I don’t normally do mid week open threads, but I’ve not found much of interest to write about tonight, and story submissions have been a dry hole lately.
Either they are too short (like one line descriptions with a URL) or too long (I just rejected two pending manuscripts in MS-word that were formatting nightmares).
Help me out here folks. Submit a story here.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Mann’s entourage is busy distributing the usual lies. Perhaps that’s not news any longer? /sarc
From a Press Release that appeared on the WSJ (May 6):
REPLY: That would have been useful yesterday or the day before, now after the fact, not so much – Anthony
The new story submit page is confusing.
You have to press a button to make the text fields for the submit story page appear. The first time I tried this I didn’t notice the button.
If you want to say “thank you”, you could allow a quick plug for my Climategate app – free app which contains a fast, searchable database of Climategate emails ;-).
https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/climategate/id386480628
Thank you for what?
Pointing out the issue. Sorry I’m being a bit cheeky :-). I was being a bit serious about the submit story page though – if my experience is anything to go by, a lot of people will be trying to submit a story, and won’t notice the button they have to click to see the text fields. I didn’t when I tried to submit something the other day – and I’m an IT expert.
I thought it was a bug with the submit story page, until I revisited it and had a closer look.
Yes it is very hard for some people to use the scroll bar, Mac users in particular, which don’t get the benefit of the scroll wheel. I’ve made some small changes for the scroll challenged.
I think he means the giant button in the middle of the page that says “Click to Submit Your Story”
Well if people have trouble clicking that, I have no sympathy.
Maybe there will be something useful in the morning.
You’re welcome.
REPLY: Thanks for bringing it to my attention, hopefully the small changes I made will help – Anthony
How about publishing the climategate 3.0 files?
I’d love to – but I’m not on FOIA’s mailing list, so I don’t have the key.
In addition, the sheer size of the CG3 archive presents a problem. My search algorithm should be able to handle the larger archive (maybe), but Apple allegedly reject free apps which are too big – and from my research, the current size of the app, with CG1 and CG2, is brushing the limit.
Finally, FOIA requested that CG3 emails be redacted, to prevent unnecessary release of private information – I don’t have time to do that, given the size of the archive.
What I’m hoping is a “best of” or redacted archive will be published by a trustworthy source. If and when that occurs, I’ll look at including CG3 in the app.
So this didn’t give you anything to comment on? Just curious Anthony.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-22408341 Arctic becoming more acidic from CO2
It wasn’t directed at you.
Why are you being such a d*ckhead?
CAGW reduced to rhetoric now:
7 May: Globe & Mail: IVAN SEMENIUK: Public Interview
‘No such thing as ethical oil,’ Al Gore tells Toronto audience
Mr. Gore added that he felt action on climate change was possible, indeed inevitable, once it was viewed by enough people as a matter of personal values. “When these kind of issues settle into a choice between right and wrong, then the moral clarity that eventually develops makes it possible to move quickly.”…
When Mr. Stackhouse asked whether Alberta oil was more ethical because it came from a democratic nation with a commitment to human rights, Mr. Gore rejected the term.
“There’s no such thing as ethical oil,” he said. “There’s only dirty oil and dirtier oil.” The remark triggered applause from a nearly full house at a Ryerson University auditorium…
When pressed, he coyly avoided saying he was disappointed in the Obama administration’s failure to produce better results on climate change, adding that Mr. Obama deserved more credit for raising vehicle-emissions standards and using the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate emissions from newly built power plants, with hopes that existing plants would also eventually be addressed.
Noting the fierce opposition Mr. Obama has faced on climate as on other issues, Mr. Gore said, “I still hold out hope that he will be as positively surprising in his policy initiatives this year as he was in his speeches.”…
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/no-such-thing-as-ethical-oil-al-gore-tells-toronto-audience/article11777256/
Anthony, it is but the calm before the storm. Of late there has been this rejuvination of “old” stories. The warmlies are simply sticking with an old trick… try, try, try again. Eventually, they hope, you will give up out of sheer boredom. If they are rehashing old stories, perhaps it is time to bring out the old rebuttals. Of course you need to make them new and fresh.
More to the point, I have been watching the news according to Google News. There has been, since late last fall, a slow but steady increase of, essentially rehashed global warming stories. It is very annoying to see, but, it is a clear example of using mass-media to drum an idea until it sticks.
Here is the latest: “California Gov. Jerry Brown blames climate change for early wildfires”, Grist.
C’mon, please stick it to them Anthony!
rhetoric isn’t enough for Kloor:
6 May: Discover Magazine Collide-a-Scape Blog: Keith Kloor: Why Al Gore Can’t Be the Face of Climate Activism
In light of Gore’s business riches and opulent lifestyle post-2000 (see this new Bloomberg piece), you also have to wonder if it’s time that he recused himself from a cause he helped kickstart. New York magazine, in a current profile of Gore, paints an image of him puttering around in his Tennessee mansion when he’s not on the Davos circuit. Let’s recall, too, that Gore was recently put on the defensive for selling his cable network to a tiny oil-rich Mideast country. All this suggests that Gore might not be the best face for a climate movement that routinely calls on the world to curtail economic growth and downsize its consumptive ways.
Don’t get me wrong. I have nothing against Al Gore blazing a path to sustainability, so long as we can all follow in his lead…
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/collideascape/2013/05/06/why-al-gore-cant-be-the-face-of-climate-activism/
I am still asking for opinions on this article:
I am not sure where to begin my story. I feel a bit like the Joseph of the bible. He was able to correctly predict 7 years of abundance and 7 years of famine, probably by studying the flooding of the Nile (from his prison). Around the time when I heard for the first time of “Climategate” , the e-mail controversy surrounding the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia, I was led to conduct my own investigations as to the extent of the problem of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) caused by the emission of greenhouse gases (GHG). As a hobby…
I first studied the mechanism by which AGW is supposed to work. I will spare you all the scientific details. I quickly figured that the proposed mechanism implies that more GHG would cause a delay in radiation being able to escape from earth, which then causes a delay in cooling, from earth to space, resulting in a warming effect.
It followed naturally, that if more carbon dioxide (CO2) or more water (H2O) or more other GHG’s were to be blamed for extra warming we should see minimum temperatures (minima) rising faster, pushing up the average temperature (means) on earth.
I subsequently took a sample of 47 weather stations, analysed all daily data, and determined the ratio of the speed in the increase of the maximum temperature (maxima), means and minima. Here you can see the results.
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/02/21/henrys-pool-tables-on-global-warmingcooling/
You will find that if we take the speed of warming over the longest period (i.e. from 1973/1974) for which we have very reliable records, we find the results of the speed of warming, maxima : means: minima
0.036 : 0.014 : 0.006 in degrees C/annum.
That is ca. 6:2:1. So it was maxima pushing up minima and means and not the other way around. Anyone can duplicate this experiment and check this trend in their own backyard or at the weather station nearest to you.
HENRY, THE DENIER
Having effectively found little or no real evidence of AGW in the temperature records, I did notice that anyone (like me) now querying the “certainty” of “climate change” being due mostly to AGW, are mocked or vilified in the media and the blogosphere. For the first time I am being censored and called “ a denier” or worse, a liar. However, it also appeared to me that most people do not even understand the very basics of the chemistry involved. Any (good) chemist knows that there are giga tons and giga tons of bi-carbonates dissolved in the oceans and that (any type of) warming would cause it to be released:
HCO3- + heat => CO2 (g) + OH-.
This is the actual reason we are alive today. Cause and effect, get it? There is a causal relationship. More warming naturally causes more CO2. Without warmth and carbon dioxide there would be nothing, really. To make that what we dearly want, i.e. more crops, more trees, lawns and animals and people, nature uses water and carbon dioxide and warmth, mostly.
Anyway, I did decide to take my quest a bit further by trying to predict the future of our temperature development on earth. Indeed, I did find that climate change is happening, because natural global warming is over. I found that from around the start of the new millennium, earth has started to cool globally. My own data set on maxima shows this very clearly. However, even without my own results (in case you do not trust them or me): the four major data sets measuring the average global air- and sea temperatures, also show that we have started cooling down for the past 11 years (this is the equivalent average time of one full solar cycle). Clearly you can see that the trend is negative from 2002:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1987/to:2014/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2002/to:2014/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1987/to:2014/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:2002/to:2014/trend/plot/rss/from:1987/to:2013/plot/rss/from:2002/to:2013/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1987/to:2014/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2002/to:2014/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1987/to:2002/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1987/to:2002/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1987/to:2002/trend/plot/rss/from:1987/to:2002/trend
From the above simple compilation of linear trends in these 4 major global data sets, you can also see that before 2000 we were still warming and that after 2000 we started cooling….
WHAT DOES IT LOOK LIKE, AHEAD?
For my own data, I have done a best fit for the drop in global maximum temperatures. Setting the speed of warming/cooling out against time, you get acceleration, or, in this case, deceleration, in degrees C / t2. When looking at that plot for the first time, it was as if God Himself gave me a revelation. The curve exactly looks like the speed of a thrown object plotted against time. My results suggest that earth is most likely on an 88 year A-C wave, the so-called Gleissberg solar/weather cycle, with ca. 44 years of warming followed by 44 years of cooling.
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/
Indeed, I hope that this is the best fit for my data, because any of the other best fits that I could think of, would have us end up in much more global cooling. The results of my plot also suggest that this global cooling already started in 1995 and will last until ca. 2038. Also, from the tables, it looks earth’s energy stores are depleted now and average temperatures on earth will probably fall by as much as what the maxima are falling now. I estimate this is about -0.3K in the next 8 years and a further -0.2 or -0.3K from 2020 until 2038. By that time we will be back to where we were in 1950, more or less…
THE FLOODING OF THE NILE
Just like Joseph probably observed the variation in the flooding of the Nile within one solar cycle (which indeed can sometimes be longer than 12 years), I decided to do the same thing for the 88 year Gleissberg solar/weather cycle…. There are good records of the flooding of the Nile, for example here:
http://www.cyclesresearchinstitute.org/cycles-astronomy/arnold_theory_order.pdf
to quote from the above paper:
“A Weather Cycle as observed in the Nile Flood cycle, Max rain followed by Min rain, appears discernible with maximums at 1750, 1860, 1950 and minimums at 1670, 1800, 1900 and a minimum at 1990 predicted.
The range in meters between a plentiful flood and a drought flood seems minor in the numbers but real in consequence….
end quote
According to my table for maxima, I calculate the date where the sun decided to take a nap (that is just a figure of speech, in fact it is probably a “wake-up”), as being around 1995, and not 1990 as William Arnold predicted.
This is looking at energy-in. I think earth reached its maximum output (means) a few years later, around 1998/1999.
Anyway, either way, (a few years error is fine!), look again at my best sine wave plot for my data,
now see:
1900 minimum flooding – end of the warming
1950 maximum flooding – end of cooling
1995 minimum flooding – end of warming.
predicted 2035-2040 – maximum flooding – end of cooling.
There is a clear and pertinent correlation with the best fit sine wave that I proposed for the observed current drop in global maximum temperatures.
THE OX , HXOX AND NXOX CONNECTION
I figured that there must be a small window at the top of the atmosphere (TOA) that gets opened and closed a bit, every so often. Chemists know that a lot of incoming radiation is deflected to space by the ozone and the peroxides and nitrous oxides lying at the TOA. These chemicals are manufactured from the UV coming from the sun. Luckily we do have measurements on ozone, from stations in both hemispheres. I looked at these results. Incredibly, I found that ozone started going down around 1951 and started going up again in 1995, both on the NH and the SH. Percentage wise the increase in ozone in the SH since 1995 is much more spectacular.
I had now found three confirmations for the dates of the turning points of my A-C wave for energy-in. The mechanism? We know that there is not much variation in the total solar irradiation (TSI) measured at the TOA. However, there is some variation within TSI, mainly to do with the E-UV. Most likely there is some gravitational- and/or electromagnetic force that gets switched every 44 year, affecting the sun’s output of E-UV. It is part of creation. Otherwise there could be run away warming or runaway cooling, and probably no weather (rain!) at all, making life impossible…..
THE BIBLICAL CONNECTION
My A-C wave for the drop in maximum temperatures obviously does not reflect exactly at the same time what happens to temperatures on earth. Earth has an intricate way of storing energy in the oceans. There is also earth’s own volcanic action, lunar interaction, the turning of Earth’s inner iron core, electromagnetic force changes, etc. It seems to me that a delay of about 5 years either way is quite normal. That would place the half cycle time as observed from earth at around 50 years, on average. 50 years of warming followed by 50 years of cooling. It seems to me the ancients knew this. Remember 7 x 7 years + 1 Jubilee year?
SO, NOW WHAT?
As the temperature differential between the poles and equator grows larger due to the cooling from the top, very likely something will also change on earth. Predictably, there would be a small (?) shift of cloud formation and precipitation, more towards the equator, on average. At the equator insolation is 684 W/m2 whereas on average it is 342 W/m2. So, if there are more clouds in and around the equator, this will amplify the cooling effect due to less direct natural insolation of earth (clouds deflect a lot of radiation). Furthermore, assuming equal amounts of water vapour available in the air, less clouds and precipitation will be available for spreading to higher latitudes. So, a natural consequence of global cooling is that at the higher latitudes it will become both cooler and drier.
As the people in Anchorage (Alaska) have noted,
http://www.adn.com/2012/07/13/2541345/its-the-coldest-july-on-record.html
the cold weather in 2012 was so bad there that they did not get much of any harvests. And it seems NOBODY is telling the farmers there that it is not going to get any better.
HOW CAN WE STOP THIS GLOBAL COOLING?
It looks like all the media and the whole world still believe that somehow global warming will soon be back on track again. Clearly, as shown, this is just wishful thinking. All current results show that global cooling will continue. As pointed out earlier, those that think that we can put more carbon dioxide in the air to stop the cooling are just not being realistic. There really is no hard evidence supporting the notion that (more) CO2 is causing any (more) warming of the planet, whatsoever. On same issue, there are those that argue that it is better to be safe than sorry; but, really, as things are looking now, they are now also beginning to stand in the way of progress. Those still pointing to melting ice and glaciers, as “proof” that it is (still) warming, and not cooling, should remember that there is a lag from energy-in and energy-out. Counting back 88 years i.e. 2013-88= we are in 1925.
Now look at some eye witness reports of the ice back then?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/03/16/you-ask-i-provide-november-2nd-1922-arctic-ocean-getting-warm-seals-vanish-and-icebergs-melt/
Sounds familiar? Back then, in 1922, they had seen that the arctic ice melt was due to the warmer Gulf Stream waters. However, by 1950 all that same ‘lost” ice had frozen back. I therefore predict that all lost arctic ice will also come back, from 2020-2035 as also happened from 1935-1950. Antarctic ice is already increasing.
To those actively involved in trying to suppress the temperature results as they are available on-line from official sources, I say: Let fools stay fools if they want to be. Fiddling with the data they can, to save their jobs, but people still having to shove snow in late spring, will soon begin to doubt the data…Check the worry in my eyes when they censor me. Under normal circumstances I would have let things rest there and just be happy to know the truth for myself. Indeed, I let things lie a bit. However, chances are that humanity will fall in the pit of global cooling and later me blaming myself for not having done enough to try to safeguard food production for 7 billion people and counting.
It really was very cold in 1940′s….The Dust Bowl drought 1932-1939 was one of the worst environmental disasters of the Twentieth Century anywhere in the world. Three million people left their farms on the Great Plains during the drought and half a million migrated to other states, almost all to the West. http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/res/div/ocp/drought/dust_storms.shtml
Danger from global cooling is documented and provable. It looks we have only ca. 7 “fat” years left (2013 – 88 = 1925).
WHAT MUST WE DO?
1) We urgently need to develop and encourage more agriculture at lower latitudes, like in Africa and/or South America. This is where we can expect to find warmth and more rain during a global cooling period.
2) We need to tell the farmers living at the higher latitudes (>40) who already suffered poor crops due to the cold and/ or due to the droughts that things are not going to get better there for the next few decades. It will only get worse as time goes by.
3) We also have to provide more protection against more precipitation at certain places of lower latitudes (FLOODS!),
There are now many results from skeptical scientists that support my position and results, e.g.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/11/19/cooling-in-the-near-future/
http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/
http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/2006/10/co2_acquittal.html
http://www.landscheidt.info/
Best wishes
HenryP
A report on the opening salvos at the (UK) Information Tribunal hearing into the refusal of the head of the UK delegation to the IPCC to respond to FOI requests. The head has refused to appear and has sent a spokesweasel from the Met Office. The judge is not best pleased.
“Judge Anisa Dhanji was not impressed by the defence’s refusal to find someone so very germane to the case to stand up to cross-examination, and demanded that a written statement by Warrilow [head of delegation] be included in the record.”
Includes a summary of the background to the case. Could be interesting as it develops.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/05/08/ipcc_vs_holland_foi/
Eric Worrall says:
May 7, 2013 at 11:56 pm
Thanks, Eric. I was ready to give you a quick plug, until I saw that you open your app with a disclaimer saying
Cleared of wrongdoing? Have you read the transcripts of the whitewash jobs that passed for official investigations? Not only have none of them been cleared. Not one of them has actually been investigated.
And sending people to realclimate, the mother lode of scientific censorship? I like your app a lot, and you’ve obviously put a lot of work into it, it shows. But that’s a deal-breaker for me. I would never recommend it because you’re sending people to realclimate about climategate.
Of all conceivable websites for true accurate info on climategate, realclimate is hand-down the worst. Part of the problem is that many of the unindicted co-conspirators in Climategate are the principals of realclimate. So when they say something about Climategate, it’s pure CYA, and you’d be a fool to believe it.
But don’t try to dispute anything at realclimate, your words will be “disappeared”, your post will never show up. Vanished, with no sign it ever existed. They are the leaders in high-quality unseen censorship of anything even vaguely disputing their claims.
But the censorship is all invisible, there’s no sign of censorship … so every innocent kid that goes there based on your recommendation is going to get suckered into thinking the realclimate guys must be right … otherwise someone would object, wouldn’t they? And the poor kid doesn’t see any objections, he’s totally fooled.
So why on earth are you assisting realclimate in suckering people in with their censorship and scientific deception?
w.
Willis, I’ve been a skeptic a long time mate – I personally think they’re panhandling scum. I even published once on WUWT – http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/17/one-benefit-of-the-australian-heat-wave/
But I cant afford to fend off Mann’s lawyers, and reading the Climategate emails, they seem in some cases to be a bit lawyer happy. This was an especial concern in the early days.
So I put the disclaimer in to cover my @rse.
If you look at the links part of the app, you’ll see a lot of very interesting material, gathered from WUWT and other sites.
Eric Worrall says:
May 8, 2013 at 1:58 am
Thanks, Eric. I can understand that part about the official disclaimer. It’s the sending of folks to realclimate that bothers me. Since you have the chance, you should send them to climateaudit, perhaps to the categories page for climategate if there is such a thing.
All the best, thanks again for the clarification,
w.
Gore should have kept his mouth shut:
7 May: Montreal Gazette: L. Ian MacDonald: Al Gore should know better
L. Ian MacDonald is editor of Policy magazine (policymagazine.ca).
In an interview with the Globe and Mail, former U.S. vice-president Al Gore referred to Canada’s oil and gas riches as a “resource curse” and said the Alberta oilsands add “to the reckless spewing of pollution into the Earth’s atmosphere as if it’s an open sewer.”…
As an environmentalist, Gore is undoubtedly aware that the greenhouse-gas emissions from coal-fired electricity stations in the U.S. are 40 times those from the Canadian oilsands. As for Europe, according to Natural Resources Canada, emissions from electrical installations are nearly 30 times those of the oilsands. This is, for Gore, an inconvenient truth.
According to Energy Alberta, the oilsands are responsible for only 6.8 per cent of emissions in Canada, and only 0.15 per cent of emissions worldwide…
All in, the U.S. accounts for 22 per cent of global greenhouse-gas emissions, according to Natural Resources Canada, while Canada is responsible for 2 per cent. The U.S. population is nine times that of Canada, while its greenhouse-gas emissions are 11 times higher than ours. And Canada is a much colder country, with higher home-heating requirements…
Energy is now far and away the largest segment of Canadian exports, and the U.S. accounts for more than 99 per cent of our exports of oil and gas. Since 1992, according to BMO Economics, Canada’s oil and gas exports to the U.S. have increased from $17 billion to $102 billion, from 11 per cent of Canada’s world exports to 22 per cent…
As he (U.S. Ambassador David Jacobson )noted, Canada supplies the U.S. with 100 per cent of its imported electricity, 85 per cent of its natural-gas imports, and 27 per cent of its oil imports — more than twice as much as the 12 per cent of U.S. oil imports supplied by Saudi Arabia…
http://www.montrealgazette.com/opinion/MacDonald+Gore+should+know+better/8350049/story.html
Willis:-
Thanks, Eric. I can understand that part about the official disclaimer. It’s the sending of folks to realclimate that bothers me. Since you have the chance, you should send them to climateaudit, perhaps to the categories page for climategate if there is such a thing.
All the best, thanks again for the clarification,
Thats a good point – though I would feel uncomfortable about excluding an opportunity for them to put their defence. I will modify the start page in the next version to include a reference to a skeptic site, though I will keep the realclimate reference.
IMO what they have done is indefensible, but it would be wrong not to provide a link for people to see their side of the story.
The theme of the app is very much to try to keep my opinions out of it – IMO the material is damning enough so people should be able to decide for themselves, pretty quickly, unless they are heavily prejudiced. Elmer from M4GW thought the disclaimer was funny :-).
I hope you enjoy the app. Try putting in the word “hide” into the main search, you’ll see some interesting links, maybe a few you haven’t seen before – not just “hide the decline”.