 350.org’s campaign. Perhaps University of Manitoba will do the same with Clay Riddell’s sponsored Faculty of Environment, Earth and Resources that is feeding so many AGW alarmists…

  125. KevinK says:

    It sure sounds like the ”greenhouse gas” hypothesis has run hard aground.

    Let’s see. maybe the scientific method (propose a hypothesis, collect data, disprove the hypothesis (Thanks to Anthony and others)) might actually work.

    So just for fun let’s try another hypothesis (from an alleged “lunatic”); the fact that certain gases in the atmosphere absorb and then reemit IR energy back towards the surface just delays the flow of energy through the system by causing packets of energy to make multiple passes through the system. Multiple passes at the speed of light do not equate to energy passing through the system at a slower velocity (The “speed of heat”). Try this thought experiment, I drive at 60 MPH from my home to my office, then I turn around and go home and do it again. Or I drive once to the office and home again at 30 MPH, think I might hold up a few other drivers in the second example? Thus the “greenhouse gases” do not slow the velocity of the thermal energy; they simply delay the moment when the heat exits the Earth’s atmosphere. If this delay is minuscule (i.e. tens of milliseconds versus approximately 86 million milliseconds in each day), then no “higher equilibrium” temperature results.

    Even “lunatics” can suggest hypotheses….

    Cheers, Kevin.

  126. Werner Brozek says:

    Legatus says:
    December 20, 2012 at 5:45 pm

    Actually, the temperature is dropping

    John West says:
    December 20, 2012 at 6:26 pm

    The satellite record doesn’t show cooling yet

    There is an interesting twist here. RSS shows no warming for the past 16 years. However we are told the northern arctic has undergone much warming lately, so if the global temperatures show a slope of 0, then what must have happened in the rest of the world?

  127. D Böehm says:

    The satellite record doesn’t show cooling yet?

    Where is the global warming??

  128. mpainter says:

    Philip Bradley December 20, 2012 at 7:18 pm
    mpainter says:
    December 20, 2012 at 5:46 pm
    Air does not determine SST.

    Then explain to me why water surfaces freeze when the air temperature falls below zero?
    ======================================
    What a surprising question. Water can’t freeze from the bottom up. Do you not know ice floats?

    Now I have a question for you:
    Why do you maintain a vacant website with no reference to a Philip Bradley?

  129. davidmhoffer says:

    Philip Bradley says:
    December 20, 2012 at 7:18 pm
    mpainter says:
    December 20, 2012 at 5:46 pm
    Air does not determine SST.
    Then explain to me why water surfaces freeze when the air temperature falls below zero?
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    One could as easily ask why air temperature falls below zero when water surfaces freeze.

    One could also point out that water releases energy when it changes from liquid phase to solid phase (ice) without changing temperature. Where does the energy go? If some of it goes into the air, that would mean that water freezing causes the air to warm, would it not?

    You are vastly over simplifying the physics, and drawing wrong conclusions as a result. The mass of the oceans is in the range of 1400 times that of the atmosphere. Atmosphere temps can vary within certain limits, but at day’s end the atmosphere is like a tiny child being dragged through the mall by one hand by a large adult. The child can kick and thrash about, but general direction is determined by the large adult.

  130. davidmhoffer says:
    December 20, 2012 at 6:20 pm
    No…. it got colder because it was radiating more energy to space than it was receiving from all sources combined. The air above it also got colder for the exact same reason.

    Evaporation is the primary means of heat loss from the ocean surface and evaporation increases as the temperature differential between ocean surface and air increases.

    You see this over the Gulf Stream where warm water is transported northward under colder air and latent heat fluxes (amount of evaporation) are highest.

    http://icoads.noaa.gov/marcdat2/P_Mike_McCulloch.pdf

  131. davidmhoffer says:

    Philip Bradley;
    Evaporation is the primary means of heat loss from the ocean surface and evaporation increases as the temperature differential between ocean surface and air increases.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>

    Sure. But you have again over simplified. The ocean gains energy from the same system you just described. You can’t examine 1/4 of a cycle and decide that’s the only part that matters, you have to consider the system as a whole. As a whole, the system cools when it radiates more energy than it receives, and warms when it receives more than it radiates. This is what determines temperature of the system as a whole. The processes you describe move a lot of energy around inside the system, and they can make cool parts warmer and warmer parts cooler, but they don’t determine the temperature over all.

    And the ocean still has 1400 times the mass of the atmosphere which makes the prospect of the atmosphere controlling ocean temps ludicrous.

  132. A Crooks says:

    “The last thing government officials want to hear is that the planet isn’t actually warming.” Washington Times.

    I find this a most disturbing thing to say. Have we really become such an eschatological death cult that we only rejoice bad news? There is something alarmingly sick to the core here.

  133. gnomish says:

    the desperation is tangible.
    on each of the sites reporting this, there is at least one climate catastrophist gatekeeper barking manically, full time.
    some appear to be chemically impaired as well.

    they may present a threat to themselves or others – seriously.

    i recall another jonestown… this smells like that.

  134. M Courtney says:

    EternalOptimist says:
    December 20, 2012 at 1:22 pm
    “I hope I dont frighten anybody. I dont mean to
    but just imagine if the planet had warmed naturally by 2c in the last 15 years
    not only would we be fighting a lost cause, we would probably be in jail or some other institution, and the likes of mann, lew and connolley would be crowing over our demise.
    and that is why we have to take science out of the hands of these awful people”

    If that rise had happened we would all deserve the punishment. We would have been proven to have no grip on reality, no claim on sanity and thus would have endangered the world.
    But 2C in the last 15 years is so extraordinary that we were right to say the alarmists were just that, alarmist. 2C in a century is improbable but at least natural factors could not then be ruled out.

    These “awful people” may well have believed they were right. They should not be punished for that or labelled “awful people”.

    More importantly, the scientific process should be robust enough that it automatically ignores failed hypotheses and the intellectually slow-footed who slough to them.
    It is the scientific process, as practised in the universities and research centres, that needs to be addressed.

  135. Matt Ridley says:

    I have left this comment at Bishop Hill (slightly edited for here).

    The fury my article has unleashed is remarkable to behold. However, very little of it addresses the argument itself. Most commentators are content to stick to the Lysenko line rather than discuss the science I raised: ie, I should not have been allowed to say what I said.

    A few have complained that I confuse water wapour and clouds, to which I respond that the atmosphere (and the IPCC) does the same — ie any increase in water vapour may cause a change in cloud density or extent which may or may not negate any warming effect from water vapour or indeed negate any increase in water vapour itself by causing rain.

    One complaint, that my wording implies that water vapour may not be a greenhouse gas at all, is half fair. It’s not what I think but you could read it into one sentence of the piece as a result of editing. that’s a pity.

    However, on the main points I made:

    – that new estimates of aerosol cooling are low
    – that new estimates of Ocean heat uptake are low
    – that therefore observational estimates of climate sensitivity may prove low
    – that observational estimates are now good enough that they should be preferred over models
    – that dangerous warming depends on water vapour feedback not CO2 alone
    – that warming below 2C is net beneficial

    on these, nobody has said anything to dent Nic’s argument.

  136. chinook says:

    Carnival hucksters have always held a fascination with the public, which is why Mr. McKibben’s carnival act, traveling from college to college trolling for the incurious and ideologically-minded, is so popular. Al Gore has had his little, fake college of climate. Even in light of the impending, slow motion collapse of the tabloid climatism train tunnel, with some colleges still turning out enlightened acolytes by the droves, I am cautious to avoid premature celebration of the tunnel’s collapse that appears to be filling in from the many smaller rock slides.

    McKibben’s dog-n-pony show recently stopped by a university nearby, but he was only able to dredge up a dozen or so unsuspecting, energetic victims. I suppose the strategy is to find the young ones, since most older folks are now wiser or at least very suspicious for being fooled before, although on the site I spend time at debunking climate astrology there is no shortage of older, but not wiser true believers. They cling to their climate bottles like you wouldn’t believe! There’s just no prying that bottle from their hands, but I’ve noticed more and more that there are many who don’t appreciate being fooled or scammed and are now viewing the climate issues and AGW in a new light. Let the real science find out the answers and pop more than a few haughty balloons and hope the pseudo science gets tossed off the train along the way. Interest in climate catastrophe is waning, as most apocalyptic fads need to run their course as reality eventually supersedes.

  137. Steve Keohane says:

    taxed says: December 20, 2012 at 8:01 pm
    This cold winter in Russia was set in motion back in the summer when a very weak jet stream allowed early seasonal cooling to set in.

    They are talking -17-18°C in Moscow at 55°N. I live at almost 40°N, and yesterday it was -17°, but that was °F which works out to be -27°C. Upon realizing that, Moscow didn’t seem all that cold.

    mpainter says:December 20, 2012 at 8:42 pm

    —Philip Bradley December 20, 2012 at 7:18 pm
    —mpainter says:
    —December 20, 2012 at 5:46 pm
    —Air does not determine SST.

    —Then explain to me why water surfaces freeze when the air temperature falls below zero?
    ======================================
    What a surprising question. Water can’t freeze from the bottom up. Do you not know ice floats?

    I realize you both are probably referencing the ocean’s, but I have an empirical observation that appears to discern the dichotomy of the last two sentences in italics. I live on a creek, temperatures here go to -25°F. The creek runs year-round but shows little to no ice above 20°F, and I would bet the actual temperature of the water is well below freezing (I will check it today post-sunrise, air temp. is now -8°F). When the air goes below 0°F, the creek starts freezing from the bottom up, that is the ground up. I assume this is because the ground has gotten exceptionally cold. The water exposed to the air is freely flowing at subzero temps, but at the ground level freezes. I would guess loss of motion due to friction with the ground allows crystals to form and they grow upon themselves, now causing eddies and a snowballing of the freezing.

  138. Gail Combs says:

    Baa Humbug says:
    December 20, 2012 at 8:48 am

    The GHE hypothesis says the atmosphere isn’t heated by direct insolation (shortwave), only upwelling longwave from the surface heats the atmosphere which in turn heats the surface some more….
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    That is interesting because real world observation shows it is completely bogus. link
    Note the air temperature in the desert fell faster than the sand temperature over the time span of the total eclipse following the amount of sun that was obscured.

  139. Bob Tisdale says:

    Anthony, thanks for the link to Tamino’s discussion. I wouldn’t have bothered to read it otherwise and would have missed the following quote. Tamino writes:

    “Although all three trend lines slope upward, their slopes aren’t statistically significant. But that doesn’t mean they’re not upward. It just means that there’s not enough data in 16 years to tell for sure, statistically speaking, which way they’re going. That always happens — always — when the time span is short.”

    That’s going to come back to haunt him—numerous times.

  140. Richard Garnache says:

    This was the least informative discussion I have ever seen on WUWT. I’m sorry I wasted my time. Why argue with stupid statements?

  141. John West says:

    A Crooks says:

    “Have we really become such an eschatological death cult that we only rejoice bad news? There is something alarmingly sick to the core here.”

    It gets worse. Warming should be viewed as good news yet it isn’t and cooling should be viewed as bad news yet if we don’t get some cooling it’ll be bad. Ah, the end of an interglacial!

  142. John West says:

    @ Gail Combs, D Böehm, & Legatus

    You all make excellent points that highlight the utter ridiculousness that this “debate” has centered around the most meaningless single metric of “global average temperature”.

    Thanks for the reminder.

  143. Frank Rizzo says:

    The trouble is that Nic Lewis doesn’t seem to be calculating equilibrium climate sensitivity as it is commonly understood, but *effective* climate sensitivity (related but not directly comparable). This point was made in the comments of one of Bishop Hill’s posts (second page), and Nic Lewis seems to agree in principle:
    http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2012/12/19/why-doesnt-the-ar5-sods-climate-sensitivity-range-reflect-it.html

    However, Lewis (I believe incorrectly) still argues that his *effective* climate sensitivity is still equivalent to equilibrium sensitivity. I discussed it here:
    http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2012/12/20/people-if-you-want-to-argue-with-stoats-first-read-enough-to-be-a-weasel-parrots-neednt-apply/#comment-24143

  144. RMB says:

    The sun’s rays enter the ocean at 90degs at the equator, max energy ,at the a the arctic the entry angle is oblique so min energy.

  145. Steve Keohane says:

    WRT my post at 4:32am. I have always assumed that water in motion could be quite a bit, 10-20°F?, colder than freezing. I have to reconsider after measuring the water temp in my creek. Still without sun and 8°F air temperature, up from -9°F overnight, the flowing water measured 31.3°F. We are talking about a cross section of water of 3-4 sq ft over 6-7 feet width with a max depth of 12-14″. I still find it interesting that the more minimally frozen earth freezes the creek better from below than the air does at -9° to -17°F as we’ve had the past two mornings. There is a good foot of moderately packed snow to the water’s edge to insulate the ground.

  146. taxed says:

    Steve Keohane
    Back in August its was the weakness of the jet stream over Russia that give a hint that northern asia could be in for a other cold winter. For the jet had become so weak it almost broke down and what little there was of it was tending to flow north/south rather the west to east. So l knew this sort of pattern would let the cold and snow bed in early over the asia landmase. Due to the calm settled weak a weak jet brings. Also there would be nothing to stop the cold around the pole to come pushing down across asia, which a strong east to west jet would help to stop from happening. The asia snow cover extent set in early this year.

  147. taxed says:

    Sorry should have been “weather” not “weak”

  148. D Böehm says:

    Does anyone have a real time link to view the jet streams?

  149. 3x2 says:

    Have to confess that I haven’t followed the voyages of Connoll(e)y for some time. Ferk me … are his ‘defender of the faith’ activities now taking their toll? The Tim Worstall thread was well worth a visit. Connoll(e)y is very obviously at the ‘anger stage’ of loss.

    Matt Ridley:
    The fury my article has unleashed is remarkable to behold. However, very little of it addresses the argument itself. Most commentators are content to stick to the Lysenko line rather than discuss the science I raised: ie, I should not have been allowed to say what I said.

    You seem surprised. Pretty much ‘par for the course’ I would suggest. Question anything from ‘climate sensitivity to CO2′ through to the more ridiculous elements of the ‘sustainability’ mantra and you will get the same reaction. Don’t take offence … here at WUWT you get a special award for stirring up that nest of Vipers.

    Bob Tisdale says:
    [Tamino] [...] It just means that there’s not enough data in 16 years to tell for sure, statistically speaking, which way they’re going. That always happens — always — when the time span is short.[...]”

    However .. the previous 16 year period (1982-1998) was well more than enough to trigger a multi-hundred billion dollar road to nowhere. Got to love the logic.

  150. David L says:

    Wow, that ConnollEy is a real a$$ ! He goes on and on about people making spelling mistakes, etc. and yet practically every one of his posts has one grammatical error or another.

  151. taxed says:

    D Boehm
    The CRWS and Stormsurf jet stream maps are a good place to go.

  152. Many of the commenters are optimistic that AGW is on the way out. In my opinion they are overly enthusiastic. Remember that Obama was re-elected. Low information voters were his key to victory. Apply this to Climate Change and what do you have?

  153. Werner Brozek says:

    Tamino: It just means that there’s not enough data in 16 years to tell for sure, statistically speaking, which way they’re going. That always happens

    If significant changes are happening, then 16 years IS sufficient as shown below.

    Here are the numbers with the 95% numbers using Hadcrut4.
    http://www.skepticalscience.com/trend.php

    Start of 1995 to end 2009: 0.133 +/- 0.144. Warming for 15 years is NOT significant.
    Start of 1995 to end 2010: 0.137 +/- 0.129. Warming for 16 years IS significant.
    Start of 1995 to end 2011: 0.109 +/- 0.119. Warming for 17 years is NOT significant.
    Start of 1995 to October 2012: 0.098 +/- 0.111. Warming for 18 years is NOT significant.

  154. joeldshore says:

    Frank Rizzo says:

    The trouble is that Nic Lewis doesn’t seem to be calculating equilibrium climate sensitivity as it is commonly understood, but *effective* climate sensitivity (related but not directly comparable).

    And, interestingly, his estimate of his effective sensitivity (~1.75 C) is well within the range of what climate models have for a transient climate response (TCR), which is probably more what the method that he discusses diagnoses. (See here for a list of the TCRs and ECSs for the climate models considered in AR4: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch8s8-6-2-3.html And, note that most of the models that have a TCR in the neighborhood of 1.75 C have an ECS roughly in the neighborhood of 3 C.)

  155. E.M.Smith says:

    @D Böehm:

    Try: http://squall.sfsu.edu/crws/jetstream.html

    Left hand side of page has links for both N.H. and S.H.

  156. kwik says:

    taxed says:
    December 21, 2012 at 1:12 pm

    “Back in August its was the weakness of the jet stream over Russia that give a hint that northern asia could be in for a other cold winter.”

    You got to feel sorry for all the poor people over there, struggling with the cold.

    It was -20 degrees where I live here in Norway the other day. But it is no problem for us. We just turn on the heat in our houses, and drive our cars. Because we can afford it.

    And why can we afford it? Because British Petroleum helped the Norwegians finding oil and gas in the North Sea. And because Capitalism and democrasy has been at work here since the 70’ties.

    Give the poor in Asia some Capitalism, some democracy and some oil and gas, I say!

  157. D Böehm says:

    Mike Smith,

    Thanks for the link.

  158. joeldshore says:

    Werner Brozek says:

    If significant changes are happening, then 16 years IS sufficient as shown below.

    Here are the numbers with the 95% numbers using Hadcrut4.
    http://www.skepticalscience.com/trend.php

    You do realize that the 95% confidence standard is somewhat arbitrary…and that getting uncertainties on trends for correlated data when you don’t know exactly how the correlations behave is not a precise science? Such a confidence standard becomes especially arbitrary when people are willing to mine through the various data sets for the data set and the exact time interval that gives them the result that they want…because things things that will only occur 1 time in 20 become pretty common if you look at enough realizations. (See Willis Eschenbach’s post here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/19/keep-doing-that-and-youll-go-blind/ I have not looked at this particular paper he criticizes to confirm if his criticism of it is correct, but his basic point about statistics is correct.)

    This is all a way of saying that you are making mountains out of moleholes with your post about when the trend is or is not signficant. I agree that Tamino’s statement was not sufficiently precise: There are time periods of 16 years over which one does find a positive trend in the global temperature data that is statistically significant. However, what is true is that 16 years is still too short to reliably be able to detect such a trend with statistical significance given the expected trend and the short term variability in the temperature record. So, not having a statistically-significant trend over such a time period doesn’t allow you to conclude very much.

  159. Werner Brozek says:

    joeldshore says:
    December 22, 2012 at 12:34 pm

    However, what is true is that 16 years is still too short to reliably be able to detect such a trend with statistical significance given the expected trend and the short term variability in the temperature record.

    Fair enough. However RSS has now gone 23 years without a positive trend at the 95% level.

    For RSS: +0.130 +/-0.136 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1990
    For RSS: +0.135 +/-0.147 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1991
    For RSS: +0.142 +/-0.159 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1992
    For RSS: +0.107 +/-0.166 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1993
    For RSS: +0.069 +/-0.174 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1994
    For RSS: +0.043 +/-0.190 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1995
    For RSS: +0.036 +/-0.210 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1996
    For RSS: -0.003 +/-0.229 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1997
    For RSS: -0.045 +/-0.250 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1998

    So let me ask you this: At what point should we stop wasting billions on carbon capture like they want to do in my province soon?

    See: http://ukipscotland.wordpress.com/2011/10/19/longannet-carbon-capture-scheme-scrapped/

    “Environment Canada wants to spend $6 billion to reduce the atmospheric concentration of a trace molecule by 0.01 ppmv, and assuming there is any advantage in doing so, supposedly cutting global temps by 0.0007°C.”

    When an oil company in our province asked for input for their carbon capture plan, I wrote about the huge costs for little gain. They thanked me for my input but it made no difference.

  160. joeldshore says:

    Werner Brozek says:

    Fair enough. However RSS has now gone 23 years without a positive trend at the 95% level.

    All of those trends that you’ve calculated are also compatible with a trend of 0.2 C/decade at the 95% confidence level. (Many of them are even compatible with a trend of 0.25 C/decade at the 95% confidence level.)

    And, you AGW skeptics basically used to ignore RSS in favor of UAH back in the days when their trends disagreed, with RSS being significantly greater. Now that corrections to the UAH record and a lower recent trend in the RSS data have put them in about the same place in regards to the trend over their full record, you cherrypick the RSS data because over the more recent time period, its trend is actually lower. You are illustrating exactly my point.

  161. mpainter says:

    So, joeldshore, did the last warming trend end in ’97? We have been cooling for over ten years, and it seems that this will continue indefinitely. People like you pretend that the planet is still warming. Another severe winter is upon us, and who believes you?

  162. RMB says:

    The proposition that the “team” is peddalling is that a gas called co2 gets heated by the sun and coming in contact with the surface of the ocean causes increased evaporation and heat storage in the ocean. I wondered if this actually happened so I applied the heat from a paint stripping heat gun to thr surface of water in a bucket. The gun operates at 450degsC. After 5mins I got the impression that the water was not heating so I checked, the water was stone cold. If I applied that heat to your hand for 5mins you would be in intensive care. Try it for yourself. There is one caveat and that is that if you keep at it you will get a small amount into the water because the fan forcing simulates heat and slightly breaks down the surface tension allowing slight heating but miniscule. Remember that surface tension is strong enough to support the weight of a paper clip and heat itself has no weight. thats why hot air balloons fly. If you are still not convinced get two basins of water except that the second basin has an object such as a baking dish floatijng on the surface breaking down the surface tension. Now apply the heat to both basins for 15mins. The result I got was, uncovered water a rise of 6degsF, covered basin, a rise of 48degsF. Thats good enough for me, surface tension blocks heat. But I’m not a scientist and if I was I’d deny it.

  163. RMB says:

    Its all about the angle of the sun. Only radiation passes energy into the ocean so radiation going in at 90degs as at the tropics puts far more energy into the ocean than at the arctic where the sun’s rats enter at an oblique angle.

  164. RMB says:

    Its all about the angle of the sun. The sun’s rays enter the ocean at 90degs at the tropics, max heat. At the poles the rays go in at an oblique or shallow angle,min heat.

  165. RMB says:

    I sent a reply to jorgekafkazar.

  166. mrmethane says:

    Well, I won’t argue with your empirical results, but suspect that it’s a case of IR being largely reflected by water but absorbed by the floating object, which in turn transfers heat to the water by conduction. I suggest that you try the same experiment with a fluid having lower surface tension – perhaps add some Windex to a batch, dish-detergent to another, etc. I’m no physical chemist so others may give you better answers.

  167. davidmhoffer says:

    RMB says:
    December 23, 2012 at 8:21 am
    The proposition that the “team” is peddalling is that a gas called co2 gets heated by the sun and coming in contact with the surface of the ocean causes increased evaporation and heat storage in the ocean.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    That is NOT what the “team” is peddling, in fact it isn’t even close. The rest of your tirade is similarly composed of physics that have nothing to do with the matter at hand.

  168. joeldshore says:

    mpainter says:

    So, joeldshore, did the last warming trend end in ’97?

    No…It did not. As you can see, a fit of the HADCRUT4 data from 1975 to mid 1997 actually gives a slightly lower slope than a fit of the data from 1975 to the present:
    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1970/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1975/to:1997.5/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1975/trend

    This is a more robust way to look at the trend in a noisy system than drawing trend lines over short periods of time.

  169. D Böehm says:

    joelshore cherry-picks 1975. Well, two can play that game.

  170. Werner Brozek says:

    joeldshore says:
    December 23, 2012 at 6:20 am

    you cherrypick the RSS data because over the more recent time period, its trend is actually lower.

    The UAH people admit there are some errors that version 6 is supposed to correct. We will see what happens when that comes out.

  171. D Böehm says:

    Although global warming has stopped, and is now headed down, it may resume at some point. Therefore, the only legitimate way to look at it is on the longest time frame for which we have reasonably accurate records.

    This shows that the long term global warming trend has remained within well defined parameters. Global warming has not accelerated, despite the rise in CO2. Therefore, CO2 has had no measurable effect. In fact, the green trend line shows that the warming trend has been slowing.

    Since CO2 has had no measurable effect on global warming, and since global warming has not accelerated — but rather, has stopped for the past decade and a half — the only scientifically rational conclusion is that AGW remains a failed conjecture. AGW may exist, but if so, it is merely a minor third order forcing — far too minuscule to affect global temperatures in any meaningful way.

    The short term coincidental correlation between rising CO2 and rising global temperatures is broken. CO2 continues to rise, but temperatures are no longer rising. Any honest scientist would completely reconsider the CO2=AGW conjecture at this point. But as we have repeatedly seen, when the alarmist clique is faced with a contradictory choice between what their models say, and what the planet is saying, they typically discard the empirical evidence and argue instead that their always-inaccurate computer models are reality. Such mendacious pseudo-science is the reason the climate alarmist crowd has lost all credibility among honest scientists.

  172. joeldshore says:

    D Boehm: 1975 is justifiable because there was a clear change in the global temperature record around that time. And, 1975 to mid 1997 is a fairly reasonable record length of 22.5 years and 1975 to 2012 is a record length of 38 years. By contrast, your cherrypick of 2002 to present is a record length of only 11 years, known to be too short to draw any real conclusions about the underlying trend. So, no, we are not playing the same game; I am playing the game of making scientifically-defensible choices and you are playing the game of making indefensible ones.

  173. D Böehm says:

    joelshore,

    Not really.

    I have robustly demonstrated that there is no empirical, testable evidence showing that CO2 makes any measurable difference. All the real world evidence shows that CO2 is benign and beneficial. More is better. There is no verifiable scientific evidence of global harm from the rise in CO2. Therefore, CO2 is harmless, based on the complete lack of evidence to the contrary.

    You always avoid that fact. If CO2 had the claimed effect, global temperatures would be rising smartly. They are not. Global temperatures are not currently rising at all. Thus, AGW is only an extremely minor, third order forcing that can be completely disregarded for all practical purposes. That is what Planet Earth is clearly demonstrating.

    Finally, you are making an arbitrary distinction between the number of years you wish to cherry-pick. The IPCC admits that they now have a serious problem. But you keep digging your hole deeper. Wise up. Look out your window. There is nothing unprecedented happening. Nothing. Learn anbout the Null Hypothesis. This has all happened before, and to a much greater degree — and when CO2 was much lower.

  174. mpainter says:

    joeldshore says: December 23, 2012 at 11:54

    “trend in a noisy system ”
    ==============================
    Assuming that you refer here to the last sixteen years of temperature data as noise. Interesting.
    I wonder if those who collect and collate the data would agree with your characterization of their efforts. But possibly you refer only to the notorious adulteration of the data by the Hansen GISS.

    However, sixteen years provides data sufficient to establish a trend, and so your referenced trend plot has been superceded by more up-to-date information. The latest trend is flat, but the last ten years makes it evident that a cooling trend has started, and so there can be no expectation that a warming trend will resume in this decade. The AGW position is now untenable.
    Enjoy the holidays, keep warm. mpainter

  175. Werner Brozek says:

    joeldshore says:
    December 23, 2012 at 3:10 pm

    So, no, we are not playing the same game

    O.K. I will play your game. From what you have written, I will assume that 20 years and 28 years are long enough to draw appropriate conclusions.

    What I assumed was that warming did not stop in 1997, but rather that the temperatures follow a (very poor) sine wave. So if there was a slope of 0 for 16 years, then the top of the sine wave would be after 8 years or at 2005. You could argue that a flat slope of 16 years consists of warming for 8 years and then identical cooling for 8 years. If you get the slope from 1985 to 2005 and then from 1985 to date, the latter slope is lower as shown below. See:
    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1985/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1985/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1985/to:2005/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1997/to:2005/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:2005/trend

  176. joeldshore says:

    mpainter says:

    Assuming that you refer here to the last sixteen years of temperature data as noise. Interesting.
    I wonder if those who collect and collate the data would agree with your characterization of their efforts.

    I use the term “noise” to refer to short-term variations such as that due to ENSO, weather, even forcings that operate over shorter time scales and tend to be cyclical, like the solar cycle. It is not any slight against those who collect and collate the data. This noise is a natural component of the climate system and, in fact, is seen not only in real data but also in the climate model simulations.

    However, sixteen years provides data sufficient to establish a trend, and so your referenced trend plot has been superceded by more up-to-date information. The latest trend is flat, but the last ten years makes it evident that a cooling trend has started, and so there can be no expectation that a warming trend will resume in this decade.

    What is untenable is people carefully cherrypicking how they measure trends in order to, say, start at what may have been the biggest El Nino in the last century. And, people failing to understand the concept of uncertainty in a trend line. I have two predictions:

    (1) The fact that it is continuing to warm will indeed become obvious over the next decade.

    (2) This will have little effect on the views of the people around here (although it will probably affect the popularity of this site).

  177. joeldshore says:

    Werner Brozek says:

    You could argue that a flat slope of 16 years consists of warming for 8 years and then identical cooling for 8 years. If you get the slope from 1985 to 2005 and then from 1985 to date, the latter slope is lower as shown below.

    You are fitting to noise. Why don’t you try computing the uncertainties on those trendlines of yours.

    Have a good holiday everyone!

  178. D Böehm says:

    joelshore says:

    (1) The fact that it is continuing to warm will indeed become obvious over the next decade.

    “Indeed”? Based upon what? Your fervent hope? And if warming does resume, it will be entirely a good thing. Cold is the real threat.

    And:

    (2) This will have little effect on the views of the people around here (although it will probably affect the popularity of this site).

    You wish. Unlike the alarmist crowd, if the facts change, scientific skeptics will reassess the situation. But giant glaciers could descend across the midwest and Europe, and the alarmist contingent would still refuse to admit they were wrong. That is the difference between skeptics and alarmists.

    WUWT is steadily rising, now approaching 135 million hits and close to a million reader comments. It is increasingly linked in national magazine articles. What blog will take it’s place? RealScienceCensorship? Tamina? Unskeptical Pseudoscience? Closed Mind? heh. Don’t be silly.

    And I understand why joelshore always avoids answering my regular comment:

    “There is no verifiable scientific evidence of global harm from the rise in CO2.”

    Because it is true.

  179. Brian H says:

    RMB says:
    December 20, 2012 at 7:59 am

    Its dead simple, surface tension blocks heat. The atmosphere can’t heat the ocean.

    Take a plastic wrapping film, as tough as you like, and hold it up to your face, as taut as you like. Then I’m going to punch the film. Hard, and often. With my handy-dandy brass knucks.

    How long do you think you can keep your face from getting “warm”?

  180. Brian H says:

    joeldshore says:
    December 23, 2012 at 5:02 pm

    (1) The fact that it is continuing to warm will indeed become obvious over the next decade.

    And that trend line will deviate from the post-LIA pattern how? If it warms at all, likely at a lower rate; the early stages of the “tipping” into the end of the Holocene.

  181. Werner Brozek says:

    joeldshore says:
    December 23, 2012 at 5:05 pm

    Why don’t you try computing the uncertainties on those trendlines of yours.

    I agree that the slopes in both cases give significant warming, but I was replying to a different point of yours earlier:

    As you can see, a fit of the HADCRUT4 data from 1975 to mid 1997 actually gives a slightly lower slope than a fit of the data from 1975 to the present

    The “slightly lower” slope to 1997 may give some people the impression that global warming is accelerating. My choice of lines shows at least a slowing down of the warming.

  182. mpainter says:

    joeldshore says: December 23, 2012 at 5:02 pm
    =====================================
    Glad to have your response. A few thoughts:

    “I use the term “noise” to refer to short-term variations”

    You apply the term “noise” in a curious fashion. Noise refers to the meaningless and random accompaniment to signal which is to be rejected in determining the signal. Your application of the term “noise” to temperature data is inappropriate and without meaning. Your dismissal as “noise” the trend of the last sixteen years is also meaningless, but arbitrary and unscientific as well.

    “What is untenable is people carefully cherrypicking how they measure trends in order to, say, start at what may have been the biggest El Nino in the last century.”

    The issue is this: which way is climate headed? We have a flat trend for the last sixteen years and a cooling the last ten. This is the most recent data available and hence best serves for answering that question. Your dismissal of the most recent data as “cherry-picking” is pejorative, arbitrary and unscientific. Your rejection of the most recent trend and reliance on the historical trend of 1975-1997 to forecast future climate is poor methodology and in fact, insupportable.

  183. RMB says:

    Perhaps you would like to expand.

Comments are closed.