Open thread weekend

open_thread

Traveling this weekend, posting will be light.

Discuss any topics per our policy page.

 

About these ads
This entry was posted in Open Thread. Bookmark the permalink.

55 Responses to Open thread weekend

  1. R. Shearer says:

    Children won’t know what snow looks like due to global warming.

    http://coloradolivecams.com/colocam-eisenhowercdotcam.htm

  2. Bernie Hutchins says:

    Can someone help with the details of the correct argument here?

    If the Earth were in danger of going into thermal runaway (a “tipping point” as a result of CO2-caused heating, kicking up more water vapor), why would it not have already happened due to water vapor chain-reacting WITH ITSELF?

    Does an N2 molecule (for example) somehow remember that its kinetic energy came from a photon that was trying to escape to space from the Earth’s surface, that happened to be trapped by a rare CO2 molecule (from a tiny and slowly increasing concentration) rather than by an H2O molecule (of moderate, and highly fluctuating, and rapidly fluctuating concentration)? Of course not. Locally (to include millions of square miles) the H2O concentration varies over times of perhaps a day by several orders of magnitude. Why would the run-away WAIT for CO2 molecules to have their say?

    If there is some claim of a constant (average?) relative humidity, why is that – – – and on what time and distance scales? To argue that local water vapor conditions are balanced by distance ones, and therefore thermal runaway due to water vapor itself would not be possible, strikes me as similar to arguing that an atomic bomb cannot possibly explode because the concentration of Uranium averaged over the Earth is insufficient.

    When it comes to possible positive feedbacks, we of course note the differences between amplification and true run-away. We also note the unlikelihood of the OBSERVED long-term stability unless a net negative feedback is already operating in nature. Likely this includes thunderstorms and clouds, and dozens of other thing demanded by the laws of thermodynamics. Amplification by positive feedback seems modest at best. Positive feedback runaway should not even be on the table. Water would have already done us in. The Earth does seem to have an adequate supply of water!

    But here I am honestly asking for clarifications. What am I missing?

  3. I’ve noticed a new expression in the quote from somebody’s blog published in WSJ recently:
    “We live in the “post-truth” era.”
    This realization becomes a household topic: almost nobody today dares or bothers to tell the truth, not only because it may damage a professional career (and it does, certainly) but also because it’s of no use; talk as much as you want, the low-brow rulers of our wallets lie and do what they want with total impunity. Green religion is just a small part of the picture.

  4. Bob Diaz says:

    If you want to have some fun, go to this YAHOO article and post some comments blasting the article:

    Hey Deniers, Take a Long Look at the Faces of Climate Change

    http://news.yahoo.com/hey-deniers-long-look-faces-climate-change-192007692.html

  5. Clay Marley says:

    I came across an essay from Michael Crichton warning of the dangers of politicized science, titled:

    Why Politicized Science is Dangerous
    (Excerpted from State of Fear)

    I highly recommend it. Link is below. The odd thing is although this is one of his essays, and the web site is supposed to be Crichton’s official site, this essay does not show up in the index, and even the title of the web page is incorrect, reflecting the title of another essay. I came across it indirectly.

    http://www.crichton-official.com/essay-stateoffear-whypoliticizedscienceisdangerous.html

  6. DirkH says:

    Bernie Hutchins says:
    March 9, 2013 at 11:08 am
    “But here I am honestly asking for clarifications. What am I missing?”

    You are missing that the warmist scientists do not give one iota for logic because they know they will never be called out by MSM journalists or by low information voters.

  7. The Post-Truth Era. even more than the Green-Gaia religion is the hidden basis of the modern world. The human world is now changing so rapidly that people believe that they can move on up their ladder faster than the truth can move to catch them up and bite them.

  8. Kelvin Vaughan says:

    The French are just realising they have no need for wind power. 90% of their energy is produced by Neuclear and Hydro. They want to know why all their new unecessary wind generators that only work one day in four are being highly subsidised and pushing up their power prices.

  9. richdo says:

    An observation…as I sit here looking at the four inches of snow surrounding my house I recall that last year at this time the golf courses were open (warmest March on record); guess it was just weather, or maybe this is, or maybe it always is.

  10. JamesS says:

    Bernie Hutchins says:
    March 9, 2013 at 11:08 am

    Can someone help with the details of the correct argument here?

    What am I missing?

    You’re missing nothing. Geology already tells us that the Earth has been much hotter, much colder, and has had ten times the CO2 in the atmosphere — during Ice Ages! Obviously the Earth has never had runaway permanent cooling or warming, so the null hypothesis should be that the Earth has feedbacks to prevent these things from happening.

    What the alarmists try to sell is that THIS TIME it’s UNPRECEDENTED, so we can’t count on those systems working now because “the tipping point” could be reached before the negative feedbacks in the climate can work.

    I say bullocks.

  11. Mark Bofill says:

    Bernie Hutchins says:
    March 9, 2013 at 11:08 am
    ——-
    Wish I could help, I’d love to hear the details of this as well. I think at one time I’d convinced myself it had something to do with the shorter lifespan of water vapor in the atmosphere as opposed to the lifespan of CO2 in the atmosphere, but I can’t recall exactly why the heck that seemed sensible anymore.
    A related question for me is the paleo question – is it part of the argument about the paleo warming that warming caused CO2 to increase, which caused warming to increase, which caused CO2 to increase, etc. ? In other words, is the warmist argument that paleo warming was some sort of limited ‘runaway’ global warming? I’ve never followed why the whole shebang shouldn’t crash to one rail or the other with positive feedback (like any other system you can think of would behave) but then again I’m not a climate scientist…
    Does anyone know if the paleo argument involves runaway global warming? Also, does anyone know how in the world paleo warming was attributable to CO2 without knowing climate sensitivity in advance? Or is it sort of an ‘assuming CO2 causes warming with CS=3 or 5 or whatever, the record more or less makes sense’?
    Thanks for any feedback.

  12. rogerknights says:

    WUWT Wit

    Over the past two years or so I’ve collected funny zingers from WUWT. I’m now sharing a selection of the briefest ones.
    —————-

    TerryS says: April 3, 2011 at 6:47 am
    One day they might apply the term “climate-change deniers” to the correct people.

    anticlimactic says: August 15, 2010 at 7:57 pm
    I think the IPCC motto is ‘We decide, you report’!

    alacran says: December 7, 2012 at 3:44 am
    What science are you talking about? The CAGW-junk-science pushed by presstitutes worldwide?

    Richard Drake | December 19, 2012 at 3:38 pm | Reply
    Leakers – keeping Climate Science honest since 17 November 2009.

    John K. Sutherland (08:40:19) :
    WIKI-WISE: woefully misinformed, profoundly ignorant of the facts, believing only what one is told to believe.

    Roger Knights:
    Wiki-Wacky

    Smokey:
    wisdumb

    Laurence J. Peter
    Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to believe.

    pesadia says: December 11, 2010 at 3:11 am
    Without supporting data, this can only be described as “Sandwich Board” science.

    Christian Bultmann says: December 9, 2011 at 10:05 pm
    It is amazing…’People running around with signs saying ‘the world is coming to an end’ are considered the sane ones by the MSM

    UK John says: May 14, 2010 at 12:22 pm
    I maybe a flat earther, but at least I am sure which way is up! Not sure about these guys.

    Beesaman says: December 4, 2011 at 3:24 pm
    The problem with a lot of these alarmist scientists is that ego has become more important than ergo……

    Kelvin Vaughan says: March 27, 2012 at 2:05 am
    Seems a lot of learning is also a dangerous thing.

    Steve from Rockwood says: December 28, 2010 at 8:25 am
    Climate science is the new oxymoron.

    Kevin Schurig says: May 13, 2011 at 7:18 am
    Come on Anthony, you and your cohorts just need to get with the program, sell your souls, and become one of the “enlightened.” You know, just like one of the Stepford “scientists”.

    Jugesh says: April 6, 2012 at 10:06 pm
    What can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.
    One of the great Hitchslaps.

    Larry Sheldon says: April 12, 2012 at 3:13 pm
    Cooked to order. How do you like your books? Well Done? We recommend Rare.

    “A lie will move you forward, but you can never go back.”
    –Russian proverb

    eo says: November 21, 2012 at 1:25 pm
    There was a quote in our old statistic text book. ”If you would like to tell a lie, keep probability in mind”

    Ron Zelius says: August 26, 2010 at 9:57 am
    Can’t we just summarise this and conclude that we are about to be subjected to another bout of decision-based evidence making?

    [author unknown]
    Climate science is to science as:
    social justice is to actual justice
    a strait jacket is to a dinner jacket
    a people’s republic is to an actual republic

    John W. says: May 24, 2012 at 12:25 pm
    [re Bob Carter]
    Calm, well reasoned, dispassionate.
    This won’t do.

    Kurt in Switzerland
    wasn’t Trenberth supposed to be looking for MISSING HEAT some 20,000 leagues under the sea?

    John Garrett says: December 31, 2011 at 7:18 pm
    Missing: 7,000 quintillion joules of heat energy
    If located, call Kevin Trenberth.
    Reward offered.

    JohnWho says: April 11, 2012 at 10:58 am
    ““All honest scientists should be outraged that Oxford University should honor Gleick with a guest lecture,” …”
    Sign outside Oxford University: “Diogenes, don’t look here”

    polistra says: April 11, 2012 at 10:27 am
    “All honest scientists should be outraged.”
    No scientists are outraged.
    You can complete the syllogism.

    moptop says: April 11, 2011 at 2:16 pm
    I guess the only “credible” climate scientists are the ones from climategate, then.

    Peter Kovachev says [of Nature magazine]: April 11, 2012 at 6:19 pm
    A corpse digging its own grave. Now, that’s a paragon of environmental responsibility.

    Robert E. Phelan says: December 29, 2010 at 6:30 am
    Close enough for government work.

    Colonel Sun says: February 20, 2011 at 11:43 pm
    The initial precipitation data has been subject to such extreme torture that it would appear appropriate for Amnesty International to take up the case.

    AlanG says: August 17, 2010 at 10:15 pm
    Tortured data confesses. Read all about it!

    AndyG55 says: December 12, 2012 at 12:01 pm
    biofool

    Jimmy Haigh says: October 29, 2011 at 3:34 pm
    I have just started posting to WUWT from 50 years in the future and none of us can believe that anyone fell for all of that CAGW crap. How did that happen? Were they paid to do it?

    TheGoodLocust says: December 6, 2011 at 3:08 pm
    Well, I learned [from a warmist paper] that women are more affected by climate change than men.
    My theory is that this is due to women having a greater proportion of surface area to volume. Perhaps I can get some funding to measure and study this?

    Lance says: October 20, 2011 at 3:40 am
    As I step away from my computer I accelerate to 3 m/h in 1 second. Extrapolating from these “actual measurements” I will break the sound barrier in a little over 4 minutes.
    I better button my pajamas.

    cwon14 says [re Gore’s talkathon]: September 14, 2011 at 5:39 pm
    Blood for oil, cigarette sales, big corporations.
    It all makes sense to me now.

    E.M.Smith:
    [Warmists will] make Texas look like a wasteland of Three Armed Bandits

    [Unknown]
    The little boy didn’t need to be an expert tailor.

    Gail Combs says: November 24, 2011 at 5:51 pm
    Nopenhagen

    Latitude says: August 10, 2011 at 5:07 pm
    irritable climate syndrome

    Scott says: June 13, 2011 at 1:13 am
    The best quote from Lord Lawson’s article:
    “My dictionary defines green as ‘unripe, immature, undeveloped’”

    Henry Galt says: April 12, 2011 at 12:35 am
    Rough eyeball? 50% above, 50% below.
    Closest to the button please turn off the siren.

    Doctor Gee says: January 21, 2011 at 10:07 am
    So 1 Whattaflop of computing power …
    I hope to see that word used in headlines of future stories about the Met.

    [author unknown]
    Keep up the good work, the only man-made warming they are feeling is the heat from you, the Mc’s, etc.

    david elder (18:52:14):
    The heat, Carruthers! Bring the gin!

    DD More says: February 2, 2011 at 10:05 am
    Al Gore “The earth has a fever!” So this must just be the ‘cold sweats’.

    Kum Dollison (22:42:44) :
    If it Cools, they’re Fools.

    SAMURAI says: October 15, 2012 at 7:36 pm
    “WHERE’S THE HEAT!”. LOL! Remember that old Wendy’s commercial?
    The Warmunistas are quickly reaching that critical point in their theory/model projections, where there is a whole lot of fluffy bun, but no beef…

    mikef2 says: September 30, 2010 at 7:41 am
    ..can I be the first to make the joke about revenge is best served ‘cold’..?

    David Ball says: October 15, 2012 at 8:20 pm
    I sense a disturbance in the farce

    Josh (14:06:43) :
    AGW = Alarmists Gone Wild

    POUNCER (13:44:37) :
    AGW = Al Gore’s Whoppers

    Chris y
    Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Alarmists (CACAs)

    David, UK says: April 10, 2012 at 12:25 am
    Can somebody change the record please? I’ve heard this one.
    [re Hansen on well-funded skeptics.]

    R Sweeney says: December 8, 2010 at 2:12 pm
    The answer is punish the Americans and establish an all-powerful world government with the power to tax the west and its imperialist cabal.
    Now…. what was the question?

    Steve from rockwood says: November 7, 2011 at 7:20 pm
    Symptom: faster fish.
    Cause: too much research money.

    R. de Haan says: September 23, 2010 at 3:25 pm
    The Emperor is without clothes and if he isn’t careful he’s about to lose his head and his skin as well.

    Tannim111 says: October 25, 2010 at 11:50 am
    Just remember: a man will forgive you for being wrong. We will never be forgiven for being right.

    Unknown:
    We want the raw data, because it’s uncooked

    ===================
    MY STUFF:
    (Some of these I probably re-used from someone else and I’ve forgotten by now that I did so. If these were yours originally, feel free to say so below.)

    CLIMBatologer
    (a social-climbing careerist)

    Climeball

    Organized CLIME

    Clarmist (a climate alarmist)

    CRUsaders

    indignigentsia

    Scientwists

    Hot Air Hysterics

    They want to heel the planet
    (Climate-control freaks)

    IPCC — the acronym for Ipecac

    Larry, Moe, and Curly say, “Cancun spelled backwards is nuc nac.”

    Cream of gumbo soup
    (The Summary for Policymakers)

    Crock of Doom
    (The Summary for Policymakers)

    A Nobel lie
    (Al Gore’s movie)

    The “green” bay tree.

    Lowering the goal post

    The science is saddled

    A shoot-‘n-scooter
    (a drive-by troll)

    The warms crawl in, the warms crawl out
    [when a troll slinks away after a refutation]

    Jeer reviewed
    (WUWT’s review of Steig et al., etc.)

    Aunty’s got her tilt caught in a wronger? Tough titty.
    (re the BBC’s scandals)

    The overBEARing majority of knowledgeable climate scientists
    (The 97% = the most vocal activists)

    pushback points
    (Levels at which negative feedbacks are activated)

    “What do you mean We, white man?
    (Says the rest of the world to statements like, “WE have it in our capacity to acknowledge and take measures against the very real threat of a changing climate, be that warming or cooling.”)

    Obama’s Voltswagen
    (The Chevy Volt)

    (Five suggested book or site titles):

    “Off with Their Halos!”

    “The Uncovery of Global Warming”

    “Syrup of IPeCaC”

    “An Inconvenient Goof”
    (what the title of “The Great Global Warming Blunder” should have been)

    “What, me Curry?!”
    (a better name for Judge Judy’s blog)

    The Peerless Peer (Monckton)

  13. pat says:

    has anyone posted this?

    9 March: UK Daily Mail: A river once ran through it!
    Map showing Antarctica before the ice came shows huge valley running through the continent
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2290673/A-river-ran-Map-showing-Antarctica-ice-came-shows-huge-valley-running-continent.html

  14. @ D. B. The red triangle is slightly smaller in the illustration with the hole.

  15. Gunga Din says:

    rogerknights says:
    March 9, 2013 at 4:18 pm

    WUWT Wit

    Over the past two years or so I’ve collected funny zingers from WUWT. I’m now sharing a selection of the briefest ones.

    ============================================
    Thanks for that. I had suggested to Anthony once that he put such things together into a book. He could call it, “The Lighter Side of Hot Air”.

  16. Gunga Din says:

    D.B. Stealey says:
    March 9, 2013 at 3:53 pm

    Open Thread Weekend! ☺

    ====================================================
    He said Open Thread, not Open Block!
    But to return to science, maybe that where the missing heat is hiding?

  17. Lew Skannen says:

    Nice collection there, rogerknights !

  18. DR says:

    So where will you be when the stock market crashes this time?

  19. RiHo08 says:

    Anthony

    I just returned from Kangaroo Island off South Australia and visited the Cape Borda light station. “Mic” Rosewarne the greeter, keeper, and storyteller told me that the Stevens box, which I was photographing at the time, had been closed several years ago and an automated station constructed some 300 meters into the bush off the 150 meter escarpment. That day, Wednesday March 6, there was a 12 knot breeze at the light station/weather post and the air was still 3 kilometers inland at the light keepers cemetery.

    I wonder if you would be interested in pictures of the Orginal Stevens box and it’s surroundings. Another one of those possible location adjustment questions.

  20. george e. smith says:

    “””””…..@ Bernie Hutchins……But here I am honestly asking for clarifications. What am I missing?…..””””””

    What you are missing Bernie, is that water does not comprise a runaway system either in fact just the opposite. Water is the regulating factor that prevents us from having any such thing happen.

    More global warming causes more evaporation, more atmospheric water content, and more precipitation; in fact 7% increase in all three for a one degree C increase in earth surface Temperature (Wentz et al).
    More atmospheric water (vapor, liquid, solid) means more clouds to reflect solar energy back to space, or absorb more of it, and more water vapor absorbs more incoming solar radiation from about 700 nm wavelength; so that is less solar energy that reaches the deep oceans to get stored as heat.
    Less ocean heating results in less evaporation and less cloud formation, so the eventual precipitation due to the cooling Temperatures, will remove both clouds, and water vapor, which will allow more solar energy to reach the surface.

    So long as the earth’s oceans persist, we couldn’t change the Temperature of this planet if we wanted to.

    And if we wanted to Bernie, where would you personally set the thermostat, and why ??

  21. george e. smith says:

    “”””””….. DR says:

    March 9, 2013 at 8:29 pm

    So where will you be when the stock market crashes this time?……”””””

    At the buying window. It’s the suckers who get panicked into selling when they should be buying, who get hurt.

    And it doesn’t hurt to take some profits while they are there, so you have the means to buy more, when it crashes.

  22. Billy Bunter says:

    Big/oil/coal/gas/wood are killing the world
    See the thing is that big/oil/gas/coal/wood are killing the world. Where I live the fire last year burnt so much wood that the smoke blocked out the sun for a long time and that made everything hotter because the heat got trapped by the smoke, my friend who is a scientist at the school told me that. He is really smart and knows all about wood and how the smoke kills people with extra heat. Yeah those scum bag oil people are killing us, and they do it for money, I heard that they are now watering down petrol to make even more money. Bastards that is why my truck keeps stopping. Now I have to get a new one, but the government won’t help me as they say I need to ask big oil/gas/coal/wood for one. Fat chance of that!! Another thing is on Nuclear power places, like three mile island and that one in Japan that got drowned by the 911 wave. Yes Nuclear power places are really bad news and we should blow them up as they cause cancer and other stuff. My scientist friend told me that all we need are a few hundred more huge windmill things and solar stuff on roofs and then we can save the birds, animals and other stuff too. You see I am now a Green person, I did not used to be but since I saw that film “Greedy Lying Bastards” I have changed, cos now I know that big/oil/gas/coal/wood are killing us for money and because they are very bad people. Places like WUWT are doing a really good job of showing the world how evil is big/oil/gas/coal/wood. I am writing a book on this subject, my friend the scientist (Paul) is going to help me with some of the science stuff cos to tell you the truth, I do find it a bit much. He got all his stuff from a Mr Al Gore. Have you heard of him? Paul says he is the real deal and really knows all about big/oil/gas/coal/wood. Do you know that I am an Aussie? We have an election coming up soon, and we will put Julia Gillard back in for another 4 years. Good one eh mate? She is really smart too, (not as smart as Paul) She has this new tax called a carbon footprint tax you see and I only have to pay 15% of my wages to her and she promises to help save the birds, animals and other stuff too. Cool eh! So if you are voting, vote for her. Ok Mate! PS: I was going to become a journalist; the only job I applied for was with the ABC. But I did not want to work for them as they just do TV stuff for kids. I also wanted to go on Q&A but they never got back to me, hmm I wonder about that sometimes.

  23. TerryS says:

    I’ve been looking through old Meccano Magazines and the parallels with today are interesting.
    This issue from December 1962 has two article you might find interesting.
    The first one is called “Synthetic Petrol – Spirit of The Future?” and starts with:

    For years, geologists have been warning that petroleum reserves were in danger of being exhausted.

    The second is called “The Modern British Winter” and begins with:

    Since the turn of the present century our winters have become warmer by an average of approximately two degrees Fahrenheit over the country as a whole

  24. DirkH says:

    DR says:
    March 9, 2013 at 8:29 pm
    “So where will you be when the stock market crashes this time?”

    I have already switched everything to Gold. Gold and M2 have a correlation of 0.96 so Gold should profit from the global money printing; relatively speaking of course, compared to debasing currencies like the USD, the Euro and the Yen – and the Renminbi which is debased synchronously with the USD.
    After the crash I will likely switch back into stocks.

  25. Sue Smith says:

    D. B Stealey
    The hypotenuse of the composite “triangle” isn’t a straight line in either case. The area should be 32.5 squares (if my arithmetic on a post it note is correct), but the individual shapes only add up to 32.

  26. Ric Werme says:

    I’m on the road, but I don’t see a reference above from true believers at the Facebook “Scientific Mensa” group (save me…), comes this link to our impending planetary emergency:

    http://ameg.me/

    AMEG, the Arctic Methane Emergency Group, hereby formally complains to the UK government that the observations to which they refer in their statement [1] do not exist. The observations taken directly from the ice and recently from satellite, support a very simple model of sea ice behaviour – that the melting, as reflected by the volume average for particular months, is closely following an exponential trend, towards zero for September 2015.

    Therefore the government must take note of the implications of what happens when the sea ice behaves according to this non-linear sea ice volume trend. The implications, spelt out by AMEG, are life-threatening for every citizen on this planet and require immediate attention.

    A failure of the government to act in the interest of its citizens in such a situation is surely criminal. It is a clear duty by UNFCCC Arcticle 3.3 that governments should protect citizens from the effects of climate change. [2]

  27. Jimmy Haigh says:

    rogerknights says:
    March 9, 2013 at 4:18 pm Hey – I made the list!

    A nice little cold snap on the way for the UK.

    http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/03/10/early-spring-comes-to-europe/

  28. RACookPE1978 says:

    Ric Werme says:
    March 10, 2013 at 5:17 am (quoting the Arctic Methane Emergency Group)

    AMEG, the Arctic Methane Emergency Group, hereby formally complains to the UK government that the observations to which they refer in their statement [1] do not exist. The observations taken directly from the ice and recently from satellite, support a very simple model of sea ice behaviour – that the melting, as reflected by the volume average for particular months, is closely following an exponential trend, towards zero for September 2015.
    … The implications, spelt out by AMEG, are life-threatening for every citizen on this planet and require immediate attention.

    Well, Rick, it appear that the extremists at the Arctic Methane Emergency Group have not run the numbers.

    When you actually calculate the heat balances for August and September in the Arctic Ocean – at the latitudes where sea ice is actually now present – you find that the melting arctic sea ice cools the ocean. There is not enough solar radiation present at time of minimum sea ice extents in mid-September, and in the weeks leading up to that minimum sea ice extent, to be absorbed into the newly exposed ocean to make up for the increased evaporative and convective and radiative cooling that takes place.

    Dr Curry also reports that the increased evaporation from the extra exposed water of recent years can be linked to increased snow and ice coverage on the land around the Arctic Ocean.

    And, also ignored by these extremists: The significant INCREASE in Antarctic sea ice extents at the same time as the Arctic sea ice decreases IS at a latitude that DOES reflect more inbound solar energy!

    Thus:
    Less Arctic Sea ice in September = More cooling of the Arctic Ocean.
    Less Arctic sea ice = More land ice and snow = More cooling of the land, more energy reflected.
    More Antarctic Sea Ice = More energy reflected from the southern ocean = more cooling.

    What’s there not to like about a mechanism that puts us even deeper in to the next ice age? .

  29. Goode 'nuff says:

    Green the dessert. Bridge?
    Lay a pipeline to the nearest big source of water. Gathering up all the global warming extremists at the end of the pipe. If they can suck in just one tenth of what they blow out… you’ll have it in thirty seconds.

    All extremists for that matter.

    Crash? What crash, did the Republicans get back in office?

  30. Steve Keohane says:

    D.B. Stealey says:March 9, 2013 at 3:53 pm
    Sue Smith says:March 10, 2013 at 3:57 am
    I have to agree with your logic Sue WRT the numbers not adding up and the figures are not exactly drawn. But, admittedly there is something I don’t get. Even a stick in the sand drawing should convey the logic of the apparent discrepancy as a symbol of perfect depiction. The picture doesn’t detract from the logic of the missing 0.5 squares of what should be total area = (0.5 *(5 * 13)) = 32.5 missing from the sum of the parts area = (0.5 * (3 * 8)) + (0.5 * (2 *5)) + 7 + 8 = 32.0. Nor does it detract from the second sum of parts = 31.5 as the overall area = 32.5, since it is obviously the latter minus the one missing square. Below I noted some the drawing’s differences which do not offer a solution.
    http://i47.tinypic.com/4lswee.jpg

  31. GaryM says:

    I’ve asked this question at Judith Curry’s site twice now because I wanted to get the take of the consensus types, but no luck. So perhaps one of the more sciency skeptics here would be willing to tell me what I am missing?

    In short, my question is why the AMO and ENSO should have any effect whatsoever on global average temperature. They are apparently both oscillations internal to the Earth’s climate system. According to what I read on the consensus sites, no one claims that either adds head/energy to the climate. They just represent the concentration, or dispersal, of heat that is already here.

    So I can see why they would affect surface air temperatures, sea surface temperatures, and weather across the globe. But how do they raise and lower the global average temperature? Or more properly put, should they? If the GAT increases with an El Nino and decreases with a La Nina, shouldn’t those oscillations just be controlled for, like UHI?

    Or is there some mechanism by which an El Nino, even a super El Nino in 1998, actually raises the average temperature of the climate as a whole? If we are already accurately measuring GAT, shouldn’t the increase in heat that is concentrated in an El Nino, be matched by a decrease elsewhere, with the average staying the same?

  32. MiCro says:

    Ric Werme on March 10, 2013 at 5:17 am

    “I’m on the road, but I don’t see a reference above from true believers at the Facebook “Scientific Mensa” group (save me…), comes this link to our impending planetary emergency:”

    For people who claim to be so smart, they sure are idiots.

    First, is that 32 degree open water radiated many times more heat to space than -30 or colder ice.
    Second, Sun light at low angles reflects off water.

    I keep coming to the same sort of stupid arguments, that would seem to be easily dismissed by observation of the outdoors. Do these people never go outside?

  33. david moon says:

    Steve Keohane:
    “Below I noted some the drawing’s differences which do not offer a solution.
    http://i47.tinypic.com/4lswee.jpg

    You found the key when you describe the hypotenuse as “concave”. The two segments have different slopes- one is 2/5 = 0.4, and the other is 3/8 = 0.375. So you can’t calculate the total as (0.5 *(5 * 13)) = 32.5. that would be the area IF the total hypotenuse were a straight line with slope 5/13. The difference in area is 0.5.

    When re-arranged, the hypotenuse is now convex, adding 0.5. The total area enclosed is 33, allowing the hole.

    [Reply: And we have a WINNAH! (Sue wins, too!)— mod.]

  34. DirkH says:

    GaryM says:
    March 10, 2013 at 9:24 am
    “Or is there some mechanism by which an El Nino, even a super El Nino in 1998, actually raises the average temperature of the climate as a whole? If we are already accurately measuring GAT, shouldn’t the increase in heat that is concentrated in an El Nino, be matched by a decrease elsewhere, with the average staying the same?”

    Measuring GAT, Global average temperature? It’s an artificial construct; and no, it’s not measured properly. The Shannon theorem is violated in spatial and temporal dimensions. Furthermore Averaging doesn’t have a meaning because temperatures are not normally distributed; the law of large numbers does therefore not apply and the average is undefined.
    ( http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2012/12/10/do-temperatures-have-a-mean/ )

    As for why an ocean oscillation can influence GAT as it is used: The first 3 meters of the oceans contain as much energy as the entire atmosphere. So whether cold water or warm water is upwelling in a large swath of the pacific can change the atmospheric temperature a lot.

    “The atmosphere is the continuation of the oceans with other means.” (Don’t know the source)

  35. DirkH says:

    Goode ’nuff says:
    March 10, 2013 at 7:57 am
    “Crash? What crash, did the Republicans get back in office?”

    The crash that will happen as soon as QE4EVER is interrupted. It will be interrupted as soon as China sees widespread protests due to the inflation they import.

  36. GaryM says:

    DirkH says:
    March 10, 2013 at 10:01 am

    “As for why an ocean oscillation can influence GAT as it is used: The first 3 meters of the oceans contain as much energy as the entire atmosphere. So whether cold water or warm water is upwelling in a large swath of the pacific can change the atmospheric temperature a lot.”

    This is the same problem I ran into, twice, at Climate Etc.

    I am not asking how the oscillations affect atmospheric temperatures. That seems fairly obvious. But a transfer of heat from the ocean, regardless of its higher specific heat, to the atmosphere, should not affect the average of the two. Not if it is being properly measured.

    Which is my point. Most news articles use “global average temperature” when they are referring to global average land temperatures. But there are graphs showing the land-sea average, and those show the same spikes in El Nino years.

    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.A2.gif
    http://www.columbia.edu/~mhs119/Temperature/T_moreFigs/

    If an El Nino represents the release of heat from the ocean to the atmosphere, then whatever increase in temperature there is in the atmosphere, should be offset by a decrease in the ocean temperature. But the reported temperature averages all show both atmospheric and sea temperatures rising during El Ninos.

  37. DirkH says:

    GaryM says:
    March 10, 2013 at 10:42 am
    “If an El Nino represents the release of heat from the ocean to the atmosphere, then whatever increase in temperature there is in the atmosphere, should be offset by a decrease in the ocean temperature. But the reported temperature averages all show both atmospheric and sea temperatures rising during El Ninos.”

    But that’s the Sea SURFACE temperature; you would expect to see the according drop in OHC, not in SST. The drop in total OHC would albeit be tiny and we probably are nowhere near the precision necessary to notice it.

  38. Goode 'nuff says:

    Have heard that, but the markets look pretty rational to me. Icahn..? Sure, you can get a pull back, but there could be enough other economic good news to make that short lived and healthy btw.

    Not that you shouldn’t take profits when exuberance spikes and look for better entry points on pullback. But I wouldn’t say crash. It could…. I mean, Mr/Ms Markets are like weather. Not for a long time…. imho

    Super wealthy have increased theirs big time… so why not employ scare tactic. They don’t care one little ****’n bit about the small people working hard.

    We’re going up big time and LNG will play a major role. Gold dips down any buy it, too rare and expensive to produce.

    Ozarks humor, you know, at least it’s less insulting over here. :-)

    No more cat blasting jokes! I promise

  39. GaryM says:

    DirkH says:
    March 10, 2013 at 10:51 am

    “But that’s the Sea SURFACE temperature; you would expect to see the according drop in OHC, not in SST. The drop in total OHC would albeit be tiny and we probably are nowhere near the precision necessary to notice it.”

    In one sense, that is my point. If there is no actual addition of heat to the climate, then the reports of substantially increased global average temperature are spurious. Precisely because we are not measuring the average temperature of the globe at all. Surface temperatures, land surface air temps and SSTs combined, do not represent the total heat content of the climate.

    But more to the point, I do not think the increase in GAT can be accounted for by the transfer of heat from the cooler, lower levels of the ocean, to the warmer sea surface and atmosphere.

    Dr. Curry has answered on her blog that El Ninos do transfer heat from the ocean to the atmosphere, which I already got. But she adds that the increases air temp means more clouds,m which will retain more heat that would otherwise be radiated.

    That would at least indicate a mechanism by which ENSO could actually raise GAT, but I have asked her whether there is research that shows it does. Clouds can prevent radiation from the atmosphere, but also prevent solar radiation from entering the climate system by reflecting it.

    My opinion, as a non-scientist, is that the increases reported in the GAT as a result of the ENSO and AMO are spurious results of our inability to measure GAT accurately at all. Which to me seems to undermine the CAGW scare even more than the problems with UHI. The reported effects of El Ninos on GAT are dramatic.

    But I am perfectly prepared to learn that I have missed something, which is why I first asked the question at Climate, Etc. To see if the consensus and lukewarmer types who accept the reported temps as accurate could answer the question.

  40. Lars P. says:

    rogerknights says:
    March 9, 2013 at 4:18 pm

    Thanks for the post Roger, it made my day! I give it a go fro Friday Funny.

    Bernie Hutchins says:
    March 9, 2013 at 11:08 am
    Can someone help with the details of the correct argument here?
    If the Earth were in danger of going into thermal runaway (a “tipping point” as a result of CO2-caused heating, kicking up more water vapor), why would it not have already happened due to water vapor chain-reacting WITH ITSELF?

    For the same reason it did not run in thermal runaway at the last interglacials which were warmer and all that methane in the arctic was supposedly released, with the o so potent methane greenhouse gas, or it did not runanway when CO2 concentration was 17x more, etc.

    CO2 is a (mini) player which can influence only the net heat transfer done by CO2 radiation from the surface to space, which is so minimal that nobody cares really to calculate it. Even the accepted 1°C for CO2 doubling may be wrong.
    The delta warming attributed to greenhouse gases is a very high level calculation which ignores for instance the warming of the atmosphere directly from the sun.
    In the Earth energy budget:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Breakdown_of_the_incoming_solar_energy.svg
    from 174 PW 33 PW are directly absorbed by the atmosphere (19%) I saw also 23% in the NASA budget.
    If we exclude water vapor from the calculation, and knowing the atmosphere can lose heat only to space (ignoring the earth in a first calculation) knowing the gases limited capacity to radiate, you will get that the atmosphere is getting warmer then needed.
    For the fun of it one should consider only CO2 can radiate to space, it is the major radiative gas isn’t it?
    Considering the gases law PV=RT you have about the atmosphere temperature at several levels.
    With only CO2 radiating to space we would have hothouse Venus here, as CO2 is incapable of radiating enough to space, and this all not due to greenhouse effect which was not even considered.
    It gets to different results to the assumption the atmosphere is warmed only from the surface through IR.
    As the Earth never was into runaway hot house it is very preposterous to consider it will run now due to the fact that we liberate some of the carbon sequestrated in the crust and add it to the carbon cycle.

  41. a jones says:

    Long time readers of this blog might recall I posted comments quite often back then but seldom do so now. In part this reflects the the growth of the blog, by the time I am ready with a comment there are probably dozens ahead of me many saying more eloquently or concisely than I the point I had in mind: so my mite becomes superfluous.

    But it also reflects other changes in the blog, in the early days there were not so many of us and few speciaiists: today you can read here detailed posts on almost every aspect of climate change. Indeed the real scientific debate on this has moved away from academe and onto the blogs. Which is not to say that all the arguments put forward here are solidly grounded, some are, but it makes for lively debate and gradually sorts the wheat from the chaff: as well as casting light into the deep shadows where unsupported speculation hides under the cloak of supposed scientific authority.

    And quite right too. Natural Philosophy has a long tradition of of the talented amateur making their contribution: after all where would our astronomical colleagues be without the many amateur star gazers scanning the heavens and reporting what they see? For be you a mechanician, hit it with a hammer and see what happens, or a bug hunter, count the number of creepy crawlies, it is all natural philosophy. We observe, we tally and we learn. What we do NOT do is make up the numbers to suit some political position, however fashionable it may be, that is advocacy not science.

    So here I raise my colours.

    I am an antique physicist and engineer from the days when intellectual rigour was everything. You calculated precisely to the best of your ability, you pointed out what might be wrong with your figures, as far as you knew, and so forth: and expected to have them checked especially in engineering. Useless verbiage was becoming important at that time, clear concise writing was being overwhelmed by it, it was a standing joke if you wanted a PhD you needed to add at least several thousand words to your succinct summary and various scientific publications would offer jocular suggestions of the necessary obfustication that would impress but never be read.

    That was then, and everybody understood the joke: and that academic skullduggery, forgery and fraud went on. It was as usual as was the poisonous debates between academics and so on. But this was essentially local stuff on a small scale. Indeed in the common rooms of those days, in my experience anyway, there might be experts on many things only too pleased to answer questions and discuss matters and whilst you might not agree with their point of view you could disagree politely and they took in good heart.

    It is a world long gone, today it is all political correctness and innumeracy. If the manufactured statistical figures don’t fit the political narrative well they can easily be changed to suit. Again there is nothing new about this, it has certainly been happening all my lifetime. Indeed I used to set a test for my students which went out of ten wooden soldiers treated with Cuprinol, a branded UK wood preservative, nine said their those felt better for it. Discuss.

    The simple fact is I suspect one develops a very sharp nose for pseudoscientific balderdash and claptrap having seen so much of it. And at first I took little notice of AGW as such. it was only when it started to gain traction over ten years ago that I started to ask some questions and was horrified. Propelled by political activism this was not physics or science, it was a series or unsupported suppositions which belong in the realm of metaphysics: literally beyond physics, because you are trying to extract some kind of meaning out of something that cannot be quantified.

    And once I had a grasp of what was going on I was astounded at the sheer scale of this politically driven claque whose tentacles reached from academia through the MSM to politicians and their clients. it was a creature of it’s time I suppose, a strange meeting of minds, of those bent upon evil ends in the name of what they dignified as progress knowing or believing that they would never suffer from it. Well successful revolutions tend to eat their children so perhaps they should be thankful theirs failed: at least they can fade away quietly into the night with their ill gotten gains.

    And what they fastened on to perpetrate this enormous deception was figures, which are are endlessly discussed upon this blog. But nobody asks whether they have any meaning. Yes there are things you cannot quantify, but when it comes to things you can the question becomes does the result mean anything. This is a serious question. Numbers of themselves mean nothing beyond the ability to count and add up. It is important to understand that which numbers have meaning in the real world, as opposed to statistical fictions or other wild speculations which do not. .

    So what do these numbers mean? if anything? .And because I think many on this blog have become lost or intoxicated by numbers, however obtained, to get to the nub of the matter: what do these numbers mean?
    .
    Frankly very little.

    To suppose that some kind of mean temperature over the surface of the globe spinning in space with one half lit by the sun and the other staring into the blackness of the cosmos has some meaning is absurd. It can be calculated to some degree of precision, satellites do it better, met stations which do not exist in the oceans rather worse, but the resulting figure, whatever it might be is meaningless. It is a mere statistical artifact: nothing more.

    And to further to suppose that any fluctuation in the value of such a meaningless statistical artifact has any meaning of itself is to delude oneself. It comes from nothing and it means nothing. If you wish to know whether the earth is warming or cooling then watch whether the ice is advancing from the poles towards the equator or retreating. Inconvenient I know and takes rather a long time but very reliable. Or so I believe.

    Likewise so called climate sensitivity. This based upon a notion that changes in CO2 or other gasses will produce change in the earth’s mean temperature: but since the latter is a meaningless statistical artifact it is hard to see what this outre notion means,

    Well nothing of course. Yet things become stranger still. Apparently it is supposed that burning fossil fuels will double the CO2 levels in the atmosphere at some time in the future. But again there is no reason to suppose that is true.

    Once again this is an attempt to concoct with numbers some idea that the CO2 released by human activity has any perceptible effect on the composition of the global atmosphere. Whereas these numbers take no account is made of the outgassing of the earth, chiefly under the oceans, or how thisCO2 is transported through the oceans up to the atmosphere is not quantified or could be in the current state of our knowledge.

    So now I nail my colours to the mast.

    Numbers are handy things which can describe the real world very well. And are useful. But never every imagine that because some numbers exist they must necessariiy describe the real world. Or be of any use.

    To put it simply there are things which can be quantified and give useful results in the real world in which we live, how much wallpaper do you need? etc. There are also things which can be quantified but are useless because they have no meaning in the real world: so the effort to quantify them is and was a waste of time. And finally there are things which cannot be quantified which will not stop people trying. .

    So now I have nailed my colours to the mast. And that is all.

    Kindest Regards .

    r

    .

    .

    . .

  42. Bernie Hutchins says:

    Thanks to all who have replied to my question about water vapor feedback (second comment from top). As I stated there, it was my feeling that negative feedbacks had to dominate (I’m an electrical engineer), but supposed there should be a better case than I had seen so far to be made for a proposed “tipping point”. I felt that the warmist needed to explain why any tiny CO2 increment was not swamped by extreme variations in water vapor doing the same thing the CO2 was supposed to trigger. Indeed, you all have verified that any such proffered special-pleading support for a supposed impending run-away is even more vacuous than the proposition itself. The usual hole-ridden formula script of the warmists.

  43. Thank you rogerknights!

    I laughed till I cried.

    A wonderful compilation. I look forward to seeing more of your collection.

    Cheers!

  44. Goode 'nuff says:

    So I did some looking around, thanks to you guys. Yes, markets likely will give up some if not all of their recent gains, bottom line next 6 months the actual earnings growth will be substantially lower than what is currently imbedded in stocks prices.

    Congress last week pushing concerns about a budget battle into September, from the earlier March deadline on the continuing resolution to fund the budget. That issue could heat up in the fall and weigh on the market.

    We need to see the inefficient politicians agree to more spending cuts, and agree to do it rationally. This would help the stock market and the economy. So far, they are not doing it.

    Sold some last week, sad, looks like it’s time to do some more. :-(

  45. Lance Wallace says:

    New survey shows Antarctica has quite a bit more ice than previously thought.
    http://www.thegwpf.org/british-antarctice-survey-antarctic-ice-previously-thought/

  46. Paul Vaughan says:

    Persistence of solar rotation 27 day period heliomagnetic field (HMF, a.k.a. IMF where I = interplanetary) sector structure at Earth is related to both multidecadal & ~9 year sunspot area heliographic asymmetry:
    http://img202.imageshack.us/img202/7220/hmf27dpersistenceheliog.png

    Background:
    Ballester, J.L.; Oliver, R.; & Carbonell, M. (2005). The periodic behaviour of the north-south asymmetry of sunspot areas revisited. Astronomy & Astrophysics 431, L5-L8.
    http://www.uib.es/depart/dfs/Solar/Preprints/A+A431.pdf

  47. rogerknights says:

    Bennett In Vermont (@BennettVermont) says:
    March 10, 2013 at 8:39 pm
    Thank you rogerknights!

    I laughed till I cried.

    A wonderful compilation. I look forward to seeing more of your collection.

    Cheers!

    Thanks, and thanks to others in earlier posts who’ve expressed the same sentiment. I’ll post another compilation in the next Open Thread.

  48. mellyrn says:

    Exactly how is CO2 supposed to trap more infrared on Earth than it “reflects” away?

    CO2 absorbs infrared and reradiates it >>isotropically<>outbound<>incoming<< IR that it actually intercepts) back out into space so it never reaches Earth to warm it.

    To cause ANY warming (Watts says it causes "some"), CO2 must either preferentially absorb outbound IR and be transparent to incoming, or preferentially (i.e., non-isotopically) reradiate downward, or both. Which is it, and how, specifically, does that happen?

  49. MiCro says:

    mellyrn says:
    March 12, 2013 at 11:11 am

    Exactly how is CO2 supposed to trap more infrared on Earth than it “reflects” away?

    The hypothesis is that the extra heat from Co2, causes additional water vapor, multiplying the warming of Co2, the Climate Sensitivity figure.

    CO2 absorbs infrared and reradiates it >>isotropicallyoutboundincoming<< IR that it actually intercepts) back out into space so it never reaches Earth to warm it.

    To cause ANY warming (Watts says it causes "some"), CO2 must either preferentially absorb outbound IR and be transparent to incoming, or preferentially (i.e., non-isotopically) reradiate downward, or both. Which is it, and how, specifically, does that happen?

    The optical window for solar .5u short wave IR is open. Long wave IR from earth is in the 8u-20u which is blocked in some bands by water vapor, methane, ozone and Co2. It is preferentially allowed in, but restricted out going.
    Then any ir that is absorbed by a Co2 molecule, will be re-radiated in any direction, some of which will be earthward.

  50. mellyrn says:

    Thank you, MiCro (and congrats on understanding what I meant even though my post got garbled by my attempt at emphasis…)

    Could you give me a reference to the specific solar spectrum, and the outbound Earth spectrum? I’m intrigued that the sun shines in 0.5u but not 8-20u, and that Earth doesn’t radiate in 0.5u, but danged if I can find detailed spectra myself — not saying it’s not there, just that I am rather inept with searches.

    Thanks in advance.

  51. MiCro says:

    mellyrn says:
    March 12, 2013 at 4:36 pm

    Could you give me a reference to the specific solar spectrum, and the outbound Earth spectrum? I’m intrigued that the sun shines in 0.5u but not 8-20u, and that Earth doesn’t radiate in 0.5u, but danged if I can find detailed spectra myself — not saying it’s not there, just that I am rather inept with searches.

    The reason is the temp of the Sun vs the Earth.

    Pretty
    With atm absorption spectrum

Comments are closed.